REVIEWER IN PROPERTY

PROPERTY: DEFINITION
PROPERTY It is an object or a right which is
appropriated or susceptible of appropriation by man,
with capacity to satisfy human wants and needs.
- is an economic concept, meaning a mass of things
used to human activity and which are necessary to
life, for which reason they may be organized and
distributed in one way or another, but always for the
good man.
-Under the Civil Code, property, considered as an
object, is that which is, or may be, appropriated.
(See Art. 414).
Requisites: (USA)
1. Utility capability to satisfy human needs
2. Substantively or individuality independent
existence
3. Appropriability susceptibility to ownership or
possession even if not yet actually appropriated.
Thing Distinguished From Property
Things
Property
As used in the Civil Code, the word thing is
apparently synonymous with property.
Broader in scope in the Only
refer
to
sense that it includes appropriable objects.
appropriable and non
appropriable objects. Property also involves
The planet, stars and not only material objects
the sun are considered but also intangible things
things and cannot be like rights or credits.
considered as property
since they are nonappropriable.
Classification of Things
There are three kinds of things, depending on the
nature of their ownership:
(a) res nullius - belonging to no one
(b) res communes - belonging to everyone
(c) res alicujus - belonging to someone
I. CLASSIFICATION UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
A. AS TO NATURE OR MOBILITY
Classes of Immovables:
1.
NATURE Those which cannot be removed
from place to place, such as land (#s 1 and 8)
2.
INCORPORATION Those which are
essentially movables but are attached to an
immovable in such manner as to be an integral part
thereof. (#s 1,2,3,4 and 6)
3.
DESTINATION Those which are
essentially movables, but by the purpose for which
they have been places in an immovable, partake of
the nature of the latter because of the added utility
derived therefrom. (#s 4,5,6,7 and 9)
4.
ANALOGY/ LAW those mentioned under
paragraph 10.
IMMOVABLE OR REAL PROPERTIES
a. by nature (415) - it cannot be carried from
place to place
(1) land, buildings, roads and constructions
of all kinds adhered to the soil;

RHEYNE

NOTES:
LAND: Land is the best example of an immovable
property, it is immovable by its very nature.
Even if the land is moved by an earthquake it
does not change the nature of it being
immovable.
BUILDING: A building is always an immovable
property whether constructed on a land
belonging to another (rented land) and
regardless of the nature of the materials used
in constructing the same. However, the
building or house must be more or less a
permanent
structure
and
not
merely
superimposed, like a barong-barong, which is
not considered as immovable.
The mere fact that the parties to a contract
dealt with the building separate and apart from
the land on which it is stood in no wise
changed its character as immovable property
[Punsalan Jr vs Vda de Lacsamana 121 SCRA
331 (1983), Prudential Bank vs Panis 152
SCRA 390]. The building by itself is a real or
immovable property distinct from the land it is
constructed and therefore can be a separate
subject of contracts [Midway Martime vs
Castro 732 SCRA 192 2014]
The parties, however, may regard the building
as personal property so that a building maybe
the subject of a chattel mortgage. However,
such agreement is valid only as between the
contracting parties and does not affect third
(3rd) parties [Tsai vs CA 366 SCRA 324 2001,
Standard Oil vs Jaranillo 44 Phil 631].
Even if the property is considered immovable
by nature, nothing detracts the parties from
treating them as chattels to secure an
obligation under the principle of estoppels [Tsai
vs CA 366 SCRA 324 2001].
A building is a real property and the mere fact
that the parties dealt with it as a personal
property and registered it as a chattel
mortgage does not change its character as a
real property. The agreement of the parties
does not affect third (3rd) parties [Leung Yee
vs Strong Machineries 37 Phil 644]
However, once a house is demolished, its
character as immovable property ceases.
[Bicerra vs Teneza 6 SCRA 649].
(8) fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
Note: Take note that it must ACTUALLY be used
on the land.
b. by incorporation (415) - attached to an
immovable in a fixed manner to be an
integral part thereof
(2) trees, plants and growing fruits, while they
are attached to the land or form an integral
part of an immovable;
Notes: Immovable by incorporation; Trees and
plants are immovable only when they are attached
to the land, hence, when they have been cut or
uprooted, whether for firewood, or lumber, or other
use, they become movable, except when timber
constitutes the natural product of the tenement, in

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY

RHEYNE

which case it still forms an integral part of the

immovable.

nature, by immobilizing it to become the

property of another.

As to ungathered fruits, when the land is being

leased by another, and the fruits belong to the
tenant, are considered as real property. On the
other hand, once they have been severed, they
become personal property, even if left still
scattered or lying about the land

2. The industry or work must be carried on in

a building or piece of land [Mindanao Bus
vs City Assessor, 6 scra 197]

(3) everything attached to an immovable in

a fixed manner in such a way that it cannot be
separated therefrom without breaking the
material or deterioration of the object;
NOTE: The injury or breakage or deterioration
mentioned in this paragraph MUST BE
SUBSTANTIAL.
(7) beehives, fishponds or breeding places
of similar nature, in case their owner has placed
or preserved them, with the intention to have them
permanently attached to the land, and forming a
permanent part of it; the animals in those places
are included;
c.

by destination (415) - placed in an

immovable for the utility it gives to the
activity carried thereon

(4) statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for

use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or
on lands by the owner of the immovable in
such a manner that it reveals the intention to
attach them permanently to the tenements;
Note: The object mentioned in this paragraph
MUST BE PLACED BY THE OWNER of the
immovable (buildings or lands) and not
necessarily by the owner of the object. Of
course, the owner of the building or land may
act thru his agent, or if he be insane, thru his
duly appointed guardian. If placed by a mere
tenant, the objects must remain chattels or
personality for the purposes of the Chattel
Mortgage Law.
(5) machinery,
receptacles,
instruments or
implements intended by the owner of
the tenement for an industry or works
which may be carried on in a building or on a
piece of land, and which tend directly to meet
the needs of the said industry or works;
MACHINERY: Machinery is by nature a
movable
property
and
becomes
immobilized only by destination subject to
the following requirements:
REQUISITES:
1. The machinery must be placed by the
owner or his agent [Davao Sawmill vs
Castillo, 61 Phil 709]
NOT SO when placed by a tenant, a
usufructuary, or person having only a
temporary right, UNLESS such person
acted as agent of the owner.
One having temporary possession or
enjoyment of the land cannot be deprived
of the machinery, which is personal by

3. The machinery must be essential (tends

directly to meet the needs of the said
industry) and principal to the industry or
work and not merely incidental. [Mindanao
Bus vs City Assessor, 6 scra 197]
Effect of Separation:
If the machine is still in the building, but is
NO LONGER used in the industry
conducted therein, the machine reverts to
the condition of a chattel. Upon the other
hand, if still needed for the industry, but
separated from the tenement temporarily,
the property continues to be immovable as
much as paragraph 5 refers, not to real
property by incorporation, but to real
property by destination or purpose.
The parties may treat a machinery that is
immobilized by destination as a movable
property.
If a house of strong material may be
considered as personal property for
purposes of executing a chattel mortgage
thereon as long as the parties to the
contract so agree and no innocent third
party will be prejudiced thereby, there is
absolutely no reason why a machinery,
which is movable by its nature and
becomes immobilized only by destination
or purpose, may not be likewise treated as
such.
Where a chattel mortgage is constituted
on a machinery permanently attached to
the ground, the machinery is to be
considered as personal property, and the
chattel mortgage constituted thereon is not
null and void, regardless of who owns the
land.
Contracting parties may validly stipulate
that a real property be considered as
personal. After agreeing to
such
stipulation, they are consequently stopped
from claiming otherwise. Under the
principle of estoppels, a party to a contract
is ordinarily precluded from denying the
truth of any material fact found therein.
Machines and equipment installed by a
tenant/lessee on a leased land may be
classified as immovables property for
taxation purposes.
In the case of Caltex vs Board of
Assessment Appeals, 114 SCRA 297, the
machines and equipment installed by
Caltex on leased land are classified as
real property for realty taxation purposes.
The said equipment and machinery, as
appurtenances to the gas station building
or shed owned by Caltex (as to which it is
subject to realty tax) and which fixtures are
necessary to the operation of the gas

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
station, for without them the gas station
would be useless, and which have been
attached or affixed permanently to the gas
station site or embedded therein, are
taxable improvements and machinery
within the meaning of the Assessment Law
and Real Property Tax Code.

RHEYNE

NOTE: If the floating house makes it a point to

journey from place to place, it assumes the
category of a vessel. Vessels are considered
personal property.
MOVABLE PROPERTY
Classes of Movable Property

GR: Machinery attached to the land or a

tenement is considered as immovable.
XPT: When placed on the land or tenement by
a tenant [Davao Sawmill vs Castillo]
XPT TO XPT: When the tenant had promised
to leave the machinery on the tenement at
the end of the lease, or when he acted
only as agent of the owner of the land.
***The steel towers or poles of MERALCO
ARE NOT REAL PROPERTIES but
PERSONAL PROPERTIES. Be it noted
that:
a) They do not come under Par 1 of Art 415
because they are neither buildings or
constructions adhered to the soil;
b) They do not come under Par 3 because
they are not attached to an immovable in a
fixed manner, that is, they can be
separated without breaking the material or
causing deterioration of the object to which
they are attached;
c) They do not come under par5 because
they are not machineries, receptacles, or
instruments, but even if they are not
intended for an industry to be carried on in
the premises. [Board of Assessment
Appeals, QC vs MERALCO]
(6) animal houses, pigeon-houses,
Note: Take note that even if the animals are
temporarily outside, they may still be considered
as real property as long as the intent to return is
present. In the point of view of Criminal Law, they
must be considered as personal property, and
may properly be the object of theft or robbery.
(9) mines, quarries and slag dumps, while
the matter thereof forms part of the bed,
and waters either running or stagnant;
Note: Mines includes mineral still ATTACHED
thereto, but once extracted, it becomes chattel.
Slag dump is the dirt and soil taken from a min
and piled upon the surface of the ground.
Inside the said dump can be found the
minerals.
The waters referred to by this paragraph are
those that are still attached to or running thru
the soil or ground.
d. by analogy (415) - it is so classified by
express provision of law
(10) docks and structures which, though floating,
are intended by their nature and object to
remain at a fixed place on a river, lake or
coast; and contracts for public works, and
servitudes and other real rights over
immovable property.

1. Property not included in 415 - Those movables

susceptible of appropriation which are not included
in the preceding article;
2. Real property considered personal property
-which by any special provision of law is considered
as personal property;
3. Forces of nature - which are brought under
control
by science
4. In general, all things- which can be transported
from place to place without impairment of the real
property to which they are fixed.
5. Obligations and Actions - which have for their
object
movables
or
demandable
sums
Obligations this term, as used in this article, really
means credits, and includes all kinds of credits; it
also includes bonds, which are technically obligations
of the entity issuing them.
Whether the credit is matured or not, it is personal
property.
A promissory note is personal property. The right to
collect it is also personal property but a mortgage on
real estate is real property by analogy. It should be
noted that whether money is legal tender or not,
whether it is merchandise or not, it still is personal
property.
6. shares of stock - of agricultural, commercial
and industrial entities, although they have real
estate.
Shares of stock Although the provisions of
paragraph (2) seem to refer only to corporations by
the words shares of stock, and only to those
engaged in agriculture, commerce, and industry,
nevertheless ALL JURIDICAL PERSONS must be
deemed included. The interests of the members in a
partnership and the shares of stock in any
corporation are movable or personal property.
7. Other incorporeal personal property such as
intellectual property etc.
Three Tests to Determine whether Property Is
Movable or Immovable
Manresa mentions three tests:
(a) If the property is capable of being carried from
place to place (test by description);
(b) If such change in location can be made without
injuring the real property to which it may in the
meantime be attached (test by description); and
(c) If finally, the object is not one of those
enumerated or included in Art. 415 (test by
exclusion).

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
Then the inevitable conclusion is that the property is
personal property. (3 Manresa 46-47).
IMPORTANCE OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF
PROPERTY INTO IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLES
The classification of property into immovable or
movables does not assume its importance from the
fact of mobility or non-mobility, but from the fact that
different provisions of the law govern the acquisition,
possession, disposition, loss, and registration of
immovables and movables.
B. AS TO OWNERSHIP
1. Res Nullius- abandoned or ownerless property
2. Public Domain ownership by the State in that
the State has control and administration; in another
sense, public dominion means ownership by the
public in general, in that not even the State or
subdivisions thereof may make them the object of
commerce as long as they remain properties for
public use. Such is the case, for example, of a river
or a town plaza.
a. Property of the State
i. For public use like roads, canals (may be used
by ANYBODY).

RHEYNE

iii. Private property of private personsPossession by private persons since time

immemorial carries the presumption that the land
had never been part of the public domain, or that it
had been private property even before the Spanish
conquest. An allegation to this effect is a sufficient
averment of private ownership.
4.
EFFECT
AND
CLASSIFICATION
OF
PROPERTY AS
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC
DOMINION
a. Outside the commerce of man / Inalienable. But
when no longer needed for public use or service,
may be declared patrimonial property. In Laurel vs.
Garcia (187 SCRA 797), the Supreme Court held
that whether or not the
Roppongi
and
related properties will eventually be sold is a policy
determination where both the President and
Congress must concur.
b. Cannot

be

acquired by prescription

c.
Not subject to attachment or execution cannot
be burdened with easements.
C. OTHER CLASSIFICATION
1. By their Physical Existence

ii. For public service like national government

buildings, army rifles, army vessels (may be used
only by duly authorized persons).
iii. For the development of national wealth like
our natural resources.
b. Property of municipal corporations
i. For public use including public works for
public service - consist of roads, streets, squares,
fountains, public waters, promenades and public
works for public service paid for by the LGUs.
3. Private Property - refers to
all property
belonging to private persons either individually or
collectively and those belonging to the State and any
of its political subdivisions which are patrimonial in
nature
Muebles or furniture generally has for its
principal object the furnishing or ornamenting of a
building.
Note that there are exceptions to this
definition and are generally not included as furniture
unless the law or the individuals declaration
include them.
i. Patrimonial property of the state - property of
the State is the property it owns but which is not
devoted to public use, public service, or the
development of the national wealth. It is wealth
owned by the State in its private, as distinguished
from its public, capacity.
ii.
Patrimonial
property
of
municipal
corporations- The towns patrimonial property is
administered, at least insofar as liability to third
persons is concerned, in the same way as property
of a private corporation. Hence, the town is not
immune to suits involving this kind of property.
(Dillon, Mun. Corp., 5th Ed., Sec. 1610). The
municipal council serves as a sort of Board of
Directors, with the municipal mayor or provincial
governor as general manager.

a. tangible or corporeal - objects which can be

seen or touched, like the paper on which is printed a
P1,000 Bangko Sentral Note)
b. intangible or incorporeal - rights or credits, like
the credit represented by a P1,000 Bangko Sentral
Note
2. By their Autonomy of dependence
a. Principal Those to which other things are
considered dependent or subordinated, such as the
land on which a house is built.
b. Accessory Those which are dependent upon or
subordinated to the principal, such as the house in
the preceding example.
3. By their Subsistence after use
a. Consumables Those which cannot be used in a
manner appropriate to their nature without being
consumed
b. Non-consumables Those not consumed by
use.
c. Detoriorable and non- deteriorable
4. By reason of their susceptibility to division
a. divisible
b. indivisible
5. By reason of designation
a. generic - one referring to a group or class - Those
which belong to a common genus which includes
several species of same kind, perfectly permitting
substitution of one by the others, such as grain,
wine, oil, etc;
b. specific - one referring to a single, unique object
- Those specially determined and cannot be
substituted by others, such s lands, buildings or
horse etc.

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
6. Existence in point in time
a. res existents - present property
b. res future- future property
7. Susceptibility to appropriation
a. non appropriable
b. appropriable

RHEYNE

4.
Co-ownership when the ownership is
vested in two or more owners.
Modes of Acquiring Ownership
1.
Occupation
2.
Law
3.
Donation
4.
Tradition
5.
Intellectual creation
6.
Prescription
7.
Succession

8. Susceptibility to commerce
a. within the commerce of man - or which may be
the objects of contracts or judicial transactions
b. outside the commerce of man - like prohibited
drugs
Is HUMAN BODY a property?

B. Bundle of Rights included in Ownership

Jus Utendi to use
Jus Fruendi to the fruits and accessions
Jus Abudendi to abuse
Jus Disponendi to dispose
Jus Vindicandi to vindicate
Jus Possidendi to possess

It is submitted that the human body, whether alive or

dead, is neither real nor personal property, for it is
not even property at all, in that it generally cannot be
appropriated.

C. OTHER SPECIFIC RIGHTS FOUND IN CIVIL

CODE

Laws pertaining to the human body/ body organs

Doctrine of Self-Help Right of the owner or

lawful possessor to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal of the property by the use of
such force as may be necessary to repel or prevent
actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property.

1.
RA 349: An act to legalize the permission to
use human organs or any portion of the human body
for medical, surgical or scientific purposes, under
certain conditions (1949)
2.
RA 7170: Organ Donation Act of 1991
3.
RA 7719: National Blood Services Act
Right to Property
The juridical tie by virtue of which a person has the
exclusive power to receive or obtain all the benefits
from a thing, except those prohibited or restricted by
law or by the rights of others.
It differs from ownership, although they refer to the
same idea, except that right to property emphasizes
the vinculum between man and thing, while
ownership refers to the mass rights over the thing.
II. OWNERSHIP
A. Definition
Ownership it is the independent right of exclusive
enjoyment and control of thing for purpose of
deriving therefrom all the advantages required by the
reasonable needs of the owner (or holder of the
right) and the promotion of the general welfare, but
subject to the restrictions imposed by law and rights
of others.
Ownership is a relation in a private law by virtue of
a thing (or property right) pertaining to one person is
completely subjected to his will in everything not
prohibited by public law or the concurrence with the
rights of another.
Kinds of Ownership
1.
Full ownership (dominium or jus in re
propia) this includes all the rights of an owner.
2.
Naked Ownership (nuda proprietas) this
is ownership where the right to the use and the fruits
has been denied.
3.
Sole Ownership where the ownership is
vested in only one person.

a. Right to Exclude

Elements / Requisites of Self Help (RONA)

1. Reasonable Force
2. Owner or lawful possessor is the person who will
exercise
3. No delay in ones existence
4. Actual or threatened physical invasion or
usurpation
Examples:
(a) I have a car; I see a thief about to get it. I can use
force in driving the thief away, provided that the
means I resort to are reasonable. As a matter of fact,
I can even chase him immediately and recover the
car from him by force. If, however, I lose sight of him,
and I see him only two or three days later, I will not
be justified in taking the law into my own hands. I will
have to resort to the courts of justice.
(b) What has been said in the above example may
also be said if the property involved is a house or
some other form of real property. The person,
however, against whom I have the right to use force
should really be an aggressor. One has no right at
all, thus, to prevent by force, a sheriff from lawfully
levying on his property, or to prevent a policeman
from confiscating evidence of a crime in his
possession.
(c) It has recently been held that if a person finds a
neighbors pig among the plants on his land, the
proper thing for him to do is to drive the pig away,
and to file a civil action against the owner of the pig
for damage to the plants. It would be wrong for him
to shoot the pig to death for the purpose of
vengeance and for such an act, he can be
convicted of the crime of malicious mischief. (People
v.Segovia, L-11748, May 28, 1958).
Self-Defense under the Law
Self-defense is treated of in Art. 11, par. 1 of the
Revised Penal Code, and includes not only defense

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
to a mans person but also that of his rights,
including the right to property. Although in a decision
of May 7, 1913 of the Supreme Court of Spain, it
was held that force could be used only when
physical harm threatens the owner or protector of
the property, under Art. 429 of the Civil Code, force
may be used even without such threatened bodily
danger provided that defense, and not
vengeance, is involved.
b. Right to enclose or fence
The right of an owner to enclose his tenement is
limited by the servitudes existing thereon. Hence, a
person cannot so enclose his tenement and
construct a fish pond thereon, as to obstruct the
natural flow of waters from upper tenements, to the
injury of the owners of such tenements.
c. Right to receive just compensation in case of
appropriation
Eminent Domain- Taking of private property for
public use upon payment of just compensation.
- Essential to the general welfare of society,
Requisites:
1.
Taking by competent authority.
2.
Observance of due process of law;
3.
Taking for Public use;
4.
Payment of just compensation.

d. Right to hidden treasure

Definition: It is any hidden and unknown deposit of
money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful
ownership is unknown.
Requisites in the Definition of Hidden Treasure
(a)
Hidden and unknown deposit (such that
finding it would indeed be a discovery).
(b)
Consists of money, jewelry or other precious
objects.
(c)
Their lawful ownership does not appear.
Owner of Hidden Treasure
The owner of the land, building or other property if
he is the finder. One-half shall belong to the finder if
he is not the owner of the land, building or other
property.
Owner of the hidden treasure that is of interest to the
science or the arts.
The State may acquire them at their just price, which
price shall be paid to the owner if he is also the
finder. It shall be divided equally between the owner
and the finder if they are different persons.
***The finding of the hidden reassure must be BY
CHANCE; by stroke of good fortune.
A trespasser who is a finder of the treasure
CANNOT be given a share of the fortune.
e. Right to Accession
Accession- The right of the owner of the thing, real
or personal to become the owner of everything
which is produced thereby, or incorporated or
attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.

RHEYNE

It is not one of the modes of acquiring ownership but

merely a consequence of incidence of ownership.
(NOTE: TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER )
f. Right to Possession and / or ownership
-this is Jus Vindicandi
D. Limitations of real Right of Ownership
1. General Limitatiom
a. Police Power
b. Taxation
c. Eminent Domain
2. Specific Limitation - when the owner leases his
property to another, said owner in the meantime
cannot physically occupy the premises; when the
owner pledges his personal property, he has in the
meantime surrender its possession.
- the donor may prohibit the donees from partitioning
the property for a period not exceeding twenty (20)
years
3. Limitation from scattered provisions in Civil
Code.- such as the legal easement of waters, the
legal easement of right of way.
Actions to recover (Recovery of Ownership)
(A) Recovery of Personal Property
The property action to recover personal property is
replevin, governed by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
Replevin: an action or provisional remedy where the
complainant prays for the recovery of the possession
of personal property.
(B) Recovery of Real Property There are three
different actions for the recovery of possession
of immovable property
1.
Forcible entry and Unlawful Detainer
exclusive original jurisdiction of municipal and justice
of the peace courts; formerly accion interdictal;
2.
Plenary action to recover possession (or
better right of possession), or accion publiciana
instituted in RTC.
3.
Action to recover possession based, or
the accion reinvindicatoria: The issue involved in
this action is the right of ownership, this differs from
accion publiciana which concerns the right of
possession.
Additional remedies
1.
Writ of Preliminary Injunction Injunction
is not a proper remedy for the recovery of
possession, but where the plaintiff is admittedly
2.
Writ of Possession.
3.
Forcible Entry A person deprived of the
possession of any land or building by force,
intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth or a landlord,
vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the
possession of any land or building is unlawfully
withheld after the expiration or termination of the
right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract,
express or implied, or the legal representatives or
assigns of any such landlord (vendor/vendee etc),
may, at any time within one (1) year after such
unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession,
bring an action in the proper courts against the
person unlawfully withholding possession or claiming
under the, for the restitution of such possession.

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
***Difference between Forcible Entry and
Unlawful Detainer: The law and jurisprudence
leave no doubt in our mind that what determines the
cause of action is the nature of defendants' entry
into the land. If entry is illegal, then the cause of
action which may be filed against the intruder within
one year therefrom is forcible entry. If, on the other
hand, entry is legal but thereafter possession
became illegal, the case is one of illegal detainer
which must be filed within one year from the date of
the last demand.
- Both cognizable in MTC.

Under Art. 441, the owner of land owns the fruits. In

the following cases, it is not the owner who owns the
fruits, but somebody else:
(a) possessor in good faith of the land (He
owns the fruits already received). (See
Art. 544, par. 1).`q
(b) usufructuary. (See Art. 566).
(c) lessee gets the fruits of the land (Of
course, the owner gets the civil fruits
in the form of rentals). (See Art. 1654).
(d) In the contract of antichresis, the
antichretic creditor gets the fruits,
although of course, said fruits should
be applied first, to the interest, if any is
owing, and then to the principal
amount of the loan. (See Art. 2132).

E. RIGHT TO ACCESSION
Kinds of Accession
1)Accession Directa the products or fruits of a
thing (ex. Young of animals or fruits of a tree)
2)Accession Continua those that
incorporated or attached.
a.Real property:
i.Accession industrial (ex buildings, plants)
ii.Accession natural (ex alluvion, avulsion)

are

b.Personal property:
i.Conjunction or adjunction
ii.Commixtion or confusion
iii.Specification

RHEYNE

Right of Accession with Respect to Immovable

Property
Principles:
a) The principle of ACCESSION FOLLOWS
THE PRINCIPAL -- The owner of the land
owns the building, fruits and improvements or
repairs made thereon. The landowner is
further presumed to have made the works,
sowing and planting on the land unless the
contrary is proved.

Accession Directa
Right of Accession with Respect to what is produced
by property: FRUITS!!

b) Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad

coelam; et ad inferos (He who owns the soil
owns it up to the sky and to its depth

Art 443: The expenses for production, gathering and

harvesting, incurred by another have inured to the
benefit of the owner who receives the fruits, for
without them there would have been no fruits
received; hence, it is only proper to pay such
expenses to the person who incurred them,
conformably to the rule that no one may unjustly
enrich himself at the expense of another.
Even when the expenses
exceed the value of the fruits, the owner must pay
such expenses just the same, because the law
makes no distinction.

c) Quidquid plantatur solo, solo cedit

(Whatever is planted in or affixed to the soil,
belongs to the soil)

Art 444: Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the

owner of the property producing it by right of
accession (PNB vs Maranon, 2013)
Rule as to whom the offspring belongs when the
male and female belong to different owners:
This is also in accord with the maxim pratus
sequitor ventrem (the offspring follows the dam
or mother). (See 3 Sanchez Roman 139). This
maxim is based on two good reasons:
i.
First, oftentimes, it is not known who the male
is.
ii.
Second, during the pregnancy of the female,
its owner is greatly burdened by the
consequential
expenses
and
virtual
uselessness of the animal, and it is only fair
that when the young is born, the owner should
gain, or at least recover his loss.

Instances when the owner of the land DOES NOT

OWN the fruits

d) Ubi est principalis, non potest esse

accessories (Where there is no principal,
there can be no accessory)
e) Accessorium non ducit sed sequitor suum
principali (The accessory does not lead but
follows its principal. Or if the principal is given,
the accessory is also given; but if the
accessory is given, this does not necessarily
mean that the principal is also given).
f)

The union or incorporation must, with certain

exceptions, be effected in such a manner that
to separate the principal from the accessory
would result in substantial injury to either.

g) He who is in good faith may be held

responsible but he would not be penalized. He
who is in bad faith may be penalized.
h) No one should enrich himself unjustly, at the
expense of another.
Accession Industrial (Building, Planting, Sowing)
Article 445 deals with accession continua; more
specifically with accession industrial.
The difference between sowing and planting is that
in the former, each deposit of seed gives rise merely
to a single crop or harvest; whereas in planting,
more or less permanent trunks or trees are
produced, which in turn produce fruits themselves. In
the latter case therefore, without replanting, crops
will continue to grow every season.

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
Exception to the GR: Whereby the owner of the
land is also the owner of whatever is built,
planted or sown thereon.
XPT: Article 120 of Family Code: The ownership of
improvements whether for utility or adornment, made
on the separate property of the spouses at the
expense of the partnership or through the acts or
efforts of either or both spouses shall pertain to the
conjugal partnership, or to the original ownerspouse, subject to the following rules:

RHEYNE

What is BAD FAITH? The law does not define what

constitutes bad faith in the use of the materials, but
applying by analogy the bad faith referred to under
Article 453 which refers to bad faith of the owner of
the land. The owner of the materials would be in bad
faith if such materials were used by another in his
presence, with his knowledge and forbearance, and
without opposition on his part.
BUILDERS IN GOOD FAITH

As summarized:
It is important to NOTE which is BIGGER or
GREATER.
(a) The value of the property just before the
improvement was made; or
(b) Its value after the improvement including the cost

Definition/ Concept: Article 448 of the Civil Code,

in relation to Article 546 of the same Code, which
provides for full reimbursement of useful
improvements and retention of the premises until
reimbursement is made only to a possessor in good
faith who builds in land with the belief that he is the
owner thereof. It does not apply where ones only
interest is that of a lessee under a rental contract.

RULES
If (a) is GREATER, the whole thing belongs to the
owner-spouse, without prejudice to reimbursement
of the conjugal partnership.
If (b) is GREATERR, the whole thing belongs to the
conjugal partnership but the owner-spouse must be
reimbursed.

Article 448of the Civil Code applies when the builder

believes that he is the owner of the land or that by
some title he has the right to build thereon, at least,
he has a claim of title thereto [Communities
Cagayan Inc vs Nanon, 2012].

There are two (2) disputable presumptions

enunciated under Article 446
I.
II.

The works, sowing, and planting were made

by the owner.
They were made at the owners expense.

Rights and Obligations of the owner of the land

who uses the materials of another
A. If the land owner acted in GOOD FAITH.
He becomes the owner of the materials but he must
pay for their value. The only exception is when they
can me removed without destruction to the work
made or the plants. In such case, the owner of the
materials can remove them.
B. If the land owner acted in BAD FAITH
He becomes the owner of the materials but he must
pay their value and damages.
Rights and Obligations of the owner of the
materials
A. If the landowner acted in GOOD FAITH
1. The owner of the materials is entitled
to reimbursement (provided he does
not remove them)
2. He is entitled to removal (provided no
substantial injury is cause).
B. If the landowner acted in BAD FAITH
1. The owner of the materials is entitled
to the ABSOLUTE right of removal and
damages (whether or not substantial
injury is caused)
2. HE is entitled to reimbursement and
damages (in case he chooses not to
remove).
GOOD FAITH IS ALWAYS PRESUMED, AND
UPON HIM WHO ALLEGES BAD FAITH RESTS
THE BURDEN OF PROOF.

Where the planter, builder, or sower has acted in

good faith, a conflict of rights arises between the
owners and it becomes necessary to protect the
owner of the improvements without causing injustice
to the owner of the land. In view of the
impracticability of creating what Manresa calls a
state of forced co-ownership, the law provided a
just and equitable solution giving the owner of the
land the option to acquire the improvements after
payment of the proper indemnity or to oblige the
builder or planter to pay for the land and the sower
to pay the proper rent. [Torbela vs Sps Rosario &
Banco Filipino, 2011].
Under ARTICLE 526, a possessor in good faith is
one who is not aware that there exists in his title
or mode of acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it.
CASES:
1. Sps Macasaet vs Sps Macasaet, 2004:
The children were invited by the parents
to occupy the latters two (2) lots, out of
parental love and a desire to foster
family solidarity. Unfortunately, an
unresolved conflict terminated this
situation. Out of pique, the parents
asked them to vacate the premises.
Thus, the children lost their right to
remain on the property. They have the
right, however, to be indemnified for the
useful
improvements
that
they
constructed thereon in good faith and
with the consent of the parents. In short,
Art 448 applies.
2. Heirs of the Late Joaquin Limense vs
Cda De Ramos, 2009: The essence of
good faith lies an honest belief in the
validity of ones right, ignorance of a
superior claim and absence of intention
to overreach another. Applied to
possession, one is considered in good
faith if he is not aware that there exists in
his title or mode of acquisition any flaw
which invalidates it.

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
GOOD FAITH IS ALWAYS PRESUMED
It is a basic rule that good faith is always presumed,
and bad faith must be proved [RV Santos Company
Inc vs Belle Corporation, 2012]
Good faith is presumed and it is the burden of the
party claiming otherwise to adduce clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary [Art 527;
Pleasantville vs CA, Farolan vs Solmac Mktg. Corp
(1991); Chiang Jien Nin vs CA, 2001]
***Good faith does not preclude negligence. In
negligence there is no intention to do wrong or
cause damage (Article 456).
Occupation by tolerance is NOT POSSESSION in
good faith. [Heirs of Cpriano Trazona vs Heirs od
Canada, 2013]
The application of Article 448; Builders in good
faith
Applies to both public and private lands. It does not
apply if the improvements or construction are
transferable in nature. Tolentino suggests: to fall
within the provision of this article, the construction
must be of permanent character, attached to the soil
with an idea of perpetuity; but if it is of a transitory
character or is transferable, there is no accession,
and the builder must remove the construction. The
proper remedy of the landowner is an action to eject
the builder from the land. [Sps Alviola vs CA, 1988]
In the case of Floreza vs Evangelista 1980, there is
no builder in good faith in case the builder
constructed a house of strong materials at the
tolerance of the landowner in consideration of the
loans extended by the former to the latter.
Article 448 applies only
when the builder, planter or sower believes that the
right so to build, plant or sow because he thinks he
owns the land or believes himself to have a claim of
title.

RHEYNE

The landowner HAS NO RIGHT of removal UNLESS

he chose the compulsory selling of the land and the
builder fails to pay. Failure to pay may result to
execution.
The remedies in case the builder fails to pay the
value of the land which is not considerably higher
than the value of the improvement:
1. Assume the relation of lessor-lessee;
2. Landowner may file an action for the recovery
of the land; OR
3. Have the improvements removed at the
builders expense.
INDEMNITIES TO BE GIVEN:
a) Necessary Expenses Those made for the
preservation of the thing or those without
which the thing would deteriorate or be lost
such as those incurred for cultivation,
production, and upkeep. Eg: Repairs.
b) Useful Expenses Those that augment the
income of the income of the thing upon
which they are spent or add nature to the
property but do not include the value of
forming implants or work animals which do
not remain on the land.
c) Luxurious Expenses;
The right of choice always belongs to the
landowner.
It is the owner of the land who is allowed to exercise
the option because his right is older and because, by
the principle of accession, he is entitled to the
ownership of the accessory thing [Torbela vs
Rosario 2011].
The options of the landowner
Ignavio vs IAC; Sps Benitez vs CA:
a) Right to appropriate the improvement
b) To oblige the one who built to pay the price of
the land;
c) Option to sell the land, not to buy

RULES ON TH FF:
A. BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH, OWNER IN GOOD
FAITH
Morales vs CA (1997)
A built a house on Bs land in good faith. B is also in
good faith. What are the rights of the landowner in
GOOD FAITH?
B, as the landowner in good faith is entitled to the
following options:
1. Appropriation
of
the
house:
To
appropriate for himself the house upon
payment of the proper indemnity; or
2.
3. Compulsory selling of the land: To compel
the builder to buy the land upon which the
house has been built, unless the value of the
land be considerably more than the value of
the house (in the latter case, rent should be
paid).
4. Force lease. The builder or planter shall pay
reasonable rent. The court shall fix the rent
in case the parties cannot agree thereon.

Encroachmet- Under Article 448, pertaining to

encroachments in good faith, as well as Article 450
referring to encroachments in bad faith, the owner of
the land encroach upon has the option to require
respondent builder to pay the price of the land [Vda
De Roxas vs Our Ladys Foundation, Inc, 2013]
Good faith of builder immaterial, option still
belongs to landowner
In spite of the good faith of the builder, the option
given by law either to retain the premises or pay for
the improvements thereon or to sell the said
premises to the builder in good faith belongs to the
owner of the property [Manotok Realty vs Tecson].
The landowner cannot refuse to exercise either
oprtion and compel instead the owner of the building
to remove it from the land. The raison detre for this
provision has been enunciated thus: Where the
builder, planter or sower has acted in good faith, a
conflict of rights arises between the owners, and it
becomes necessary to protect the owner of the
improvements without causing injustice to the owner
of the land [Tuatis vs Escol, 2009].

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
May the landowner change his options once
made?
Once the landowner made his option that is
communicated to the builder a contract is perfected.
Hence, the landowner may not change his option
unless the builder consents.
THE COURTS CANNOT DICTATE UPON THE
LANDOWNER WHICH OPTION TO SELECT.
The law is clear and unambiguous when it confers
the right of choice upon the landowner and not upon
the builder and the courts [Ignacio vs IAC].
***The amount to be paid by the builder should be
the current market value of the improvement [Tuatis
vs Escol, 2009]
The owner of a building erected in good faith on a
land owned by another, is entitled to possession of
the land until he is paid the value of his building
under Art. 546 [Sarmiento vs Agana]. Articles 546
and 448 grant the builder or planter in good faith full
reimbursement of useful improvements and retention
of the premises until reimbursement is made
[republic vs Ballocanag]
***Lessor cannot exercise the right of retention and
reimbursement which rightfully belongs to a builder
in good faith the doctrine is that a lessee is a
neither a builder in good faith nor bad faith that
would call for the application of Articles 448 and 546
of the Civil Code since his rights are governed by
Article 1678 [Sulo sa Nayon vs Nayong Pilipino
Foundation 2009].
a. Mercado vs CA (1988): A lessee who
makes good faith useful improvements which are
suitable to the use of which the lease is intended,
without altering the form or substance of the property
leased, can only claim payment of one-half of the
value of the improvements or should the lessor
refuse to reimburse the said amount, remove the
improvements, even though the principal thing may
suffer damage thereby.
b. Jimenez vs Patricia inc, (2000): Lessees,
much less, sublessees, are not possessors or
builders in good faith over rented land because they
know that their occupancy of the premises continues
only during the life of the lease, or sublease as the
case maybe; and they cannot as a matter of right
recover the value of their improvements from the
lessor, much less retain the premises they are
reimbursed. Instead, their rights are governed by Art
1678 which allows reimbursement of lessee up to
one-half (1/2) of the value of their improvements if
the lessor so elects.
When ARTICLE 448 is not applicable
Article 448 applies only when the builder, planter or
sower believes that he has the right so to build plant
or sow because he thinks he owns the land or
believes himself to have a claim of title [Floreza vs
Evangelista, 1980]
a. 448 does not apply to a case where the owner of
the land is the builder, sower, or planter who then
later loses ownership of the land by sale or donation
[Pecson vs CA]. Else wise stated, where the true
owner himself is the builder of works on his land, the
issue of good faith or bad faith is entirely irrelevant
[Narvaez vs Alciso].

RHEYNE

b. OWNER-POSSESSOR of the lot is certainty not

merely a possessor or builder in good faith (this
phrase presupposes ownership of another); much
less is he a builder in bad faith [Pershing Tan Queto
vs CA, 1987].
Note: The difference between a builder (or
possessor) in good faith and one in bad faith is that
the former is NOT AWARE of the defect or flaw in his
title or mode of acquisition while the latter is AWARE
of such defect or flaw (Art 526). But in either case
there is a flaw or defect.
c. Lessess, much less, sublessees, are not
possessors or builders in good faith over rented land
because they know that their occupancy of the
premises continues only during the life of the lease,
or sublease as the case maybe; and they cannot as
a matter of right recover the value of their
improvements form the lessor, much less retain the
premises until they are reimbursed.
d. There is no builder in good faith in case the
builder constructed a house of strong materials at
the tolerance of the landowner consideration of the
loans extended by the former to the latter.
B. IN CASES OF BAD FAITH (Builder in Bad Faith)
LEASE, RENT & RECOVER!!!
ARTICLE 450: The owner of the land on which
anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith
may:
1. Demand the demolition of the work;
2. Planting/sowing be removed in order to
replace things in their former condition at the
expense of the person who built;
3. He may compel the builder to pay the price of
the land and the sower the proper rent.
A builder in bad faith is not entitled to anything and is
even liable for damages. However, the builder in bad
faith is entitled to REIMBURSEMENT for
a. Necessary expenses for
the preservation of the land (Art 449)
b.
Expenses
for
the
production, gathering and preservation of the fruits
(Art 450)
C. OWNER IN BAD FAITH AND BUILDER IN BAD
FAITH
In case of mutual bad faith on the part of the owner
of the land and the builder, Article 453 of the Civil
Code shall apply [Boyer-Roxas vs CA]
D. OWNER IN BAD FAITH AND BUILDER IN GOOD
FAITH
SUMMARY OF THE RULES:
1. OGF + BBF =
1.
Get the house without paying any
indemnity for its value or expenses (but with the
obligation to pay under 452 necessary expenses
for the preservation not of the house; but of the
land). PLUS DAMAGES.
2.
Demand the demolition of the house, at
the builders expense. PLUS DAMAGES.
3.
Compel the builder to buy the land, WON
the value is considerably MORE THAN the value
of the house. PLUS DAMAGES.

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
2. OBF + BGF = Article 447
1.
Owner has no rights, but is obliged to pay
for damages;
2.
Pay for the value of the house;
3.
If builder prefers, remove/ destroy the
house PLUS DAMAGES
3. BOTH IN GOOD FAITH OGF + BGF = ART
448
1.
Appropriation of the house
2.
Compulsory selling of the land.
3.
Force lease.
4. BOTH IN BAD FAITH OBF + BBF = 453 Par
1 = GOOD FAITH
RIGHTS OF THE OWNER OF THE MATERIALS
1. If the owner of the materials acted in Bad
Faith, he LOSES ALL RIGHTS to be
indemnified. Moreover, he can even be liable
for consequential damages (when the
materials are inferior in quality).
2. If the owner of the materials acted in Good
Faith, he is entitled to reimbursement from the
builder who first made use of the materials. In
case of insolvency on the part the builder, the
landowner is subsidiary liable, if he makes use
of the materials.

SUMMARY OF RULES: (Right of the owner of the

material)
1. OGF + BGF + MGF =
(1) Right of reimbursement
(2) Limited right of removal
2. OBF + BBF + MGF =
(1) Right to reimbursement + damages
(2) Absolute right of removal + damages
3. OGF + BBF + MBF = NO RIGHT except
reimbursement of necessary expenses for
preservation of land.
In this case, the OGF (landowner) can ask for
damages against BOTH. Hence:
He may appropriate the house for his own without
payment of any indemnity for useful or necessary
expenses for the house (459) but with indemnity for
the necessary expenses for the preservation of the
land (452) or
He may demand the demolition of the house at
BBFs expense (450) or He may compel BBF to pay
the price of the land whether the land is considerably
more valuable than the house or not. (450)
ALLUVIUM AND ACCRETION

RHEYNE

about by accretion. However, the two terms may be

used interchangeably.
Requisites of ALLUVION
1. The deposit must be gradual and
imperceptible
Not when it is caused by a sudden and forceful
flooding [Binalay vs Manalo]
2. The alluvion must be the result of the current
of the waters of the river, lake (like the
Laguna de Bay)
Not by the sea (like the Manila bay) [Heirs of
Navarro vs IAC]
Not man made [Vda de Nazareno vs CA, 1996].
3. The land must be adjacent to the bank of the
river.
Not when the land is opposite the bank.
Accretion- The process whereby the soil is
deposited along the banks of rivers [Republic vs
Santos III, 2012].
The principles that the riparian owner whose land
receives the gradual deposits of soil does not need
to make an express act of possession, and that no
acts of possession are necessary in that instance
because it is the law itself that pronounces that
alluvium belong to the riparian owner from the time
that the deposit created by the current of the water
becomes manifest [Republic vs Santos III, 2012].
Fernando Jr vs Acuna (2011): The principle of
accretion is embodied in Article 457 which states
that to the owners of land enjoining the banks of
rivers belong the accretion which they gradually
receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
Rivers and their natural beds are property of public
dominion. In the absence of any provision of law
vesting ownership if the dried-up river bed in some
other person, it must continue to belong to the State.
There are technical differences between alluvium
and accretion:
Accretion
The process by which the
soil is deposited

Broader term

Alluvium/ Alluvion
The soil deposited on the
estate fronting the river
bank; the owner of the
estate is the riparian
owner
Applies only to the soil
deposited on river banks.
It is possible that a soil
deposit be made also on
the banks of the lakes. In
this case, although it is an
accretion, it is not called
alluvium

Forms of ACCESSION NATURAL:

1) Alluvium (457)
2) Avulsion (459)
3) Change of course of rivers (461-462)
4) Formation of Islands (464 465)

Riparian owner- Strictly speaking, riparian refers

to rivers. A riparian owner is a person who owns land
situated on the bank of a river.

Alluvium- the soil deposited or added to (accretion)

the lands adjoining the banks of rivers, and gradually
received as an effect of the current of the waters.
The increment, which lands abutting rivers gradually
receive as a result of the current of the waters.
Accretion denotes the process. Alluvion refers to the
deposit of soil or to the soil itself. Alluvion is brought

The word riparian used in broad sense refers to

any property having a water frontage. The term
riparian owner embraces not only owner of lands
on the banks of river but also the littoral waters,
meaning the owners of lands bordering the shore of
the sea or other tidal waters. The littoral is the
coastal region including both the land along the

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY

RHEYNE

coast and the water near the coast or the shore zone
between the high and low watermarks.

The following are the rules as to the ownership

of unidentifiable accumulated deposits

Reasons why Alluvium is granted the Riparian

Owner
(1) To compensate him for the loss he may
suffer due to erosion or the destructive force
of the water and danger from floods.
(2) To compensate him because the property is
subject to encumbrances and legal
easements
(3) The interest of agriculture require that the soil
be given to the person who is in the best
position to cultivate the same;
(4) Since after all, it cannot be said with
certainty from whom the soil came (indeed,
the identification of previous owners is
impossible, it may just as well be logically
given to him who can best utilize the property.

A. If formed on the sea --1. Within the territorial waters or maritime

zone or jurisdiction of the Philippines =
STATE (464) . This is Patrimonial
Property.
2. Outside of our territorial jurisdiction
The first country to effectively occupy
the same

Avulsion- Whenever a current of a river, creek or

torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a
known portion of land and transfer it to another
estate (459)
It is the process where the current of a river, creek,
or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a
known portion of land and transfers it to another
estate.
In the absence of evidence that the change in the
course of the river was sudden or that it occurred
through alluvium, the presumption is that the
damage was gradual and was caused by
alluvium or erosion.
Difference between Alluvium and Avulsion
Alluvium
Avulsion
The deposit of the soil Sudden or abrupt process
here is gradual
may be seen
Soil cannot be identified
Identifiable or verifiable
Belongs to owner of Belongs to owner from
property to which it is whose property it was
attached
detached
Requisites for Article 461
(1) The change must be sudden on order that the
old river bed may be identified evidence
showing that the river changed its course not
gradually or imperceptively, but abruptly.
(2) The changing of the course must be more or
less permanent, and not temporary over
flooding of anothers land
(3) The change of the river bed must be a natural
one, i.e, caused by natural forces (and not by
artificial means such as those used by private
individuals authorized by the government in
which case the State ,may give the old river
bed to the persons responsible for the change.
(4) There must be a definite abandonment by the
government shortly after the change decides
and actually takes steps to bring the river to its
old bed, Art 461 will not apply, for here, we
cannot say that there was abandonment. The
government is not compelled to stand by idly
and let nature take its course. Thus, the
government may redirect the course even in
the face of opposition from those who may be
affected.

B. If formed on lakes, or navigable or floatable

rivers the State (this is also patrimonial
property)
C. If formed on non-navigable or non-floatable
rivers
1. If nearer in margin to one bank, owner
of nearer margin is SOLE owner. (465)
2. If EQUIDISTANT, the island should be
divided longitudinally in halves each
bank getting half. (465)
ADJUNCTION, MIXTURE AND SPECIFICATION
Right of accession with respect to movable property:
There are usually three types of accession with
respect to movable property:
(a) Adjunction (and/or Conjunction)
(b) Mixture (Commixtion or confusion)
(c) Specification
Adjunction- It is the process by virtue of which two
(2) movable things belonging to different owners are
united in such a way that they form a single object.
E.G: X varnishes his chair with the varnish of Y.
Different kinds of Adjunction
(a) Inclusion (example: sapphire set on a ring).
(b) Soldering (example: joining legs made of lead to
a body also made of lead).
[NOTE:
1) Ferruminatio objects are of the same metal
2) Plumbatura objects are of different metals
(c) Escritura (or writing)
(d) Pintura (or painting)
(e) Weaving
Rules as to existence of good faith
If X in good faith uses the varnish of Y to varnish his
(X) table, X will become the owner of the varnish in
fact (of the whole table) but he must indemnify Y for
the value of the varnish.
PRINCIPAL / ACCESSORY
Test to determine which is the Principal and
which is the Accessory
The principal is (in order of preference):
1) That to which the other has been
united as an ornament, or for its
use, or perfection
The accessory is that which has been united as an
ornament etc (This is the test of intention)
2) That of greater value (468)
3) That of greater volume (468)

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
4) Finally that which has greater merits
(from the combined consideration of
utility and volume)
With reference to a motor vehicle, the engine may
be considered as the principal, all the other parts of
the vehicle being regarded as mere accessories.
***Special Rule: In painting and sculpture, writings,
printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the board,
metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment shall be
deemed the accessory thing (468). This is because
what as been written, printed, etc, is considered of
greater importance.
Rule when there can be Separation Without
Injury
Here, there is no real accession. (3 Manresa 288).
Hence, we have the rule indicated in the first
paragraph.
[NOTE: It is understood that the first paragraph can
apply only to soldering and inclusion because in all
the rest, separation would result in substantial
injury.]
Rule if Accessory is More Precious than the
Principal
In the second paragraph of the article, separation,
although with injury (but not destruction) is allowed,
if the thing united for the use, embellishment, or
perfection of the other is much more precious than
the principal.
E.G.: When a valuable diamond (the accessory
because it is for embellishment of the ring) is set in
good faith on a silver ring, the owner of the diamond
can ask for separation, even though there will be
injury to the ring. Expenses for the separation must
of course be borne by the person who caused the
union, considering that both parties are in good faith.
Rules in Case of Bad Faith in the Adjunction
Either by (a) delivery of a thing equal in kind and
value (quantity, quality); (b) or payment of price as
appraised by experts. (Here, sentimental value must
be considered). (Art.
475).
Rule Applicable Only if Consent of Owner Had
Not Been Obtained
The right to indemnity applies only if material was
employed without the owners consent. The material
may have been the principal or the accessory.
RULES IN CASE OF MIXTURE
Two Kinds of Mixture
1. Commixition (if solids are mixed)
2. Confusion (If liquids are mixed)
Mixture
(a) If the mixture is caused by one owner in good
faith or by the will of both owners, or by chane
(accident), or by a common agent, then rules
on co-ownership shall apply or it will result to
co-ownership. Thus, each owner acquiring an
interest or right proportional to the value of his
material. E.G: If Xs palay was by chance
mixed with Ys palay, X and Y are now coowners of the mixture in proportion to the
value of their respective materials.

RHEYNE

(b) If the mixture is made by one in BAD FAITH

them
1. He loses his material (in favor of the
other)
2. And is liable for damages (This is to
penalize his bad faith)
When the things mixed or confused are of exactly
the same kind, quantity, and quality, all that is
needed would be to divide the mixture into two (2)
equal parts.
Rule in case mixture was caused by the
Negligence of one of the parties
The party negligent is liable for his culpa
aquuillana and should indemnify for damages
(2176). Note that good faith does not necessarily
exclude negligence (Art 456).
RULES IN CASE OF SPECIFICATION
Specification: the giving of a new form to anothers
material thru the application of labor. The material
undergoes a transformation or change of identity.
In general, the rule of
accessory follows the principal applies here, with
LABOR being considered as principal.
Rule to follow in specification:
A. If the worker (principal) is in good faith:
1) he appropriate the new thing;
2) but he must indemnify for
materials

the

If I bake a cake, using the flour of my brother, and I

am in good faith, I can get the cake but I must pay
for the flour.
XPT: If the materials (accessory) is more precious
than the new thing or is more valuable, the owner of
the material has an option.
B. If the worker is in bad faith, the owner of the
material has an option; thus he
1) can appropriate the work without
paying for the labor;
2) or he can demand indemnity for the
material plus damages;
XPT: The option of appropriation is not available if
the value of the resultant work is more valuable for
artistic or scientific reasons.
Specification distinguished from Mixture and
Adjunction
Adjunction
Mixture
Specification
Involves
at Involves
at May involve only
least two (2) least
two one thing (may
things
things
be more) but
form is changed
As
a
rule, As a rule, co- As
a
rule,
accessory
ownership
accessory
follows
results
follows principal
principal
The
things The
things The new object
joined
retain mixed
or retains
or
their nature
confused may preserves
the
either retain or nature of the
lose
their original object
respective
natures
J. QUIETING OF TITLE

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY

RHEYNE

Kinds of actions referred to

Nature and Concept
An action to quiet title to property or to remove a
cloud thereon is a remedy or form of proceeding
originating in equity jurisprudence, which has for its
purpose an adjudication that a claim of title to or an
interest in property adverse to that of the
complainant, is invalid, so that the complainant and
those claiming under him may be forever afterward
free from any danger of the hostile claim.
In order to maintain action to quiet title or remove a
cloud thereon, the plaintiff must have a legal title to
the property in question or some interest therein,
and be in possession thereof, at the institution of the
action.
- The proceedings is characterized as quasi in rem.
The reasons for which equity interferes to remove a
cloud on title are:
(1) The prevention of litigation;
(2) The protection of the true title and possession,
and;
(3) The real interest of both parties, and that of
right and justice, which require that the precise
state of the title be known.
Action to Quiet Title vs Action to Remove Cloud
Action to Quiet Title
Action to Remove Cloud
Strictly considered as an Intended to procure the
action for the purpose of cancellation, delivery of,
putting
an
end
to release of an instrument,
vexatious litigation in encumbrance, or claim
respect to the property constituting a claim on
involved.
plaintiffs title, and which
may be used to injure or
vex him in the enjoyment
of his title.
Plaintiff asserts his own Plaintiff not only declared
estate in the land, without his own title, but also
defining it, and avers that avers the source and
the claim is without nature of defendants
foundation, and calls on claim, points out its
the defendant to set forth defect, and prays that it
the nature of his claim, so can be declared void.
that it may be determined
by decree
Two (2) indispensable requisites for an action to
quiet title to prosper: Heirs of Margarita Prodon v
Heirs of Maximo S. Alvarez and Valentina Clave
(704 SCRA 465, September 02, 2013)
1. The plaintiff or complaint has a legal or an
equitable title to or interest in the real property
subject of the action; and
2. The deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding
claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be
shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative
despite its prima facie appearance of validity
or legal efficacy.
***The alleged cloud must be prima facie substantial,
and cast such a suspicion on the title or interest to
which it is hostile as will injuriously affect the market
value of the property, or seriously embarrass the
owner either in disposing of the property or in
maintaining his rights. The claim of constituting the
alleged cloud must be such as to cause a
reasonable fear that it may at some time be asserted
against the owner vexatiously or injuriously

(a) REMEDIAL: Action to remove the cloud or

to quiet title
(b) PREVENTIVE Action to prevent a future
cloud or doubt action quia timet.
Defenses in an action to quiet title: Defendant
may set up equitable as well as legal defenses. The
acquisition by the defendant of the title to the
property by adverse possession is a good defense to
the action. A prior adjudication of the question may
constitute good defense, under the rule of res
judicata.
A petition for quieting of title on the ground of fraud
although essentially an action for reconveyance
should not be dismissed on the ground of
prescription where the petition contains an averment
that the malicious and illegal acts committed by the
defendants were known to the plaintiffs only during
this year.
***As to the relief, the court may, upon its decree,
adjust all the equities of all the parties to the action,
and determine the status of all controverted claims
to or against the property. The court will decree such
relief as is necessary to completely and finally
dispose of the controversy.
***The petition for quieting of title should take
precedence over ejectment case to prevent
multiplicity of suits.
Prescription of an action to quiet title
CASES:
1) Leyson vs Bontuyan: An action for
reconveyance based on an implied or
constructive trust prescribes in ten (10)
uears, the point of reference being the date
of registration of the deed or the date of the
issuance of the certificate of title over the
property, but this applies only when the
plaintiff enforcing the trust is NOT in
possession of the property, since if a person
claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual
possession of the property, the right to seek
reconveyance, which is in effect seeks to
quiet title to the property, does NOT
prescribe.
The reason for this is that one who is in actual
possession of a piece of land claiming to be the
owner thereof may wait until his possession is
distributed or his title is attacked before taking steps
to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being,
that his undisturbed possession gives him a
continuing right to seek the said of the court of equity
to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse
claim of a third party and its effect or his own title,
which right can be claimed only by one who is in
possession.
2) Heirs of Nagano vs CA: An action for
quieting of title by one, who is in open,
public, peaceful, continuous and adverse
possession, is imprescriptible.
3. Gallar vs Hussain: An action to quiet title,
brought by a person in possession of the property is
imprescriptible. However, if the plaintiff is not in
possession, the action would prescribe within the
proper prescriptive period.

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
Restoration of Benefit:
A restoration of the benefits will be required, in any
case where the plaintiff shown to be morally bound
to reimburse the defendant. Conversely, the rule will
not be extended to a case in which no liability, either
moral or equitable, to pay the debt rests upon the
plaintiff.
III. CO OWNERSHIP
i. Definition
The right of common dominion which two or
more persons have in a spiritual part of a thing,
nor materially or physically divided.
That state where an undivided thing or right belongs
to two or more person (484). A co-ownership is not a
judicial person, nor is it granted any form of juridical
personality.
Manifestation of the private right of ownership, which
instead of being exercised by the owner in an
exclusive manner over the things subject to it, is
exercised by two or more owners and the undivided
thing or right to which it refers is one and the same
[Manresa].
Co-ownership is not a real right distinct from
ownership, but is mere form or manifestation of
ownership.
*** Under 484 co-ownership may exists as to rights,
and is NOT LIMITED to corporeal things (as held
in the case of Samaniego et al vs Villajin, a
leashold right may be the subject of co-ownership)
ii. Characteristics
(a) Plurality of subjects, who are the co-owners;
(b) Unity of or material indivision, which means
that there is a single object which is not
materially divided and which is the element
which binds the subjects, and
(c) The recognition of ideal shares, which
determines the rights and obligations of the coowners.
***The relationship of such co-owner to the other coowners are fiduciary in character and attribute,
Whether established of law or by agreement of the
co-owners, the property or thing held pro-indiviso is
impressed with a fiducial nature so that each coowner becomes a trustee for the benefit of his coowners and he may not do any act prejudicial to the
interest of his co-owners.
Thus, the legal effect of agreement to preserve the
properties in co-ownership was to create an express
trust among the heirs as co-owners of the properties.
Co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner
is a trustee for the others.

iii. Difference between Co-ownership and Joint

Tenancy

RHEYNE

(sorry wala akong notes. Tulog ata ako or lumabas.

Hahahahah)
iv. Difference between partnership and coownership
Co-ownership
No legal personality
Created by contract or by
other things
Purpose Collective
employment
Agreement for it to exist
for 10 years valid. (If
more than 10 years the
excess is void)
As a rule, no mutual
representation
Not dissolved by death or
incapacity of the owner
Can dispose of his share
without consent of others
Profits
must
always
depend on proportionate
shares

Partnership
Has legal or juridical
capacity
Created by contract only
(express or implied)
Purpose for profit
There is not term limit set
by the law
As a rule, there is mutual
representation
Is dissolved by the death
or incapacity of partner
Cannot substitute another
as partner in his place
without the consent of
others
Profits may be stipulated
upon

v. Sources of Co-ownership
(1) The law, as in party walls, fences, and
hedges, and in the legal conjugal partnership.
When one of the spouses dies, a co-ownership
is established, by operation of law, between
the surviving spouse and the heirs of the
deceased spouse;
a. Property relation of a man and a
woman living as a husband and
wife/adulterous relationship
The rule of co-ownership applies to a man and a
woman living exclusively with each other as husband
and wife without the benefit of marriage, but are
otherwise capacitated to marry each other, does not
apply in a situation where one of the parties is still
legally married to another at the time of the
cohabitation. In such an adulterous relationship, no
co-ownership exists between the parties. It is
necessary for each of the parties to prove his or her
actual contribution to the acquisition of property in
order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it.
Presumptions
of
co-ownership
and
equal
contribution do not apply.(Borromeo vs Descallar,
February 2009)
Property regime of parties to a bigamous marriage is
governed by Article 148 of the Family Code which
provides that all properties acquired by the parties
out of their actual joint contribution of money,
property, or industry shall be governed by the rules
on co-ownership. If there is no contribution from
either or both of the spouses, there can be no coownership. (Acre vs Yuttiki)
(2) Contracts, such as when two parties agree to
purchase a piece of land, each one paying a
part of the purchase price, on the condition
that they are to divide the land equally
between them. This is different when a portion
of a parcel of land was sold to a buyer is

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
concretely determined and identifiable, such
as when the northern half of the land belongs
to the buyer and the southern half belongs to
the seller, there is no co-ownership between
the buyer and the seller over the whole parcel
of land.
(3) Succession, such as when a person dies
intestate, leaving his properties undivided to
several heirs , who become co-owners, of the
inheritance. Where there are several coowners, and some of them die, the heirs of
those who die become also co-owners of the
property together with those who survive.
(4) Fortuitous event or chance, such as in cases
of commixtion and confusion caused by
accident or chance, and of hidden treasure
accidentally discovered by a stranger on the
land of another.
(5) Occupancy, such as when two (2) persons
catch a wild beast or gather forest products.
RIGHTS OF CO-OWNERS
vi. Rights of Co owner as to the thing owned in
common
vii. Implications of Co-owners right over his ideal
share
Shares in Benefits and Charges
(a) Payment by ALL for necessary expenses;
(b) The share in the benefits and charges is
proportional to the interest of each. Hence, if one
co-owner owns two-thirds, he shares two-thirds of
the taxes.
(c) Contrary stipulation is VOID. To do so would be to
run against the nature of co-ownership. (Manresa).
(d) Each co-owner shares proportionately in the
accretion or alluvium of the property. This is
because an increase in area benefits all. (Tarnate
v. Tarnate)
Number of co-owners who must consent
(a)
Repairs, ejectment action one (489)
(b)
Alterations or acts of ownership ALL (491)
(c)
All others, like useful improvements,
luxurious embellishments, administration and better
enjoyment Financial Majority (not numerical, Art 492
and 489)
Q: May repairs for preservation be undertaken by
one of the co-owners even without the consent of
the other co-owners?

RHEYNE

***Q: May a co-owner alter a property owned in

common even without the consent of the other coowners?
ANS: The unanimous consent of the other coowners is required (Art 491)
Sale of a portion of
considered an alteration of the
common, Under the Civil Code,
requires the unanimous consent
owners. (Cabrera vs Ysaac)

the property is
thing owned in
such disposition
of the other co-

Sale by a co-owner of the whole property

A person can only sell what he owns, or he
is authorized to sell and the buyer can as a
consequence acquire no more than what the seller
can legally transfer (Neri vs Heirs of Hadji Yusop Uy
and Ibrahim Uy, October 2012)
Case: Republic vs Heirs of Francisca DignosSorono, (2008)
Even if a co-owner sells the whole property
as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not
those of the other co-owners who did not consent to
the sale.
A sale of the entire property by one coowner without the consent of the other co-owners is
not null and void; buyer is made co-owner of the
property.
Effect of sale by a spouse of a conjugal property
without the consent of the other spouse
Case: Heirs of Reyes vs Mijares
Any alienation or encumbrance of conjugal
partnership property by the husband and without the
consent of the wife, if made after the Family Code
took effect, is not only voidable but null and void.
Co-owner does not lose part co-owned property
when share was mortgaged by another co-owner
without the formers knowledge and consent
Case: Nufable vs Nufable (1999)
A co-owner does not lose his part ownership
of a co-owned property when his share is mortgaged
by another without the formers knowledge and
consent. It has likewise been ruled that the mortgage
of the inherited property is not binding against coheirs who never benefited.
Right to Sell

The lack of notice will not exempt the other

co-owners from contributing. In fact, a co-owner may
compel the other co-owners to contribute expenses
for the preservation of the right owned in common
(Arts 488 & 492)

Case: Acabel vs Acabel, March 2005

While Villaner owns five-ninths (5/9) of the
disputed property, he could not claim title to any
definite portion of the community property until its
actual partition by agreement or judicial decree. Prior
to the partition, all that he has is an ideal abstract
quota or proportionate share in the property. Villaner,
however, as a co-owner of the property has the right
to sell his undivided share thereof.

***Q: May a co-owner incur expenses for

improvement or embellishment even without the
consent of the other co-owners?
ANS: This is a matter of administration for
improvement that needs the consent of majority of
the co-owners.

Thus every co-owner has absolute

ownership of his undivided interest in the co-owned
property and is free to alienate, assign or mortgage
his interest except as to purely personal rights. While
a co-owner has the right to freely sell and dispose of
his undivided interest, nevertheless, as co-owner, he

ANS: The co-owners need only, if practicable, first

notify the other co-owners (Art. 489)

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
cannot alienate the shares of his other co-owners
nemo dat qui non habet.
Villaner, however, sold the entire property
without the consent of the other co-owners.
Following the well-established principle that the
binding force of a contract must be recognized as far
as it is legally possible to do so quando res non
valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere protest the
disposition affects only VIllaners share pro indiviso,
and the transferee gets only what corresponds to his
grantors share in the partition of the property in
common.
A co-owner could enter into a contract to sell a
definite portion of the property (Cabrera vs Ysaac,
November 2014)

RHEYNE

3. When the project has been in existence

for more than 50 years, that it is obsolete and
uneconomic, and the condominium owners holding
in aggregate more than 50% interest in the common
areas are opposed to restoration, remodeling or
modernizing;
4. When the project or a material part thereof has
been condemned or expropriated and the project is
no longer viable, or that the condominium owners
holding in aggregate more than 70% interest in the
common areas are opposed to the continuation of
the condominium regime;
5. When conditions for partition by sale set forth in
the declaration of restrictions
duly
registered
have been met.

Right of Redemption (Articles 1620 & 1623)

x. Extinguishment of Co-ownership
As there is no longer co-ownership, the right to
redeem any part of the property from any of their
former co-owner was already extinguished. As legal
redemption is intended to minimize co-ownership,
once a property is subdivided and distributed among
co-owners, the community ceases to exist and there
is no more reason to sustain any right of legal
redemption.
In summary, the rights of each co-owner as
thing in common are: [POLrEP PCP]
1. Use the thing as to the purpose intended;
2. Share in the benefits in proportion to
interest
3. Bring an action in ejectment;
4. Compel other co-owner to contribute
expenses for preservation of the things;
5. Oppose any act of alteration
6. Protest against acts of majority which
prejudicial to minority;
7. Exercise legal redemption
8. Ask for partition

the
his
to
are

viii. Rules on co ownership not applicable to

CPG and ACP
-

If valid ang marriage ACP and CPG shall

apply.
Rules on co-ownership will only apply if void
ang marriage. Article 447 and 448 of the
family code.

ix. Special rules on ownership of different stories

of a house as differentiated from provision of
condominium
GENERAL RULE: Common areas shall remain
undivided, and there shall be no judicial partition
thereof:
EXCEPTIONS:
1. When the project has not been rebuilt or
repaired substantially to its state prior to its damage
or destruction 3 years after damage or destruction
which rendered a material part thereof unfit for use;
2. When damage or destruction has rendered or
more of the units untenantable and that the
condominium owners holding more than 30%
interest in the common areas are opposed to
restoration of the projects;

Partition- A division between two or more persons

of real or personal property which they own as copartners, joint tenants or tenants in common,
effected by the setting apart of such interests so that
they may enjoy and possess it in sereralty.
An agreement of partition may be made orally or
in writing. The Statute of Frauds has no operation
in this kind of agreements, for partition is not a
conveyance of property but simply a segregation
and designation of that part of the property which
belongs to the co-owners.
See Rule 69 of the Rules of Court for
rules relating to judicial partition of Real
Property.
Termination of co-ownership
The legal or juridical dissolution of coownership
When the thing owned in common is
essentially indivisible or physically indivisible, the
property may be allotted to one of the co-owners
who shall indemnify the others, or be sold at public
auction and the proceeds distributed among the coowners.
The juridical condition of co-ownership of things
or right is terminated
1. By the consolidation in only one of the
owners of all the shares of the others;
2. By the destruction of the thing or the loss of
the right;
3. By prescription in favor of a third person;
and
4. By the partition which converts into certain
and definite parts the respective undivided
shares of the co-owners.
XPT: When co-ownership cannot be terminated:
1. When the period for co-ownership have
been agreed to according to the law;
2. When the co-ownership is imposed as a
condition in a donation or a will;
3. When from the very nature of the community
it cannot legally be divided, such as in party
walls and the conjugal partnership;
4. When the partition or division will render the
thing unserviceable for the use and purpose
for which it is intended.
1. Extra Judicial Partition

REVIEWER IN PROPERTY
Under Article 1802 of the Civil Code, every
act which is intended to put an end to indivision
among co-heirs is deemed to be a partition even
though it should purpose to be a sale, an exchange,
or any other transaction. Partition may thus be
inferred from circumstances sufficiently strong to
support the presumption.
The validity of oral partition is already wellsettled. It is not required that the partition agreement
be registered or annotated. After exercising acts of
ownership over their respective portions of the
contested estate, petitioners are stopped from
denying the existence of an oral partition.
Repudiation of co-ownership
In order that a co-owners possession may be
deemed adverse to the cestui que trust or the other
co-owners, the following elements must concur:
(1) That he has performed un-equivocal acts of
repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cesti que
trust or the other co-owners;
(2) That such positive acts of repudiation have been
made known to the cestui que trust or the other coowners; and
(3) That the evidence thereon must be clear and
convincing.
2. Juridical Dissolution
Although Article 495, a thing which cannot be divided
because it will become unserviceable cannot be
partitioned, this article shows that juridical
dissolution of the co-ownership over such thing is
possible, by adjudication to one of the co-owners or
by the sale of the thing. The sale may be made
either publicly or privately.

STUDY AS IF YOU

NOTHING AND PRAY

AS IF EVERYTHING
DEPEND ON GOD.
Dean Soledad Mawis
of Lyceum College of
Law, 2014

RHEYNE