Property Notes by Angel PDF
Property Notes by Angel PDF
              CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY                                  permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of
                                                                          it; the animals in these places are included;
Art. 414. All things which are or may be the object of appropriation
are considered either:                                                        (7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
   (1) Immovable or real property; or                                        (8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof
                                                                          forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant;
   (2) Movable or personal property. (333)
                                                                              (9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended
PROPERTY                                                                  by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river,
    As an object, is that which is, or may be appropriated               lake, or coast;
    Under the CC, thing and property are used synonymously
      technically though, thing is of broader scope than property             (10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real
      (PROPERTY IS THE SPECIE WHILE THING IS THE GENUS)                   rights over immovable property. (334a)
    6.  The land on which the building has been erected was previously           recorded, and only with respect to other credits different from those
        owned by Orosa, which was later on purchased by the                      mentioned in four next preceding paragraphs.
        corporation.
    7. Due to the incessant demands of Lopez, the corporation                    Close examination of the abovementioned provision reveals that the law
        mortgaged its properties.                                                gives preference to unregistered refectionary credits only with respect to
    8. On an earlier relevant date, the corporation obtained a loan with         the real estate upon which the refectionary or work was made. This being
        Luzon Surety Company as surety and in turn, the corporation              so, the inevitable conclusion must be that the lien so created attaches
        executed a mortgage over the land and building.             In the       merely to the immovable property for the construction or repair of which
        registration of the land under Act 496, such mortgage wasnt             the obligation was incurred. Therefore, the lien in favor of appellant for the
        revealed.                                                                unpaid value of the lumber used in the construction of the building
    9. Also due to the demands of Lopez, Orosa issued a deed of                  attaches only to said structure and to no other property of the obligors.
        assignment over his shares of stock in the corporation.
    10. As there was still an unpaid balance, Lopez filed a case against         2        ASSOCIATED INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY V. IYA,
        Orosa and Plaza theatre. He asked that Orosa and Plaza theatre                    ET. AL
        be held liable solidarily for the unpaid balance; and in case                     103 SCRA 972
        defendants failed to pay, the land and building should be sold in
        public auction with the proceeds to be applied to the balance; or        FACTS:
        that the shares of stock be sold in public auction. Lopez also had       Spouses Valino were the owners of a house, payable on installments from
        lis pendens be annotated in the OCT.                                     Philippine Realty Corporation. To be able to purchase on credit rice from
    11. The trial court decided that there was joint liability between           NARIC, they filed a surety bond subscribed by petitioner and therefor, they
        defendants and that the materialmans lien was only confined to          executed an alleged chattel mortgage on the house in favor of the surety
        the building.                                                            company. The spouses didnt own yet the land on which the house was
                                                                                 constructed on at the time of the undertaking.        After being able to
ISSUES:                                                                          purchase the land, to be able to secure payment for indebtedness, the
W/N the materialmens lien for the value of the materials used in the            spouses executed a real estate mortgage in favor of Iya.
construction of the building attaches to said structure alone and doesnt
extend to the land on which the building is adhered to?                          The spouses were not able to satisfy obligation with NARIC, petitioner was
                                                                                 compelled to pay. The spouses werent able to pay the surety company
HELD:                                                                            despite demands and thus, the company foreclosed the chattel mortgage.
The contention that the lien executed in favor of the furnisher of materials     It later learned of the real estate mortgage over the house and lot secured
used for the construction and repair of a building is also extended to land      by the spouses. This prompted the company to file an action against the
on which the building was constructed is without merit. For while it is true     spouses. Also, Iya filed another civil action against the spouses, asserting
that generally, real estate connotes the land and the building constructed       that she has a better right over the property. The trial court heard the two
thereon, it is obvious that the inclusion of the building in the enumeration     cases jointly and it held that the surety company had a preferred right over
of what may constitute real properties could only mean one thingthat a          the building as since when the chattel mortgage was secured, the land
building is by itself an immovable property. Moreover, in the absence of         wasnt owned yet by the spouses making the building then a chattel and
any specific provision to the contrary, a building is an immovable property      not a real property.
irrespective of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is
adhered to belong to the same owner.                                             HELD:
                                                                                 A building certainly cannot be divested of its character of a realty by the
Appelant invoked Article 1923 of the Spanish Civil Code, which provides         fact that the land on which it is constructed belongs to another. To hold it
With respect to determinate real property and real rights of the debtor,        the other way, the possibility is not remote that it would result in
the following are preferred: xxx Credits for reflection, not entered or          confusion, for to cloak the building with an uncertain status made
                                                                                 dependent on ownership of the land, would create a situation where a
permanent fixture changes its nature or character as the ownership of the                   mortgage over the building in favor of Leung Yee, distinct and
land changes hands. In the case at bar, as personal properties may be the                   separate from the land.       This is to secure payment for its
only subjects of a chattel mortgage, the execution of the chattel mortgage                  indebtedness for the construction of the building. Upon failure to
covering said building is null and void.                                                    pay, the mortgage was foreclosed.
                                                                                       4.   The machinery company then filed a case, demanding that it be
3        BICERRA V. TENEZZA                                                                 declared the rightful owner of the building. The trial court held
         6 SCRA 648                                                                         that it was the machinery company which was the rightful owner
                                                                                            as it had its title before the building was registered prior to the
FACTS:                                                                                      date of registry of Leung Yees certificate.
Bicerras were the owners of a house built on a lot owned by them and
situated in the municipality of Lagangilang. Tenezza forcibly demolished           HELD:
the house, asserting that they are the rightful owners of the land. Failure        The building in which the machinery was installed was real property, and
to restore the house and to deliver the materials by the defendants,               the mere fact that the parties seem to have dealt with it separate and
plaintiffs were forced to file an action against them for damages as well as       apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed the character as
praying that the court hold them as the proper owners of the house.                real property.
The court dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.
                                                                                   It follows that neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage registry
ISSUES:                                                                            of the instrument purporting to be a chattel mortgage of the building and
W/N house demolished is still considered an immovable property?                    the machinery installed therein, nor the annotation in the registry of the
                                                                                   sale of the mortgaged property, had any effect whatever so far as the
HELD:                                                                              building is concerned.
A house is classified as immovable property by reason of its adherence to          *LANDMARK CASE
the soil on which it is built. The classification holds true regardless of the
fact that the house may be situated on land belonging to another owner.            5        STANDARD OIL CO. OF NEW YORK V. JARAMILLO
But once the house is demolished, it ceases to exist as such and the hence                  44 SCRA 630
its character as immovable likewise ceases.
                                                                                   FACTS:
4        LEUNG   YEE       V.   F.L    STRONG      MACHINERY         CO.AND        De la Rosa was the lessee of a piece of land, on which a house she owns
         WILLIAMSON                                                                was built. She executed a chattel mortgage in favor of the petitioner
         37 SCRA 644                                                               purporting the leasehold interest in the land and the ownership of house.
FACTS:                                                                             After such, the petitioner moved for its registration with the Register of
    1. First mortgage: Compania Agricola Filipina bought rice-cleaning             Deeds, for the purpose of having the same recorded in the book of record
       machinery from the machinery company and this was secured by                of chattel mortgages.     After examination, the respondent was in the
       a chattel mortgage on the machinery and the building to which it            opinion that the properties were not subjects of a chattel mortgage.
       was installed. Upon failure to pay, the chattel mortgage was
       foreclosed, the building and machinery sold in public auction and           HELD:
       bought by the machinery company.                                            Position taken by the respondent is untenable. His duties are mainly
    2. Days after, the Compania Agricola Filipina executed a deed of sale          ministerial only in nature and no law confers upon him any judicial or
       over the land to which the building stood in favor of the machinery         quasi-judicial power. Generally, he should accept the qualification of the
       company. This was done to cure any defects that may arise in the            property adopted by the person who presents the instrument for
       machinery companys ownership of the building.                              registration and should place the instrument on record, upon payment of
    3. Second mortgage: on or about the date to which the chattel                  the proper fee, leaving the effects of registration to be determined by the
       mortgage was excecuted, Compania executed a real estate                     court if such question should arise for legal determination.
The Civil Code supplies no absolute criterion in discriminating between real     FACTS:
property and personal property for purposes of the application of the            Spouses Magcale secured a loan from Prudential Bank.            To secure
Chattel Mortgage Law. The articles state general doctrines, nonetheless, it      payment, they executed a real estate mortgage over a residential building.
must not be forgotten that under given conditions, property may have             The mortgage included also the right to occupy the lot and the information
character different from that imputed to it in the said articles. It is          about the sales patent applied for by the spouses for the lot to which the
undeniable that the parties in a contract may by agreement treat as              building stood. After securing the first loan, the spouses secured another
personal property that which by nature would be real property.                   from the same bank. To secure payment, another real estate mortgage
                                                                                 was executed over the same properties.
6       PUNSALAN, JR. V. VDA. DE LACSAMANA                                       The Secretary of Agriculture then issued a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over
        121 SCRA 331                                                             the land which was later on mortgaged to the bank.
FACTS:                                                                           The spouses then failed to pay for the loan and the REM was extrajudicially
Punsalan was the owner of a piece of land, which he mortgaged in favor of        foreclosed and sold in public auction despite opposition from the spouses.
PNB. Due to his failure to pay, the mortgage was foreclosed and the land
was sold in a public auction to which PNB was the highest bidder.                The respondent court held that the REM was null and void.
On a relevant date, while Punsalan was still the possessor of the land, it       HELD:
secured a permit for the construction of a warehouse.fop                         A real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on the
                                                                                 land belonging to another.
A deed of sale was executed between PNB and Punsalan. This contract was
amended to include the warehouse and the improvement thereon. By                 The inclusion of building distinct and separate from the land in the Civil
virtue of these instruments, respondent Lacsamana secured title over the         Code can only mean that the building itself is an immovable property.
property in her name.
                                                                                 While it is true that a mortgage of land necessarily includes in the absence
Petitioner then sought for the annulment of the deed of sale. Among his          of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings, still a building in
allegations was that the bank did not own the building and thus, it should       itself may be mortgaged by itself apart from the land on which it is built.
not be included in the said deed.                                                Such a mortgage would still be considered as a REM for the building would
                                                                                 still be considered as immovable property even if dealt with separately and
Petitioners complaint was dismissed for improper venue. The trial court         apart from the land.
held that the action being filed in actuality by petitioner is a real action
involving his right over a real property.                                        The original mortgage on the building and right to occupancy of the land
                                                                                 was executed before the issuance of the sales patent and before the
HELD:                                                                            government was divested of title to the land. Under the foregoing, it is
Warehouse claimed to be owned by petitioner is an immovable or real              evident that the mortgage executed by private respondent on his own
property. Buildings are always immovable under the Code. A building              building was a valid mortgage.
treated separately from the land on which it is stood is immovable property
and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have dealt with it      As to the second mortgage, it was done after the sales patent was issued
separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise changed its        and thus prohibits pertinent provisions of the Public Land Act.
character as immovable property.
                                                                                 8       TUMALAD V. VICENCIO
7      PRUDENTIAL BANK V. PANIS                                                          41 SCRA 143
       153 SCRA 390
FACTS:                                                                            The CA reversed the decision of the trial court and ordered the return of
Vicencio and Simeon executed a chattel mortgage in favor of plaintiffs            the drive motor, after ruling that the machinery may not be the subject of
Tumalad over their house, which was being rented by Madrigal and                  a chattel mortgage, given that it was an immovable under the provisions of
Company. This was executed to guarantee a loan, payable in one year               Article 415. The same was attached to the ground by means of bolts and
with a 12% per annum interest.                                                    the only way to remove it from the plant would be to drill the ground.
The mortgage was extrajudicially foreclosed upon failure to pay the loan.         HELD:
The house was sold at a public auction and the plaintiffs were the highest        There is no logical justification to exclude the rule out that the machinery
bidder. A corresponding certificate of sale was issued. Thereafter, the           may be considered as personal property, and subject to a chattel
plaintiffs filed an action for ejectment against the defendants, praying that     mortgage. If a house may be considered as personal property for purposes
the latter vacate the house as they were the proper owners.                       of executing a chattel mortgage, what more a machinery, which is movable
                                                                                  by nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose, may
HELD:                                                                             not be likewise treated as such.
Certain deviations have been allowed from the general doctrine that
buildings are immovable property such as when through stipulation, parties        10       SERGS PRODUCTS AND GOQUIOLAY V. PCI LEASING AND
may agree to treat as personal property those by their nature would be                     FINANCE
real property. This is partly based on the principle of estoppel wherein the               338 SCRA 499
principle is predicated on statements by the owner declaring his house as
chattel, a conduct that may conceivably stop him from subsequently                FACTS:
claiming otherwise.                                                               PCI filed a case for collection of a sum of money as well as a writ of
                                                                                  replevin for the seizure of machineries, subject of a chattel mortgage
In the case at bar, though there be no specific statement referring to the        executed by petitioner in favor of PCI.
subject house as personal property, yet by ceding, selling or transferring a
property through chattel mortgage could only have meant that defendant            Machineries of petitioner were seized and petitioner filed a motion for
conveys the house as chattel, or at least, intended to treat the same as          special protective order. It asserts that the machineries were real property
such, so that they should not now be allowed to make an inconsistent              and could not be subject of a chattel mortgage.
stand by claiming otherwise.
                                                                                  HELD:
9        MAKATI LEASING AND              FINANCE      CORPORATION         V.      The machineries in question have become immobilized by destination
         WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS                                                   because they are essential and principal elements in the industry, and thus
         122 SCRA 296                                                             have become immovable in nature.
FACTS:                                                                            Nonetheless, they are still proper subjects for a chattel mortgage.
To be able to secure financial accommodations from the petitioner, the
private respondent discounted and assigned several receivables under a            Contracting parties may validly stipulate that a real property be considered
Receivable Purchase Agreement.        To secure the collection of the             as personal.   After agreement, they are consequently estopped from
receivables, a chattel mortgage was executed over machinery found in the          claiming otherwise.
factory of the private respondent.
                                                                                  12       MANARANG AND MANARANG V. OFILADA AND ESTEBAN
As the private respondent failed to pay, the mortgage was extrajudicially                  99 SCRA 108
foreclosed. Nonetheless, the sheriff was unable to seize the machinery.
This prompted petitioner to file an action for replevin.                          FACTS:
                                                                                  Manarang secured a loan from Esteban guaranteed by a chattel mortgage
                                                                                  over a house of mixed materials. Due to failure to pay, the chattel
mortgage was foreclosed. Before the sale of the property, Manarang tried          Furthermore, although in some instances, a house of mixed materials has
to pay for the property but the sheriff refused to accept tender unless there     been considered as a chattel between the parties and that the validity of
is payment for the publication of the notice of sale in the newspapers.           the contract between them, has been recognized, it has been a constant
                                                                                  criterion that with respect to third persons, who are not parties to the
This prompted Manarang to bring this suit to compel the sheriff to accept         contract, and specially in execution proceedings, the house is considered as
payment. He averred that the publication was unnecessary as the house             immovable property.
should be considered as personal property per agreement in the chattel
mortgage, and the publication for notice of sale is unnecessary.                  14       DAVAO SAW MILL CO. VS. CASTILLO
                                                                                           61 SCRA 709
HELD:
There is no question that a building of mixed materials may be a subject of       FACTS:
chattel mortgage, in which case it is considered as between the parties as        Petitioner is the holder of a lumber concession. It operated a sawmill on a
personal property.                                                                land, which it doesnt own. Part of the lease agreement was a stipulation
                                                                                  in which after the lease agreement, all buildings and improvements would
The mere fact that a house was the subject of chattel mortgage and was            pass to the ownership of the lessor, which would not include machineries
considered as personal property by the parties doesnt make the said              and accessories.     In connection to this, petitioner had in its sawmill
house personal property for purposes of the notice to be given for its sale       machineries and other equipment wherein some were bolted in foundations
in public auction. It is real property within the purview of Rule 39, Section     of cement.
16 of the Rules of Court as it has become a permanent fixture on the land,
which is real property.                                                           HELD:
                                                                                  The machinery must be classified as personal property.
13       NAVARRO V. PINEDA
         9 SCRA 631                                                               The lessee placed the machinery in the building erected on land belonging
                                                                                  to another, with the understanding that the machinery was not included in
FACTS:                                                                            the improvements which would pass to the lessor on the expiration of the
Pineda and his mother executed real estate and chattel mortgages in favor         lease agreement. The lessee also treated the machinery as personal
of Navarro, to secure a loan they got from the latter. The REM covered a          property in executing chattel mortgages in favor of third persons. The
parcel of land owned by the mother while the chattel mortgage covered a           machinery was levied upon by the sheriff as personalty pursuant to a writ
residential house. Due to the failure to pay the loan, they asked for             of execution obtained without any protest being registered.
extensions to pay for the loan. On the second extension, Pineda executed
a PROMISE wherein in case of default in payment, he wouldnt ask for any          Furthermore, machinery only becomes immobilized when placed in a plant
additional extension and there would be no need for any formal demand.            by the owner of the property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant,
In spite of this, they still failed to pay.                                       usufructuary, or any person having temporary right, unless such person
                                                                                  acted as the agent of the owner.
Navarro then filed for the foreclosure of the mortgages. The court decided
in his favor.                                                                     15       TSAI V. COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                           336 SCRA 324
HELD:
Where a house stands on a rented land belonging to another person, it             FACTS:
may be the subject matter of a chattel mortgage as personal property if so        EVERTEX secured a loan from PBC, guaranteed by a real estate and chattel
stipulated in the document of mortgage, and in an action by the mortgagee         mortgage over a parcel of land where the factory stands, and the chattels
for the foreclosure, the validity of the chattel mortgage cannot be assailed      located therein, as included in a schedule attached to the mortgage
by one of the parties to the contract of mortgage.                                contract. Another loan was obtained secured by a chattel mortgage over
                                                                                  properties with similar descriptions listed in the first schedule. During the
Assuming that the properties were considered immovables, nothing                   18       MANILA ELECTRIC CO. V. CENTRAL BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
detracts the parties from treating it as chattels to secure an obligation                   APPEALS
under the principle of estoppel.                                                            114 SCRA 273
HELD:                                                                              HELD:
Movable equipments to be immobilized in contemplation of law must first            While the two storage tanks are not embodied in the land, they may
be essential and principal elements of an industry or works without which          nevertheless be considered as improvements in the land, enhancing its
such industry or works would be unable to function or carry on the                 utility and rendering it useful to the oil industry.
industrial purpose for which it was established. We may here distinguish
those movables, which are essential and principal elements of an industry,         For purposes of taxation, the term real property may include things, which
from those which may not be so considered immobilized by destination               should generally be considered as personal property.         it is familiar
because they are merely incidental, not essential and principal.                   phenomenon to see things classified as real property for purposes of
                                                                                   (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public
Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:              use, and are intended for some public service or for the
                                                                                development of the national wealth. (339a)
    (1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not
included in the preceding article;                                              PUBLIC DOMINION
                                                                                    Means ownership by the State in that the State has control and
   (2) Real property which by any special provision of law is                          administration
considered as personal property;                                                    Ownership by the public in general
    (3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by                     THREE   KINDS OF PROPERTY UNDER PUBLIC DOMINION
science; and                                                                       1.    For public usemay be used by anybody
                                                                                   2.    For public servicemay be used only by authorized persons
    (4) In general, all things which can be transported from place                 3.    For the development of national wealthlike our natural resources
to place without impairment of the real property to which they are
fixed. (335a)                                                                   CHARACTERISTICS OF PROPERTIES OF PUBLIC DOMINION
                                                                                   1. They are outside the commerce of man, and cannot be leased,
Art. 417. The following are also considered as personal property:                     donated, sold, or be the object of any contract, except insofar as
                                                                                      they may be the subject of repairs or improvements and other
  (1) Obligations and actions which            have    for   their   object           incidental things of similar character
movables or demandable sums; and
    2.   They cannot be acquired by prescription, no matter how long the     All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and
         possession of the properties has been                               shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions
    3.   They cannot be registered under the LRA and be the subject of a     of special laws. (344a)
         Torrens title
    4.   They as well as their usufruct may not be levied upon by            Art. 425. Property of private ownership, besides the patrimonial
         execution nor can they be attached                                  property of the State, provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists
    5.   In general, they may be used by everybody                           of all property belonging to private persons, either individually or
    6.   They may be either real or personal property                        collectively. (345a)
Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the                    PROVISIONS COMMON TO THE THREE PRECEDING CHAPTERS
character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.
(340a)                                                                       Art. 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an individual
                                                                             declaration, the expression "immovable things or property," or
PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY                                                         "movable things or property," is used, it shall be deemed to
    Property that the State owns which is not devoted to public use,        include, respectively, the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and
      public service or to the development of the national wealth            Chapter 2.
    Owned by the State in its private capacity
                                                                             Whenever the word "muebles," or "furniture," is used alone, it
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for           shall not be deemed to include money, credits, commercial
public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial         securities, stocks and bonds, jewelry, scientific or artistic
property of the State. (341a)                                                collections, books, medals, arms, clothing, horses or carriages and
                                                                             their accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or other things
Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities, and municipalities is           which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or
divided into property for public use and patrimonial property. (343)         ornamenting of a building, except where from the context of the
                                                                             law, or the individual declaration, the contrary clearly appears.
PROPERTIES OF POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS                                         (346a)
   1. Property for public use
   2. Patrimonial property                                                   USE OF THE WORD MUEBLES
                                                                                 Word used synonymously with furniture
ALIENATION OF THE PROPERTIES                                                     Furniture has generally for its principal object the furnishing or
    Properties of a political subdivision for public use cannot be                 ornamenting of a building
      alienated as such and may not be acquired through prescription
    Properties of a political subdivision which are patrimonial in          CASE DIGESTS: MOVABLE PROPERTY AND PROPERTY IN RELATION
      character may be alienated, and may be acquired by others                            TO PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGS
      through prescription
                                                                             20      PIANSAY V. DAVID
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and                     12 SCRA 227
municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city streets,
municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters,                    FACTS:
promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said             David secured a loan from Vda. De Uy Kim, and to secure the payment, he
provinces, cities, or municipalities.                                        executed a chattel mortgage over a house in favor of Kim. Due to failure
                                                                             to pay, the CM was foreclosed and Kim was the highest bidder in the public
                                                                             auction. Kim then sold the house to Mangubat. The latter then filed
                                                                             charges against David for the collection of loan and praying that the deed
of sale issued by Kim in favor of Piansay be declared null and void. The          alleged too that he was the owner thereof. It was known that the original
trial court held David liable to Mangubat but dismissed the complaint with        owners of the boat had secretly sold the pilot boat to Rivera on an earlier
regard Kim and Piansay.                                                           date than the sale in a public auction to Rubiso. Nonetheless, material is
                                                                                  the fact that the entry into the customs registry of the sale of the boat was
Kim and Piansay then filed charges against David and Mangubat. Due to             later than the recording of the sale to Rubiso.
the civil case, David demanded from Piansay the payment of rentals for the
use of the house, which the latter claims to be his property.                     HELD:
                                                                                  The requisite of registration in the registry, of the purchase of the vessel, is
HELD:                                                                             necessary and indispensable in order that the purchasers rights may be
Regardless of the validity of a contract constituting a chattel mortgage on a     maintained against a third person. Such registration is required both by
house, as between the parties to the said contract, the same cannot and           the Code of Commerce and Act 1900. It is undeniable, ergo, that Rivera
doesnt bind third persons who arent parties to the aforementioned               doesnt have a better right than Rubiso over the pilot boat.
contract or their privies. As a consequence, the sale of the house in
question in the proceedings for the sale of the house in question in the          Ships and vessels, whether moved by steam or by sail, partake, to a
proceedings for the extrajudicial foreclosure of said chattel mortgage, is        certain extent of the nature and conditions of real property, on account of
null and void insofar as Mangubat is concerned and didnt confer upon Kim         their value and importance in world commerce; and for this, the provisions
as buyer in said sale, any dominical right in and to said house.                  of the Code of Commerce are nearly identical with Article 1473 of the CC.
FACTS:                                                                            FACTS:
The Deputy Sheriff, through a writ of execution, attached the personal            Philippine Refining and Jarque has entered into mortgages over two motor
properties of Sibal, including the sugar cane in question in the 7 parcels of     vessels. These have been denominated as chattel mortgages. The fourth
land described in a complaint. The personal properties were then sold in          mortgage was instituted 30 days before insolvency proceedings to which
public auction, including the sugar canes. Included also in those attached        Jarque prayed that he be declared as an insolvent debtor, which soon was
were real properties wherein 8 out of the 11 parcels of land, house and           granted and all his rights to his properties were assigned to Corominas.
camarin were bought by Valdez through the public auction. He also bought          The trial court declined to order the foreclosure of the mortgages.
the sugar cane in question.
                                                                                  HELD:
HELD:                                                                             Vessels are considered as personal property under the civil laws. Similarly,
Generally, sugar cane comes under the classification of ungathered               under common law, they are considered as personal property but at some
products under real properties in the CC.     However, under certain             circumstances are considered as peculiar kind of personal property. Since
conditions, it may be considered as personal property. For purposes of            the term personal property includes vessels, it may be the subject to the
attachment and execution, as well as for the purposes of the Chattel              provisions of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
Mortgage Law, ungathered products have the nature of personal property.
                                                                                  24       US V. CARLOS
22       RUBISO V. RIVERA                                                                  21 PHIL 553
         37 PHIL 72
                                                                                  FACTS:
FACTS:                                                                            Accused was charged with larceny or the unlawful use of electric current.
Rubiso filed a complaint against Rivera for the recovery of a pilot boat. He      He was found guilty.
alleged that he is the rightful owner of a pilot boat, which was stranded
and recovered by Rivera. The latter refused to return the said boat as he         HELD:
It is true that electricity is no longer considered as fluid but its               Such interest in the business is a personal property capable of
manifestations and effects are like those of gas, may be seen and felt. The        appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real properties in the
true test on whether of what is a proper subject of larceny seems to be not        CC, and may be the subject of mortgage. All personal property may be
whether the subject is corporeal or not but whether it is capable of               mortgaged.
appropriation by another than the owner.
                                                                                   27      CHAVEZ V. PUBLIC ESTATES AUTHORITY
Electricity, is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold like other              384 SCRA 152
personal property and is capable of appropriation by another.
                                                                                   FACTS:
J. MORELAND, DISSENTING:                                                           President Marcos through a presidential decree created PEA, which was
An electric current is not a tangible thing, a chattel, but is a condition or      tasked with the development, improvement, and acquisition, lease, and
state on which a thing or chattel finds itself; and that a condition or state      sale of all kinds of lands. The then president also transferred to PEA the
cannot be stolen independently of the thing or chattel of which it is a            foreshore and offshore lands of Manila Bay under the Manila-Cavite Coastal
condition or state. That it is chattels, which are subjects of larceny and not     Road and Reclamation Project.
conditions. (Electricity is only energy)
                                                                                   Thereafter, PEA was granted patent to the reclaimed areas of land and
25       US V. TAMBUNTING                                                          then, years later, PEA entered into a JVA with AMARI for the development
         41 PHIL 364                                                               of the Freedom Islands. These two entered into a joint venture in the
                                                                                   absence of any public bidding.
FACTS:
Accused and his wife were accused and later found guilty of stealing gas           Later, a privilege speech was given by Senator President Maceda
from the Manila Gas Corporation. It was found out that during their                denouncing the JVA as the grandmother of all scams. An investigation was
occupancy of the upper portion of a house wherein the corporation was              conducted and it was concluded that the lands that PEA was conveying to
supplying gas, the spouses made an illegal connection so that they could           AMARI were lands of the public domain; the certificates of title over the
benefit from the supply.                                                           Freedom Islands were void; and the JVA itself was illegal. This prompted
                                                                                   Ramos to form an investigatory committee on the legality of the JVA.
HELD:
There is nothing in the nature of gas used for illuminating purposes which         Petitioner now comes and contends that the government stands to lose
renders it incapable of being feloniously taken and carried away. It is a          billions by the conveyance or sale of the reclaimed areas to AMARI. He
valuable article of merchandise bought and sold like other personal                also asked for the full disclosure of the renegotiations happening between
property, susceptible of being severed from a mass or larger quantity and          the parties.
of being transported from place to place.
                                                                                   ISSUE:
26       INVOLUNTARY INSOLVENCY OF STROCHECKER V. RAMIREZ                          W/N stipulations in the amended JVA for the transfer to AMARI of the
         44 PHIL 933                                                               lands, reclaimed or to be reclaimed, violate the Constitution.
FACTS:                                                                             HELD:
Three mortgages were seeking preference in the lower court. The one of             The ownership of lands reclaimed from foreshore and submerged areas is
Fidelity and Surety Co. alleged that it should be given preference as the          rooted in the Regalian doctrine, which holds that the State owns all lands
mortgage in favor of Ramirez was not valid as the subject of the mortgage          and waters of the public domain.
cannot be a proper subject thereof. The subject involved in the 1st
mortgage is an interest in business of a drug store.                               The 1987 Constitution recognizes the Regalian doctrine. It declares that all
                                                                                   natural resources are owned by the State and except for alienable
HELD:
agricultural lands of the public domain, natural resources cannot be              It is to be noted that when the sea moved towards the estate and the tide
alienated.                                                                        invaded it, the invaded property became foreshore land and passed to the
                                                                                  realm of public domain.
The Amended JVA covers a reclamation area of 750 hectares. Only 157.84
hectares of the 750 hectare reclamation project have been reclaimed, and          29       LANZAR V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
the rest of the area are still submerged areas forming part of Manila Bay.                 78 SCRA 130
Further, it is provided that AMARI will reimburse the actual costs in
reclaiming the areas of land and it will shoulder the other reclamation costs     FACTS:
to be incurred.                                                                   Lanzar filed for application for registration of title over a parcel of land, to
                                                                                  which the Director of Lands objected to as the land in question, according
The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay are part of the lands of          to him, was part of the foreshore lands. The trial court adjudicated the
the public domain, waters and other natural resources and consequently            land to Lanzar as the said land wasnt necessary for public utility or
owned by the State. As such, foreshore and submerged areas shall not be           establishment of special industries.
alienable unless they are classified as agricultural lands of the public
domain. The mere reclamation of these areas by the PEA doesnt convert            The CA reversed the decision.
these inalienable natural resources of the State into alienable and
disposable lands of the public domain. There must be a law or presidential        HELD:
proclamation officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable and        Lands added to the shore by accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the
disposable if the law has reserved them for some public or quasi-public           action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no longer
use.                                                                              washed by the water of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of
                                                                                  public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for
28       REPUBLIC V. COURT OF APPEALS                                             coastguard services, then the Government shall declare them to be
         281 SCRA 639                                                             property of the owners of the estate adjacent thereto and as increment
                                                                                  thereof.
FACTS:
Morato has filed for patent over a parcel of land, of which was granted           29       IGNACIO V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
under the condition that he would not encumber it for a period of 5 years                  108 PHIL 335
from issuance of patent. It was then found out that he mortgaged and
leased the lots. The government sought for the revocation of the patent           FACTS:
issued.   The trial court and appellate court decided in favor of the             Ignacio filed for the registration of title over a mangrove to which he later
respondents.                                                                      said that he acquired right to the mangrove through accretion.
HELD:                                                                             HELD:
Foreshore lands have been defined to be that part of the land which is            Land formed by the action of the sea is property of the State.
between the high and low water and left dry by the flux and reflux of the
tides.    This is the strip of land that lies between the high and low            Land of the public domain is not subject to acquisitive prescription.
watermarks and that is alternatively wet and dry according to the flow of
the tide.                                                                         30       VILLARICO V. COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                           309 SCRA 193
Foreshore lands may not anymore be the subject of issuance of free
patents. Under property of public ownership or dominion are foreshore             FACTS:
lands, as provided for in the Civil Code.                                         Spouses Villarico sought for the confirmation of title over a parcel of land to
                                                                                  which they allege that they absolutely own the land. This was opposed to
                                                                                  by a person who posed himself also to be the rightful owner of the land, as
well as by the Director of Forestry who said that the subject land is part of     HELD:
forest land and may not be appropriated.         Trial and appellate court        There is no doubt that the disputed areas from which the private
dismissed application of petitioners.                                             respondents market stalls are sought to be evicted are public streets. A
                                                                                  public street is property for public use hence outside the commerce of
HELD:                                                                             man. Being outside the commerce of man, it may not be the subject of
There has been no showing that a declassification has been made of the            lease or other contract.
land in question as disposable or alienable.    And the record indeed
disclosed that applicants have not introduced any evidence which would            The right of the public to use the city streets may not be bargained away
have led the court a quo to rule otherwise.                                       through contract. The interests of the few should not prevail over the good
                                                                                  of the greater number in the community.
Forest lands cannot be owned by private persons. Possession thereof, no
matter how long doesnt ripen to a registrable title.           The adverse       33      CEBU OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE CO. V. BERCILLES
possession which may be the basis of a grant or title or confirmation of an               66 SCRA 431
imperfect title refers only to alienable or disposable portions of the public
domain.                                                                           FACTS:
                                                                                  The land sought to be registered in this case was formerly a part of a
31       VILLANUEVA V. CASTANEDA                                                  street. Through a resolution, it was declared to be an abandoned road and
         154 SCRA 142                                                             not part of the City development plan. Thereafter, it was sold through a
                                                                                  public bidding and petitioner was the highest bidder. He then sought to
FACTS:                                                                            register said land but his application was dismissed.
Petitioners claim the right to remain in and conduct business in the area
(talipapa) by virtue of a previous authorization granted to them by the           HELD:
municipal government. The respondents denied this and alleged that the            The portion of the city street subject to petitioners application for
demolitions of the stalls were not illegal.                                       registration of title was withdrawn from public use. Then it follows that
                                                                                  such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property of the State. It is
HELD:                                                                             also very clear from the Charter that property thus withdrawn from public
A public plaza is beyond the commerce of man and so cannot be the                 servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real
subject of lease or any other commercial undertaking.                             property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed.
FACTS:                                                                            FACTS:
An ordinance was issued designated certain city and municipal streets,            The subject Roppongi property is one of the properties acquired by the
roads, and other public areas for sites of public markets. Pursuant to this,      Philippines from Japan pursuant to a Reparations Agreement. The property
licenses were issued to market stall owners to put up their stalls in certain     is where the Philippine Embassy was once located, before it transferred to
streets. Thereafter, the OIC mayor of Caloocan has caused the demolition          the Nampeidai property. It was decided that the properties would be
of the stalls, which was upheld by the trial court, saying that the public        available to sale or disposition. One of the first properties opened up for
streets are part of the public dominion and is not open to the commerce of        public auction was the Roppongi property, despite numerous oppositions
man. Then there come about a change in administration of the city. The            from different sectors.
next mayor did not continue the demolition of the stalls. Using the trial
courts decision, here now comes petitioner asking for the demolition of the      HELD:
stalls.                                                                           The Roppongi property was acquired together with the other properties
                                                                                  through reparation agreements. They were assigned to the government
sector and that the Roppongi property was specifically designated under           The owner has also a right of action against the holder and
the agreement to house the Philippine embassy.                                    possessor of the thing in order to recover it. (348a)
It is of public dominion unless it is convincingly shown that the property        7 RIGHTS OF AN OWNER UNDER ROMAN LAW
has become patrimonial. The respondents have failed to do so.
                                                                                  Jus possidendi                       The right to possess
As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce
of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership is a special collective             Jus utendi                           The right to use
ownership for general use and payment, in application to the satisfaction of
collective needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose is not to          Jus fruendi                          The right to the fruits
serve the State as the juridical person but the citizens; it is intended for
the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropriation.          Jus abutendi                         The right to consume
The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual      Jus disponendi                       The right to dispose
Embassy service doesnt automatically convert it to patrimonial property.
Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public         Jus vindicandi                       The right to recover
use. A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for
private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the     Jus accessiones                      The right to accessories
part of the government to withdraw it from being such.
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing,                UNLAWFUL DETAINER
without other limitations than those established by law.                              Action that must be brought when the possession by a landlord,
                                                                                       vendor, vendee or other person of any land or building is being
ACCION REINVIDICATORIA                                                           Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such
    Action to recover ownership over real property                              manner as to injure the rights of a third person. (n)
    Must be brought in the RTC
    It must be brought within 10 or 30 years as the case may be                 NO INJURY TO RIGHTS OF THIRD PERSONS
    Issue involved is ownership and for this purpose, evidence of title             This is one of the fundamental bases of police power and
      or mode may be introduced                                                         constitutes a just restriction on the right of ownership
    It is permissible to file both an action for ownership and for
      detainer over the same land, and between the same parties,                 Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the
      because the issues involved are different                                  interference of another with the same, if the interference is
                                                                                 necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened
WRIT OF INJUNCTION                                                               damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the
    A person deprived of his possession of real or personal property is         interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the
      ordinarily not allowed to avail himself of this remedy, the reason         person benefited indemnity for the damage to him. (n)
      being that the defendant in actual possession is presumed
      disputably to have the better right                                        STATE OF NECESSITY
    2.   Claim of ownership                                                If the things found be of interest to science of the arts, the State
                                                                           may acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in
Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified,        conformity with the rule stated. (351a)
and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on
the weakness of the defendant's claim. (n)                                 Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden
                                                                           and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects,
REQUISITES IN AN ACTION TO RECOVER                                         the lawful ownership of which does not appear. (352)
   1. Identity of the property
   2. Strength of the plaintiffs title
                                                                           RULES REGARDING HIDDEN TREASURES
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by               1. If the treasure is not hidden, there is no 50-50 sharing
competent authority and for public use and always upon payment                2. If the precious metals are in their raw state, it will be owned by
of just compensation.                                                             the State by virtue of the Regalian doctrine
                                                                              3. If the owner finds the treasure in his own land, he owns the
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall              treasure
protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his possession.           4. If finder finds it not in his own land, there is 50-50 sharing with
(349a)                                                                            the owner of the land
                                                                              5. If the finder is hired, then compensation or salary or fixed fee will
EMINENT DOMAIN V. EXPROPRIATION                                                   be given to him
    Eminent domain is the power of the state and expropriation is the        6. If the finder is a trespasser, then he would not receive anything
      proceeding
                                                                           2 SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT REGARDING BY CHANCE
Art. 436. When any property is condemned or seized by competent                1. If there is deliberate search, it is not to be construed as by
authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner                chance
thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show              2. Even if there is a deliberate search, still by chance since there is
that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. (n)                             uncertainity of finding a treasure
Art. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface                              CASE DIGESTS: OWNERSHIP
and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works
or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem                  35       CHIAO LIONG TAN V. COURT OF APPEALS
proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws                 228 SCRA 75
and ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable
requirements of aerial navigation. (350a)                                  FACTS:
                                                                           Chiao Long Tan claims to be the owner of a 1976 Isuzu Elf van. As owner
SURFACE RIGHT OF A LAND OWNER                                              thereof, petitioner says he has been in possession, enjoyment, and
                                                                           utilization of the van until his older brother, Tan Ban Yong, unlawfully took
                                                                           it away from him.
Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land,
building, or other property on which it is found.                          Petitioner relies on the fact:
                                                                                1. That the van is registered under his name.
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of                     2. He claims to have bought the vehicle from isuzu balintawak;
another, or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance,             3. That he sent his brother to pay for the van and the receipt was
one-half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a                 issued in his name because it was his money that was used to pay
trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.                  for the vehicle;
     4.   That he allowed his brother to use the vehicle because the latter       FACTS:
          was working for the company;                                            The Forest Protection and Law Enforcement Team of the Community
     5.   And that his brother later refused to return the vehicle and            Environment and Natural Resources Office of the DENR apprehended two
          appropriated the same for himself.                                      trucks carrying with it illegally sourced lumber. The drivers failed to show
                                                                                  any legal documents. Thereafter, the trucks and lumber were seized. A
Private respondent on the other hand testifies:                                   criminal complaint was filed against them.
     1. CLT Industries is the family business and it was under the name of
         petitioner since at the that time, he was leaving for the US and         The trucks were taken forcibly by the two drivers from the custody of
         petitioner is the only Filipino left in the Philippines                  DENR. This prompted the department to file charges but these were
     2. When the family business needed a vehicle, he asked petitioner to         dismissed. Again though, the trucks were then caught and seized, for
         look for a vehicle and gave him money as downpayment for an              carrying illegally sourced lumber once again. Subsequently, an action for
         Isuzu Elf van                                                            replevin was filed by the private respondents. The trial court granted the
     3. After a month, he paid for the van by getting a loan from a friend        application for replevin and the CA affirmed this decision.
     4. As much as the receipt was placed in the name of petitioner,
         private respondent allowed the registration under the name of            HELD:
         petitioner                                                               Since there was a violation of the Revised Forestry Code and the seizure
     5. There was also agreement that he would use the vehicle as he              was in accordance with law, the subject vehicles were validly deemed in
         paid for the same                                                        custodia legis. It could not be subject to an action for replevin. For it is
                                                                                  property lawfully taken by virtue of legal process and considered in the
All the abovementioned allegations of private respondent has been                 custody of the law, and not otherwise.
corroborated by witnesses. The trial court hence ruled in favor of the
private respondent and the CA affirmed this decision.                             37       SARMIENTO V. COURT OF APPEALS
                                                                                           250 SCRA 108
HELD:
It is true that the judgment in a replevin suit must only resolve in whom is      FACTS:
the right of possession. Primarily, the action of replevin is possessory in       Cruz was the owner of a parcel of land. Adjacent to this lot is one wherein
character and determines nothing more than the right of possession.               Sarmiento had a house built on. On trying to cause the relocation of her
However, when the title to the property is distinctly put in issue by the         lot, Cruz found out that Sarmiento was encroaching on her property. When
defendants plea and by reason of this policy to settle in one action all the     Cruz talked to Sarmiento about constructing a new fence, which will cover
conflicting claims of the parties to the possession of the property in            her true property, the latter vehemently refused to do so and threatened
controversy, the question of ownership may be resolved in the same                Cruz with legal action. For fear of being sued in court, she sought judicial
proceeding.                                                                       relief. The trial court decided in favor of Cruz. Sarmiento tried to assail
                                                                                  this decision by saying that the issue was on ownership of the portion of
Furthermore, a replevin action is primarily one for the possession of             land and thus, the action should have been an accion reivindicatoria and
personalty, yet it is sufficiently flexible to authorize a settlement of all      not forcible entry.
equities between the parties, arising or growing out of the main
controversy.    Thus, in an action for replevin where the defendant is            HELD:
adjudged to possession, he need not go to another forum to procure relief         A careful reading of the facts averred in said complaint filed by Cruz
for the return of the replevied property or secure judgment for the value of      reveals that the action is neither of forcible entry nor of unlawful detainer
the property in case the adjudged return thereof could not be had.                but essentially involves a boundary dispute, which must be resolved in an
                                                                                  accion reivindicatoria on the issue of ownership over the portion of a lot.
36        CALUB V. COURT OF APPEALS
          331 SCRA 55                                                             Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are distinct actions.
          FORCIBLE ENTRY                       UNLAWFUL DETAINER                  extension granted for the submission of the survey and failure to do so
One    is   deprived   of   physical    One unlawfully withholds possession       would prompt the issuance of the writ of execution. Upon failure of
possession of land or building by       thereof after the expiration or           petitioner to submit a survey report, the judge ordered the return of the
means of force, intimidation, threat,   termination of his right to hold          records of the case to the court of origin for disposal.
strategy or stealth                     possession under contract, express
                                        of implied                                HELD:
The possession is illegal from the      The possession was originally lawful      In forcible entry, one employs FISTS to deprive another physical
very beginning and the basic inquiry    but becomes unlawful by the               possession of land or building. Thus, plaintiff must allege and prove prior
centers on who has the prior            expiration or termination of the          physical possession of the property in litigation until deprived thereof by
possession de facto                     right to possess, hence the issue of      defendant. Sole question for resolution hinges on the physical or material
                                        rightful possession, is decisive for,     possession of the property. Neither a claim of juridical possession nor an
                                        in such action, the defendant is in       averment of ownership by the defendant can outrightly prevent the court
                                        actual possession and the plaintiffs     from taking cognizance of the case.             Ejectment cases proceed
                                        cause of action is the termination of     independently of any claim of ownership and the plaintiff needs merely to
                                        the defendants right to continue in      prove prior possession de facto and undue deprivation thereof.
                                        possession
                                                                                  In the present case, the lower court lacked jurisdiction in this case. First,
                                                                                  the house of petitioner was actually situated in the lot subject of the anti-
Cruz cannot belatedly claim that petitioners possession of the controverted
                                                                                  squatting case and not on the lot of the spouses. Second, the house has
portion was by mere tolerance.          The complaint didnt characterize
                                                                                  been in existence prior to the alleged date of forcible entry. Third, the
Sarmientos alleged entry on the landwhether legal or illegal.          The
                                                                                  respondents had knowledge of the existence of the house long before the
complaint admitted also of the fact that the fence had already preexisted
                                                                                  alleged date of entry.
on the lot when she acquired the same.
                                                                                  Forcible entry is a quieting process, and that the restrictive time bar is
This was definitely not a situation obtained in and gave rise to an
                                                                                  prescribed to complement the summary nature of the process. Indeed, the
ejectment suit for two reasons. First, forcible entry into the land is an
                                                                                  one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is
open challenge to the right of the lawful possessor, the violation of which
                                                                                  generally counted from the date of actual entry to the land. However,
right authorizes the speedy redress in the inferior court provided for in the
                                                                                  when entry is made through stealth, then the one-year period is counted
Rules. Second, if a forcible entry action in the court is allowed after the
                                                                                  from the time plaintiff knew about it. after the lapse of the one-year
lapse of a number of years, then the result may well be no action of
                                                                                  period, the party dispossessed of a parcel of land may file either an accion
forcible entry can really prescribe. No matter how long such defendant is
                                                                                  publiciana, which is a plenary action to recover the right to possession, or
in physical possession, the plaintiff may just throw in a demand, file a suit
                                                                                  an accion reivindicatoria, which is an action to recover ownership as well as
in court and summarily throw him out of the land.
                                                                                  possession.
38       BONGATO V. MALVAR
                                                                                  39       DE LA CRUZ V. COURT OF APPEALS
         387 SCRA 327
                                                                                           286 SCRA 230
FACTS:
                                                                                  FACTS:
Spouses Malvar filed a complaint for forcible entry against Bongato, for
                                                                                  Petitioner contracted a loan from Villanuevas parents, mortgaging the
allegedly unlawfully entering a parcel of land and constructed a house of
                                                                                  subject parcel of land as security. Years after, the parcel of land became
light materials thereon. The trial court ordered petitioner to vacate the lot
                                                                                  the subject for an application for registration by the Ramos brothers. They
and thereafter issued an order insofar as to determine the location of the
                                                                                  insisted that they had a better claim over the land than petitioner. After
houses involved in the civil case is the same with the one in the criminal
                                                                                  trial, the case was dismissed as the land has not been reclassified for other
case for anti-squatting. The judge made a warning that there will be no
                                                                                  purposes and remained a part of the forest reserve. Consequently, the
brothers were able to secure reclassification of the land and the same was         possession of it, even if to so would enable them to justify the
registered in their name as owners, and they later sold the land to                imprescriptibility of their action.
Villanueva. Thereafter, petitioner came to know of the registration and
filed a complaint, which was dismissed.                                            Furthermore, reconveyance is a remedy to those whose property has been
                                                                                   wrongfully registered in the name of another. Such recourse however
HELD:                                                                              cannot be availed of once the property has passed to an innocent
Petitioner possessed and occupied the land after it had been declared by           purchaser for value. For an action for reconveyance to prosper, the
the government as part of the forest reserve. In fact, the land remained           property should not have passed into the hands of an innocent purchaser
as part of the forest reserve until such time it was reclassified into             for value.
alienable or disposable land at the behest of the Ramoses. A positive act
of the government is needed to declassify land which is classified as forest,      41       IDOLOR V. COURT OF APPEALS
and to convert it into alienable and disposable land for other purposes.                    351 SCRA 399
Until such lands have been properly declared to be available for other
purposes, there is no disposable land to speak of. Absent the fact of              FACTS:
declassification prior to the possession and cultivation in good faith by          Idolor issued a deed of REM with right to extrajudicial foreclosure of the
petitioner, the property occupied by him remained classified as forest or          property upon failure to redeem the mortgage, in favor of De Guzman for a
timberland, which he could not have acquired by prescription.                      loan, which she secured. Upon her failure to pay, Guzman sought the
                                                                                   foreclosure of the REM.       The property was sold in public auction to
                                                                                   Gumersindo. Petitioner now sought the nullity of the proceedings for
40       PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY V. FERNANDEZ                           alleged irregularities. The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction
         358 SCRA 489                                                              enjoining those concerned from executing a final deed of sale and
                                                                                   consolidation of ownership.
FACTS:
The subject parcel of land was subject of an expropriation proceeding              HELD:
entered into by EPZA and the newly registered owners of the land. Private          Injunction is a preservative remedy aimed at protecting substantive rights
respondents sought the nullity of the documents executed as he alleged             and interests. Before an injunction can be issued, it is essential that the
that he was excluded from the extrajudicial partition of the estate,               following requisites be present:
originally owned by their predecessors. Petitioner sought the dismissal of              1. There must be a right in esse or the existence of a right to be
the complaint as it was allegedly barred by prescription. This was denied                   protected
by the trial court and the CA.                                                          2. The act against which the injunction is to be directed is a violation
                                                                                            of such right
HELD:                                                                              Hence, the existence of the right violated, is a prerequisite to the granting
An action for reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes 4 years from            of an injunction. Injunction is not designed to protect contingent or future
the discovery of the fraud; such discovery is deemed to have taken place           rights.
upon the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. Registration
of real property is considered constructive notice to all persons, and thus, a     The petitioner no longer has any proprietary right to speak of over the
four-year period shall be counted therefrom. The action for reconveyance           foreclosed property to entitle her to the issuance of a writ of injunction.
based on fraud has already prescribed.
                                                                                   42       CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS V. COURT OF
Even an action for reconveyance based on an implied constructive trust                      APPEALS
would have already prescribed. The imprescriptibility of an action for                      254 SCRA 220
reconveyance based on implied trust applies only when the plaintiff is in
possession of the property. However, private respondents are not in                FACTS:
possession of the disputed property. In fact, they dont even claim to be in
The subject lot of this case was formerly classified as timberland till the        occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land registration
time it was reclassified by the government as public land. Petitioners were        proceedings. the issuance of the decree of registration is part of the
then authorized to survey land, for purposes of subdivision into residential       registration proceedings.      In fact, it is supposed to end the said
lots. Meanwhile, NHA initiated expropriation proceedings including the             proceedings.      Consequently, any person unlawfully and adversely
subject lot. Petitioner intervened and said that instead of being paid             occupying said lot at any time up to the issuance of the final decree, may
through money, it preferred acquisition of any housing area of NHA. Upon           be subject to a judicial ejectment by means of a writ of possession and it is
learning of the annulment of the title over the same land, the NHA sought          the duty of the registration court to issue said writ when asked by the
the suspension of the expropriation proceedings. Thereafter, the SC finally        successful claimant.
resolved by annulling the title and declaring the subject lot to be public
land. The Bureau was furnished of the decision and according to an                 If the writ of possession issued in a land registration implies the delivery of
investigation, members of the petitioner was found settling in the land. A         the possession of the land to the successful litigant therein, a writ of
Presidential proclamation was then issued reserving the entire subject land        demolition must, likewise issue, especially considering that the latter writ is
for a slum improvement project of the NHA. This led to the rejection of the        but a complement of the latter, which, without said writ of execution would
survey submitted by petitioner and the demolition of the settlement                be ineffective.
constructed by members of the petitioner. This prompted petitioner to file
a case for forcible entry on which the trial court decided in its favor.           44       VENCILAO V. VANO
During the pendency of the civil case, a special patent was issued for the                  182 SCRA 492
entire subject land. The petitioner sought the execution of decision, which
was countered by a case for quieting of title by the NHA.                          FACTS:
                                                                                   Three consolidated cases are resolved, given that there are same parties
HELD:                                                                              and parcels of land in question.
As an extraordinary remedy, injunction is calculated to preserve or
maintain the status quo of things and is generally availed of to prevent           On the first case, it was tackled that the heirs of the late Juan Reyes filed
actual or threatened acts, until the merits of the case can be heard. As           an application for registration of the subject parcel of land.              A
such, injunction is accepted as a strong arm of equity or a transcendent           reconveyance case was filed against them by petitioners on the ground
remedy to be used cautiously, as it affects the respective rights of the           that they are true owners of thereof.
parties, and only upon full conviction on the part of the court of its extreme
necessity.                                                                         The second case involved the death of the administratix of the estate of the
                                                                                   owner of the subject land. After her death, a TCT was issued in the name
NHA was entitled to the writ of injunction because of the pendency of an           of Pedro Luspo, and another was issued in the name of several persons. A
appeal for forcible entry; the special patent issued to it by the president        writ of possession was issued by the trial court against the petitioners.
over the parcel of land.
                                                                                   HELD:
43       LUCERO V. LOOT                                                            Petitioners contend that they were not claimants-oppositors nor defeated
         25 SCRA 687                                                               oppositors in the said land registration case, as their names dont appear in
                                                                                   the amended application for registration. They have occupied the subject
FACTS:                                                                             parcels of land for more than 30 years which began long before the
The trial court granted a writ of possession in favor of Lucero. This was          application for registration; and that even after registration, they continued
opposed to by oppositors Loot but the court didnt see any merit in the            to possess the land.
same. Consequently, a writ of possession was issued.
                                                                                   In a registration case, the judgment confirming the title of the applicant
HELD:                                                                              and ordering its registration in his name necessarily carried with it the right
A writ of possession may be issued not only against the person who has             of ownership.     The issuance of the writ of possession is therefore
been defeated in a registration case but also against anyone adversely             sanctioned by existing laws in this jurisdiction and by the generally
accepted principle upon which the administration of justice rests. A writ of        relevant date, Guevarra sought recognition as a lawful tenant from the CAR
possession may be issued not only against the person who has been                   but such was dismissed as it was held that he wasnt a tenant thereof.
defeated in a registration case but also against anyone unlawfully and              Thereafter, Roxas filed a case for forcible entry against Guevarra, on which
adversely occupying the land or any portion thereof during the land                 he won and the court ordered Guevarra to vacate the lot. Meanwhile,
registration proceedings up to the issuance of the final decree.                    there was an altercation between Cabalag and Caisip over the cutting of
                                                                                    sugar cane. She was being asked to leave by Caisip but she refused.
45       GERMAN MANAGEMENT              AND    SERVICES      V.   COURT    OF       Thereafter, she was charged with grave coercion. When she was again
         APPEALS                                                                    seen in the Hacienda and weeding, she was forcibly dragged by policemen
         177 SCRA 495                                                               and Caisip. This prompted for the filing a case for grave coercion.
FACTS:                                                                              HELD:
Spouses Jose issued a power of attorney in favor of petitioner for the              Article 429 is inapplicable to the case at bar. The complainant didnt usurp
development of their parcel of land into a subdivision. Private respondents         or invade said lot. She had merely remained in possession thereof, even
were occupying the land and petitioner advised them to vacate but they              though the hacienda owner may have become its co-possessor. Appellants
refused.     Thereafter, petitioner continued their development and                 didnt repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion
construction. Respondents then filed a case for forcible entry. The trial           or usurpation of the property. They expelled the complainant from a
court dismissed the complaint and this was reversed by the CA.                      property on which she and her husband were in possession even before the
                                                                                    action for forcible entry was filed against them.
HELD:
Notwithstanding petitioners claim that it was duly authorized by the               47        HEIRS OF VENCILAO, SR. V. COURT OF APPEALS
owners to develop the subject property, private respondents as actual                         288 SCRA 574
possessors, can commence a forcible entry case against petitioner because
ownership is not in issue. Forcible entry is merely a quieting process, and         FACTS:
never determines the actual title to an estate. Title is not involved.              Petitioners sought the quieting of title, recovery of possession and
                                                                                    ownership over a parcel of land. They allege that they are the rightful
Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim ownership based on the             owners, having inherited the land from their father.            The private
muniment of title it presented, such evidence doesnt responsively address          respondents contend on the other hand that they are the rightful owners,
the issue of prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case. It must       getting rightful ownership from buying the land through a public auction by
be stated that regardless of the actual condition of title to the property, the     PNB. The trial court held in favor of the petitioners while the CA reversed
party in a peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong           the decision.
hand, violence or terror. Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can
recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatver may be              HELD:
the character of his prior possession, if he has in favor priority in time, he         1.     The rule is settled that prescription doesnt run against registered
has security that entitles him to remain on the property until he has been                    landa title, once registered, cannot be defeated even by
lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by accion publiciana or                    adverse, open and notorious possession.
accion reivindicatoria.                                                                  2.   In order that an action for recovery of ownership of real property
                                                                                              may prosper, the person who claims that he has a better right to
46       CAISIP V. PEOPLE                                                                     it must prove not only his ownership of the same but also
         36 SCRA 17                                                                           satisfactorily prove the identity thereof.
                                                                                         3.   As a general rule, where the certificate of title is in the name of
FACTS:                                                                                        the vendor when the land is sold, the vendee for value has the
Cabalag and her husband cultivated a parcel of land in Hacienda Palico,                       right to rely on what appears on the face of the title though, by
which was owned by Roxas y Cia. Caisip is the overseer of the land. The                       way of exception, the vendee is required to make the necessary
land cultivated was previously tenanted by the father of Cabalag. On a
          inquiries if there is anything in the certificate of title which indicate     where there appears to be an overlapping of boundaries, the actual size of
          any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property.                           the property gains importance.
     4.   Identity of the land doctrine
                                                                                        50       DOMINICA CUTANDA V. HEIRS OF ROBERTO CUTANDA
48        OCLARIT V. COURT OF APPEALS                                                            335 SCRA 418
          233 SCRA 239
                                                                                        FACTS:
FACTS:                                                                                  PR brought an action for recovery of possession of parcels of land they
Petitioners instituted an action for reconveyance against the heirs of Neri.            alleged to have been owned by their grandfather and later on inherited by
Previously, there was an agreement entered into by Neri with the heirs. In              his children. They intended to work personally on the lands but was
the said agreement, Neri was a vendee-a-retro who has been entrusted the                frustrated as it was being occupied by the petitioners. PR then prayed that
possession of parcel of land for 14 years. After said period, he would                  they be declared owners of 1/5 of the subject real properties and that
return possession to the petitioners. The trial court decided in favor of               petitioners be ordered to return to them said properties. Trial court held
petitioners.   The CA reversed, saying that petitioner failed to show                   that the petitioners owned the land through prescription.
preponderance of evidence to support their claim of absolute ownership.
                                                                                        HELD:
HELD:                                                                                   Private respondents action is barred by prescription. An accion publiciana
In able to maintain an action for recovery of ownership, the person who                 to recover the right to possession and to be declared owners of the subject
claims that he has a better right of the property must prove not only his               lands. Their complaint surely put in issue the ownership of the lands. It
ownership of the property claimed but also the identity thereof, fixing the             may thus be properly treated as an accion reivindicatoria. These two
identity of the land claimed by describing the location, area and boundaries            remedies must be availed of within 10 years from dispossession.
thereof.
                                                                                        51       SPOUSES LUIS CRUZ V. SPOUSES ALEJANDRO FERNANDO
What really defines a parcel of land isnt the area mentioned in its                             SR.
description but the boundaries therein laid down, as enclosing the land and                      DECEMBER 9, 2005
indicating its limits.
                                                                                        FACTS:
49        HEIRS OF JUAN OCLARIT V. COURT OF APPEALS                                     Spouses Cruz were the occupants of a front portion of a property. An
          233 SCRA 239                                                                  accion publiciana was filed against them by spouses Fernando, alleging that
                                                                                        they are the rightful owners thereof and asking that the Cruz spouses
FACTS:                                                                                  vacate the land and pay reasonable rent for the use thereof. The RTC
Oclarit has purchased a parcel of land on which there was no permanent                  ruled in favor of the spouses Fernando.
landmarks or boundaries. The property was just described in the deed of
sale. He then again purchased parcels of land, again without no clear                   HELD:
boundaries or landmarks. Thereafter, petitioners instituted action against              The absence of any formal deed of conveyance is a strong indication that
Balasabas for quieting of title. Having no permanent or clear boundaries                the parties didnt intend immediate transfer of ownership.
and failing to work on an area planted to palay, the private respondent
climbed coconut trees and placed markings. The petitioners moved for the                Petitioners dont have a superior right of ownership or possession to speak
quieting of title for worries on confusion on property.                                 of. Their occupation of the property was merely through the tolerance of
                                                                                        the owners.       Evidence on record shows that petitioners and their
HELD:                                                                                   predecessors were able to live and build their house on the property
Although it is true that what defines a piece of land is not the area                   through the permission and kindness of the previous owner. They have no
mentioned but the boundaries therein laid down, in controversial cases                  title or at the very least, a contract of lease over the property. Based as it
                                                                                        is was on mere tolerance, petitioners possession could neither ripen into
ownership nor operate to bar any action by respondents to recover                                                                      is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon
absolute possession thereof. A person who occupies the land of another at                                                              demand.
the latters forebearance or permission without any contract between them
RIGHT OF ACCESSION
Accession
Alluvium Avulsion Change of course of rivers Formation of islands Inclusion (engraftment) Confusion (liquids)
Tejido (weaving)
Pintura (painting)
Escritura (writing)
                  ACCESSION DISCRETA
(RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS PRODUCED BY                       CHARACTERISTIC OF THE EXPENSES REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 443
                       PROPERTY)                                                  They must have been used for production, gathering, or
                                                                                    preservation, not for the improvement of the property
Art. 441. To the owner belongs:                                                   They must have been necessary and not luxurious or excessive
   (1) The natural fruits;                                                    Art. 444. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as
                                                                              natural or industrial fruits.
   (2) The industrial fruits;
                                                                              With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb of
   (3) The civil fruits. (354)                                                the mother, although unborn. (357)
Art. 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil,            RULES FOR CIVIL FRUITS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM NATURAL AND
and the young and other products of animals.                                  INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
                                                                                 1. Civil fruits accrue daily and are therefore considered in the
Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through                    category of personal property; natural and industrial fruits, while
cultivation or labor.                                                                still growing, are real property
Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands            2. Civil fruits can be prorated while natural and industrial fruits
and other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or                  cannot ordinarily
other similar income. (355a)
                                                                                   RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO REAL PROPERTY
TECHNICAL MEANING OF FRUITS                                                                     (ACCESSION INDUSTRIAL)
    The term natural, civil and industrial fruits as defined by the Code
      are highly technical, therefore, when they are found in a final         Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another
      judgment, there can be no doubt as to their meaning                     and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the
                                                                              owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following
NATURAL FRUITS                                                                articles. (358)
    The spontaneous products of the soil
    The young and other products of animals                                  Art. 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by
                                                                              the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved. (359)
INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
    Those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor         Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or
                                                                              through another, plantings, constructions or works with the
YOUNG OF ANIMALS                                                              materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad
    The offspring of animals belong to the owner of the mother              faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. The
      applicable when the male and female belong to different owners          owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them only in
    This follows the maxim of pratus sequitor ventremthe offspring        case he can do so without injury to the work constructed, or
      follows the dam or mother                                               without the plantings, constructions or works being destroyed.
                                                                              However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the
Art. 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the            materials may remove them in any event, with a right to be
expenses made by a third person in their production, gathering,               indemnified for damages. (360a)
and preservation. (356)
Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,
sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as      Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person
his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the                who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer
indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one       subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who
who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who         made use of them has no property with which to pay.
sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be
obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of     This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right
the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if      granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants or
the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building          seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may
or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the          demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor.
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix        (365a)
the terms thereof. (361a)
                                                                           Art. 456. In the cases regulated in the preceding articles, good
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of        faith does not necessarily exclude negligence, which gives right to
another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to             damages under article 2176. (n)
indemnity. (362)
                                                                                               PROPERTY ACCESSION CHARTS
Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,                                C/O ATTY. FRANCIS AMPIL
planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the
work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to               RULES WHEN LANDOWNER (LO)-BUILDER/PLANTER/SOWER (BPS)
replace things in their former condition at the expense of the             MAKES CONSTRUCTIONS OR PLANTINGS OF ANOTHER (OM)
person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder                         LM-BPS                                    OM
or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper                     GOOD FAITH                             GOOD FAITH
rent. (363a)                                                               LO-BPS can acquire the materials OM is entitled to full payment for
                                                                           provided there is full payment        value of materials OR OM may
Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner                                              remove materials provided there is
is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower. (n)                                                   no substantial injury to the work
                                                                                                                 done
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to
                                                                                       BAD FAITH                             GOOD FAITH
reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the
                                                                           LO-BPS can acquire the materials OM is entitled to full payment for
land. (n)
                                                                           provided there is full payment plus value of materials plus damages OR
                                                                           damages                               OM may remove the materials even
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person
                                                                                                                 if there will be substantial injury to
who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the
                                                                                                                 the work done plus damages
part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall
                                                                                      GOOD FAITH                               BAD FAITH
be the same as though both had acted in good faith.
                                                                           LO-BPS can acquire the materials OM loses the materials without
                                                                           without paying for the value thereof indemnity and will be liable for
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner
whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without                   and will be entitled to damages due damages due to defects or inferior
                                                                           to defective or inferior quality of quality of materials
opposition on his part. (354a)
                                                                           materials
Art. 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder,                       BAD FAITH                               BAD FAITH
planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of article        Same as when the parties are in good faith
447 shall apply. (n)
RULES WHEN BPS BUILDS, PLANTS, SOWS ON THE LAND OF                              paying indemnity EXCEPT necessary      and liable to pay for damages.
ANOTHER (LM)                                                                    expenses for the preservation of the
           LANDOWNER                                BPS                         land and luxurious expenses (should    Entitled   to   reimbursement       for
           GOOD FAITH                          GOOD FAITH                       the LO want to appropriate the         necessary expenses for preservation
Option 1: To purchase whatever has To receive indemnity for the                 luxurious    improvements)      plus   of the land but no right of retention.
been built, planted, or sown after necessary, useful and luxurious              damages
paying indemnity which includes expenses        (if   LO  wants    to                                                  Entitled to reimbursement for useful
necessary      expenses,     useful appropriate      the    luxurious                                                  expenses but cannot remove useful
expenses, and luxurious expenses improvements) AND the right of                                                        improvements even if removal will
(if the LO wants to appropriate the retention over the land without                                                    not cause injury.
luxurious improvements)             obligation to pay rent until full
                                    payment of indemnity                                                               Not erntitled to reimbursement for
                                                                                                                       luxurious expenses EXCEPT when
                                       To remove useful improvements                                                   LO wants to acquire luxurious
                                       provided it doesn't cause any injury                                            improvements (value of which will
                                       (part of the right of retention)                                                be the one at the time LO enters
                                                                                                                       into possession)
                                       If LO doesn't appropriate luxurious
                                       improvements, BPS can remove the                                                Entitled   to   remove    luxurious
                                       same provided there is no injury to                                             improvements provided it will not
                                       the principal thing                                                             cause injury and LO doesn't want to
                                                                                                                       acquire them.
Option 2: To oblige the BP to buy      To purchase land at FMV when
the land OR the S to pay the proper    value is not considerably more than      Option 2: To oblige BP to buy land     Obliged to pay for land or proper
rent unless the value of the land is   that of building or trees                or S to pay proper rent plus           rent and pay for damages.
considerably more than that of the                                              damages
building or trees                      If BPS cannot pay purchase price of
                                       the land, LO can require BPS to          Option 3: To compel BPS to remove      Obliged to remove or demolish work
                                       remove whatever has been built,          or   demolish   work   done   plus     done at his expense and pay
                                       planted or sown.                         damages.                               damages.
                                                                                            BAD FAITH                              GOOD FAITH
                                       If the value of land is considerably     To acquire whatever has been built,    If LO acquires whatever has been
                                       more than that of the building or        planted   or   sown   by    paying     built, planted or sown, BPS must be
                                       trees, the BPS cannot be compelled       indemnity plus damages.                indemnified the value thereof plus
                                       to buy the land. In such case, BPS                                              damages.
                                       will pay reasonable rent if LO
                                       doesn't choose option 1.                                                        (If LO doesn't acquire whatever has
                                                                                                                       been built, planted or sown, BPS
                                       If BPS cannot pay the rent, LO can                                              cannot insist on purchasing land.)
                                       eject BPS from the land.
           GOOD FAITH                              BAD FAITH                                                           BPS can remove whatever has been
Option 1: To acquire whatever has      Loses whatever has been built,                                                  built, planted, or sown regardless of
been built, planted or sown without    planted or sown without indemnity                                               whether or not it will cause injury
                                                                                                                       and will be entitled to damages.
            BAD FAITH                                BAD FAITH                    Same as when both parties are in good faith
                                                                                  without          paying    damages but is entitled    they are in good faith.)
RULES WHEN LO, BPS,         AND OM ARE 3 DIFFERENT PERSONS                        indemnity       EXCEPT     to be imdemnity for
     LANDOWNER                        BPS                     OM                  necessary expenses for     necessary           and    Whatever is the choice
     GOOD FAITH                  GOOD FAITH            GOOD FAITH                 the preservation of the    luxurious     expenses     of the LO, OM has right
Option 1: To acquire        To receive indemnity To receive indemnity             land    and   luxurious    (should the LO want to     of receive indemnity
whatever     has   been     from LO with right of from     BPS    who     is      expenses (should the       appropriate luxurious      for value of materials
built, planted or sown,     retention   until full primarily   liable    for      LO want to appropriate     improvements)       and    from the BPS only. LO
provided     there     is   payment.               materials.                     the           luxurious    has no right of removal    is not subsidiary liable.
indemnity        (which                            If BPS is insolvent, to        improvements)      plus    even if removal will not
includes value of what                             proceed against LO             damages                    cause any damage.
has       been     built,                          who is subsidiary liable
planted, or sown, plus                                                            Option 2: To oblige BP     To buy the land or pay     If LO chooses Option 1,
value     of   materials                                                          to buy land or S to pay    proper rent and liable     OM has no right of
used.)                                                                            proper     rent    plus    to pay damages to LO.      removal even if there
                                                                                  damages                                               will be no injury or
Option 2:      To oblige    To buy land or to pay    To receive indemnity                                                               damage.        If   LO
the BP to buy land or S     proper rent.             from BPS only (LO is                                                               chooses Option 2, OM
to pay rent unless the                               not subsidiary liable)                                                             has right to remove
value of the land is                                 with right of retention                                                            provided there will be
more than that of the                                until full payment or                                                              no injury or damage.
building or trees
                                                     To remove materials if       Option 3: To compel        To demolish or remove      Liable    to    pay    for
                                                     there will be no injury      BPS to remove or           the work done and          damages        due      to
                                                     on building or trees         demolish work done         liable to    pay   for     defects     or    inferior
                                                     and will have material       plus damages.              damages.                   quality       of      the
                                                     rent lien against BPS                                                              materials.
                                                     for the payment of                BAD FAITH                 GOOD FAITH                  GOOD FAITH
                                                     value of the materials       To acquire what has        To receive indemnity       To receive indemnity
   GOOD FAITH                  GOOD FAITH                  BAD FAITH              been built, planted, or    from LO plus damages.      for    value     of   the
Same as above.              Same as above.           Whatever is the choice       sown     by      paying                               materials      principally
                                                     of the LO, the OM:           indemnity plus liable to                              from the BPS and in
                                                     1. Loses             the     pay damages.                                          case BPS is insolvent,
                                                          materials in favor                                                            subsidiarily from LO
                                                          of BPS and                  BAD FAITH                 GOOD FAITH                    BAD FAITH
                                                     2. Will have no right        Same as above.             Same as above.             No right to recover
                                                          to          receive                                                           indemnity for value of
                                                          indemnity from LO                                                             the materials from BPS
                                                          or BPS                                                                        nor LO
     GOOD FAITH                  BAD FAITH                 BAD FAITH
Option 1: To acquire        BPS loses what has       (Since both BPS and          N.B C/O ATTY. AMPIL:
whatever     has  been      been built, planted or   OM are in bad faith,             1. The court cannot order or make the choice for the landowner but
built, planted or sown      sown plus liable for     treat them both as if               can compel to make the choice.
FACTS:                                                                             HELD:
Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land wherein he built an apartment            1.     Unless one is versed in the science of surveying, no one can
complex. Due to his failure to pay for realty taxes, his land was sold in a                  determine the precise extent or location of the property by merely
public auction and was sold to spouses Nuguid. He moved for the setting                      examining his proper title.
aside of the auction but was denied.                                                    2.   The supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner
                                                                                             doesn't militate against its right to claim the status of builder in
HELD:                                                                                        good faith.
         Article 448 doesn't apply to a case where the owner of the land is            3.   Bad faith isnt imputable to a registered owner of a land when a
          the BPS who then later loses ownership of the land by sale or                      part of his building encroaches upon a builders land
          auction.
         Nevertheless, the provision therein on indemnity may be applied          55        MANOTOK REALITY V. TECSON
          by analogy considering that the primary intent of this provision is                164 SCRA 587
          to avoid a state of forced ownership.
         The current market value of the improvements which should be             FACTS:
          made the basis of reimbursement to the builder in good faith             Private respondent in an earlier dispute was held to be a builder in good
         The right to retain the improvements while the corresponding             faith and the petitioner was adjudged to reimburse with PR having right of
          indemnity is not paid implies the tenancy or possession in fact of       retention. He filed a motion to exercise option but was opposed since the
          the land on which it is built, planted or sown and retention of          property were burned during a fire.
          ownership of the improvements, and necessarily, the income
          therefrom                                                                HELD:
                                                                                   An issuance of a writ of execution is proper even if private respondent was
53        SPOUSES BENITEZ V. CA                                                    adjudged to a builder in good faith or peculiar circumstances supervened.
          266 SCRA 242                                                             The option belongs to the landowner to begin with.
    3.   If new owners refuse to sell, their refusal would be contrary to                    a.   Within the territorial waters or maritime zone or
         lawthe adjacent owners have a preemptive right over the old                             jurisdiction of the PhilippinesSTATE
         bed                                                                                  b. Outside the jurisdictionthe first country to occupy
              a. In case of the government, it has the right to return the                        effectively
                 river to its former coursefollowing the Water Code                2.   If formed on lakes, navigable or floatable riversSTATE
                                                                                    3.   If formed on non-navigable or non-floatable rivers
Art. 462. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes,                            a. If nearer in margin to one bank, owner of nearer margin
opens a new bed through a private estate, this bed shall become of                                is sole owner
public dominion. (372a)                                                                       b. If equidistant, the island shall be divided longitudinally in
                                                                                                  halves
RULE IS NEW RIVER BED IS ON PRIVATE ESTATE
    Even if the new bed is on private property the bed becomes                NAVIGABLE OR FLOATABLE RIVER
       property of public dominion, just as the old bed had been of public         If useful for floatage and commerce, whether the tides affect the
       dominion before the abandonment                                               water or not
Art. 463.     Whenever the current of a river divides itself into              RULE TO FOLLOW IF A NEW ISLAND IS FORMED BETWEEN THE
branches,     leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the            OLDER ISLAND AND THE BANK
owner of     the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a               The owner of the older island is the riparian owner and if the new
portion of   land is separated from the estate by the current. (374)                  island is nearer in margin the older isaldn, the owner of the older
                                                                                      island should be considered also the owner of the new island
FORMATION OF ISLAND BY THE BRANCHING OFF OF A RIVER
   1. May be isolated from the rest                                                               CASE DIGESTS: ACCESSION NATURAL
   2. Or may be separated from the rest
                                                                               63        VIAJAR V. CA
THREE    PARTS OF A RIVER                                                                168 SCRA 405
   1.     Water
   2.     River bed                                                            FACTS:
   3.     River bank                                                           Spouses Ladrido were owners of a registered land. Spouses Teh were also
                                                                               owners of a registered land. The latter sold the land to Viajar. During a
Art. 464. Islands which may be formed on the seas within the                   relocation survey, it was found out that the land was being occupied by
jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or                 Ladrido. It was found out also that the 2 parcels of land were separated by
floatable rivers belong to the State. (371a)                                   the riverone portion was being possessed by the defendant together with
                                                                               the old river bed.
Art. 465. Islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial
deposits are formed in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers,                 HELD:
belong to the owners of the margins or banks nearest to each of                Registration under the Torrens system doesn't protect the riparian owner
them, or to the owners of both margins if the island is in the middle          against the dimunition of the area of his registered land through gradual
of the river, in which case it shall be divided longitudinally in              changes in the course of an adjoining stream.
halves. If a single island thus formed be more distant from one
margin than from the other, the owner of the nearer margin shall               64        AGUSTIN V. IAC
be the sole owner thereof. (373a)                                                        187 SCRA 218
Cagayan River separates Solana on the west and Tuguegarao on the east.          67      REPUBLIC V. CA
Agustin was the owner of the eastern lot while the western lot was owned                131 SCRA 532
by the private respondent. Through the years, the Cagayan river eroded
the eastern portion depositing the alluvion to the western portion. After a     FACTS:
big flood, the river cut through the lot of private respondent, whose lands     Subject land was 20 meters away from the shores of Laguna de Bay. It
were transferred to the eastern lot. The private respondent tried to            was owned by Benedicto del Rio. After his death, it was acquired by
cultivate but they were stopped by the men of Agustin.                          Santos del Rio. Private oppositors sought permission and obtained the
                                                                                same to construct duck houses. They violated agreement by consructing
HELD:                                                                           residential houses. Santos then sought to register the land which was
Accretion belongs to the riparian owners upon whose lands the alluvial          opposed. The oppositors was able to obtain sales application on the land.
deposits were made.                                                             The director of Lands alleged that since a portion of the land is submerged
                                                                                in water 4 to 5 months, then it forms part of the public domain.
65      BINALAY V. MANALO
        195 SCRA 374                                                            HELD:
                                                                                According to the Law of Waters, the natural bed or basin of lakes, ponds,
FACTS:                                                                          or pools is the covered by their waters when at their highest ordinary
Judge Taccad owned a parcel of landon the west, bordering on the               depthregular, common, natural, which occurs almost or most of the time
Cagayan River, on the east, the national road. The western portion would        during the year.
occasionally go under the waters and reappear during the dry season.
Manalo purchased the land. A relocation survey was conducted during the         Laguna de Bay is a lake and that part around it which becomes covered
rainy season, so the survey didn't cover the submerged land. The sketch         with water 4 to 5 months a year, not due to tidal action, but due to rains
would show that the river branches through the west and east, leaving a         cannot be considered as part of the bed or basin of Laguna de Bay nor as a
strip of land. The land was then surveyed into two 2 lots. One of these is      foreshore land. Property not being so, the land is registrable.
being claimed by Manalo through accretion.
                                                                                68      HEIRS OF NAVARRO V. IAC
HELD:                                                                                   268 SCRA 74
According to the Law of Waters, the natural bed or channel of a creek or
river is the ground covered by its waters during the highest floods.            FACTS:
                                                                                Pascual filed an application for lease of a foreshore land. Such was denied.
This being the case, the subject land couldn't have been sold to Manalo,        Navarro then sought approval for fishpond application which was
being part of the public domain.                                                consequently approved. Pascual then later sought registration of land, he
                                                                                claims to be from accretion. His application was denied for land sought to
66      REPUBLIC V. CA                                                          be registered is public domain.
        132 SCRA 514
                                                                                                               MANILA BAY
FACTS:                                                                                                             N
Respondents sought the registration of land adjacent to their fishpond.
They are the registered owners of parcel of lot bordering on the Bocaue
and Meycauyan rivers. The lower and appellate court allowed registration
but this was opposed by the government.
HELD:
There is no accretion if it is caused by man-made causes.                       HELD:
                                                                                Accretion through the action of the sea forms part of the public domain.
69       GRANDE V. CA                                                             FACTS:
         5 SCRA 524                                                               A parcel of land was dug by the government for the construction of a canal
                                                                                  to streamline the river. Baes eventually bought the land, which was
                                                                                  subdivided into 3 parcels. The middle parcel covered the canal. The
FACTS:                                                                            government gave him another equivalent parcel as compensation. After
Petitioners were the registered owners of a parcel of land with the Cagayan       resurvey, it was discovered that there were errors. New TCTs were issued
River at the NE boundary. Petitioners instituted then an action for quieting      to represent the enlargements. Government opposed as the lots were
of title against respondents over the alluvium in the NE boundary.                allegedly unlawfully enlarged. Baes averred that he should own dried up
                                                                                  land as the creek was discovered to the canal in his property.
HELD:
The alluvium is not automatically registered.                                     HELD:
                                                                                  If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss
70       REYNANTE V. CA                                                           of his property due to natural causes, all the more reason to compensate
         207 SCRA 794                                                             him when the change in the course of river is effected through artificial
                                                                                  means.
FACTS:
Petitioner was the tenant over a fishpond.          During his tenancy, he        72       JAGUALING V. CA
constructed a nipa hut and took care of the sasahan. This parcel of land                   194 SCRA 607
was located between the fishpond and Meycauyan river. After the death of
the original landlord, heirs made petitioner sign an agreement surrendering       FACTS:
the fishpond for consideration.      when he was being asked to leave             Eduave owned a parcel of land which later was eroded due to a typhoon
consequently, he refused to do so.                                                and through the movement of land deposit. Eduave granted defendants to
                                                                                  plant corn and bananas. She also hired a surveyor to put monuments.
HELD:                                                                             She also paid taxes. Here comes petitioner who opposes the claim of
Failure to register the acquired alluvial deposit subjects it to ownership by     ownership claiming the typhoon caused the formation of island, the same
acquisitive prescription.                                                         they occupied for 15 years now.
70       RONQUILLO V. CA                                                          HELD:
         195 SCRA 433                                                             The island formed belongs to the owner of the land with the nearest
                                                                                  margin.
FACTS:
Plaintiff owned a titled lot adjacent to a dried up land of Estero Calubcub.      If the riparian owner fails to assert his claim, it could be open to adverse
Roldan occupied the titled lot. After a relocation survey, it was found out       possession.
that petitioner was occupying a portion of land and the dried up land of
Estero Calubcub.                                                                       RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO MOVABLE PROPERTY
       Process by virtue of which 2 movable things belonging to different     Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment
        owners are united in such a way that they form a single object         or perfection of the other, is much more precious than the principal
                                                                               thing, the owner of the former may demand its separation, even
DIFFERENT KINDS OF ADJUNCTION                                                  though the thing to which it has been incorporated may suffer
   1. Inclusion/engraftment                                                    some injury. (378)
   2. Soldadura/soldering
   3. Escritura/writing                                                        RULE WHERE THERE CAN BE SEPARATION WITHOUT INJURY
   4. Pintura/painting                                                             There is no real adjunction
   5. Weaving/tejido                                                               In the second paragraph, if the accessory is much more precious
                                                                                     than the principal, then there can be removal although with injury
Art. 467. The principal thing, as between two things incorporated,
is deemed to be that to which the other has been united as an                  Art. 470. Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made the
ornament, or for its use or perfection. (376)                                  incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose the thing incorporated and
                                                                               shall have the obligation to indemnify the owner of the principal
Art. 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the                  thing for the damages he may have suffered.
preceding article which of the two things incorporated is the
principal one, the thing of the greater value shall be so considered,          If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the principal
and as between two things of equal value, that of the greater                  thing, the owner of the accessory thing shall have a right to choose
volume.                                                                        between the former paying him its value or that the thing
                                                                               belonging to him be separated, even though for this purpose it be
In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and             necessary to destroy the principal thing; and in both cases,
lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment               furthermore, there shall be indemnity for damages.
shall be deemed the accessory thing. (377)
                                                                               If either one of the owners has made the incorporation with the
TEST TO DETERMINE WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL AND WHICH IS THE                      knowledge and without the objection of the other, their respective
ACCESSORY                                                                      rights shall be determined as though both acted in good faith.
   1. That to which the other has been united as an ornament, or for its       (379a)
       use, or perfection
   2. That of greater value                                                    Art. 471. Whenever the owner of the material employed without his
   3. That of greater volume                                                   consent has a right to an indemnity, he may demand that this
   4. That which has greater merits                                            consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value, and in all
                                                                               other respects, to that employed, or else in the price thereof,
SPECIAL RULE                                                                   according to expert appraisal. (380)
    In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and
       lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment        HOW INDEMNITY IS PAID
       shall be deemed the accessory thing. (377)                                  Either by delivery of the thing equal in kind and value OR
                                                                                   Payment of price as appraised by experts
IF THE ADJUNCTION CONCERNS THREE OR MORE THINGS                                    This rule is applicable if there was no consent of the owner
     Determine which really is the principal
     All the rest should be considered as accessories                         Art. 472. If by the will of their owners two things of the same or
                                                                               different kinds are mixed, or if the mixture occurs by chance, and in
Art. 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without                  the latter case the things are not separable without injury, each
injury, their respective owners may demand their separation.                   owner shall acquire a right proportional to the part belonging to
him, bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused.            Acquires        the        accessory,   Loses the accessory but has a right
(381)                                                                      indemnifying the owner of the           to indemnity for the value of the
                                                                           accessory for the value thereof.        accessory.
Art. 473. If by the will of only one owner, but in good faith, two
things of the same or different kinds are mixed or confused, the           Except: when value of accessory is      Has a right to demand separation
rights of the owners shall be determined by the provisions of the          much more precious than the             even if it causes injury to principal
preceding article.                                                         principal thing                         thing.
If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith,         Except: When still separable, may       May demand separation.
he shall lose the thing belonging to him thus mixed or confused,           demand separation. (no adjunction
besides being obliged to pay indemnity for the damages caused to           anyway)
the owner of the other thing with which his own was mixed. (382)
                                                                           B. OWNER OF PRINCIPAL IN
Art. 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another in         GOOD FAITH BUT OWNER OF
whole or in part in order to make a thing of a different kind, shall       ACCESSORY IN BAD FAITH
appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own, indemnifying                                                    Loses the thing and has liability for
the owner of the material for its value.                                   Acquires the accessory and has a        damages.
                                                                           right to indemnity for damages he
If the material is more precious than the transformed thing or is of       may have suffered.
more value, its owner may, at his option, appropriate the new thing        C. OWNER OF PRINCIPAL IN
to himself, after first paying indemnity for the value of the work, or     BAD FAITH AND OWNER OF
demand indemnity for the material.                                         ACCESSORY IN GOOD FAITH
If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the       Pay for the accessory.                  Option 1: May demand the owner
material shall have the right to appropriate the work to himself                                                   of the principal to pay for the value
without paying anything to the maker, or to demand of the latter                                                   of the accessory plus damages.
that he indemnify him for the value of the material and the
damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the                    Must separate even the thing is         Option 2: Demand separation even
material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the              destroyed.                              if it causes the destruction of the
latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than                                              principal thing plus damages.
that of the material. (383a)                                               D. BOTH IN BAD FAITH
Art. 475. In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be duly       Same as if both are in Good Faith
appreciated. (n)
                                                                                                           MIXTURE
                                                                            OWNER WHO CAUSED MIXTURE             OWNER OF THE THING MIXED
           ACCESSION CHARTS FOR MOVABLE PROPERTY
                                                                                      (OWNER #1)                     INTO (OWNER #2)
                    C/O LUIS MARTIN TAN
                                                                           A. BOTH ARE IN GOOD FAITH,
                                                                           MIXTURE IS EITHER BY CHANCE
       ADJUNCTION/CONJUNCTION (ART. 466 & 469-470)                         OR CHOICE
     RIGHTS OF OWNER OF         RIGHTS OF OWNER OF
          PRINCIPAL                  ACCESSORY                             Each owner acquires a right             Each owner acquires a right
A. BOTH ARE IN GOOD FAITH                                                  proportional to the part belonging to   proportional to the part belonging
                                                                           him, bearing in mind the value of       to him, bearing in mind the value of
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or                 Art. 482. If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in
interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the                  danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged to demolish it or to
action. He need not be in possession of said property.                            execute the necessary work in order to prevent it from falling.
NECESSARY FOR TITLE OF PLAINTIFF                                                  If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the
    Plaintiff must have either equitable or legal ownership over the             administrative authorities may order the demolition of the
      property                                                                    structure at the expense of the owner, or take measures to insure
                                                                                  public safety. (389a)
 IF PLAINTIFF IN POSSESSION                   IF PLAINTIFF NOT IN
                                                   POSSESSION                     Art. 483. Whenever a large tree threatens to fall in such a way as to
Period doesn't prescribe                Period prescribes                         cause damage to the land or tenement of another or to travelers
                                                                                  over a public or private road, the owner of the tree shall be obliged
Only right is to remove or prevent      Aside from being given the right to       to fell and remove it; and should he not do so, it shall be done at
cloud.                                  remove or prevent cloud, he may           his expense by order of the administrative authorities. (390a)
                                        also bring an ordinary action for
                                        ejectment,        publiciana     or       Art. 1723. The engineer or architect who drew up the plans and
                                        reinvidicatoria within the proper         specifications for a building is liable for damages if within fifteen
                                        prescriptive periods                      years from the completion of the structure, the same should
                                                                                  collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and specifications, or
Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a                  due to the defects in the ground. The contractor is likewise
cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation                 responsible for the damages if the edifice falls, within the same
has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by                    period, on account of defects in the construction or the use of
extinctive prescription.                                                          materials of inferior quality furnished by him, or due to any
                                                                                  violation of the terms of the contract. If the engineer or architect
Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he              supervises the construction, he shall be solidarily liable with the
may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses                  contractor.
that may have redounded to the plaintiff's benefit.
                                                                                  Acceptance of the building, after completion, does not imply waiver
N.B: General rule based on equity                                                 of any of the cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in
                                                                                  the preceding paragraph.
The action must be brought within ten years following the collapse             74      SIARI VALLEY ESTATE V. LUCASAN
of the building. (n)                                                                   97 PHIL 987
                                                                               FACTS:
ENUMERATION OF LIABILITIES                                                     Cattle were driven to the adjoining ranch and the owner of the cattle
   1. Engineer or architect                                                    sought to recover the same.
          a. Liable for damages if within a PERIOD OF 15 YEARS
              FROM THE COMPLETION OF THE STRUCTURE, the same                   HELD:
              should collapse by reason of a defect in those plans and         One who has stole a part of the stolen money must have taken the larger
              specifications or due to the defects of the ground               sum lost by the offended party.
          b. Shall be solidarily liable for defects that may arise during
              construction if they supervised the same                         If the commingling of two things is made in bad faith, the one responsible
   2. Contractor                                                               for it will lose his share.
          a. Shall be liable for the same period on account of defects
              in the construction or the use of materials of inferior          75      AGUIRRE V. PHENG
              quality furnished by him, or due to violations of the terms              18 SCRA 18
              of the contract
                                                                               FACTS:
NOTES:                                                                         Aldabas sold to Aguirre a steel tank but the latter wasn't able to take
    Acceptance of the building doesn't constitute a waiver of any             possession. Then the steel tank was sold by Aguirre to Gabriel who
       cause of action by reason of any defect mentioned in the                subsequently sold it to Leonora and Company and eventually was sold to
       preceding paragraph                                                     NASSO. Aguirre notified NASSO of its claim of ownership and thus, it
    Action must be brought within 10 years following the collapse of          withheld payment to Leonora. In both actions, Aguirre was held to be the
       the building                                                            owner and entitled to P900.
HELD:                                                                          HELD:
There are no means to distinguish the palay owned by Santos and                An action to quiet title doesn't prescribe when the land is in possession of
Tiongson. This being the case, each owner shall acquire a right in the         the plaintiff.
mixture proportionate to the part belonging to him, according to the value
of the things mixed or commingled.                                             77      TITONG V. CA
         287 SCRA 102                                                              Aviles was the owner of this parcel of land and was in actual possession.
                                                                                   Carlos, with the intent of creating a color of title over the land, constructed
FACTS:                                                                             bamboo fences and moved the earthen dikes. This prompted the owner to
Titong filed an action for quieting of title over a 20000 hectare parcel of        file an action for quieting of title.
land. The land was adjudged in favor of respondents Lacerio.
                                                                                   HELD:
HELD:                                                                              Boundary disputes are not cognizable in a special civil action to quiet title.
The ground or reason for filing a complaint for quieting of title must be an
instrument, record, claim or encumberance or proceeding.                           81       OBLEA V. CA
                                                                                            244 SCRA 101
78       PINGOL V. CA
         226 SCRA 118                                                              FACTS:
                                                                                   Melencios and Wicos co-owned a parcekl of land. This was allegedly
FACTS:                                                                             bought by Esteban from a certain Ramos, the alleged administratix of
Pingol owned a parcel of land, half of its undivided portion he sold               Melencio and Pura Melencios estate. Oblea was leasing then a building on
Donasco. Later, the land was separated from the mother lot. Donasco                the subject lot and eventually bought it from Estebans son. Esteban then
died, leaving a large unpaid balance for the land. The heirs filed an action       filed an ejectment case to which he won. The registered owners then sold
for specific performance. Pingol then was asking for a larger amount and           the land to Oblea and they instituted an action for quieting of title against
didn't want to accept payment of balance.                                          Esteban.
HELD:                                                                              HELD:
Although the complaint filed was an action for specific performance, it was        An action for quieting of title before the RTC doesn't divest the MTC of its
actually an action to quiet title. A cloud has been cast on the title. Despite     jurisdiction to hear the case for ejectment.
the fact that title has been conferred to them through the sale, the
petitioners refused to receive the tender of payment being made by them.           Further, the subsequent acquisition of ownership of the property is not a
                                                                                   supervening event that will bar the execution of the judgment in a case of
79       GALLAR V. HUSSAIN                                                         unlawful detainer.
         20 SCRA 186
                                                                                   82       GAPACAN V. OMIPET
FACTS:                                                                                      387 SCRA 383
Teodoro sold to Chichirita with right to repurchase. Former failed to
repuchase the property but the same was purchased by his sister.                   FACTS:
Thereafter, Graciana transferred her rights to Gallar in exchange of a cow.        Gapacan was the primitive possessor of a parcel of land. He declared the
                                                                                   land for taxation purposes. He had 2 children. His son tried his luck in the
HELD:                                                                              mines and his sister was left to take care of the father. Later, when the
This action is not for specific performance but to quiet title, to remove the      son returned, he executed an affidavit of transfer of real property,
cloud cast on appellees ownership as a result of appellants refusal to           allegedly thumbmarked by his sisters husband. Since then, his family
recognize the sale made by their predecessor. And as the plaintiff is in           cultivated the property. When his sister tried to cultivate the land, an
possession, the action is imprescriptible.                                         action for forcible entry was filed against her.
83       ROBLES V. CA                                                              prescribe. A petition for quieting title although essentially an action for
         328 SCRA 97                                                               reconveyance, should not be dismissed on the ground of prescription, if it
                                                                                   is alleged that the plaintiff is in possession of the property.
FACTS:
An action for quieting of title was filed by petitioner against Santos. The        86       NAKPIL AND SONS V. CA
subject land was inherited from their father. Their brother was able to                     144 SCRA 596
mortgage the land and upon failure to pay, the REM was foreclosed. They
later knew about the REM and foreclosure and subsequent sale to Santos.            FACTS:
                                                                                   PBA commissioned petitioner to construct building. In a very strong
HELD:                                                                              earthquake, severe damage was suffered by the building. PBA sued for
A co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of other co-owners             damages. Expert witness attested that the building was constructed and
absent any clear indication of repudiation of co-ownership.                        planned defectively.
An action to quiet title is a common law remedy for the removal of any             HELD:
cloud or doubt or uncertaintiy on the title to real property.                      One who negligently creates a dangerous condition cannot escape liability
                                                                                   for the natural and probable consequences thereof, although the act of a
84       METROPOLITAN BANK V. ALEJO                                                third person, or an act of God for which he is not responsible, intervenes to
         364 SCRA 812                                                              precipitate the loss.
FACTS:                                                                             As already discussed, the destruction was not purely an act of God. Truth
There is an existing action to nullify the TCT of the spouses. During the          to tell hundreds of ancient buildings in the vicinity were hardly affected by
pendency, they obtained from the bank a loan secured by a REM over the             the earthquake. Only one thing spells out the fatal difference; gross
subject land. Upon their failure to pay, the REM was foreclosed. Upon the          negligence and evident bad faith, without which the damage would not
registration, the bank was informed of the decision to declare the TCT null        have occurred.
and void.
                                                                                   WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby MODIFIED and
HELD:                                                                              considering the special and environmental circumstances of this case, We
A cloud on title is a semblance of title which appears in some legal form          deem it reasonable to render a decision imposing, as We do hereby
but which is in fact unfounded. In this case, the judgment cannot be               impose, upon the defendant and the third-party defendants (with the
considered as a cloud on petitioners title or interest over the real property     exception of Roman Ozaeta) a solidary (Art. 1723, Civil Code, Supra, p.
covered by the TCT, which doesn't even have a semblance of being a title.          10) indemnity in favor of the Philippine Bar Association of FIVE MILLION
                                                                                   (P5,000,000.00) Pesos to cover all damages (with the exception of
85       SPOUSES BENITO V. SAQUITAN-RUIZ                                           attorney's fees) occasioned by the loss of the building (including interest
         394 SCRA 250                                                              charges and lost rentals) and an additional ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND
                                                                                   (P100,000.00) Pesos as and for attorney's fees, the total sum being
FACTS:                                                                             payable upon the finality of this decision. Upon failure to pay on such
The spouses sold to Ruiz a parcel of land but upon repeated demands, they          finality, twelve (12%) per cent interest per annum shall be imposed upon
failed to deliver the land. It was known that they had the land subdivided         afore-mentioned amounts from finality until paid. Solidary costs against the
into portions to the prejudice of Ruiz. This prompted Ruiz to file a               defendant and third-party defendants (except Roman Ozaeta).
complaint for specific performance and declaration of nullity with damages.
                                                                                                              CO-OWNERSHIP
HELD:
If a person claiming to be the owner of a wrongfully registered parcel of
land is in actual possession, the right to seek reconveyance doesn't
Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an                      Contrary stipulation is void
undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.                            Each co-owner shares proportionately in the accretion or alluvium
                                                                                   of the property
In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall      Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common,
be governed by the provisions of this Title. (392)                         provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is
                                                                           intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-
CO-OWNERSHIP                                                               ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according
    State where an undivided thing or right belongs to two or more        to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed
      persons                                                              by agreement, express or implied. (394a)
    Right of common dominion which 2 or more persons have over a
      spiritual, ideal part of a thing which is not physically divided     EACH CO-OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR THE
                                                                           PURPOSE INTENDED
SOURCES OF CO-OWNERSHIP                                                        The interest of the co-ownership must be impaired or prejudiced
   1. By law                                                                   And the co-owners must not be prevented from using it
   2. By contract
   3. By chance                                                            Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in
   4. By occupation or occupancy                                           ejectment. (n)
   5. By succession or will
                                                                           Art. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-
CHARACTERISTICS OF CO-OWNERSHIP                                            owners to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing
    There must be more than one subject or owner                          or right owned in common and to the taxes. Any one of the latter
    There is one physical whole divioded into ideal shares                may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of
    Each ideal share is definite in amount but is not physically          his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the
      segregated from the rest                                             expenses and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it is
    Regarding the physical whole, each co-owner must respect each         prejudicial to the co-ownership. (395a)
      other in the common use, enjoyment, or preservation of the
      physical whole                                                       EXPENSES FOR PRESERVATION
    Regarding the ideal share, each co-owner holds almost absolute            A co-owner has a right to compel the others to share in the
      control over the same                                                      expenses of preservation, even if incurred without prior
    It is not a juridical person                                                notification to them but he must notify if practicable
    There is no mutual agency                                                 Covers only necessary expenses
    There is no extinguishment upon the death of any co-owner
    A co-owner is in a sense a trustee for the other co-owners            A CO-OWNER MAY EXEMPT HIMSELF
                                                                                By renouncing so much of his undivided share as may be
Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in              equivalent to the share of the expenses and taxes
the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any
stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.                   Art. 489. Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of
                                                                           the co-owners, but he must, if practicable, first notify his co-
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall          owners of the necessity for such repairs. Expenses to improve or
be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved. (393a)                   embellish the thing shall be decided upon by a majority as
                                                                           determined in Article 492. (n)
SHARES IN BENEFITS OR CHARGES
    Share is proportional to the interest of each                         CONSENT REQUIREMENTS
    1.   ACTS OF PRESERVATIONno consent requirement                      Art. 492. For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing
    2.   ACTS OF ADMINISTRATIONfinancial majority                        owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners
    3.   ACTS OF ALTERATIONall must consent                              shall be binding.
Art. 490. Whenever the different stories of a house belong to             There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the
different owners, if the titles of ownership do not specify the terms     co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object of
under which they should contribute to the necessary expenses and          the co-ownership.
there exists no agreement on the subject, the following rules shall
be observed:                                                              Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the
                                                                          majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property
   (1) The main and party walls, the roof and the other things            owned in common, the court, at the instance of an interested party,
used in common, shall be preserved at the expense of all the              shall order such measures as it may deem proper, including the
owners in proportion to the value of the story belonging to each;         appointment of an administrator.
    (2) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor of        Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-
his story; the floor of the entrance, front door, common yard and         owners, and the remainder is owned in common, the preceding
sanitary works common to all, shall be maintained at the expense          provision shall apply only to the part owned in common. (398)
of all the owners pro rata;
                                                                          NOTE: An act of administration pertains to management and useful
    (3) The stairs from the entrance to the first story shall be          expenses
maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata, with the
exception of the owner of the ground floor; the stairs from the first     Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part
to the second story shall be preserved at the expense of all, except      and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
the owner of the ground floor and the owner of the first story; and       therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute
so on successively. (396)                                                 another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are
                                                                          involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with
PERPENDICULAR OWNERSHIP                                                   respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may
    Different stories belong to different owners                         be alloted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-
                                                                          ownership. (399)
Art. 491. None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the
others, make alterations in the thing owned in common, even               RIGHT WITH RESPECT TO THE IDEAL OR PROPORTIONATE SHARE
though benefits for all would result therefrom. However, if the               Deals nto with the right to the whole property but only with the
withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is                   right to the IDEAL or metaphysical share of each co-owner
clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford
adequate relief. (397a)                                                   RULES REGARDING THE IDEAL SHARE
                                                                             1. Each co-owner must have full ownership of his part and his share
ALTERATIONS                                                                      of the fruits and benefits
   1. Change which is more or less permanent                                 2. He may alienate, assign or mortgage his ideal share but of course
   2. Which changes the use of the thing                                         without prejudice to the exercise of the others of their right of
   3. Which prejudices the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by            legal redemption
      others                                                                 3. He may even substitute another person for the enjoyment except
                                                                                 when personal rights are involved
                                                                             4. He may exempt himself from necessary expenses and taxes by
                                                                                 renouncing part of his interest in the co-ownership
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a                    Art. 495. Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding article,
certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This           the co-owners cannot demand a physical division of the thing
term may be extended by a new agreement.                                        owned in common, when to do so would render it unserviceable for
                                                                                the use for which it is intended. But the co-ownership may be
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall             terminated in accordance with Article 498. (401a)
not exceed twenty years.
                                                                                Art. 496. Partition may be made by agreement between the parties
Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.              or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be governed by the Rules
                                                                                of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. (402)
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against
his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly                  PARTITION MAY BE MADE EXTRAJUDICIALLY OR JUDICIALLY. IF
recognizes the co-ownership. (400a)                                             THERE IS NO AGREEMENT, ONE CAN FILE FOR PARTITION. THE
                                                                                COURT WILL ASCERTAIN THE FOLLOWING:
WHEN A CO-OWNER MAY NOT SUCCESSFULLY DEMAND A                                      1. Is there co-ownership?
PARTITION                                                                          2. Are they the co-owners?
   1. If by agreement, for a period not exceeding 10 years, partition is           3. What are their respective shares?
       prohibited                                                                  4. What would be the allocation?
   2. When partition is prohibited by the donor or testator, for a period
       not exceeding 20 years                                                   Art. 497. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part
   3. When partition is prohibited by law                                       in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its
   4. When a physical partition would render the property unserviceable         being effected without their concurrence. But they cannot impugn
       but in this case, the property may be allotted to one of the co-         any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in
       owners                                                                   case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to
   5. When the legal nature of the common property doesn't allow                prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor
       partition                                                                to maintain its validity. (403)
PROHIBITION TO PARTITION BECAUSE OF AN AGREEMENT                                Art. 498. Whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-
   1. Period must not extend more than 10 years                                 owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall
   2. If it exceeds 10 years, the stipulation is valid insofar as the first     indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed.
      10 years is concerned                                                     (404)
   3. There can be an extension but only after the original period has
      ended                                                                     JURIDICAL DISSOLUTION
   4. After the first extension, there can be another, and so on                   1. First, give the whole to one of the co-owners who will now be
      indefinitely, as long as for each extension, the period of 10 years              required to indemnify the rest
      is not exceeded                                                              2. If this is not agreed upon, there must be a sale
PRESCRIPTION IN FAVOR OF A CO-OWNER AGAINST THE OTHER                           Art. 499. The partition of a thing owned in common shall not
CO-OWNERS                                                                       prejudice third persons, who shall retain the rights of mortgage,
   1. Clear and unequivocal act of repudiation of the co-ownership              servitude or any other real rights belonging to them before the
division was made. Personal rights pertaining to third persons                authority: the husband with respect to the wife's paraphernal real
against   the  co-ownership      shall also remain   in  force,               estate, the father or guardian as to the property of the minor or
notwithstanding the partition. (405)                                          ward, and the manager without special power. (1548a)
Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting for              Art. 1648. Every lease of real estate may be recorded in the
benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made.                       Registry of Property. Unless a lease is recorded, it shall not be
Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of             binding upon third persons. (1549a)
his negligence or fraud. (n)
                                                                              Art. 1878. Special powers of attorney are necessary in the
EFFECTS OF PARTITION                                                          following cases:
   1. Mutual accounting for benefits
   2. Mutual reimbursement for expenses                                           (1) To make such payments as are not usually considered as
   3. Indemnity for damages in case of negligence or fraud                    acts of administration;
   4. Reciprocal warranty for defects of title or quality
   5. Each former co-owner is deemed to have had exclusive possession             (2) To effect novations which put an end to obligations already
       of his part allotted to him for the entire period during which the     in existence at the time the agency was constituted;
       co-possession lasted
                                                                                 (3) To compromise, to submit questions to arbitration, to
Art. 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition, be liable for defects        renounce the right to appeal from a judgment, to waive objections
of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the other co-         to the venue of an action or to abandon a prescription already
owners. (n)                                                                   acquired;
Art. 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of                       (4) To waive any obligation gratuitously;
redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners or of any
of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is            (5) To enter into any contract by which the ownership of an
grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable               immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a
one.                                                                          valuable consideration;
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the right of                    (6) To make gifts, except customary ones for charity or those
redemption, they may only do so in proportion to the share they               made to employees in the business managed by the agent;
may respectively have in the thing owned in common. (1522a)
                                                                                 (7) To loan or borrow money, unless the latter act be urgent
Art. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be          and indispensable for the preservation of the things which are
exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by             under administration;
the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The
deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property,                  (8) To lease any real property to another person for more than
unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given            one year;
written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.
                                                                                 (9) To bind the principal to render some service without
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining               compensation;
owners. (1524a)
                                                                                 (10) To bind the principal in a contract of partnership;
Art. 1647. If a lease is to be recorded in the Registry of Property,
the following persons cannot constitute the same without proper                  (11) To obligate the principal as a guarantor or surety;
                                                                                  f) "To divide" real property means to divide the ownership thereof or other
    (12) To create or convey real rights over immovable property;                 interests therein by conveying one or more condominium therein but less
                                                                                  than the whole thereof.
    (13) To accept or repudiate an inheritance;
                                                                                  SECTION 4. The provisions of this Act shall apply to property divided or to
   (14) To ratify or recognize obligations contracted before the                  be divided into condominium only if there shall be recorded in the Register
agency;                                                                           of Deeds of the province or city in which the property lies, and duly
                                                                                  annotated in the corresponding certificate of title of the land, if the latter
    (15) Any other act of strict dominion. (n)                                    had been patented or registered under either the Land Registration or
                                                                                  Cadastral Acts, an enabling or master deed which shall contain, among
                                                                                  others, the following:
                           CONDOMINIUM ACT
                                                                                  a) Description of the land on which the building or buildings and
SECTION 2. A Condominium is an interest in real property consisting of a          improvements are to be located;
separate interests in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial
building or in an industrial estate and an undivided interests in common,         b) Description of the building or buildings, stating the number of storeys
directly and indirectly, in the land, or the appurtenant interest of their        and basement, the number of units and their accessories, if any;
respective units in the common areas.
                                                                                  c) Description of the common areas and facilities;
SECTION 3. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:
                                                                                  d) A statement of the exact nature of the interest acquired or to be
a) "Condominium" means a condominium as defined in the next preceding             acquired by the purchased in the separate units and the common areas of
section.                                                                          the condominium projects. Where title to or to appurtenant interests in the
                                                                                  common areas is to be held by a condominium corporation, a statement to
b) "Unit" means a part of the condominium project intended for any type of        this effect shall be included;
independent use or ownership, including one or more rooms or spaces
located in one or more floors (or parts of floors) in a building or buildings     e) A certificate of the registered owner of the property, if he is other than
and such accessories as may be appended thereto; provided, that in the            those executing the master deed, as well as of all registered holders of any
case of an industrial estate wherein the condominium project consists of          lien or encumbrances on the property, that they consent to the registration
several buildings, plants and factories may, by themselves, be considered         of the deed;
separately as individual units as herein defined."
                                                                                  f) The following plans shall be appended to the deed as integral parts
c) "Project" means the entire parcel of real property divided or to be            thereof:
divided in condominiums, including all structures thereon.                        1. A survey plan of the land included in the project, unless a survey plan of
                                                                                  the same property had previously been filed in said office;
d) "Industrial Estate or Estate" means a certain tract of land which is           2. A diagrammatic floor plan of the building or buildings each unit, its
subdivided and developed primarily for industrial purposes and which              relative location and approximate dimensions.
usually includes provisions for basic infrastructure facilities and common
services such as roads, water, electricity, drainage and waste disposal           g) Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law, morals, or public policy
system.                                                                           regarding the right of any condominium owner to alienate or dispose off his
                                                                                  condominium.
e) "Common areas" means the entire project except all units separately
granted or held or reserved.                                                      h) The enabling or master deed may be amended or revoked upon
                                                                                  registration of an instrument executed by a simple majority of the
registered owners of the property: Provided. That in a condominium project         b) There shall pass with the unit, as an appurtenant thereof, an exclusive
exclusively for either residential or commercial use, simple majority shall        casement for the use of the air space encompasses by the boundaries of
be on a per unit of ownership basis and that in the case of mixed use,             the unit as it exists at any particular time and as the unit may lawfully be
simple majority shall be on a floor area of ownership basis: Provided,             altered or reconstructed from time to time. Such easement shall be
further, That prior notifications to all registered owners shall be submitted      automatically terminated in any air space upon destruction of the units as
to the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and the city/municipal                to render it untenantable.
engineer for approval before it can be registered. Until registration of a
revocation, the provisions of this Act shall continue to apply to such             c) Unless otherwise provided, the common areas are held in common by
property.                                                                          the holders of units, in equal share one for each unit.
SECTION 5. Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an apartment, office or         d) A non-exclusive easement for ingress, egress and support through the
store or other space therein, shall include the transfer or conveyance of the      common areas in appurtenant to each unit and the common areas are
undivided interest in the common areas or in a proper case, the                    subject to such easement.
membership or share holdings in the condominium corporation: provided,
however. That where the common areas in the condominium project are                e) Each condominium owner shall have the exclusive right to paint, repaint,
held by the owners of separate units as co-owners hereof, no condominium           tile, wax, paper or otherwise refinish and decorate the inner surfaces of the
unit therein shall be conveyed or transferred to persons other than Filipino       walls, ceilings, floors, windows and doors hounding his own unit: provided,
citizens or corporation at least 60% of the capital stock of which belong to       that in the case of an industrial estate condominium unit, such right may
Filipino citizens, except in cases of hereditary succession. Where the             be exercised over the external surfaces of the said unit.
common areas in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no
transfer or conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of     f) Each condominium owner shall have the exclusive right to mortgage,
the appurtenant membership or stockholding in the corporation will cause           pledge or encumber his condominium and to have the same appraised
the alien interest in such corporation to exceed the limits imposed by             independently of the other condominium owner.
existing laws.
                                                                                   g) Each condominium owner has also the absolute right to sell or dispose
SECTION 6. Unless otherwise expressly provided in the enabling or master           of his condominium unless the master deed contains a requirements that
deed or the declaration of restrictions, the incidents of a condominium            the property be first offered to the condominium owners within a
grant are as follows:                                                              reasonable period of time before the same is offered to outside parties;
a) the boundary of the unit granted are the interior surfaces of the               SECTION 7. Except as provided in the following section, the common areas
perimeter walls, floors, ceiling, windows and doors thereof: provided, that        shall remain undivided, and there shall be no judicial partition thereof.
in the case of an industrial estate condominium projects, wherein whole
buildings, plants or factories may be considered as unit defined under             SECTION 8. Where several persons own condominium in a condominium
section 3 (b) hereof, the boundary of a unit shall include the outer surfaces      project, an action may be brought by one or more such person for partition
of the perimeter walls of said buildings, plants or factories. The following       thereof, by sale of the entire project, as if the owners of all the
are not part of the unit: bearing walls, columns, floors, roofs, foundations,      condominium in such project were co-owners of the entire project in the
and other common structural elements of the buildings; lobbies, stairways,         same proportion as their interests in the common areas; Provided,
hall ways and other areas of common use, elevator equipment and shafts,            however, that a partition shall be made only upon a showing:
central heating, central refrigeration and central air conditioning
equipment, reservoir, tanks, pumps and other central services and                  a) That three years after damage or destruction to the project which
facilities, pipes, ducts, flues, chutes, conduits wires and other utility          renders a material part thereof unfit for its use prior thereto, the project
installations, wherever located, except the outlets thereof when located           had not been rebuilt or repaired substantially to its state prior to its
within the unit."                                                                  damage or destruction; or
b) That damage or destruction to the project has rendered one half or                               for discharge of my encumbrance levied against the
more of the units therein untenantable and that condominium owners                                  entire project of the common areas;
holding in aggregate more than 30 percent interest in the common areas                         6. The manner for delegation of its powers;
are opposed to the repair or restoration of the projects; or                                   7. For reconstruction of any portion or portions of any
                                                                                                    damage to or destruction of the project;
c) That project has been in existence in excess of 50 years, that it is                        8. For entry by its officers and agents into any unit when
obsolete and uneconomical, and that condominium owners holding in                                   necessary in connection with the maintenance or
aggregate more than 50 percent interest in the common areas are opposed                             construction for which such body is responsible;
to repair or restoration or remodeling or modernizing of the project; or                       9. For a power of attorney to the management body to sell
                                                                                                    the entire project for the benefit of all of the owners
d) That the project or a material part thereof has been condemned or                                thereof when partition of the project may be authorized
expropriated and that the project is no longer viable, or that the                                  under Section 8 of this Act, which said power shall be
condominium owners holding in aggregate more than 70 percent interest in                            binding upon all of the condominium owners regardless
the common areas are opposed to the continuation of the condominium                                 or whether they assume the obligations of the restrictions
regime after expropriation or condemnation of a material proportion                                 or not
thereof; or                                                                              The manner and procedure for amending such restrictions,
                                                                                          provided, that the vote of not less than a majority in interest of
e) That the condition for such partition by sale set forth in the declaration             the owners is obtained;
of restrictions duly registered in accordance with the terms of this Act,                For independent audit of the accounts of the management body;
have been met.                                                                           For reasonable assessments to meet authorized expenditures,
                                                                                          each condominium unit to be assessed separately for its share of
DEED OF RESTRICTIONS MAY PROVIDE FOR THE FOLLOWING                                        such expenses in proportion (unless otherwise provided) to its
(SECTION 9)                                                                               owner's fractional interest in any common areas;
    Restrictions shall ensure to bind all condominium owners in the                     For the subordination of the liens securing such assessments to
       project, such liens, unless otherwise, provided, may be enforced                   other lien either generally or specifically described;
       by any condominium owner in the project or by the management                      For conditions, other than those provided for in Section 8 and 13
       body of such project                                                               of this Act, upon which partition of the project and dissolution of
    As to management body                                                                the condominium corporation may be made. Such right to
           1. For the power thereof, including power to enforce the                       partition or dissolution may be conditioned upon failure of the
                provisions of the declarations of restrictions;                           condominium owners to rebuild within a certain period or upon
           2. For the maintenance of insurance policies insuring                          specified percentage of damage to the building, or upon a decision
                condominium owners against loss by the, casualty,                         of an arbitration, or upon any other reasonable condition.
                liability, workmen's compensation and other insurable
                risks and for bonding of the members of any                       CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION (SECTION 10)
                management body;                                                      Shall be limited to the holding of the common areas; either the
           3. Provisions for maintenance, utility, gardening and other                 ownership of any other interest in real property recognized by the
                services benefiting the common areas for the operations                law, to the management of the project, and to such other
                of the building, and legal, accounting and other                       purposes as maybe necessary, incidental or convenient to the
                professional and technical services;                                   accomplishment of said purposes
           4. For purchase of materials, supplies and the like needed                 The articles of incorporation or by laws of the corporation shall not
                by the common areas;                                                   contain any provision contrary to or inconsistent with the provision
           5. For payment of taxes and special assessment which                        of this Act, the enabling or master deed, or the declaration of
                would be a lien upon the entire project or common areas,               restrictions of the project, membership in a condominium
                                                                                       corporation regarding of whether it is stock or non-stock
HELD:                                                                             HELD:
After the physical division of the lot among the co-owners, the community         Even if a co-owner sells the whole property, the sale will affect only his
ownership is terminated, and the right of preemption or redemption for            own share and not the share of the other co-owners who didn't consent to
each other was no longer available. There is no co-ownership when the             the sale. Since this is the case, a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided
different portions owned by the different people are already concretely           share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of
determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically               the others is not null and void.
described.
                                                                                  91       CRUZ V. LEIS
88       SERING V. PLAZO                                                                   327 SCRA 570
         166 SCRA 84
                                                                                  FACTS:
Spouses Leis obtained a loan from spouses Cruz, secured by a REM over a                 172 SCRA 660
parcel of land. The loan was unpaid and the REM foreclosed. The heirs of
the mortgagors sought to annul the sale that was held of the property,         FACTS:
alleging the property to be conjugal and subject to co-ownership.              Tan owned a parcel of land. During his lifetime, he obtained a loan secured
                                                                               by a REM over the land. Upon his death, he was survived by his wife and
HELD:                                                                          children. The loan was unpaid and thus, the REM was foreclosed. Wife and
Redemption by a co-owner doesn't terminate the co-ownership nor give           kids sought the annulment of the REM. An amicable settlement was then
her title to the whole property subject of the co-ownership.                   entered into between the bank and the family. The redemption would be
                                                                               extended into 1 year more. Anne redeemed from bank but the latter
92        VILLANUEVA V. FLORENDO                                               issued the title back to the co-heirs.
          139 SCRA 329
                                                                               HELD:
FACTS:                                                                         Co-ownership expired when the heirs allowed the one-year redemption
Spouses Villanueva owned a parcel of land. The wife died, leaving the          period to expire without redeeming their parents property and permitted
husband and the children. Without partition of the property, the father        the issuance of the new title and consolidation of ownership.
sold to his son and wife the lot. Co-owners wanted to redeem but the wife
of brother alleged that the right of redemption doesn't lie against her as     There was no co-ownership anymore when Annie redeemed the property.
she is not the third person contemplated in law.                               It was in all accounts, to be considered as a sale.
HELD:                                                                          95       DELIMA V. CA
The wife is wrong. She is one of those contemplated by law as being a                   201 SCRA 641
third person. The right of redemption lies against her.
                                                                               FACTS:
*Dissenting opinion: the right of redemption doesn't lie against her.          Lino bought a lot from the friar lands. He died and was survived by his
                                                                               brothers and sisters. Galileo was the caretaker of the property. He was
93        MARIANO V. CA                                                        able to execute an affidavit adjudicating to himself the parcel of land and
          222 SCRA 736                                                         was able to secure the issuance of a TCT in his name. This prompted the
                                                                               heirs of his siblings to file for reconveyance.
FACTS:
Gosengfiao owned a parcel of land. During his lifetime, he obtained a loan     HELD:
secured by a REM over the land. Upon his death, he was survived by his         When the co-owner of the property executed a deed of partition and on the
wife and children. The loan was unpaid and thus, the REM was foreclosed.       strength thereof, obtained a cancellation of the tile in the name of their
The land was redeemed by the mother and later sold the same, together          predecessor and the issuance of a new title in his name as owner, the
with the other children. Grace knew of the sale and sought annulment of        statute of limitations started to run for the purposes of the action instituted
the sale.                                                                      by the latter seeking a declaration of the existence of the co-ownership and
                                                                               their rights thereafter.
HELD:
   1.     The right to redeem is not lost in the absence of any written        The issuance of a new title constituted a clear act of repudiation of the
          notice of the sale by the vendors. The 30-day period has not         trust and co-ownership.
          begin to run.
     2.   The redemption of a co-owner inures to the benefit of all co-        96       ADILLE V. CA
          owners.                                                                       157 SCRA 455
94 TAN V. CA FACTS:
Alzul originally owned the land. She had Adille as child from first marriage
and Asejos from the second marriage. She sold the land pacto de recto               FACTS:
but wasn't able to repurchase because she died. Adille was able to redeem           Brothers Virgilio and Senen bought in co-ownership a house where their
the land and was able to place the title to the land solely in his name. This       father would stay. It was first agreed upon that Virgilio would have 2/3
prompted his siblings and the heirs to file an action for partition and             and Senen 1/3 but in the written agreement, they had a 50-50 share.
accounting.                                                                         Upon the death of the father, Virgilio asked Senen to vacate the house and
                                                                                    they should sell the same. Senen didn't want to leave. Virgilio filed for
HELD:                                                                               partition.
Failure on the part of all the co-owners to redeem the property entitles   the
vendee a retro to retain the property and consolidate title thereto to      his     HELD:
name. Even so, this doesnt mean that the redeeming co-owner has           the      No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership and that each
right to the entire property. It doesn't provide a mode of transferring    co-      co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in
ownership.                                                                          common insofar as his share is concerned.
FACTS:                                                                              FACTS:
Lupo was able to marry three times and had children in all three marriages.         The property was originally owned by Aguinaldo. She died and was
He died without a will. The children of the first and second marriages were         survived by Coronel and Constantino. Constantino and his wife sought to
able to partition among themselves parcels of land, leaving behind the              be declared the owners of the land by virtue of the sale to them of the land
children from third marriage. This prompted them to file an action for              of Santos who obtained beforehand the land from Coronel.
partition and alleged that they have been prejudiced in their rights.
                                                                                    HELD:
HELD:                                                                               The sale of the subject property made by Emilia in favor of Santos is
The registration in the names of petitioners of the titles to the properties is     limited to the portion which may be allotted to her upon the termination of
not an act of repudiation of the co-ownership.                                      co-ownership over the subject property with her children.
    3.   Possession with just title but not from the real ownerreal
         possessory right                                                        Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware
    4.   Possession with title of dominium, with a just title from the owner     that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which
                                                                                 invalidates it.
REQUISITES OR ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION
   1. There must be holding or control of a thing or right                       He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case
   2. There must be a deliberate intention to possess or animus                  contrary to the foregoing.
      possidendi
   3. The possession must be by virtue of ones own right                        Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the
                                                                                 basis of good faith. (433a)
CLASSES OF POSSESSION
   1. In ones own name or in that of another
   2. In the concept of owner or concept of holder                               MISTAKE ON A DOUBTFUL QUESTION OF LAW
   3. In good faith or in bad faith                                                  It is true that ignorance of the law excuses no one but error in the
                                                                                       application of the law, in the legal solutions arising from such
OWNERSHIP IS DIFFERENT FROM POSSESSION                                                 application, and the interpretation of doubtful doctrine can still
 A person may be declared the owner but he may not be entitled to                     make a person a transgressor, possessor, violator in good faith
  possession
 A judgment for ownership doesn't necessarily include possession as a           Art. 527. Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges
  necessary incident                                                             bad faith on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof.
                                                                                 (434)
Art. 524. Possession may be exercised in one's own name or in that
of another. (413a)                                                               Art. 528. Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this
                                                                                 character except in the case and from the moment facts exist which
POSSESSION IN ANOTHERS NAME                                                     show that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the
   1. Voluntaryagent possesses for his principal                                thing improperly or wrongfully. (435a)
   2. Involuntaryas when a mother possesses for a child in a maternal
      womb                                                                       WHEN IS POSSESSION IN GOOD FAITH CONVERTED TO
   3. Unauthorizedwill become principals possession only after there           POSSESSION IN BAD FAITH?
      has been ratification without prejudice to the effects of                     1. From the moment facts exist showing the possessors knowledge
      negotiorum gestio                                                                of the flaw, from that time he should be considered as a possessor
                                                                                       in bad faith
Art. 525. The possession of things or rights may be had in one of                   2. It doesn't matter whether the facts were caused by him or by
two concepts: either in the concept of owner, or in that of the                        some other person
holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the ownership
pertaining to another person. (432)                                              WHEN BAD FAITH BEGINS
                                                                                    Judicial summons
CONCEPT OF OWNER                                                                    Even before such time as when a letter is received from the true
    Other people believe through my actions, that I am the owner of                   owner asking the possessor to stop
      the property
    Considered in the opinion of others as owner                                Art. 529. It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed in
    Regardless of good faith or bad faith                                       the same character in which it was acquired, until the contrary is
    Contrary to concept of holder wherein I recognize another to be             proved. (436)
      the owner of the property
PRESUMPTIONS REGARDING POSSESSION                                              Art. 532. Possession may be acquired by the same person who is to
   1. Good faith                                                               enjoy it, by his legal representative, by his agent, or by any person
   2. Continuity of the character of good faith                                without any power whatever: but in the last case, the possession
   3. Non-interruption of possession                                           shall not be considered as acquired until the person in whose name
   4. Presumption of just title                                                the act of possession was executed has ratified the same, without
   5. Non-interruption of possession of property unjustly lost but legally     prejudice to the juridical consequences of negotiorum gestio in a
      recovered                                                                proper case. (439a)
   6. Possession during intervening period
   7. Possession of movables with real property                                NEGOTIORUM GESTIO
   8. Exclusive possession of common property                                      Whoever voluntarily takes charge of the agency or management
                                                                                     of the business or property of another, without any power from
Art. 530. Only things and rights which are susceptible of being                      the latter, is obliged to continue the same until the termination of
appropriated may be the object of possession. (437)                                  the affair and its incidents, or to require the person concerned to
                                                                                     substitute him, if the owner is in a position to do so. This juridical
                    ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION                                        relation does not arise in either of these instances:
                                                                                          1. When the property or business is not neglected or
Art. 531. Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a                               abandoned;
thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to                    2. If in fact the manager has been tacitly authorized by the
the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities                            owner.
established for acquiring such right. (438a)                                       In the first case, the provisions of Articles 1317, 1403, No. 1, and
                                                                                     1404 regarding unauthorized contracts shall govern.
HOW IS POSSESSION ACQUIRED?                                                        In the second case, the rules on agency in Title X of this Book
   1. By material occupation                                                         shall be applicable. (1888a)
   2. By subjection to our will
   3. By constructive possession or proper acts and legal formalities          Art. 533. The possession of hereditary property is deemed
          a. Constititom possessorium exists when a person who                 transmitted to the heir without interruption and from the moment
              possessed property as an owner now possesses it in               of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted.
              some other capacity other than owner
          b. Traditio brevi manu is the opposite of constitutom                One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have
              possessorium                                                     possessed the same. (440)
          c. Traditio longa manu is delivery by consent or mere
              pointing                                                         TIMES OF ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION
          d. Traditio symbolica                                                   1. If heir acceptsfrom the moment of death since there is no
                                                                                      interruption
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR POSSESSION                                             2. If heir refuseshe is deemed never to have possessed the same
   1. The corpus
   2. The animus                                                               Art. 534. On who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the
                                                                               consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is
CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION OF LAND                                                not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it; but the
    If an entire parcel is possessed under claim of ownership, there is       effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except
      constructive possession of the entire parcel unless a portion            from the date of the death of the decedent. (442)
      thereof is adversely possessed by another
                                                                               EFFECTS OF ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION THROUGH SUCCESSION
       If the father was in bad faith, it doesn't mean that the son is also     The old possession is not revived if a new possession should be
        in bad faith                                                             exercised by the same adverse claimant. (1944a)
Art. 535. Minors and incapacitated persons may acquire the                       Art. 1122. If the natural interruption is for only one year or less,
possession of things; but they need the assistance of their legal                the time elapsed shall be counted in favor of the prescription. (n)
representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the
possession arise in their favor. (443)                                           Art. 1123. Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the
                                                                                 possessor. (1945a)
NATURE OF THEIR POSSESSION
    Possession by them is allowed only in those matters where they
      have capacity to act and not possession where juridical acts are           IT IS POSSIBLE FOR CURRENT POSSESSOR TO ADD TIME TO
      imperative                                                                 POSSESSION OF PREDECESSOR IF there is privity between them. This
                                                                                 procedure is called TACKING.
Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or
intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He             PERSONAL PROPERTY
who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of              Given Predecessor A and Successor B
the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court,
if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. (441a)                         First, look at the successors good faith or bad faith
POSSESSION MAY NOT BE ACQUIRED THROUGH THE FOLLOWING                             Second, remember that the magic number is 2 with personal property.
   1. Force and intimidation
   2. By mere tolerance                                                          A   GF     3      GF       6         BF       1.5         BF   3
   3. Clandestine and secret possession
Art. 537. Acts merely tolerated, and those executed clandestinely                B     GF   1      BF       2         GF       2.5              5
and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by
violence, do not affect possession. (444)                                                   4               8                  4                8
Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same                  IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
time in two different personalities except in the cases of co-                   Same banana but now, the magic number is 3.
possession. Should a question arise regarding the fact of
possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are
two possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates of the                A   GF     3      GF       9         BF       1           BF   1
possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if all
these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial                B     GF   7      BF       21        GF       9           BF   29
deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership
through proper proceedings. (445)                                                           10              30                 10               30
Art. 1120. Possession is interrupted             for   the   purposes    of                             CASE DIGESTS: POSSESSION
prescription, naturally or civilly. (1943)
                                                                                 101        HEIRS OF SORIANO V. CA
Art. 1121. Possession is naturally interrupted when through any                             363 SCRA 87
cause it should cease for more than one year.
                                                                                 FACTS:
A subsequent owner of a parcel of land was successful in registering the          Possession in the eyes of the law doesnt mean that a man has to have his
land. Prior to this registration, Soriano was already occupying the subject       feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said he is in
land as sub-lessee for around 15 years.                                           possession.
May a successful registrant oust validly one whose security of tenure rights      104      LASAM V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
is pending with the DARAB?                                                                 65 PHIL 367
HELD:                                                                             FACTS:
   1.      Ownership and possession are distinct legal concepts. There is         Lasam sought the registration of over 100 hectares of land. This was
           ownership when a thing pertaining to one person is consistent          opposed by many, one by the Director of Lands, alleging that Lasam had
           with the rights of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the     no appropriate title to the land to support claim as well as the land is public
           owner, among which are the right to enjoy the thing owned and          land.
           the right to exclude other persons from possession thereof. On
           the other hand, possession is defined as the holding of a thing or     HELD:
           enjoyment of a right. Possession may be in the concept of owner        While possession in the eyes of law doesnt mean that a man has to have
           or concept of holder.                                                  his two feet on every square feet of ground before it can be said that he is
      2.   A judgment in a land registration case cannot be effectively used      in possession but possession is not gained by a mere nominal claim. The
           to oust the possessor of the land, whose security of tenure rights     mere planting of a sign or symbol of possession cannot justify a Magellan-
           are being determined by the DARAB.                                     like claim of dominion over an immense tract of territory. Possession as a
                                                                                  means of acquiring ownership is not mere fiction.
102        RAMOS V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
           39 PHIL 175                                                            105      CHUA BRUCE V. CA
                                                                                           331 SCRA 1
FACTS:
Ramos was a holder of a possession information title which he later               FACTS:
conveyed to Romero. Romero applied for the registration of the land.              After a physical count of the money bundles in the vault, it was found out
                                                                                  by management that the bank had a shortage of money. An investigation
HELD:                                                                             was conducted and one of those questioned was the cash custodian.
The possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract of land under claim of     Unable to give reasonable explanation, a case of estafa was filed against
ownership, under a claim of ownership of all, is a constructive possession        her.
of all, if the remainder isnt under the adverse possession of another.
                                                                                  HELD:
103        SOMODIO V. CA                                                          Juridical possession means a possession which gives the transferee a right
           235 SCRA 307                                                           over the thing which the transferee may set up even against the owner. A
                                                                                  cash custodians possession of the cash belonging to the bank is akin to
FACTS:                                                                            that of a bank teller both being mere bank employees.
Somodio paid  of the purchase price for a parcel of land. He started to
construct a house but was left unfinished when he was employed in a far           106      PO LAM V. CA
away area. He allowed Ayco to occupy the land but when he tried to                         347 SCRA 86
demand Ayco to vacate the premises, the latter refused to do so.
                                                                                  FACTS:
HELD:                                                                             Lim Kim Chiong and LAHCO entered into a contract of sale. Later, the
                                                                                  former instituted an action for the annulment of the sale and the
                                                                                  reconveyance of the property. Pending this action, LAHCO was able to sell
the property to Po Lam who leased then the property to Felix Lim. The           SMC bought a parcel of land from Perez. It sought the registration of the
latter thereafter after the proceedings have ended for the annulment of the     land but was opposed by the government.
sale, deposited the rentals in court in favor of Lim.
                                                                                HELD:
HELD:                                                                           Such open, continuous, exclusive and public occupation of the disputed
A buyer cannot be considered as being aware of the flaw which invalidates       properties for more than 30 years must be conclusively established.
his acquisition of the thing where the alleged flaw, the notice of lis
pendens, was already ordered cancelled at the time of purchase.                 110        EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT V. MAYFAIR THEATRE
                                                                                           370 SCRA 56
107      STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE V. CA
         254 SCRA 368                                                           FACTS:
                                                                                Follow-up case of the popular Equatorial case in OBLICON and SALES.
FACTS:
Spouses Canuto and Solid Homes entered into a contract to sell. Solid           HELD:
then mortgaged the property in favor of petitioner and upon his failure to         1.      Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property
pay the loan, the property was foreclosed. Here now comes the spouses                      producing it by right of accession.
who filed a complaint with the HLURB for failure of Solid to execute an               2.   Ownership of the thing sold is a real right, which the buyer
absolute deed of sale.                                                                     acquires only upon the delivery to him in any of the ways specified
                                                                                           by law or in any other manner signifying an agreement that the
HELD:                                                                                      possession is transferred from the vendor to the vendee. While
An unregistered mortgage is of no moment since it is understood to be                      the execution of a public instrument of sale is recognized by law
without prejudice to the better right of third parties.                                    as equivalent to delivery of the thing sold, such constructive or
                                                                                           symbolic delivery, being merely presumptive, is deemed negated
108      DBP V. CA                                                                         by the failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land
         316 SCRA 650                                                                      sold.
SPECIFIC RIGHT TO BE RESPECTED IN POSSESSION                                     Art. 541. A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the
   1. Reasons for protection of possession                                       legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot
           a. Possession is very similar to ownership and as a matter            be obliged to show or prove it. (448a)
              of fact modifies ownership
           b. Possession almost invariably gives rise to the                     PRESUMPTION THAT POSSESSOR HAS JUST TITLE
              presumption that the possessor is the owner                           1. One must be in possessionactual or constructive
   2. Every possessor is protectedwhether concept of owner or holder               2. The possession must be in the concept of owner
LEGAL    MEANS FOR RESTORATION TO POSSESSION                                     DIFFERENCES WITH RESPECT TO JUST TITLE IN CHAPTER OF
   1.     To prevent spoliation or a disregard of public order                   POSSESSION AND JUST TITLE IN THE CHAPTER OF PRESCRIPTION
   2.     To prevent deprivation of property without due process                            IN POSSESSION                IN PRESCRIPTION
   3.     To prevent a person from taking the law into his own hands             Just title here is presumed.  Just title here must be proved.
WRIT OF PRELIMINARY MANDATORY INJUNCTION                                         Just title here means titulo             Just title here means titulo
   1. Injunction cannot substitute for the other, actions to recover             verdadero y validotrue and valid        Colorado or colorable title although
      possession. The possessor in the meantime has in his favor, the            title sufficient to transfer ownership.   there was a mode of transferring
      presumption of rightful possession, at least, till the case is finally                                               ownership.
      decided
   2. Requisites for the issuance
                                                                                 THE KINDS OF TITLE
          a. In forcible entry casesfile within 10 days from the time
                                                                                    1. True and valid title (titulo verdadero y valido)there was a mode
               of the complaint
                                                                                        of transferring ownership and the grantor was the owner
          b. In unlawful detainer caseswithin 10 days from the time
                                                                                    2. Colorable title (titulo Colorado)that title, although there was a
               appeal is perfected only if
                                                                                        mode of transferring ownership, still something is wrong since the
                     i. The lessees appeal is frivolous or dilatory
                                                                                        grantor is not the owner
                    ii. The lessors appeal is prima facie meritorious
                                                                                    3. Putative titlewhere although the person believes himself to be
                                                                                        the owner, he nonetheless is not, because there was no mode of
Art. 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept
                                                                                        acquiring ownership
of owner can serve as a title for acquiring dominion. (447)
                                                                                 Art. 542. The possession of real property presumes that of the
POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF OWNER
                                                                                 movables therein, so long as it is not shown or proved that they
    If a person possesses in the concept of ownerhe may eventually
                                                                                 should be excluded. (449)
      become the owner by prescription
    Thus, a possessor merely in the concept of holder cannot acquire
                                                                                 PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION OF MOVABLES FOUND IN AN
      property by acquisitive prescriptionone cannot recognize the
                                                                                 IMMOVABLE
      right of another and at the same time claim adverse possession.
                                                                                 APPLICABILITY      OF ARTICLE
POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF HOLDER
                                                                                    1. Whether      the possessor be in good faith or bad faith
   1. Lessees
                                                                                    2. Whether      the possessor be in one owns name or in anothers
   2. Trustees
                                                                                    3. Whether      the possessor be in concept of owner or holder
   3. Antichrectic creditors
   4. Agents
   5. Depositaries
Art. 543. Each one of the participants of a thing possessed in                   The owner of the thing may, should he so desire, give the
common shall be deemed to have exclusively possessed the part                    possessor in good faith the right to finish the cultivation and
which may be allotted to him upon the division thereof, for the                  gathering of the growing fruits, as an indemnity for his part of the
entire period during which the co-possession lasted. Interruption in             expenses of cultivation and the net proceeds; the possessor in good
the possession of the whole or a part of a thing possessed in                    faith who for any reason whatever should refuse to accept this
common shall be to the prejudice of all the possessors. However, in              concession, shall lose the right to be indemnified in any other
case of civil interruption, the Rules of Court shall apply. (450a)               manner. (452a)
EXCLUSIVE POSSESSION BY A PREVIOUS CO-OWNER                                      Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor;
                                                                                 but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he
SHALL BE DEEMED                                                                has been reimbursed therefor.
    It gives a right and not just a mere presumption
                                                                                 Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good
RULES TO APPLY FOR CIVIL INTERRUPTION                                            faith with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated
    Civil interruption is produced by judicial summons to the                   him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of
       possessor                                                                 the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing
    Judicial summons shall be deemed not to have been issued and                may have acquired by reason thereof. (453a)
       shall not give rise to interruption
            o    If it should be void for lack of legal solemnities              Art. 547. If the useful improvements can be removed without
            o    If the plaintiff should desist from the complaint or should     damage to the principal thing, the possessor in good faith may
                 allow the proceedings to lapse                                  remove them, unless the person who recovers the possession
            o    If the possessor should be absolved from the complaint          exercises the option under paragraph 2 of the preceding article. (n)
Art. 544. A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received           Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be
before the possession is legally interrupted.                                    refunded to the possessor in good faith; but he may remove the
                                                                                 ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it
Natural and industrial fruits are considered received from the time              suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor in the possession
they are gathered or severed.                                                    does not prefer to refund the amount expended. (454)
Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily and belong to the possessor              Art. 549. The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits
in good faith in that proportion. (451)                                          received and those which the legitimate possessor could have
                                                                                 received, and shall have a right only to the expenses mentioned in
RIGHTS OF A POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH TO FRUITS ALREADY                            paragraph 1 of Article 546 and in Article 443. The expenses
RECEIVED                                                                         incurred in improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall
                                                                                 not be refunded to the possessor in bad faith, but he may remove
Art. 545. If at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any              the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, provided
natural or industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a              that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the lawful
part of the expenses of cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest,           possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they
both in proportion to the time of the possession.                                may have at the time he enters into possession. (445a)
The charges shall be divided on the same basis by the two                        Art. 550. The costs of litigation over the property shall be borne by
possessors.                                                                      every possessor. (n)
Art. 551. Improvements caused by nature or time shall always                                                                    cultivation         and
insure to the benefit of the person who has succeeded in                                                                        gathering of the fruits
recovering possession. (456)                                                     PENDING            Owner has 2 options:        No rights not even
                                                                                                                                reimbursement          of
Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the                                     Option 1: Pro-rating        expenses              for
deterioration or loss of the thing possessed, except in cases in                                    (based on period of         cultivation (because by
which it is proved that he has acted with fraudulent intent or                                      possession)    between      right of accession, all
negligence, after the judicial summons.                                                             possessor and owner         fruits belong to the
                                                                                                    ofexpenses,       net      owner without need to
A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in                               harvest, and charges        pay indemnity)
every case, even if caused by a fortuitous event. (457a)
                                                                                                    Option 2: To allow          Must pay damages as
                 PROPERTY POSSESSION CHARTS                                                         possessor to stay in        reasonable rent for the
                   C/O ATTY. FRANCIS AMPIL                                                          possession until after      term of possession.
                                                                                                    all fruits are gathered
RULES ON FRUITS                                                                                     (which shall serve as
 KINDS OF FRUITS          POSSESSOR IN              POSSSESSOR IN                                   the     indemnity    for
                            GOOD FAITH                 BAD FAITH                                    expenses)
CIVIL FRUITS           Entitled to fruits from    Not entitled to fruits.
                       the start of possession
                                                                                 RULES ON EXPENSES AND DETERIORATION/LOSS
                       until legal interruption   Must pay damages as
                                                                                      EXPENSES           POSSESSOR IN    POSSESSOR IN BAD
                                                  rental     from      time
                                                                                                          GOOD FAITH              FAITH
                                                  possession        started
                                                                                 NECESSARY EXPENSES   Entitled        to Entitled       to
                                                  until    possession     is
                                                                                                      reimbursement      reimbursement
                                                  finally defeated.
NATURAL OR INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
                                                                                                      Right   of retention       No right of retention:
GATHERED           Right to retain fruits         Must account for the
                                                                                                      pending          full      must              vacate
                                                  fruits and return value
                                                                                                      reimbursement              propertyrecourse is
                                                  of:
                                                                                                                                 to file collection case
                                                  1.     fruits   actually
                                                  received
                                                                                                                                 Liable for damages as
                                                  2.    fruits which the
                                                                                                                                 reasonable rent for
                                                  legal possessor could
                                                                                                                                 period of possession
                                                  have received with due
                                                                                 USEFUL EXPENSES      Owner    has       two     No rights.
                                                  care and diligence
                                                                                                      options
                                                  Must pay damages as
                                                                                                      Option               1:
                                                  reasonable rent for the
                                                                                                      Reimbursement        of
                                                  term of possession
                                                                                                      either amount spent
                                                                                                      or increase in value
                                                  But     entitled    to
                                                                                                      with right of retention
                                                  necessary expenses for
                                                                                                      until full payment
                                                  preservation,
                         Option 2: To allow
                         possessor to remove                                        (2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or
                         provided there will be                                  gratuitous title;
                         no substantial injury
                         or damage is caused                                        (3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing, or because it
LUXURIOUS EXPENSES       Owner     has     two       Owner    has       two      goes out of commerce;
                         options                    options
                                                                                     (4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of
                         Option 1: To allow          Option 1: To allow          Article 537, if the new possession has lasted longer than one year.
                         possessor to remove         possessor to remove         But the real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten
                         ornaments     if  the       ornaments     if  the       years. (460a)
                         principal suffers no        principal suffers no
                         injury                      injury                      ABANDONMENT
                                                                                    1. Possessor in the concept of owner
                         Option 2: To retain         Option 2: To retain            2. The abandoner must have the capacity to renounce or to alienate
                         the   ornament    by        the    ornament     by         3. There must be physical relinquishment of the thing or object
                         refunding the amount        refunding the value of         4. There must be no more spes recuperandi/expectation to recover
                         spent      for   the        the ornament at the               or animus revertendi/intent to return or get back
                         ornament                    time owner enters
                                                     into       possession,      N.B: Abandonment which converts the thing into res nulliusownership of
                                                     which           means       which may ordinarily be obtained by occupationdoesnt apply to land.
                                                     depreciated value           Ownership of land cannot be obtained through occupation.
DETERIORATION/LOSS       No liability unless due     Always liable whether
                         to fraudulent intent or     before or after service     ASSIGNMENT
                         negligence         after    of judicial summons,           1. Complete transmission of ownership rights to another person
                         service     of   judicial   for any cause, even            2. At no time did the thing not have a possessor
                         summons                     fortuitous event               3. Both possession de facto and de jure are lost and no action will
                                                                                       allow recovery
Art. 553. One who recovers possession shall not be obliged to pay
                                                                                 POSSESSION OF ANOTHER
for improvements which have ceased to exist at the time he takes
                                                                                    1. If person isnt in possession for more than 1 year, he loses his
possession of the thing. (458)
                                                                                       possession de facto
                                                                                    2. If a person loses possession for more than 10 years, he loses
IMPROVEMENTS WHICH CEASE TO EXIST
                                                                                       possession de jure or the real right of a possessor
Art. 554. A present possessor who shows his possession at some
                                                                                 Art. 556. The possession of movables is not deemed lost so long as
previous time, is presumed to have held possession also during the
                                                                                 they remain under the control of the possessor, even though for
intermediate period, in the absence of proof to the contrary. (459)
                                                                                 the time being he may not know their whereabouts. (461)
PRESUMPTION OF POSSESSION DURING INTERVENING PERIOD
                                                                                 WHEN POSSESSION OF MOVABLES IS NOT LOST OR NOT LOST
                                                                                    If the possessor has no idea at all about the whereabouts of the
Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:
                                                                                       movable, possession is lost
                                                                                    BUT not when he more or less knows its general location, though
   (1) By the abandonment of the thing;
                                                                                       he may not know its precise or definite location
         126 SCRA 217                                                                case in the RTC didn't warrant suspension of the unlawful detainer case
                                                                                     with the MTC.
FACTS:
The intestate estate of Borromeo is the owner of a building, which was               HELD:
being rented out to petitioner. On a relevant date, private respondent sent          An ejectment suit cannot be suspended by an action filed with the RTC
a letter to petitioner for the payment of overdue rentals as well as to              based on a tenants claim of his right of preemption was violated.
vacate the premises thereafter. The petitioner failed to pay. With less
than a year from the demand letter, private respondent instituted action             The actions in the RTC didn't involve physical possession and on not a few
against petitioner for unlawful detainer. Private respondent moves for the           occasions, that the case in the RTC was merely a ploy to delay disposition
dismissal of the case for want of jurisdiction as she asserts that conciliation      of the ejectment proceeding.
proceedings should have first been instituted with the Lupon Barangay.
                                                                                     113      SEMIRA V. CA
HELD:                                                                                         230 SCRA 577
Even though the private respondent should have submitted the complaint
before the Lupon, the petition should still be dismissed. The Lupon only             FACTS:
refers to individualssingle human being contrasted with a social group or           Gutierrez was the owner of a parcel of land. This parcel was sold to
institution. It only applies to natural persons. In the case at bar, private         Buenaventura An. He entered the premises based on the boundaries
respondent is only a nominal party in behalf of the intestate estate. The            stated in the deed of sale. He then bought two additional parcels of land.
real party in interest is the intestate estate and thus, doesn't fall within the     On a relevant date, he sold the first parcel to his nephew who also entered
ambits of the provision requiring submission of the case to conciliation             the premises based on the boundaries stated in the deed. The deed also
proceedings with the Lupon.                                                          stated the same boundaries and area of the lot, which was larger in
                                                                                     actuality. This nephew then sold the land to petitioner. The deed this time
112      WILMON AUTO SUPPLY V. CA                                                    reflected a different area, the actual area of the land. The land was found
         208 SCRA 108                                                                to be larger than what was stated in the previous documents. Semira
                                                                                     entered then the premises based on the boundaries and began construction
FACTS:                                                                               of a rice mill. Buenaventura then filed an action for forcible entry against
Wilmon was the lessee of a commercial building and bodegas standing on a             Semira, alleging that latter illegally encroached on the other parcel of land
registered land owned in common by the Lacsons, Solinap, and Jarantilla.             previously bought by the former and that the land that was supposed to be
The leases were embodied in deeds wherein one of the clauses provided for            occupied by the latter was smaller than the land he was actually occupying.
a reservation of rightsthe seller has the right to encumber or sell the
property provided that the transferee would respect the lease of Wilmon.             HELD:
                                                                                     In the case at bar, the issue of possession cannot be decided independently
On a relevant date, after the expiration of the lease period, the premises           of the question of ownership. Private respondent claimed constructive
were sold to Star Group Resources and Development. The latter instituted             possession of the parcel of land he alleged to be encroached by Semira.
an action for unlawful detainer against Wilmon. Wilmon impugned Stars               Likewise, Semira based his occupancy of the land by virtue of the
right to eject them. It alleges that its right of preemption has been                Ramirezs sale of the land to him. The question of prior possession may
violated, as well as their leasehold rights, and that it was denied the option       only be resolved in answering the question of who is the real owner of the
to extend the lease. These same propositions were also raised in the case            disputed portion.
it filed with the RTC.
                                                                                     Where land is sold for a lump sum and not so much per unit of measure,
In the unlawful detainer cases, it was decided by the MTC that the case              the boundaries of the land stated in the contract determines the effects
should proceed against some of the lessees but not with the others. The              and scope of the sale, not the area thereof. The vendor is thus obligated
lessees filed a motion for reconsideration but it was denied. They filed a           to deliver the land included within the boundaries regardless of whether
petition for certiorari and the RTC held in the end that the pendency of the         the land is greater or lesser than the area stipulated in the sale.
                                                                                   complaint was dismissing, followed the finding of the Bureau of Lands that
114      WONG V. CARPIO                                                            the disputed portion of land is outside the lot owned by Javier. Later, the
         203 SCRA 118                                                              sales application has been granted. Babol had already sold the land to
                                                                                   somebody else. Petitioner demanded the return of the land to her and
FACTS:                                                                             after 4 years since the dismissal of her earlier complaint, she files an action
Giger sold a parcel of land through a pacto de recto sale to Mercado.              for quieting of title and recovery of possession against Babol and Rosete.
Mercado only began to harvest the coconut fruits but he never placed               The latter moved for the dismissal of the case based on res judicata.
anyone over the land to watch it. Neither did he reside in the land nor was
there any hut constructed thereon to show possession. Thereafter, Wong             HELD:
inspected the land to see if whether there was anyone claiming the land.           A judgment in a forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue
After finding there was none, he bought the land from Giger. He placed             than possession and declares only who has the right of possession, but by
workers on the land, constructed a farmhouse, and fenced the boundaries.           no means constitutes a bar to an action for determination of who has right
He couldn't register the sale due to some technicalities.                          or title of ownership.
Further, the action for forcible entry was called for. The act of entering the     HELD:
property and excluding the lawful possessor therefrom necessarily implies          Any person deprived of possession of any land or building or part thereof,
the exertion of force over the property and this is all that is necessary.         may file an action for forcible entry and detainer in the proper inferior
                                                                                   courts against the person unlawfully depriving or withholding possession
Furthermore, there should be payment of rentals from the time the                  from him. This relief is also available to lessees and tenants.
presumption of good faith ceased or the receipt of summons by Wong.
Possession in good faith ceases from the moment defects in the title are           117      PENAS V. CA
made known to the possessors.                                                               233 SCRA 744
continued though to occupy the premises and deposited rentals to the bank         homestead application prior to the lease application of Eusebio, with
in trust of petitioner Penas. Another letter was sent but to no avail. This       interruptions during the war and until the time of filing of the action. The
prompted the petitioner to file an action for unlawful detainer.       The        trial court ruled in favor of Eusebio and while pending appeal, a writ of
complaint was dismissed in the lower court.                                       execution was issued ordering Azarcon to leave the premises without
                                                                                  expressly ordering Azarcon to desist from gathering pending fruits.
HELD:                                                                             Azarcon moved for the setting aside of the order and posted bond as he
A complaint for unlawful detainer can be filed should it be counted from the      was required by the court. The court eventually set aside the order but
last demand letter to vacate, the reason being that the lessor has the right      reinstated it under the wrong premise that Azarcon failed to post the
to waive his right of action based on previous demands and let the lessee         required bond. Despite the reinstatement of the order, Azarcon continued
remain meanwhile in the premises.                                                 to gather the pending fruits on the land.
HELD:                                                                                 FACTS:
Since petitioners didn't exercise the option to refund the amount of the              Theodoro Santos advertised in the newspapers the sale of his Ford Fairlane
expenses incurred by private respondent for the house that the latter has             500. After the advertisement, a certain de Dios, claiming to be the nephew
built, and not to pay the increase in value acquired by the land by reason            of Marella, went to the residence of Santos and expressing his uncles
of such expenses. Sandoval may remove her house since this can be done                intent to purchase the car. Since Santos wasn't around, it was Irineo who
without damage. Petitioners should not be made to refund the value of the             talked with de Dios. On being informed, Santos advised his son to see
house since this would thwart the policy laid down in CA141.                          Marella, which the son did. Marella expressed his intention to purchase the
                                                                                      car. A deed of sale was prepared and Irineo was instructed by his father
121      CRUZ V. PAHATI                                                               not to part with the deed and the car without receiving the purchase price
         98 PHIL 788                                                                  from Marella. When irineo and de Dios arrived at the residence of Marella,
                                                                                      the latter averred that his money was short and had to borrow from his
FACTS:                                                                                sister. He then instructed de Dios and Irineo to go the supposed house of
The car in dispute was originally owned by Northern Motors and was                    the sister to obtain the money with an unidentified person. He also asked
subsequently purchased by a Chinaman. This Chinaman then sold it to                   Irineo to leave the deed to have his lawyer see it. Relying on the good
Belizo, who in turn sold the same to Cruz. Belizo was a second-hand car               faith of Marella, Irineo did as requested. Upon arriving at the house of
dealer. He offered to Cruz that he would sell the car to a prospective buyer          Marellas supposed to be sister, de Dios and the unidentified person then
and since the car registration was missing, Cruz issued an authorization              disappeared together with the car. This prompted Santos to report the
letter to Belizo to obtain another certificate, at the insinuation of the latter.     incident to the authorities. Thereafter, Marella was able to sell the land to
The car was also turned over to Belizo. The letter was then falsified by              Aznar. And while in possession of the car, police authorities confiscated
Belizo and converted into an absolute deed of sale. Because of this, he               the same. This prompted Aznar to file an action for replevin.
was able to secure a car registration in his name and was later able to sell
the car to Balahan who then sold the car to Pahati. This prompted Cruz to             HELD:
file an action for replevin.                                                          Marella never had title to the car as the car wasn't ever delivered to him.
                                                                                      While there was a deed of sale in his favor, he was only able to obtain
HELD:                                                                                 possession of the car since he stole it from Santos.
One who has lost or has been unlawfully deprived of a movable may
recover the same from the person in possession of the same and the only               The applicable law is Article 559. The rule is to the effect that if the owner
defense the latter may have is if he has acquired it in good faith at a public        has lost a thing, or if he has been unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right
sale in which case the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing             to recover it, not only from its finder, thief or robber, but also from third
the price paid therefore. This is supplemented by the provision stating that          persons who may have acquired it in good faith from such finder, thief or
where goods are sold by a person who is not the owner thereof, and who                robber. The said article establishes 2 exceptions to the general rule of
doesn't sell them under authority or with the consent of the owner, the               irrevindicabiltyto wit, the owner has lost the thing or has been unlawfully
buyer acquires no better title to the goods than the seller had, unless the           deprived thereof. In these cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as
owner of the goods is by his conduct precluded from denying the sellers              against the owner who may recover it without paying any indemnity,
authority to sell.                                                                    except when the possessor acquired it in a public sale.
Cruz has a better right to the car in question than Bulahan or Pahati. He             Furthermore, the common law principle that where one of two innocent
has the right to recover the car as he was unlawfully deprived of it due to           persons must suffer a fraud perpetrated by another, the law imposes the
the ingenious scheme employed by Belizo. This is the case even if Bulahan             loss upon the party who, by his misplaced confidence, has enable the fraud
or Pahati acted in good faith.                                                        to be committed, cannot be applied in this case, which is covered by an
                                                                                      express provision of law.
122      AZNAR V.YAPDIANGCO
         13 SCRA 486                                                                  123      DE GARCIA V. CA
                                                                                               37 SCRA 160
                                                                                   was entitled to recover it from Dizon who was found in possession of the
FACTS:                                                                             same.
Guevarra was the owner of a ladys diamond ring with white gold
mounting, solitaire 2-karat diamond as well as 4 brills. It was stolen from        In the present case, not only has the ownership and the origin of the ring
her house. On a relevant date, while she was talking to Garcia, an owner           misappropriated been unquestionably proven but also that Sison has
of a restaurant, she recognized the ring on the latters finger and asked          fraudulently and in bad faith, disposed of and pledged them contrary to
how she acquired the same. Garcia averred that she bought it from her              agreement, with no ownership, and to the prejudice of Suntay, who was
comadre. Guevarra made Garcia know that the ring was stolen from her               thereby illegally deprived of said jewels. The owner has the right to
place days before. It was ascertained the ring was indeed Guevarras but           recover. He is not estopped when his property has been unlawfully
despite written demands, Garcia refused to return the ring.                        pledged by another.
because of the lack of funds in the check issued and want of consideration.      the check issued for payment was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds.
This is without merit. Nonpayment of purchase price only gives rise to the       This prompted the hardware store to file a case of estafa against Soto and
right to demand payment or rescission of the contract.                           prayed for the return of the sheets. This was opposed by Chua on the part
                                                                                 of the sheets he purchased. Notwithstanding this opposition, the court
Actual delivery was made to the impostor and thus, ownership was                 ordered for its return.
acquired by him. Non-payment was a matter privy to him and Edca and
doesn't involve Santos who later acquired the books.                             HELD:
                                                                                 To deprive Chua, who was in good faith, of the possession of the sheets,
126     LEDESMA V. CA                                                            may it be temporarily or permanently, is in violation of the rule laid down
        213 SCRA 195                                                             in Article 559. Possession of chattels in good faith is equivalent to title,
                                                                                 until ordered by the proper court to restore the thing to the owner who was
FACTS:                                                                           illegally derpived thereof. Until such decree is issued, the possessor as
Two motor vehiclesHonda Gemini and Holden Premiere Modelwere                   presumptive owner is entitled to the enjoyment and holding of the thing.
purchased from Citiwide Motors by a person who identified himself as Jojo
Consunji. He bought the vehicles purportedly for his father. Upon delivery       Further, the hardware store or Ong was not unlawfully deprived of the
to him of the vehicles, he paid a managers check drawn against PCIB. The        sheets. There was a perfected contract of sale between it and Soto. There
check though was dishonored by the bank on the ground that the checks           was delivery, by virtue of which, Soto was able to acquire title over the
value has been materially altered.      This was reported to the police          sheets and bars. The failure of the buyer to pay the purchase price doesn't
authorities and it was found out that the person misrepresenting himself         automatically revest ownership to the seller until the contract of sale has
was actually Suarez who had a long line of criminal cases against him for        been first rescinded or resolved. Hence, until the contract between Soto
his modus operandi. The Holden car was recovered after being abandoned           and Ong has been set aside by the competent court, the validity of Chuas
somewhere in Quezon City. The Honda on the other hand, was discovered            possession cannot be disputed and his right to possession thereof should
to be sold to Ledesma. Ledesma averred he purchased the vehicle in good          be respected.
faith from one Neyra, as evidenced by his certificate of registration.
Citiwide Motors was able to recover.                                                                           USUFRUCT
HELD:                                                                                                    USUFRUCT IN GENERAL
There was a perfected unconditional contract of sale between Citiwide
Motors and Suarez.         The subsequent dishonor of the check merely
                                                                                 Art. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another
amounted to failure of consideration which doesn't render a contract of sale
                                                                                 with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the
void, but merely allows the prejudiced party to sue for specific performance
or rescission of the sale.                                                       title constituting it or the law otherwise provides. (467)
This being the case, Citiwide motors wasn't unlawfully deprived of the           CONCEPT AND DEFINITION OF USUFRUCT
property. It is thus not entitled to the return of the vehicle from Ledesma          Right to enjoy the property of another, with the obligation of
who bought the property in good faith and for consideration.                           preserving its form and substance, unless the title containing it or
                                                                                       the law provides otherwise
127     CHUA KAI V. KAPUNAN                                                          Formula: jus utendi and jus fruendi equals usufruct; jus
        104 PHIL 110                                                                   disponendi equals naked ownership
             c.  Its purpose is to enjoy the benefits and derive the              OF THE RIGHT          the owner, or by a duly     not be the owner
                 advantages from the object as a consequence of normal                                  authorized       agent,
                 use or exploitation                                                                    acting in behalf of the
    2.   Natural characteristicsobligation of conserving and preserving                                owner
         the form and substance of the thing                                      AS TO ORIGIN          May be created by           May be created as a
    3.   Accidental characteristicsthose which may be present or absent                                contract, law, last will,   rule only contract: and
         depending upon the stipulation of the parties                                                  or prescription             by way of exception of
                                                                                                                                    law
OBJECT OF USUFRUCT                                                                 AS TO CAUSE          The owner is more or        The owner or lessor is
   1. May be real or personal property                                                                  less passive, and he        more or less active and
   2. May be sterile or productive                                                                      allows the usufructuary     he makes the lessee
   3. May be created over a right                                                                       to enjoy the thing          enjoy
                                                                                                        given in usufruct
USUFRUCT DISTINGUISHED FROM EASEMENTS                                             AS TO REPAIRS         The usufructuary has        The lessee generally
            USUFRUCT                        EASEMENT                                                    the duty to make the        has no duty to pay for
The object here may be real or This involves only real property                                         ordinary repairs            repairs
personal property                                                                  AS TO OTHER          A usufructuary may           The    lessee   cannot
                                                                                     THINGS             lease     the   property    constitute a usufruct
What can be enjoyed here are all      Easement is limited to a particular                               itself to another           on the property leased
uses and fruits of the property       use
A usufruct cannot be constituted on   An easement may be constituted in        Art. 563. Usufruct is constituted by law, by the will of private
an easement but it may be             favor of, or burdening a piece of        persons expressed in acts inter vivos or in a last will and
considered on the land burdened by    land held in usufruct                    testament, and by prescription. (468)
the easement.
                                                                               CLASSIFICATION OF USUFRUCT AS TO ORIGIN
Usually extinguished by death of      Not extinguished by the death of            1. Legalcreated by law
usufructuary                          the owner of the dominant estate            2. Voluntary or conventional
                                                                                         a. Created by the will of the parties inter vivos
                                                                                         b. Created mortis causa
USUFRUCT DISTINGUISHED FROM LEASE
                                                                                  3. Mixed
       BASIS             USUFRUCT                          LEASE
   AS TO EXTENT    Covers all fruits and          Generally covers only a      Art. 564. Usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part of the
                   uses as a rule                 particular or specific       fruits of the thing, in favor of one more persons, simultaneously or
                                                  use                          successively, and in every case from or to a certain day, purely or
 AS TO NATURE OF         Is always a real right   Is a real right only if,     conditionally. It may also be constituted on a right, provided it is
    THE RIGHT                                     as in the case of a          not strictly personal or intransmissible. (469)
                                                  lease      over     real
                                                  property, the lease is       CLASSIFICATION OF USUFRUCT ACCORDING TO QUANTITY OR
                                                  registered, or is for        EXTENT
                                                  more than 1 year,               1. As to fruitstotal or partial
                                                  otherwise, it is only a         2. As to objectuniversal or particular
                                                  personal right
AS TO THE CREATOR        Can be created only by   The lessor may or may
CLASSIFICATION OF USUFRUCT AS TO THE NUMBER OF PERSONS                         The provisions of this article shall not prejudice the rights of third
ENJOYING THE RIGHT                                                             persons, acquired either at the beginning or at the termination of
   1. Simple                                                                   the usufruct. (472)
   2. Multiple
          a. Simultaneous                                                      PENDING NATURAL OR INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
          b. Successive
                                                                               RULES
Art. 565. The rights and obligations of the usufructuary shall be                 1. FRUITS   PENDING AT THE BEGINNING OF USUFRUCT
those provided in the title constituting the usufruct; in default of                     a.    Belong to the usufructuary
such title, or in case it is deficient, the provisions contained in the                  b.    No necessity of refunding owner for expenses incurred
two following Chapters shall be observed. (470)                                          c.    But without prejudice to the right of third persons
                                                                                  2. FRUITS   PENDING AT THE TERMINATION OF USUFRUCT
RULES GOVERNING A USUFRUCT                                                               a.    Belong to the owner
   1. The agreement of the parties or the title giving the usufruct                      b.    But the owner must reimburse the usufructuary for
   2. In case of deficiency, apply the Civil Code                                              ordinary cultivation expenses and for the seeds and
                                                                                               similar expenses, from the proceeds of the fruits
                   RIGHTS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY                                              c. Also, rights of third persons shouldnt be prejudiced
Art. 566. The usufructuary shall be entitled to all the natural,               Art. 568. If the usufructuary has leased the lands or tenements
industrial and civil fruits of the property in usufruct. With respect          given in usufruct, and the usufruct should expire before the
to hidden treasure which may be found on the land or tenement, he              termination of the lease, he or his heirs and successors shall
shall be considered a stranger. (471)                                          receive only the proportionate share of the rent that must be paid
                                                                               by the lessee. (473)
SHARE OF USUFRUCTUARY REGARDING HIDDEN TREASURE
    This means that the usufructuary, not being the landowner, is not         RULE WHEN USUFRUCTUARY LEASES PROPERTY TO ANOTHER
      entitled as owner, but is entitled as finderto  of the treasure as         As a rule, the lease executed by the usufructuary should
      a rule, unless there is a contrary agreementif he is really the               terminate at the end of the usufruct or earlier
      finder                                                                       Except in case of leases of rural lands, because in said case, if
    If somebody else is the finder, the usufructuary gets nothing                   usufruct ends earlier than the lease, the lease continues for the
                                                                                     remainder of the agricultural year
Art. 567. Natural or industrial fruits growing at the time the
usufruct begins, belong to the usufructuary.                                   Art. 569. Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily, and belong to the
                                                                               usufructuary in proportion to the time the usufruct may last. (474)
Those growing at the time the usufruct terminates, belong to the
owner.                                                                         Art. 570. Whenever a usufruct is constituted on the right to receive
                                                                               a rent or periodical pension, whether in money or in fruits, or in the
In the preceding cases, the usufructuary, at the beginning of the              interest on bonds or securities payable to bearer, each payment
usufruct, has no obligation to refund to the owner any expenses                due shall be considered as the proceeds or fruits of such right.
incurred; but the owner shall be obliged to reimburse at the
termination of the usufruct, from the proceeds of the growing                  Whenever it consists in the enjoyment of benefits accruing from a
fruits, the ordinary expenses of cultivation, for seed, and other              participation in any industrial or commercial enterprise, the date of
similar expenses incurred by the usufructuary.                                 the distribution of which is not fixed, such benefits shall have the
                                                                               same character.
In either case they shall be distributed as civil fruits, and shall be         usufructuary shall have the right to make use thereof in accordance
applied in the manner prescribed in the preceding article. (475)               with the purpose for which they are intended, and shall not be
                                                                               obliged to return them at the termination of the usufruct except in
RULE AS TO CERTAIN RIGHTSRENT, PENSION, BENEFITS, ETC.                        their condition at that time; but he shall be obliged to indemnify
    The things referred to in Article 570 are considered civil fruits and     the owner for any deterioration they may have suffered by reason
       shall be deemed to accrue proportionately to the naked owner and        of his fraud or negligence. (481)
       usufructuary, for the time the usufruct lasts
                                                                               ABNORMAL USUFRUCT ON THINGS THAT DETERIORATE
Art. 571. The usufructuary shall have the right to enjoy any                       It is true that all things deteriorate but there are some things that
increase which the thing in usufruct may acquire through                             deteriorate much faster than others
accession, the servitudes established in its favor, and, in general,
all the benefits inherent therein. (479)                                       EFFECT OF DETERIORATION ON THE USUFRUCTUARYS LIABILITY:
                                                                               IF THESE FAST DETERIORATING THINGS
INCREASES IN THE THING HELD IN USUFRUCT                                             Deteriorate because of normal use, the usufructuary is not
   1. Accessions                                                                      responsible
   2. Servitudes and easements                                                      Deteriorate because of an event or act that endangers their
   3. All benefits inherent in the property                                           preservation, then even though there was no fault or negligence
                                                                                      or fraud on the part of the usufructuary, he is still required to
REASON                                                                                make the necessary or ordinary expenses
   1. Entire jus fruendi and                                                        Deteriorate because of fraud or negligence, the usufructuary is
   2. Entire jus utendi                                                               responsible
Art. 572. The usufructuary may personally enjoy the thing in                   Art. 574. Whenever the usufruct includes things which cannot be
usufruct, lease it to another, or alienate his right of usufruct, even         used without being consumed, the usufructuary shall have the right
by a gratuitous title; but all the contracts he may enter into as such         to make use of them under the obligation of paying their appraised
usufructuary shall terminate upon the expiration of the usufruct,              value at the termination of the usufruct, if they were appraised
saving leases of rural lands, which shall be considered as                     when delivered. In case they were not appraised, he shall have the
subsisting during the agricultural year. (480)                                 right to return at the same quantity and quality, or pay their
                                                                               current price at the time the usufruct ceases. (482)
RIGHTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE THING ITSELF
   1. He may personally enjoy the thing                                        ABNORMAL    USUFRUCT       ON    CONSUMABLE         THINGS/QUASI-
   2. He may lease the thing to another                                        USUFRUCT
                                                                                   The form and substance is not really preserved
RIGHTS WITH REFERENCE TO THE USUFRUCTUARY RIGHT ITSELF                             Another instance of abnormal usufruct
   1. He may alienate the usufructuary right
   2. He may pledge or mortgage the usufructuary right but he cannot           RULES FOR THIS QUASI-USUFRUCT
      pledge or mortgage the thing itself because he doesnt own the              1. The usufructuary can use them
      thing                                                                       2. But at the end of the usufruct, he must
                                                                                         a. Pay the appraised value
AMPIL QUESTION: CAN USUFRUCTUARY EXTEND A CONTRACT AND                                   b. Or if there was no appraisal, return the same kind,
NOT BE COTERMINOUS WITH THE USUFRUCT?                                                         quality, or quantity OR pay the price current at the
                                                                                              termination of the usufruct
Art. 573. Whenever the usufruct includes things which, without
being consumed, gradually deteriorate through wear and tear, the
Art. 575. The usufructuary of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs may              3.   Real right over personal property or real property
make use of the dead trunks, and even of those cut off or uprooted
by accident, under the obligation to replace them with new plants.        WHAT THE USUFRUCTUARY CAN DEMAND
(483a)                                                                      1. Authority to bring the action
                                                                            2. Proofs needed for a recovery
Art. 576. If in consequence of a calamity or extraordinary event,
the trees or shrubs shall have disappeared in such considerable           EFFECT OF JUDGMENT
number that it would not be possible or it would be too                      1. Its naked ownership belongs to the owner
burdensome to replace them, the usufructuary may leave the dead,             2. Its usufruct belongs to him
fallen or uprooted trunks at the disposal of the owner, and demand
that the latter remove them and clear the land. (484a)                    Art. 579. The usufructuary may make on the property held in
                                                                          usufruct such useful improvements or expenses for mere pleasure
Art. 577. The usufructuary of woodland may enjoy all the benefits         as he may deem proper, provided he does not alter its form or
which it may produce according to its nature.                             substance; but he shall have no right to be indemnified therefor. He
                                                                          may, however, remove such improvements, should it be possible to
If the woodland is a copse or consists of timber for building, the        do so without damage to the property. (487)
usufructuary may do such ordinary cutting or felling as the owner
was in the habit of doing, and in default of this, he may do so in        USEFUL AND LUXURIOUS IMPROVEMENTS
accordance with the custom of the place, as to the manner, amount             The usufructuary has the right to the following
and season.                                                                         1. Useful improvements
                                                                                    2. Luxurious improvements
In any case the felling or cutting of trees shall be made in such             But
manner as not to prejudice the preservation of the land.                            1. He must not alter the form or substance of the property
                                                                                       held in usufruct
In nurseries, the usufructuary may make the necessary thinnings                     2. He is not entitled to a refund but he may
in order that the remaining trees may properly grow.                                        a. Either remove the improvements if no
                                                                                                substantial damage to the property in usufruct is
With the exception of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs,                               caused
the usufructuary cannot cut down trees unless it be to restore or                           b. Or set off the improvements against damages
improve some of the things in usufruct, and in such case shall first                            for which he may be liable
inform the owner of the necessity for the work. (485)
                                                                          Art. 580. The usufructuary may set off the improvements he may
Art. 578. The usufructuary of an action to recover real property or a     have made on the property against any damage to the same. (488)
real right, or any movable property, has the right to bring the
action and to oblige the owner thereof to give him the authority for      RIGHT TO SET-OFF IMPROVEMENTS
this purpose and to furnish him whatever proof he may have. If in
consequence of the enforcement of the action he acquires the thing        RULES
claimed, the usufruct shall be limited to the fruits, the dominion           1. If damage exceeds the value of the improvements, usufructuary is
remaining with the owner. (486)                                                 still liable for the difference
                                                                             2. If the value of the improvements exceeds the damage, the
USUFRUCT OF AN ACTION TO RECOVER THROUGH THE COURTS                             difference doesnt go to the usufructuary but accrues instead in
This special usufruct deals with the right to recover by court action           the absence of contrary stipulation in favor of the naked owner,
     1. Real property                                                           otherwise, it is as if the usufructuary would be entitled to a partial
     2. Personal property                                                       refund is case
REQUIREMENTS FOR MAKING OF THE INVENTORY                                       immovables be placed under administration, that the movables be
   1. The owner must be previously notified                                    sold, that the public bonds, instruments of credit payable to order
   2. The condition of the immovables must be described                        or to bearer be converted into registered certificates or deposited
   3. The movables must be appraised                                           in a bank or public institution, and that the capital or sums in cash
   4. As a rule, no form is required except where there are real               and the proceeds of the sale of the movable property be invested in
      properties                                                               safe securities.
   5. Expenses are to be borne by the usufructuary
   6. Effect of not making inventorysame as when the security isnt           The interest on the proceeds of the sale of the movables and that
      given                                                                    on public securities and bonds, and the proceeds of the property
   7. When inventory not required                                              placed under administration, shall belong to the usufructuary.
           a. When no one will be injured thereby provided that the
               naked owner consents                                            Furthermore, the owner may, if he so prefers, until the
           b. In case of waiver by the naked owner or the law or where         usufructuary gives security or is excused from so doing, retain in
               there is stipulation in contract or will                        his possession the property in usufruct as administrator, subject to
                                                                               the obligation to deliver to the usufructuary the net proceeds
THE GIVING OF SECURITY: EXEMPTIONS                                             thereof, after deducting the sums which may be agreed upon or
   1. When no one will be injured thereby                                      judicially allowed him for such administration. (494)
   2. When there is waiver by the naked owner or there is stipulation in
       a will or contract                                                      EFFECT OF FAILURE TO GIVE SECURITY ON THE RIGHTS OF THE
   3. When the usufructuary is the donor of the property                       NAKED OWNER
   4. Where there is parental usufruct                                            1. He may deliver the property to the usufructuary
   5. When there is caucion juratoria, which takes place of the bond,             2. Or the naked owner may choose retention of the property as
       and is made by taking an oath to fulfill properly the duties of a              administrator
       usufructuary but this is available only under conditions prescribed        3. Or the naked owner may demand receivership or administration of
                                                                                      the real property, sale of movable, conversion or deposit of credit
Art. 584. The provisions of No. 2 of the preceding article shall not                  instruments, etc.
apply to the donor who has reserved the usufruct of the property
donated, or to the parents who are usufructuaries of their                     ON THE RIGHTS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY
children's property, except when the parents contract a second                    1. The usufructuary cannot possess the property until he gives the
marriage. (492a)                                                                      security
                                                                                  2. The usufructuary cannot administer the property hence he cannot
Art. 585. The usufructuary, whatever may be the title of the                          a lease thereon
usufruct, may be excused from the obligation of making an                         3. The usufructuary cannot collect credits that have matured, nor
inventory or of giving security, when no one will be injured                          invest them unless the Court or naked owner consents
thereby. (493)                                                                    4. But the usufructuary can alienate his right to the usufruct
Art. 587. If the usufructuary who has not given security claims, by         may suffer through the fault or negligence of the person who
virtue of a promise under oath, the delivery of the furniture               substitutes him. (498)
necessary for his use, and that he and his family be allowed to live
in a house included in the usufruct, the court may grant this               LIABILITY OF USUFRUCTUARY FOR ACTS OF THE SUBSTITUTE
petition, after due consideration of the facts of the case.                     The usufructuary is made liable for the acts of the substitute
                                                                                Therefore, the substitute is liable to the usufructuary while the
The same rule shall be observed with respect to implements, tools                  usufructuary becomes liable to the owner
and other movable property necessary for an industry or vocation                Even when there is sub-usufructuary, it is still the usufructuary
in which he is engaged.                                                            who answers to the naked owner
If the owner does not wish that certain articles be sold because of         Art. 591. If the usufruct be constituted on a flock or herd of
their artistic worth or because they have a sentimental value, he           livestock, the usufructuary shall be obliged to replace with the
may demand their delivery to him upon his giving security for the           young thereof the animals that die each year from natural causes,
payment of the legal interest on their appraised value. (495)               or are lost due to the rapacity of beasts of prey.
CAUCION JURATORIA                                                           If the animals on which the usufruct is constituted should all
    Promise under oath                                                     perish, without the fault of the usufructuary, on account of some
    Sworn duty to take good care of the property and return the same       contagious disease or any other uncommon event, the usufructuary
      at the end of the usufruct                                            shall fulfill his obligation by delivering to the owner the remains
                                                                            which may have been saved from the misfortune.
RESTRICTION ON USUFRUCTUARY
    He cannot alienate or lease the property for this means he doesnt     Should the herd or flock perish in part, also by accident and
      need them                                                             without the fault of the usufructuary, the usufruct shall continue on
                                                                            the part saved.
Art. 588. After the security has been given by the usufructuary, he
shall have a right to all the proceeds and benefits from the day on         Should the usufruct be on sterile animals, it shall be considered,
which, in accordance with the title constituting the usufruct, he           with respect to its effects, as though constituted on fungible things.
should have commenced to receive them. (496)                                (499a)
RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF THE SECURITY GIVEN                                    Art. 592. The usufructuary is obliged to make the ordinary repairs
                                                                            needed by the thing given in usufruct.
Art. 589. The usufructuary shall take care of the things given in
usufruct as a good father of a family. (497)                                By ordinary repairs are understood such as are required by the
                                                                            wear and tear due to the natural use of the thing and are
DUTY OF USUFRUCTUARY TO TAKE CARE OF PROPERTY                               indispensable for its preservation. Should the usufructuary fail to
   1. Usufruct is not terminated or extinguished by bad use                 make them after demand by the owner, the latter may make them
   2. The usufructuary is required to make ordinary repairs in the          at the expense of the usufructuary. (500)
      exercise of prudent care and to notify the owner of urgency of
      extraordinary repairs and of any acts which may prove                 DUTY TO MAKE ORDINARY REPAIRS
      detrimental to ownership                                                 1. They are required by normal or natural use
                                                                               2. They are needed for preservation
Art. 590. A usufructuary who alienates or leases his right of                  3. They must have occurred during the usufruct
usufruct shall answer for any damage which the things in usufruct              4. They must have happened with or without the fault of the
                                                                                   usufructuary
IT IS THE DUTY OF THE NAKED OWNER TO MAKE EXTRAORDINARY                     If the latter has paid them, the usufructuary shall pay him the
REPAIRS                                                                     proper interest on the sums which may have been paid in that
                                                                            character; and, if the said sums have been advanced by the
Art. 594. If the owner should make the extraordinary repairs, he            usufructuary, he shall recover the amount thereof at the
shall have a right to demand of the usufructuary the legal interest         termination of the usufruct. (505)
on the amount expended for the time that the usufruct lasts.
                                                                            TAXES WHICH ARE IMPOSED DIRECTLY ON THE CAPITAL
Should he not make them when they are indispensable for the                    1. If paid by the naked owner, he can demand legal interest on the
preservation of the thing, the usufructuary may make them; but he                  sum paid
shall have a right to demand of the owner, at the termination of the           2. If advanced by the usufructuary
usufruct, the increase in value which the immovable may have                           a. Should be reimbursed the amount paid but without the
acquired by reason of the repairs. (502a)                                                  legal interest
                                                                                       b. Is entitled to retention until paid
KINDS OF EXTRAORDINARY REPAIRS
   1. Those caused by natural use but not needed for preservation           Art. 598. If the usufruct be constituted on the whole of a
   2. Those caused by abnormal or exceptional circumstances and             patrimony, and if at the time of its constitution the owner has
       needed for preservation                                              debts, the provisions of Articles 758 and 759 relating to donations
   3. Those caused by abnormal or exceptional circumstances but are         shall be applied, both with respect to the maintenance of the
       not needed for preservation                                          usufruct and to the obligation of the usufructuary to pay such
                                                                            debts.
Art. 595. The owner may construct any works and make any
improvements of which the immovable in usufruct is susceptible, or          The same rule shall be applied in case the owner is obliged, at the
make new plantings thereon if it be rural, provided that such acts          time the usufruct is constituted, to make periodical payments, even
do not cause a diminution in the value of the usufruct or prejudice         if there should be no known capital. (506)
the right of the usufructuary. (503)
                                                                            WHEN USUFRUCTUARY HAS TO PAY FOR THE DEBTS OF THE NAKED
                                                                            OWNER
                                                                             EFFECT OF NON-NOTIFICATION
Art. 599. The usufructuary may claim any matured credits which                  1. The usufructuary is liable for damages, as if they had been caused
form a part of the usufruct if he has given or gives the proper                     through his own fault.
security. If he has been excused from giving security or has been               2. The usufructuary cannot even make the extraordinary repairs
able to give it, or if that given is not sufficient, he shall need the              needed
authorization of the owner, or of the court in default thereof, to              3. The inventory can go on but the naked owner may later point out
collect such credits.                                                               discrepancies and omissions in the inventory
The usufructuary who has given security may use the capital he               Art. 602. The expenses, costs and liabilities in suits brought with
has collected in any manner he may deem proper. The usufructuary             regard to the usufruct shall be borne by the usufructuary. (512)
who has not given security shall invest the said capital at interest
upon agreement with the owner; in default of such agreement, with                              EXTINGUISHMENT OF USUFRUCT
judicial authorization; and, in every case, with security sufficient to
preserve the integrity of the capital in usufruct. (507)                     Art. 603. Usufruct is extinguished:
RULES ON USUFRUCT OF A MATURED CREDIT                                            (1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary
   1. If usufructuary hasnt given security, or when he is exempted or       intention clearly appears;
       where was only a caucion juratoria, collection and investment can
       be done only with the approval of the court or of the naked owner         (2) By the expiration of the period for which it was constituted,
   2. If usufructuary has given security, collection and investments can     or by the fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in the title
       be done without the approval of the court or of the nsked owner       creating the usufruct;
Art. 600. The usufructuary of a mortgaged immovable shall not be                (3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same
obliged to pay the debt for the security of which the mortgage was           person;
constituted.
                                                                                (4) By renunciation of the usufructuary;
Should the immovable be attached or sold judicially for the
payment of the debt, the owner shall be liable to the usufructuary              (5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct;
for whatever the latter may lose by reason thereof. (509)
                                                                                 (6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting
USUFRUCT OF MORTGAGED IMMOVABLE                                              the usufruct;
Art. 601. The usufructuary shall be obliged to notify the owner of              (7) By prescription. (513a)
any act of a third person, of which he may have knowledge, that
may be prejudicial to the rights of ownership, and he shall be liable        DEATH   OF    THE     USUFRUCTUARY           ENDS    THE   USUFRUCT.
should he not do so, for damages, as if they had been caused                 EXCEPTIONS:
through his own fault. (511)                                                    1. In the case of multiple usufructs
                                                                                2. In case there is period fixed based on the number of years that
WHEN NOTIFICATION BY THE USUFRUCTUARY IS REQUIRED                                  would elapse before a person would reach a certain age
  1. If a third party commits acts prejudicial to the rights of the             3. In case the contrary intention clearly appears
      ownership
  2. If urgent repairs are needed                                            Art. 604. If the thing given in usufruct should be lost only in part,
  3. If an inventory is to be made                                           the right shall continue on the remaining part. (514)
EFFECT OF PARTIAL LOSS                                                                    c.   Therefore, also, if the naked owner wants to rebuild but
                                                                                               the usufructuary refuses, it is the usufructuary who
Art. 605. Usufruct cannot be constituted in favor of a town,                                   prevails for the use of the land is still his for the
corporation, or association for more than fifty years. If it has been                          remainder of the period
constituted, and before the expiration of such period the town is                2.   Usufruct on the building alone
abandoned, or the corporation or association is dissolved, the                            a. The usufruct on the building ends, but the usufructuary
usufruct shall be extinguished by reason thereof. (515a)                                       can still make use of whatever materials on the house
                                                                                               remain
Art. 606. A usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a                        b. Also, the usufructuary is entitled to the use of the land
third person attains a certain age, shall subsist for the number of                       c. But precisely because there was no usufruct on the land,
years specified, even if the third person should die before the                                the naked owner has preferential right to its use
period expires, unless such usufruct has been expressly granted
only in consideration of the existence of such person. (516)                 Art. 608. If the usufructuary shares with the owner the insurance
                                                                             of the tenement given in usufruct, the former shall, in case of loss,
USUFRUCT FOR THE TIME THAT MAY ELAPSE BEFORE A THIRD                         continue in the enjoyment of the new building, should one be
PERSON REACHES A CERTAIN AGE                                                 constructed, or shall receive the interest on the insurance
                                                                             indemnity if the owner does not wish to rebuild.
Art. 607. If the usufruct is constituted on immovable property of
which a building forms part, and the latter should be destroyed in           Should the usufructuary have refused to contribute to the
any manner whatsoever, the usufructuary shall have a right to                insurance, the owner insuring the tenement alone, the latter shall
make use of the land and the materials.                                      receive the full amount of the insurance indemnity in case of loss,
                                                                             saving always the right granted to the usufructuary in the
The same rule shall be applied if the usufruct is constituted on a           preceding article. (518a)
building only and the same should be destroyed. But in such a case,
if the owner should wish to construct another building, he shall             PAYMENT OF INSURANCE ON THE TENEMENT HELD IN USUFRUCT
have a right to occupy the land and to make use of the materials,                This article distinguishes   between a case where both the
being obliged to pay to the usufructuary, during the continuance of                usufructuary and the naked owner share in the payment of the
the usufruct, the interest upon the sum equivalent to the value of                 insurance premium, and a case where it is only the naked owner
the land and of the materials. (517)                                               who pays because the usufructuary refused
             c.   If usufruct was on the building alone the naked owner           compensation which may be allowed him for its administration.
                  may rebuild, with or without the approval of the                (520)
                  usufructuary, but he must pay interest on the value of
                  the land and the old materials that may have been used          EFFECT OF BAD USE ON THE PROPERTY HELD IN USUFRUCT
    3.   If the naked owner alone paid for the insurance but there is failure        1. Bad usewhich doesnt cause considerable injury to the naked
         or omission                                                                     owner
              a. The effect is the same as if there was sharing but the              2. Bad usewhich causes considerable injury to the naked owner
                  usufructuary must reimburse the naked owner his share                      a. Usufruct continues but naked owner can demand delivery
                  of the insurance premium                                                      to and administration by him but he will be obliged to pay
    4.   If the usufructuary alone pays the insurance premium                                   net proceeds to usufructuary
              a. The insurance indemnity goes to the usufructuary alone,
                  with no obligation on his part to share the indemnity           Art. 611. A usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at
                  with, nor give legal interest thereon to, the naked owner       the time of its constitution shall not be extinguished until death of
              b. The usufruct no doubt continues on the land for the              the last survivor. (521)
                  remaining period of the usufruct
              c. The usufructuary has no obligation to construct an new           RULES IN CASE OF MULTIPLE USUFRUCT
                  building or to rebuild                                             1. If constituted simultaneously, it is evident that all the
                                                                                         usufructuaries must be alive at the time of constitution. Here, it is
Art. 609. Should the thing in usufruct be expropriated for public                        the death of the last survivor which, among other cases,
use, the owner shall be obliged either to replace it with another                        terminates the usufruct
thing of the same value and of similar conditions, or to pay the                     2. If constituted successively, Article 611 also applies
usufructuary the legal interest on the amount of the indemnity for                           a. If the successive usufructs were constituted by virtue of
the whole period of the usufruct. If the owner chooses the latter                                 the donation, all the donees-usufructuaries must be living
alternative, he shall give security for the payment of the interest.                              at the time of the constitution-donation of the usufruct
(519)                                                                                        b. If the successive usufructs were constituted by virtue of a
                                                                                                  last will, there should only be two successive
RULES IN CASE OF EXPROPRIATION                                                                    usufructuaries, and both must have been alive at the
   1. If naked owner alone was given the indemnity, he has the option                             time of the testators death
            a. To replace with equivalent thing
            b. Or to pay to the usufructuary the legal interest on the            Art. 612. Upon the termination of the usufruct, the thing in usufruct
                 usufruct                                                         shall be delivered to the owner, without prejudice to the right of
   2. If both the naked owner and the usufructuary were separately                retention pertaining to the usufructuary or his heirs for taxes and
       given indemnity, each owns the indemnity given to him, the                 extraordinary expenses which should be reimbursed. After the
       usufruct is totally extinguished                                           delivery has been made, the security or mortgage shall be
   3. If usufructuary alone was given the indemnity, he must give it to           cancelled. (522a)
       the naked owner and compel the latter to return either the
       interest or to replace the property                                        RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS AT THE TERMINATION OF THE
                                                                                  USUFRUCT
Art. 610. A usufruct is not extinguished by bad use of the thing in                  1. On the part of the usufructuary
usufruct; but if the abuse should cause considerable injury to the                          a. Must return the property to the naked owner
owner, the latter may demand that the thing be delivered to him,                            b. To retain the property till he is reimbursed for taxes on
binding himself to pay annually to the usufructuary the net                                     the capital and indispensable extraordinary repairs and
proceeds of the same, after deducting the expenses and the                                      expenses
              c.     To remove removable improvements or set them off             A life usufruct constituted on the rentals of the building located on a certain
                     against damages he has caused                                place includes the rentals on both the building and on the land on which it
      2.   On the   part of the naked owner                                       is erected, because the building cannot exist without the land. Hence, the
               a.    Must cancel the security or mortgage                         usufruct isnt extinguished by the destruction of the building, for under the
               b.    Must in case of rural leases, respect leases made by the     law, usufruct is extinguished only by the total loss of the thing subject of
                     usufructuary till the end of the agricultural year           the encumbrance.
              c.     Make reimbursements to the usufructuary in the proper
                     cases                                                        130      BALURAN V. NAVARRO
                                                                                           79 SCRA 309
                          CASE DIGESTS: USUFRUCT
                                                                                  FACTS:
128        GABOYA V. CUI                                                          Spouses Paraiso entered into a barter agreement with the spouses Baluran.
           38 SCRA 85                                                             The former transferred use of their residential house in favor of the latter
                                                                                  in exchange for the latters riceland.
FACTS:
Don Mariano sold his three lots prodiviso to his three children. One of his       HELD:
children, due to lack of funds, wasnt able to purchase part of the land.         No barter agreement for purposes of transferring ownership can be inferred
This reverted back to the father. As part of the sale, the father reserved        when it is clear that the parties merely intended to transfer material
for himself the usufruct of the property. He co-owned the land with his           possession thereof.
children then. A building was then constructed in a portion of the land,
wherein rentals was given to the father. Thereafter, the two children who                           EASEMENTS OR SERVITUDES
were co-owners obtained a loan, secured by a mortgage, with authority of
the father, to construct a commercial building. The father alleges that                                    EASEMENTS IN GENERAL
since he has usufruct over the land, he has usufruct or share in the rentals
earned through the constructed building.                                          EASEMENT DEFINED
                                                                                      Encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of a
HELD:                                                                                   community or one or more persons or for the benefit of another
The reserved right of vendor on a parcel of land doesnt include rentals                immovable belonging to a different owner
from the buildings subsequently constructed on the vacant lots, but that it
did entitle the usufructuary to a reasonable rental for the portion of the        DIFFERENT KINDS OF EASEMENTS
land being occupied by the building.
129        VDA. DE ALBAR V. CARANGDANG                                            Art. 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed
                                                                                  upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging
           106 PHIL 855
                                                                                  to a different owner.
FACTS:
Dona Rosario Fabie was the owner of a parcel of land with a building              The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is
                                                                                  called the dominant estate; that which is subject thereto, the
constructed thereon.      Upon her death, she bequeathed the naked
ownership to Rosario Grey while the usufruct to Josefa. Thereafter, a fire        servient estate. (530)
broke out and the building constructed on the land was destroyed. Then a
Chinaman offered to lease the property and Josefa nows demand a share in          REAL EASEMENT DEFINED
the rentals given by the lessor.                                                      An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an
                                                                                         immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a
HELD:                                                                                    different owner.
Art. 614. Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a               Continuous easements are those the use of which is or may be
community, or of one or more persons to whom the encumbered                     incessant, without the intervention of any act of man.
estate does not belong. (531)
                                                                                Discontinuous easements are those which are used at intervals and
PERSONAL EASEMENT DISTINGUISHED FROM USUFRUCT                                   depend upon the acts of man.
     PERSONAL EASEMENT                         USUFRUCT
Cannot be alienated                Generally can be alienated                   Apparent easements are those which are made known and are
The use is specifically designated The use has a broader scope, and in          continually kept in view by external signs that reveal the use and
                                   general    comprehends     all the           enjoyment of the same.
                                   possible uses of the thing
                                                                                Nonapparent easements are those         which   show   no   external
                                                                                indication of their existence. (532)
CHARACTERISTICS OF EASEMENT
   1. A real rightaction in rem is possible against the possessor of the
                                                                                Art. 616. Easements are also positive or negative.
      servient estate
   2. Imposable only on anothers property
                                                                                A positive easement is one which imposes upon the owner of the
   3. It is a jus in re alienareal right that may be alienated although
                                                                                servient estate the obligation of allowing something to be done or
      the naked ownership is maintained
                                                                                of doing it himself, and a negative easement, that which prohibits
   4. It is a limitation or encumbrance on the servient estate for
                                                                                the owner of the servient estate from doing something which he
      anothers benefit
                                                                                could lawfully do if the easement did not exist. (533)
            a. It is essential that there be benefit
            b. It is not essential that the benefit be exercised
                                                                                CLASSIFICATION OF EASEMENTS
            c. It is not essential for the benefit to be very great
                                                                                   1. According to party given the benefit
            d. The benefit shouldnt be so great as to completely absorb
                                                                                            a. Real easementfor the benefit of another immovable
                 or impair the usefulness of the servient estate, for then,
                                                                                                 belonging to a different owner
                 this would not be merely an encumbrance but the
                                                                                            b. Personal easementfor the benefit of one or more
                 cancellation of the rights of the servient estate
                                                                                                 persons or of a community
            e. The benefit or utility goes to the dominant estate
                                                                                   2. According to the manner they are exercised
            f.   The exercise is naturally restricted by the needs of the
                                                                                            a. Continuous easements
                 dominant estate or of its owner
                                                                                            b. Discontinuous easements
            g. Easements being an abnormal restriction on the
                                                                                   3. According to whether or not their existence is indicated
                 ownership are not presumed but may be imposed by law
                                                                                            a. Apparent easement
   5. There is inherence
                                                                                            b. Non-apparent easement
   6. It is indivisible
                                                                                   4. According to the purpose of the easement or the nature of the
   7. It is intransmissible
                                                                                       limitation
   8. It is perpetual
                                                                                            a. Positive easement
                                                                                            b. Negative easement
NO EASEMENT ON PERSONAL PROPERTY
    There can be no easement on personal property; only on
                                                                                Art. 617. Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they
      immovables
                                                                                actively or passively belong. (534)
Art. 615. Easements may be continuous or discontinuous, apparent
                                                                                INSEPARABILITY OF EASEMENTS
or nonapparent.
CONSEQUENCES OF INSEPARABILITY                                                Art. 620. Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either
   1. Easements cannot be sold or donated or mortgaged independently          by virtue of a title or by prescription of ten years. (537a)
      of the real property to which they may be attached
   2. Registration of the dominant estate under Torrens system without        HOW EASEMENTS ARE ACQUIRED
      the registration of the voluntary easements in its favor doesnt           1. If continuous and apparent
      extinguish the easements but the registration of the servient                      a. By title
      estate without the registration of the easements burdening it                      b. By prescriptionten years
      extinguishes the voluntary easements.                                      2. If discontinuous and apparentonly by title
           a. Noteactual knowledge of third persons is equivalent to            3. If continuous and non-apparentonly by title
               registration in that if they have actual knowledge of the         4. If discontinuous and non-apparentonly by title
               existence of the easement, they are bound by the same,
               even though no registration has been made                      MEANING OF TITLE
                                                                                 1. Title here doesnt necessarily mean document
PROVISION OF THE LAND REGISTRATION LAW                                           2. It means a juridical act or law sufficient        to   create   the
    Easements shall continue to subsist and shall be held to pass with             encumbrance
      the title of ownership until rescinded or extinguished by virtue of
      the registration of the servient estate or in any other manner          Art. 621. In order to acquire by prescription the easements
                                                                              referred to in the preceding article, the time of possession shall be
Art. 618. Easements are indivisible. If the servient estate is divided        computed thus: in positive easements, from the day on which the
between two or more persons, the easement is not modified, and                owner of the dominant estate, or the person who may have made
each of them must bear it on the part which corresponds to him.               use of the easement, commenced to exercise it upon the servient
                                                                              estate; and in negative easements, from the day on which the
If it is the dominant estate that is divided between two or more              owner of the dominant estate forbade, by an instrument
persons, each of them may use the easement in its entirety,                   acknowledged before a notary public, the owner of the servient
without changing the place of its use, or making it more                      estate, from executing an act which would be lawful without the
burdensome in any other way. (535)                                            easement. (538a)
Art. 623. The absence of a document or proof showing the origin of          APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE
an easement which cannot be acquired by prescription may be                    1. Whether only one or both estates is alienated
cured by a deed of recognition by the owner of the servient estate             2. Even if there be only one estate but there are two portions
or by a final judgment. (540a)                                                    thereof, as long as later on there is a division of the ownership of
                                                                                  the said portion
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE                                                       3. Even in the case of division of common property, though this is
   1. Continuous non-apparent                                                     not an alienation
   2. Discontinuous easements
                                                                            WHEN ARTICLE DOESNT APPLY
HOW PROOF MAY BE GIVEN OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE EASEMENTS                       Doesnt apply in case both estates or both portions are alienated
   1. By deed of recognition by the servient owner                                to the same owner, for then there would be no true easement
   2. Final judgment                                                              unless there is a further alienation, this time, to different owners
Art. 624. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between             Art. 625. Upon the establishment of an easement, all the rights
two estates, established or maintained by the owner of both, shall          necessary for its use are considered granted. (542)
be considered, should either of them be alienated, as a title in
order that the easement may continue actively and passively,                GRANT OF NECESSARY RIGHTS FOR THE USE OF THE EASEMENT
unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the           1. Unless the necessary rights are also granted, the right to the
contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of               easement itself is rendered nugatory
them, or the sign aforesaid should be removed before the                       2. Necessary rights include repair, maintenance, accessory
execution of the deed. This provision shall also apply in case of the             easements, such as the right of way if the easement is for the
division of a thing owned in common by two or more persons.                       drawing of water
(541a)                                                                         3. Termination of the principal easement necessarily ends all the
                                                                                  secondary or accessory easements
APPARENT SIGNS OF EASEMENT THAT APPARENTLY EXISTS                           Art. 626. The owner of the dominant estate cannot use the
   1. Originally no true easement exists here because there is only one     easement except for the benefit of the immovable originally
      owner                                                                 contemplated. Neither can he exercise the easement in any other
   2. The article speaks of apparent visible easements                      manner than that previously established. (n)
   3. Outward indication
   4. It is not essential that there be apparent sign between the two       USE OF THE EASEMENT FOR              BENEFIT     OF   THE   IMMOVABLE
      estates; it is important that there is an apparent sign that the      ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED
      easement exists between the two estates
                                                                            RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNERS OF THE DOMINANT
N.B: Immaterial period of counting prescription.                            AND SERVIENT ESTATES
Art. 627. The owner of the dominant estate may make, at his own                2.   To make on the servient estate all works necessary the use and
expense, on the servient state any works necessary for the use and                  preservation of the servitude but
preservation of the servitude, but without altering it or rendering it                  a. This must be at his own expense
more burdensome.                                                                        b. He must notify the servient owner
                                                                                        c. Select convenient time and manner
For this purpose he shall notify the owner of the servient estate,                      d. He must not alter the easement nor render it more
and shall choose the most convenient time and manner so as to                                burdensome
cause the least inconvenience to the owner of the servient estate.             3.   To ask for mandatory injunction to prevent impairment or
(543a)                                                                              obstruction in the exercise of the easement as when the owner of
                                                                                    the servient estate obstructs the right of way by building a wall or
Art. 628. Should there be several dominant estates, the owners of                   fence
all of them shall be obliged to contribute to the expenses referred            4.   To renounce totally the easement if he desires exemption ffrom
to in the preceding article, in proportion to the benefits which each               contribution to expenses
may derive from the work. Any one who does not wish to
contribute may exempt himself by renouncing the easement for the           OBLIGATIONS OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE
benefit of the others.                                                        1. He cannot alter the easement
                                                                              2. He cannot make it more burdensome
If the owner of the servient estate should make use of the                            a. Thus he cannot use the easement except for movable
easement in any manner whatsoever, he shall also be obliged to                            originally contemplated
contribute to the expenses in the proportion stated, saving an                        b. In the easement of right of way, he cannot increase the
agreement to the contrary. (544)                                                          agreed width of the path nor deposit soil or materials
                                                                                          outside of the boundaries agreed upon
Art. 629. The owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any              3. If there be several dominant estates, each must contribute to
manner whatsoever, the use of the servitude.                                     necessary repairs and expenses in proportion to the benefits
                                                                                 received by each estate
Nevertheless, if by reason of the place originally assigned, or of the
manner established for the use of the easement, the same should            RIGHTS OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE
become very inconvenient to the owner of the servient estate, or              1. To retain ownership and possession of the portion of his land
should prevent him from making any important works, repairs or                   affected by the easement
improvements thereon, it may be changed at his expense, provided              2. To make use of the easement, unless deprived by stipulation
he offers another place or manner equally convenient and in such a               provided that the exercise of the easement isnt adversely affected
way that no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant                and provided further that he contributes to the expenses in
estate or to those who may have a right to the use of the                        proportion to the benefits received, unless there is contrary
easement. (545)                                                                  stipulation
                                                                              3. To change the location of a very inconvenient easement provided
Art. 630. The owner of the servient estate retains the ownership of              that an equally convenient substitute is made, without injury to
the portion on which the easement is established, and may use the                the dominant estate
same in such a manner as not to affect the exercise of the
easement. (n)                                                              OBLIGATIONS OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE
                                                                              1. He cannot impair the use of the easement
RIGHTS OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE                                                 2. He must contribute to the expenses in case he uses the easement,
   1. To exercise the easement and all necessary rights for its use              unless there is contrary stipulation
      including accessory easement                                            3. In case of impairment, to restore conditions to the status quo at
                                                                                 his expense plus damages
    4.   To pay for the damages incurred for the changes of location or     Art. 633. If the dominant estate belongs to several persons in
         form of the easement                                               common, the use of the easement by any one of them prevents
                                                                            prescription with respect to the others. (548)
MODES OF EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENTS
                                                                            EFFECT ON PRESCRIPTION OF USE BY ONE CO-OWNER OF THE
Art. 631. Easements are extinguished:                                       DOMINANT ESTATE
                                                                                The use benefits the other co-owners, hence, there will be no
   (1) By merger in the same person of the ownership of the                        prescription even with respect to their own shares
dominant and servient estates;
                                                                            REASON FOR THIS ARTICLE
   (2) By nonuser for ten years; with respect to discontinuous                  The easement is indivisible
easements, this period shall be computed from the day on which
they ceased to be used; and, with respect to continuous easements,                                CASE DIGESTS: EASEMENTS
from the day on which an act contrary to the same took place;
                                                                            131     RELOVA V. LAVAREZ
    (3) When either or both of the estates fall into such condition                 9 PHIL 149
that the easement cannot be used; but it shall revive if the
subsequent condition of the estates or either of them should again          FACTS:
permit its use, unless when the use becomes possible, sufficient            Plaintiff is an owner of a rice land being irrigated through an aqueduct. A
time for prescription has elapsed, in accordance with the provisions        dam existed in the land of defendant which controls the water in the
of the preceding number;                                                    aqueduct. When plaintiff was preparing to plant, the defendant destroyed
                                                                            the dam causing damage to plaintiff.
   (4) By the expiration of the term or the fulfillment of the
condition, if the easement is temporary or conditional;                     HELD:
                                                                            The enjoyment of the plaintiff of an easement for the maintenance of an
   (5) By the renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate;             irrigation aqueduct and a dam on the lands of defendant for a period of
                                                                            more than 20 years confers title thereto upon the plaintiff by virtue of
   (6) By the redemption agreed upon between the owners of the              prescription and burdens the lands of the defendants with a corresponding
dominant and servient estates. (546a)                                       servitude.
Art. 632. The form or manner of using the easement may prescribe            132     SOLID MANILA V. BIO HONG TRADING
as the easement itself, and in the same way. (547a)                                 195 SCRA 748
FACTS:                                                                            HELD:
Javier sought to enforce easement against Cid, claiming that she orally           The easement of light and view and altiuus non tollendi go together
prohibited Cid from impairing the easement.                                       because an easement of light and view requires that the owner of the
                                                                                  servient estate shall not build to a height that will obstruct the window.
HELD:
Oral prohibition is not the prohibition that the law contemplates with regard     137      AMOR V. FLORENTINO
negative easements.                                                                        74 PHIL 404
FACTS:                                                                            HELD:
Cortes sought to enforce easement of light and view against Yu-tibo,
claiming to have opened the windows in their house for around 59 years.
                                                                                  138      GARGANTOS V. TAN YANON
HELD:                                                                                      108 PHIL 888
An easement of light and view is a negative easement.             A notarial
prohibition is needed to commence prescriptive period.                            FACTS:
                                                                                  Sanz owned property which he partitioned into 3. On lot #2 was a house
An easement of light and view is only positive in relation to party walls and     which obtained light from lot #3. A camarin was constructed over lot #3.
apparent signs of easement.                                                       The owner of the third lot was able to secure permits for the demolition of
                                                                                  the camarin to pave way for the construction of a warehouse and house.
135      ABELLANA V. CA                                                           This was opposed by the owner of lot #2.
         208 SCRA 316
                                                                                  HELD:
FACTS:                                                                            No prescription needed. There exists an apparent sign of easement.
Petitioners were owners of property abutting a subdivision. They claim an
easement against the subdivision owner for an alleged footpath that they          139      VALDERAMA V. NORTH NEGROS SUGAR CENTRAL
had on the land since time immemorial.                                                     48 PHIL 492
HELD:                                                                             FACTS:
A footpath may be apparent but it is not a continuous easement. It cannot         Case regarding the milling contracts and use of the railroad in going to the
be acquired through prescription but only through title.                          sugar central
           the servient estates cannot limit its use to the transportation of     house. Thereafter, the second lot was sold to spouses Sim who blocked
           their cane, there being no express stipulation to that effect.         the sewage pipe.
      2.   An easement of way is not more burdensome by causing to pass
           thereon wagons carrying goods pertaining to persons who arent         HELD:
           owners of the servient estates and at all time the person entitled     Absent any statement abolishing the easement of drainage the use of the
           to the easement may please, for in such case the easement              septic tank is continued by operation of law. The new owners of the
           continues to be the same.                                              servient estate cannot impair the use of the easement.
FACTS:                                                                            FACTS:
Marsall owned a parcel of land adjoining a river and elementary school.           Petitioners filed a case for alleged violations of their right of first refusal
Before owning the land, there existed already a main canal, transversing          under PD1517, claiming to be urban lessees or tenants. The complaint was
the property from the river up to the area of the school. Javellana together      dismissed from the finding that they are not lessees.
with others closed the canal and destroyed the dam, leading to damages
caused to those benefiting from the canal.                                        HELD:
                                                                                  Where a person is allowed to construct his house on the land of another to
HELD:                                                                             facilitate gathering of fruits, this would be in the nature of a personal
It is violative against the owner of a dominant estate to have closed the         easement.
canals and destroyed the dam which supplies water to the dominant
estate.                                                                                                        LEGAL EASEMENTS
Art. 635. All matters concerning easements established for public               2.   The stones and earth carried by the waters
or communal use shall be governed by the special laws and
regulations relating thereto, and, in the absence thereof, by the           DUTIES OF THE SERVIENT ESTATE
provisions of this Title. (550)                                                 The owner cannot construct works that would impede the
                                                                                   easement
Art. 636. Easements established by law in the interest of private
persons or for private use shall be governed by the provisions of           DUTIES OF THE DOMINANT ESTATE
this Title, without prejudice to the provisions of general or local            1. He cannot make works which will increase the burden
laws and ordinances for the general welfare.                                   2. But he may construct works preventing erosion
                                                                               3. If the descending waters are the result of artificial development or
These easements may be modified by agreement of the interested                     proceed from industrial establishments recently set up, or are the
parties, whenever the law does not prohibit it or no injury is                     overflow from irrigation dams, the owner of the lower estate shall
suffered by a third person. (551a)                                                 be entitled to compensation for his loss or damage
HOW LEGAL EASEMENTS FOR PRIVATE INTERESTS ARE GOVERNED                      CONTRACT MAY EXTINGUISH LEGAL EASEMENT
   1. Agreement of the interested parties
   2. In default the above, of general or local laws and ordinances for     THERE IS NO NEED FOR INDEMNITY AS LONG AS THERE IS
      the general welfare                                                   COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS
   3. In default of the above, the Civil Code
                                                                            Art. 638. The banks of rivers and streams, even in case they are of
EASEMENTS RELATING TO WATERS                                                private ownership, are subject throughout their entire length and
                                                                            within a zone of three meters along their margins, to the easement
Art. 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which             of public use in the general interest of navigation, floatage, fishing
naturally and without the intervention of man descend from the              and salvage.
higher estates, as well as the stones or earth which they carry with
them.                                                                       Estates adjoining the banks of navigable or floatable rivers are,
                                                                            furthermore, subject to the easement of towpath for the exclusive
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will             service of river navigation and floatage.
impede this easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate
make works which will increase the burden. (552)                            If it be necessary for such purpose to occupy lands of private
                                                                            ownership, the proper indemnity shall first be paid. (553a)
ENUMERATION OF LEGAL EASEMENT RELATING TO WATERS
   1. Natural drainage of lands                                             EASEMENT ALONG RIPARIAN BANKS
   2. Natural drainage of buildings
   3. Easement on riparian banks for navigation, floatage, fishing and      RIVER BANK, DEFINED
      salvage                                                                   A bank is a lateral strip of shore washed by the water during high
   4. Easement of a dam                                                            tides but which cannot be said to be flooded or inundated
   5. Easement for drawing water or for watering animals
   6. Easement of aqueduct                                                  THE EASEMENTS ALLOWED
   7. Easement for the construction of a stop luck or sluice                   1. On banks of rivers; a public easement for
                                                                                      a. Navigation
WHAT LOWER ESTATES ARE OBLIGED TO RECEIVE                                             b. Floatage
  1. Water which naturally and without the intervention of man                        c. Fishing
      descends from the higher estates                                                d. Salvage
    2.   On banks of navigable or floatable riversalso the easement of         3.   The right must be sought not by one individual but by the town or
         tow path                                                                    village, through its legal representative
                                                                                4.   The right of way should have a maximum width of 10 meters,
PAYMENT OF INDEMNITY                                                                 which cannot be altered by the owners of the servient estates
   1. If the land be of public ownershipno indemnity                                although the direction of the path may indeed be changed,
   2. If the land be of private ownershipindemnity                                  provided that the use of the easement is not prejudiced
WIDTH OF ZONE BURDENED                                                      Art. 642. Any person who may wish to use upon his own estate any
   1. Three meters along the river margins, for navigation, floatage,       water of which he can dispose shall have the right to make it flow
      fishing or salvage                                                    through the intervening estates, with the obligation to indemnify
   2. Tow path2 meters if for animals and 1 meter if for pedestrians       their owners, as well as the owners of the lower estates upon
                                                                            which the waters may filter or descend. (557)
Art. 639. Whenever for the diversion or taking of water from a river
or brook, or for the use of any other continuous or discontinuous           EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT
stream, it should be necessary to build a dam, and the person who               The right to make water flow through intervening estates in order
is to construct it is not the owner of the banks, or lands which must             that one may make use of said waters
support it, he may establish the easement of abutment of a dam,
after payment of the proper indemnity. (554)                                RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT
Art. 641. Easements for drawing water and for watering animals                  (1) To prove that he can dispose of the water and that it is
carry with them the obligation of the owners of the servient estates        sufficient for the use for which it is intended;
to allow passage to persons and animals to the place where such
easements are to be used, and the indemnity shall include this                 (2) To show that the proposed right of way is the most
service. (556)                                                              convenient and the least onerous to third persons;
EASEMENTS COVERED                                                              (3) To indemnify the owner of the servient estate in the manner
    Easements for drawing water and watering animals but there is          determined by the laws and regulations. (558)
      also an accessory easement combined with easement of right of
      way                                                                   Art. 644. The easement of aqueduct for private interest cannot be
                                                                            imposed on buildings, courtyards, annexes, or outhouses, or on
REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH AN EASEMENT TO EXIST                                  orchards or gardens already existing. (559)
   1. It must be for public use
   2. It must be in favor of a town or village
Art. 645. The easement of aqueduct does not prevent the owner of
the servient estate from closing or fencing it, or from building over        Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use
the aqueduct in such manner as not to cause the latter any                   may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate,
damage, or render necessary repairs and cleanings impossible.                establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of
(560)                                                                        the value of the land occupied and the amount of the damage
                                                                             caused to the servient estate.
Art. 646. For legal purposes, the easement of aqueduct shall be
considered as continuous and apparent, even though the flow of               In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the
the water may not be continuous, or its use depends upon the                 cultivation of the estate surrounded by others and for the gathering
needs of the dominant estate, or upon a schedule of alternate days           of its crops through the servient estate without a permanent way,
or hours. (561)                                                              the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the damage caused
                                                                             by such encumbrance.
Art. 647. One who for the purpose of irrigating or improving his
estate, has to construct a stop lock or sluice gate in the bed of the        This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable
stream from which the water is to be taken, may demand that the              is due to the proprietor's own acts. (564a)
owners of the banks permit its construction, after payment of
damages, including those caused by the new easement to such                  EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY DEFINED
owners and to the other irrigators. (562)                                        Easement or privilege by which one person in a particular class of
                                                                                   persons is allowed to pass over another land, usually through one
CONSTRUCTION OF A STOP LOCK OR SLUICE GATE                                         particular path or line
   1. Purpose must be for irrigation or improvement
   2. The construction must be on the estate of another                      REQUISITES FOR THE EASEMENT
   3. Damages must be paid                                                      1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no
   4. Third persons shouldnt be prejudiced                                        adequate outlet to a public highway
                                                                                2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
Art. 648. The establishment, extent, form and conditions of the                    estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance
servitudes of waters, to which this section refers, shall be governed              from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest
by the special laws relating thereto insofar as no provision therefor           3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
is made in this Code. (563a)                                                    4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
N.B: Adequacy to dominant estate                                                          b.   Should pay proportionate share of taxes to the servient
                                                                                               estate
Art. 651. The width of the easement of right of way shall be that
which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate, and may             Art. 655. If the right of way granted to a surrounded estate ceases
accordingly be changed from time to time. (566a)                              to be necessary because its owner has joined it to another abutting
                                                                              on a public road, the owner of the servient estate MAY DEMAND
WIDTH OF PATH                                                                 that the easement be extinguished, returning what he may have
    The width may be modified from time to time depending on the             received by way of indemnity. The interest on the indemnity shall
      reasonable needs of the dominant estate                                 be deemed to be in payment of rent for the use of the easement.
Art. 652. Whenever a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or              The same rule shall be applied in case a new road is opened giving
partition, is surrounded by other estates of the vendor, exchanger,           access to the isolated estate.
or co-owner, he shall be obliged to grant a right of way without
indemnity.                                                                    In both cases, the public highway must substantially meet the
                                                                              needs of the dominant estate in order that the easement may be
In case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by the           extinguished. (568a)
donee for the establishment of the right of way. (567a)
                                                                              CAUSES FOR EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF
                                                                              WAY
RULE IF LAND OF VENDOR IS ISOLATED FROM THE HIGHWAY                              1. Opening of a new road
    Indemnity included in the purchase pricethe buyer is the owner             2. Joining the dominant estate to another
       of the dominant estate
                                                                              EXTINGUISHMENT NOT AUTOMATIC
Art. 653. In the case of the preceding article, if it is the land of the          The extinguishment is not automatic
grantor that becomes isolated, he may demand a right of way after                 The law says that the servient estate may demand
paying a indemnity. However, the donor shall not be liable for                    It follows that if he chooses not to demand, the easement remains
indemnity. (n)                                                                      and he has no duty to refund the indemnity
RULES IF GRANTOR OR GRANTEES LAND IS ENCLOSED                                NON-APPLICABILITY OF THE ARTICLE TO A VOLUNTARY EASEMENT
   1. If the enclosing estate is that of the grantor, the grantee doesnt
       pay indemnity for the easement                                         NO RETURN OF INDEMNITY IN CASE OF TEMPORARY EASEMENT
   2. If the enclosed estate is that of the grantor, the grantor must pay
       indemnity                                                              Art. 656. If it be indispensable for the construction, repair,
                                                                              improvement, alteration or beautification of a building, to carry
Art. 654. If the right of way is permanent, the necessary repairs             materials through the estate of another, or to raise therein
shall be made by the owner of the dominant estate. A                          scaffolding or other objects necessary for the work, the owner of
proportionate share of the taxes shall be reimbursed by said owner            such estate shall be obliged to permit the act, after receiving
to the proprietor of the servient estate. (n)                                 payment of the proper indemnity for the damage caused him.
                                                                              (569a)
OWNERSHIP OF, REPAIRS AND TAXES ON, THE PATH
  1. Even though permanent, the path belongs to the servient estate,          TEMPORARY EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WWAY
     and he pays all the taxes                                                   1. The easement here is necessarily only temporary, nonetheless
  2. But the dominant estate                                                       proper indemnity must be given
         a. Should pay for repairs                                               2. Indispensable is not to be construed literally
      3.   The owner can make use of Article 656                                       3.   There must be payment of the proper indemnity
                                                                                       4.   The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
Art. 657. Easements of the right of way for the passage of livestock
known as animal path, animal trail or any other, and those for                   The private respondents failed           to   show    compliance    with   the
watering places, resting places and animal folds, shall be governed              abovementioned requirements.
by the ordinances and regulations relating thereto, and, in the
absence thereof, by the usages and customs of the place.                         145        VILLANUEVA V. VELASCO
                                                                                            346 SCRA 99
Without prejudice to rights legally acquired, the animal path shall
not exceed in any case the width of 75 meters, and the animal trail              FACTS:
that of 37 meters and 50 centimeters.                                            Spouses Gabriel were the previous owners of a house which encroached on
                                                                                 the easement of right of way of Sebastian and Lotilla. By virtue of this, a
Whenever it is necessary to establish a compulsory easement of                   case was filed against the spouses. Thereafter, the house was sold to
the right of way or for a watering place for animals, the provisions             Villanueva. The trial court and appellate court held in favor of Sebastian
of this Section and those of Articles 640 and 641 shall be observed.             and Lotilla and ordered the demolition of the house. This was questioned
In this case the width shall not exceed 10 meters. (570a)                        by Villanueva on claims that he acquired the property under a clean title
                                                                                 and that he wasnt a party to the previous case.
EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PASSAGE OF LIVESTOCK:
WIDTH                                                                            HELD:
   1. Animal path75 meters                                                      A legal easement is one mandated by law, constituted for public use and
   2. Animal trail37 meters and 50 centimeters                                  for private interest and becomes a continuous property right.
   3. Cattle10 meters
                                                                                 The following are the essential requisites for a compulsory right of way
                    CASE DIGESTS: LEGAL EASEMENTS                                    1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no
                                                                                          adequate outlet to a public highway
144        COSTABELLA CORP. V. CA                                                    2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
           193 SCRA 333                                                                   estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance
                                                                                          from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest
FACTS:                                                                               3. There must be payment of the proper indemnity
Petitioner was the owner of a beachfront property, it later constructed a            4. The isolation should not be due to the proprietors own acts
beach resort thereto. The private respondents on the other hand were the
owners of the adjoining properties. Prior to the construction of the resort,     146        CRISTOBAL V. CA
the property was being used as passageway in going to the provincial road                   291 SCRA 122
and city proper. Upon the construction of the first phase, pathway was
closed but they were given an alternate route.                                   FACTS:
                                                                                 Cristobal owned a house and lot in Visayas Avenue Extension. Ledesma on
HELD:                                                                            the other hand was the owner of the adjoining subdivision, which included
The following are the requirements for the compulsory easement of right of       the disputed lots 1 and 2. Lots 1 and 2 were originally a part of the private
way                                                                             road. Upon the making of Visayas Avenue as a public road, Ledesma
    1. The property is surrounded by estate of others and there is no            petitioned the exclusion of the two disputed lots from the road. He was
         adequate outlet to a public highway                                     granted to do so. Upon the sale of the lots to a third person, it was
    2. It must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient     discovered that there were squatters on the land and that it was being
         estate and insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance     used as a passageway by petitioners. This prompted the new owner to
         from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest        enclose the lot.
HELD:                                                                           FACTS:
Where the land was originally public land, and awarded by free patent with      Petitioners property is behind the property formerly owned by Singian
a reservation for a legal easement of a right of way in favor of the            brothers. It was through the latters property on which Chan had a small
government, just compensation need not be paid for the taking of the part       clearance to go to the national road. She believed that she was entitled to
thereof for public use as an easement of right of way.                          a bigger clearance.     The property of the brothers then was sold to
                                                                                Philippine Rabbit.
153     ENCARNACION V. CA
        195 SCRA 74                                                             HELD:
                                                                                Same as above.
FACTS:
Encarnacions property was behind the property of De Sagun. It was the          156      ALMENDRAS V. CA
latters property which was fronting the public road. Not long after,                    GR 110067, MARCH 13, 1997
Encarnacion engaged in the plant nursing business which flourished. His
jeepney couldnt pass through the pathway. He offered to pay for the            FACTS:
widening but was denied.                                                        Almendras property was surrounded by different properties owned by
                                                                                different peopleon the north was Pang Engs, east was Yaps, west was
HELD:                                                                           Opones, and south was Bongos. Yap and Pang Eng both enclosed their
It is the needs of the dominant estate which ultimately determines the          properties against Almendras. She filed for an easement of right of way.
width of the passage and these needs may vary from time to time.                Bongo then enclosed his property and this was followed soon after by
                                                                                Opone.
154     VDA. DE BALTAZAR V. CA
EASEMENT OF PARTY WALL                                                                  (3) Whenever the entire wall is built within the boundaries of
                                                                                     one of the estates;
Art. 658. The easement of party wall shall be governed by the
provisions of this Title, by the local ordinances and customs insofar                    (4) Whenever the dividing wall bears the burden of the binding
as they do not conflict with the same, and by the rules of co-                       beams, floors and roof frame of one of the buildings, but not those
ownership. (571a)                                                                    of the others;
PARTY WALL DEFINED                                                                       (5) Whenever the dividing wall between courtyards, gardens,
    Wall at the dividing line of estates                                            and tenements is constructed in such a way that the coping sheds
    Co-ownership governs the wall,             hence,   the   party   wall   is     the water upon only one of the estates;
      necessarily a common wall
                                                                                        (6) Whenever the dividing wall, being built of masonry, has
Art. 659. The existence of an easement of party wall is presumed,                    stepping stones, which at certain intervals project from the surface
unless there is a title, or exterior sign, or proof to the contrary:                 on one side only, but not on the other;
   (1) In dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the point of                      (7) Whenever lands inclosed by fences or live hedges adjoin
common elevation;                                                                    others which are not inclosed.
   (2) In dividing walls of gardens or yards situated in cities,                     In all these cases, the ownership of the walls, fences or hedges
towns, or in rural communities;                                                      shall be deemed to belong exclusively to the owner of the property
                                                                                     or tenement which has in its favor the presumption based on any
    (3) In fences, walls and live hedges dividing rural lands. (572)                 one of these signs. (573)
EXTERIOR SIGNS NEGATIVING THE EXISTENCE OF A PARTY WALL                           2.   Must be made voluntarily and with full knowledge of the facts
    This article enumerates by illustration exterior signs rebutting the         3.   Must be made before the expenses are incurred
      presumption of there being an easement of a party wall                      4.   Made with the implied condition that the other owner should make
                                                                                       or pay for the repairs
CONFLICTING EXTERIOR SIGNS                                                        5.   Must be of both the share in the wall and share in the land, for the
    If one owner has signs in his favor, and some against him, they                   wall cannot be used without the land
      generally cancel each other, unless it can be shown from the
      purpose of the wall that it had been made for the exclusive benefit     Art. 663. If the owner of a building, supported by a party wall
      of one                                                                  desires to demolish the building, he may also renounce his part-
                                                                              ownership of the wall, but the cost of all repairs and work
Art. 661. Ditches or drains opened between two estates are also               necessary to prevent any damage which the demolition may cause
presumed as common to both, if there is no title or sign showing              to the party wall, on this occasion only, shall be borne by him.
the contrary.                                                                 (576)
There is a sign contrary to the part-ownership whenever the earth             DEMOLITION OF A BUILDING SUPPORTED BY THE PARTY WALL
or dirt removed to open the ditch or to clean it is only on one side              Indemnification must be made for damages
thereof, in which case the ownership of the ditch shall belong
exclusively to the owner of the land having this exterior sign in its         Art. 664. Every owner may increase the height of the party wall,
favor. (574)                                                                  doing at his own expense and paying for any damage which may be
                                                                              caused by the work, even though such damage be temporary.
PARTY DITCHES OR DRAINS
    The presumption of party wall applies to ditches and drains              The expenses of maintaining the wall in the part newly raised or
       opened between two estates                                             deepened at its foundation shall also be paid for by him; and, in
                                                                              addition, the indemnity for the increased expenses which may be
REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION                                                        necessary for the preservation of the party wall by reason of the
                                                                              greater height or depth which has been given it.
Art. 662. The cost of repairs and construction of party walls and the
maintenance of fences, live hedges, ditches, and drains owned in              If the party wall cannot bear the increased height, the owner
common, shall be borne by all the owners of the lands or                      desiring to raise it shall be obliged to reconstruct it at his own
tenements having the party wall in their favor, in proportion to the          expense and, if for this purpose it be necessary to make it thicker,
right of each.                                                                he shall give the space required from his own land. (577)
Nevertheless, any owner may exempt himself from contributing to               INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THE PARTY WALL
this charge by renouncing his part-ownership, except when the                    1. Must do so at his own expense
party wall supports a building belonging to him. (575)                           2. Must pay the necessary damages caused, even if the damage be
                                                                                    temporary
REPAIRS ON AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARTY WALL                                        3. Must bear the costs of maintenance of the portion added
                                                                                 4. Must pay for the increased cost of preservation
WHEN RENUNCIATION CAN BE MADE                                                    5. Must reconstruct if original wall cannot bear the increased height
  1. The repair had already been contracted for and made                         6. Must give the additional space necessary if wall is to be thickened
  2. He still uses the wall
                                                                              EXCLUSIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE ADDITIONS
REQUISITES FOR THE RENUNCIATION OF THE SHARE
   1. Must be total or complete
Art. 665. The other owners who have not contributed in giving                     2.   Negativeif the window is through ones own wall, that is,
increased height, depth or thickness to the wall may, nevertheless,                    through a wall of the dominant estate
acquire the right of part-ownership therein,             by paying
proportionally the value of the work at the time of the acquisition           Art. 669. When the distances in Article 670 are not observed, the
and of the land used for its increased thickness. (578a)                      owner of a wall which is not party wall, adjoining a tenement or
                                                                              piece of land belonging to another, can make in it openings to
HOW THE OTHER OWNERS MAY ACQUIRE PART-OWNERSHIP IN                            admit light at the height of the ceiling joints or immediately under
THE ADDITIONS                                                                 the ceiling, and of the size of thirty centimeters square, and, in
    The value of the additions at the time of acquisition by the others      every case, with an iron grating imbedded in the wall and with a
      should be paid                                                          wire screen.
Art. 666. Every part-owner of a party wall may use it in proportion           Nevertheless, the owner of the tenement or property adjoining the
to the right he may have in the co-ownership, without interfering             wall in which the openings are made can close them should he
with the common and respective uses by the other co-owners.                   acquire part-ownership thereof, if there be no stipulation to the
(579a)                                                                        contrary.
EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW                                                    He can also obstruct them by constructing a building on his land or
                                                                              by raising a wall thereon contiguous to that having such openings,
Art. 667. No part-owner may, without the consent of the others,               unless an easement of light has been acquired. (581a)
open through the party wall any window or aperture of any kind.
(580)                                                                         RESTRICTED WINDOWS
                                                                                  The openings or windows referred to in this article are for light,
PROVISION PERTAINS TO PROHIBITION TO MAKE AN OPENING                                not view, hence, the conditions or restrictions set for them
THROUGH THE PARTY WALL
                                                                              THE RESTRICTIONS THEMSELVES
Art. 668. The period of prescription for the acquisition of an                   1. Maximum size is 30 cm. square
easement of light and view shall be counted:                                     2. There must be an iron grating imbedded in the wall
                                                                                 3. There must be a wire screen
   (1) From the time of the opening of the window, if it is through              4. The opening must be at the height of the ceiling joists or
a party wall; or                                                                     immediately under the ceiling
    (2) From the time of the formal prohibition upon the proprietor           SANCTIONS IN CASE OF VIOLATIONS
of the adjoining land or tenement, if the window is through a wall               1. He can obstruct the light
on the dominant estate. (n)                                                              a. By constructing a higher building on his own land
                                                                                         b. Or by raising a blocking wall
WHEN EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW IS POSITIVE AND WHEN                             2. If the wall becomes a party wall he can close the window, unless
NEGATIVE                                                                            there is a stipulation to the contrary
   1. Positiveif the window is through a party wall. Therefore the
      period of prescription commences from the time the window is            Art. 670. No windows, apertures, balconies, or other similar
      opened.                                                                 projections which afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining
           a. The mere opening of the window doesnt create the               land or tenement can be made, without leaving a distance of two
               easement; it is only when after a sufficient lapse of time     meters between the wall in which they are made and such
               the window still remains open, the easement of light and       contiguous property.
               view is created
Neither can side or oblique views upon or towards such                         three meters wide,      subject   to   special   regulations   and   local
conterminous property be had, unless there be a distance of sixty              ordinances. (584a)
centimeters.
                                                                               RULE WHEN THE BUILDINGS ARE SEPARATED BY A PUBLIC WAY OR
The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to                     ALLEY
prescription. (582a)                                                               When buildings are separated by a public way or alley, there
                                                                                     should be a minimum distance of 3 meters
Art. 671. The distance referred to in the preceding article shall be
measured in cases of direct views from the outer line of the wall              Art. 673. Whenever by any title a right has been acquired to have
when the openings do not project, from the outer line of the latter            direct views, balconies or belvederes overlooking an adjoining
when they do, and in cases of oblique view from the dividing line              property, the owner of the servient estate cannot build thereon at
between the two properties. (583)                                              less than a distance of three meters to be measured in the manner
                                                                               provided in Article 671. Any stipulation permitting distances less
RULES FOR REGULAR WINDOWS                                                      than those prescribed in Article 670 is void. (585a)
   1. Articles 670 and 671 deal with regular, full windows
   2. Regular windows can be opened provided that the proper                   RULE WHEN A RIGHT HAS BEEN ACQUIRED TO HAVE DIRECT VIEWS
       distances are followed                                                      This provision speaks of a true easement
Art. 677. No constructions can be built or plantings made near             Art. 680. If the branches of any tree should extend over a
fortified places or fortresses without compliance with the                 neighboring estate, tenement, garden or yard, the owner of the
conditions required in special laws, ordinances, and regulations           latter shall have the right to demand that they be cut off insofar as
relating thereto. (589)                                                    they may spread over his property, and, if it be the roots of a
                                                                           neighboring tree which should penetrate into the land of another,
Art. 678. No person shall build any aqueduct, well, sewer, furnace,        the latter may cut them off himself within his property. (592)
forge, chimney, stable, depository of corrosive substances,
machinery, or factory which by reason of its nature or products is         RULES REGARDING INTRUSIONS OR EXTENSIONS OF BRANCHES
dangerous or noxious, without observing the distances prescribed           AND ROOTS
by the regulations and customs of the place, and without making               1. Branchesadjacent owner has the right to demand that they be
the necessary protective works, subject, in regard to the manner                 cut off
thereof, to the conditions prescribed by such regulations. These              2. Rootshe may cut them off himself
prohibitions cannot be altered or renounced by stipulation on the
part of the adjoining proprietors.                                         PRESCRIPTION
                                                                              1. Of the right to demand the cutting off the branchesthis doesnt
In the absence of regulations, such precautions shall be taken as                prescribe if tolerated by invaded owner
may be considered necessary, in order to avoid any damage to the              2. Of the right to cut off the rootsthis is imprescriptible unless a
neighboring lands or tenements. (590a)                                           notarial prohibition is made
Art. 681. Fruits naturally falling upon adjacent land belong to the              THE EASEMENT OF LATERAL AND SUBJACENT SUPPORT ISNT A
owner of said land. (n)                                                          TRUE EASEMENT: EXAMPLES
                                                                                    1. Of lateral supportwhile a person may excavate on his own land,
RULES AS TO FRUITS                                                                      he cannot do so if by such action, adjacent buildings would
   1. If the fruits still hang on the tree, they are still owned by the tree            collapse or adjacent lands crumble
       owner                                                                        2. Of subjacent supportA owns a parcel of land with a house, but
   2. It is only after they have naturally fallen that they belong to the               underneath the soil is being used by B in connection with a tunnel
       owner of the invaded land
                                                                                 LATERAL DISTINGUISHED FROM SUBJACENT
EASEMENT AGAINST NUISANCE                                                            The support is lateral when both the land being supported and the
                                                                                       supporting land are on the same plane, when the supported is
Art. 682. Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement                   above the supporting land, the support is subjacent
which prohibits the proprietor or possessor from committing
nuisance through noise, jarring, offensive odor, smoke, heat, dust,              Art. 685. Any stipulation or testamentary provision allowing
water, glare and other causes.                                                   excavations that cause danger to an adjacent land or building shall
                                                                                 be void.
REASON FOR PROHIBITING A NUISANCE
    A nuisance is that which, among others, annoys or offends the               RULE ON DANGEROUS EXCAVATIONS
      senses and it should therefore be prohibited                                   A person is protected even against his own folly, in the interest of
                                                                                        public safety
WHO IS THE SERVIENT IN AN EASEMENT AGAINST NUISANCE?
   The proprietor or possessor of the building or piece of land who             Art. 686. The legal easement of lateral and subjacent support is not
      commits the nuisance through noise, jarring, offensive odor, is            only for buildings standing at the time the excavations are made
      servient in an easement against nuisance                                   but also for constructions that may be erected.
WHO IS DOMINANT IN AN EASEMENT AGAINST NUISANCE?                                 Art. 687. Any proprietor intending to make any excavation
   The general public or anyone injured by the nuisance                         contemplated in the three preceding articles shall notify all owners
                                                                                 of adjacent lands.
PERHAPS, NOT A TRUE EASEMENT
    While a true easement prohibits the owner from that which he                NOTIFICATION RE INTENDED EXCAVATIONS
      could lawfully do were it not for the existence of the easement, a            1. Notice isnt required if there is actual knowledge of the
      nuisance is something that is done or allowed unlawfully, whether                 excavation. Otherwise, notice is mandatory.
      or not a person has made a notarial prohibition                               2. Even if there be notice, the excavation should deprive the other
                                                                                        owners of lateral or subjacent support. This is true even if the
Art. 683. Subject to zoning, health, police and other laws and                          others consent or even if the excavation is carried out skillfully.
regulations, factories and shops may be maintained provided the                     3. Notice is required to enable adjoining owners to take proper
least possible annoyance is caused to the neighborhood.                                 precautions.
Sec. 684. No proprietor shall make such excavations upon his land                Art. 688. Every owner of a tenement or piece of land may establish
as to deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or             thereon the easements which he may deem suitable, and in the
subjacent support.                                                               manner and form which he may deem best, provided he does not
                                                                                 contravene the laws, public policy or public order. (594)
                                                                            But the consent given by one of the co-owners separately from the
KINDS OF VOLUNTARY EASEMENTS THAT MAY BE ESTABLISHED                        others shall bind the grantor and his successors not to prevent the
    The easements established may be real or personal                      exercise of the right granted. (597a)
RIGHT OF NAKED OWNER TO IMPOSE EASEMENTS                                    Art. 693. If the owner of the servient estate should have bound
    The naked owner must respect the rights of the usufructuary            himself, upon the establishment of the easement, to bear the cost
                                                                            of the work required for the use and preservation thereof, he may
Art. 690. Whenever the naked ownership of a tenement or piece of            free himself from this obligation by renouncing his property to the
land belongs to one person and the beneficial ownership to                  owner of the dominant estate. (599)
another, no perpetual voluntary easement may be established
thereon without the consent of both owners. (596)                           RULE TO APPLY WHEN SERVIENT ESTATE HAS BOUND ITSELF TO
                                                                            PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE EASEMENT
RULES WHEN USUFRUCT EXISTS                                                      In the contract or title, the servient owner may have or may not
   1. The beneficial owner may be himself create a temporary easement              have bound himself to pay for the maintenance of the easement
      compatible with the extent of his beneficial dominion                     Article only applies when he has bound himself
   2. If the easement is perpetual both the naked and beneficial owners
      must consent                                                                CASE DIGESTS: OTHER LEGAL EASEMENTS; VOLUNTARY
                                                                                                    EASEMENTS
Art. 691. In order to impose an easement on an undivided
tenement, or piece of land, the consent of all the co-owners shall          158     CORTES V. YU-TIBO
be required.                                                                        2 PHIL 24
The consent given by some only, must be held in abeyance until the          FACTS:
last one of all the co-owners shall have expressed his conformity.          Cortes sought to enforce easement of light and view against Yu-tibo,
                                                                            claiming to have opened the windows in their house for around 59 years.
159      PURUGGANAN V. PAREDES                                                    The existence of a zoning ordinance is of no relevance. The ordinance may
         69 SCRA 69                                                               be repealed at any time and if so repealed, the prohibition wouldnt be
                                                                                  enforceable.
FACTS:
Paredes had his property at the north of Purugganans. He constructed a           162     LA VISTA ASSOCIATION V. CA
roof which is 2.5 meters wider than what is allowed him, which caused the                 278 SCRA 498
rainwater to fall 3 meters wider that what has been established in the
degree of registration.                                                           FACTS:
                                                                                  This is the case pertaining to the battle of big boys over the usage of
HELD:                                                                             Mangyan Road.
In a drainage or easement of receiving water falling from roofs, this
encumbrance relates to water falling from roof of dominant estate on              HELD:
servient estate.                                                                  A legal easement is that which is constituted by law for public use and
                                                                                  interest. A voluntary easement is constituted simply by will or agreement
160      VALISNO V. ADRIANO                                                       of the parties.
         161 SCRA 398
                                                                                                                NUISANCE
FACTS:
Adriano siblings previously owned two parcels of land. On the land of             Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business,
Honorata was an existing irrigation which passes through the land of              condition of property, or anything else which:
Felipe, whose property adjoins the river.       When Valisno bought the
property, he cultivated therein different fruits and crops. Felipe then              (1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
enclosed the irrigation providing water to the land of Valisno, causing the
latter prejudice.                                                                    (2) Annoys or offends the senses; or
damage upon individuals may be unequal. A private nuisance is one              Art. 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right
that is not included in the foregoing definition.                              of any person injured to recover damages for its past existence.
NUISANCE PER SE                                                                Art. 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether
    Always a nuisance                                                         public or private.
NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS                                                          Art. 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:
    A nuisance only because of the location or other circumstances
                                                                                    (1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance:
PUBLIC NUISANCE                                                                or
    Affects a community or neighborhood or any considerable number
       of persons                                                                   (2) A civil action; or
RULE IF LESSOR CREATED OR CONTINUES THE NUISANCE                                   (3) That the abatement be approved by the district health
    He cannot escape liability                                                officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and
   (4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three                        It is ministerial to comply with the decision of the court to issue a
thousand pesos.                                                                        title and register a property in the name of a certain person,
                                                                                       especially when the decision had attained finality
Art. 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:
                                                                              Art. 711. For determining what titles are subject to inscription or
   (1) A civil action; or                                                     annotation, as well as the form, effects, and cancellation of
                                                                              inscriptions and annotations, the manner of keeping the books in
   (2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.                               the Registry, and the value of the entries contained in said books,
                                                                              the provisions of the Mortgage Law, the Land Registration Act, and
Art. 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by            other special laws shall govern. (608a)
removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the nuisance, without committing a breach of the peace                DIFFERENT MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP
or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is indispensable that the
                                                                                           PRELIMINARY PROVISION
procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a
private person be followed.
                                                                              Art. 712. Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual
                                                                              creation.
Art. 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating
a nuisance shall be liable for damages:
                                                                              Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and
                                                                              transmitted by law, by donation, by estate and intestate
   (1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or
                                                                              succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition.
                                                                              They may also be acquired by means of prescription. (609a)
   (2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be
not a real nuisance.
                                                                              MODES   OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIPOLD TIPS
                                                                                 1.   Occupation
                   REGISTRY OF PROPERTY                                          2.   Law
                                                                                 3.   Donation
Art. 708. The Registry of Property has for its object the inscription            4.   Tradition
or annotation of acts and contracts relating to the ownership and                5.   Intellectual creation
other rights over immovable property. (605)                                      6.   Prescription
                                                                                 7.   Succession
Art. 709. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over immovable
property, which are not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry
                                                                              MODEthe process of acquiring or transferring ownership
of Property shall not prejudice third persons. (606)
                                                                              TITLEthat which isnt ordinarily sufficient to convey ownership, but which
Art. 710. The books in the Registry of Property shall be public for
                                                                              gives a juridical justification for the mode
those who have a known interest in ascertaining the status of the
                                                                                              MODE                                   TITLE
immovables or real rights annotated or inscribed therein. (607)
                                                                              Proximate cause                           Remote cause
PUBLIC NATURE OF BOOKS
    It may embrace every person as long as it is clear that the              The true cause                          The justification for the process
       purpose of the examination isnt unlawful or arises from sheer and
       idle curiousity                                                        Directly produces a real right          Serves    merely    to    give    an
                                                                                                                      opportunity for the existence of the
MINISTERIAL FUNCTION OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS                                                                         real right; meantime, only a
Art. 720. If the owner should appear in time, he shall be obliged to           165      ILOILO COLD STORAGE V. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL
pay, as a reward to the finder, one-tenth of the sum or of the price                    24 PHIL 471
of the thing found. (616a)
                                                                               FACTS:
  CASE DIGESTS: NUISANCE, REGISTRY OF PROPERTY, MODES OF                       An ice factory was constructed in the premises. Not long after, there had
       ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP, INTELLECTUAL CREATION                              been numerous complaints regarding the health hazards that the factory
                                                                               brings to the areas residents. There was then an order for the factory to
163     SITCHON V. AQUINO                                                      raise its smokestacks, otherwise, it will be ordered to close down.
        98 PHIL 720
                                                                               HELD:
FACTS:                                                                         If no compelling necessity requires the summary abatement of a nuisance,
Petitioners constructed houses on a public road. They were made to pay         the municipal authorities under their power to declare and abate nuisances,
concession fees and were issued receipts for the same. Thereafter, they        dont have the right to compel the abatement of a particular thing or act as
were being ordered by the city engineer to vacate. Failure to obey, there      a nuisance without reasonable notice to the person alleged to be
was an order for demolition.                                                   maintaining or doing the same of the time and place of hearing before a
                                                                               tribunal authority to decide whether the thing is a nuisance or not.
HELD:
Houses constructed without governmental authority, on public streets and       166      HIDALGO ENTERPRISES V. BALANDAN
roads, obstruct at all times the free use of the public of said places and              91 PHIL 488
accordingly, constitute nuisance per se aside from being public nuisances.
                                                                               FACTS:
164     VELASCO V. MANILA ELECTRIC                                             Hidalgo Enterprises was the owner of an ice plant factory. They kept on
        40 SCRA 342                                                            their premises 2 uncovered water tanks, which were unguarded. On a
                                                                               relevant date, children entered the factory premises and swam in one of
the water tanks. One of them drowned and sank in the tank. The factory                     b. That the hang tags used by private respondent is a colorable
is now being held for damages.                                                             imitation of those of the petitioner.
lectures, concerts, and public discussions.   Thus, it generally refers to a     There are two tests available for colorable imitation. One is the dominancy
school or an institution of learning.                                            test. If the form, marks, contents, words of other special arrangement or
                                                                                 general appearance of the two marks or devices are such as would likely
Petitioner claims that the word has acquired a secondary meaning in              mislead persons in the ordinary course of purchasing the genuine article,
relation to petitioner with the result that the word, although originally        then the similarity is such as would entitle the opposer to equitable
generic, has become appropriable by petitioner to the exclusion of other         protection.
institutions.
                                                                                 Under the holistic test, on the other hand, the opposing trademarks are
The doctrine of secondary meaning is a principle used in trademark law but       compared in their entirety to determine confusing similarity.
has been extended to corporate names since the right to use a corporate
name to the exclusion of others is based upon the same principle, which          173     PEARL AND DEAN V. SMI
underlies the right to use a particular trademark or tradename. Under this               409 SCRA 231
doctrine, a word or phrase originally incapable of exclusive appropriation
with reference to an article in the market, because geographical or              FACTS:
otherwise descriptive might nevertheless have been used for so long and          Pearl and Dean had their light box designs copyrighted but does this
so exclusively by one producer with reference to this article that, in that      extend to the actual light boxes?
trade and to that group of purchasing public, the word or phrase has come
to mean that the article was his produce. The doctrine cannot be made to         In this case, Pearl and Dean supplied the light boxes to different branches
apply where the evidence didn't prove that the business has continued for        of SM. Thereafter, it was found out that a different supplier took over,
so long a time that it has become of consequence and acquired good will of       using the same design of the light boxes. This prompted the petitioner to
considerable value such that its articles and produce have acquired a well-      file an action against SMI.
known reputation, and confusion will result by the use of the disputed
name.                                                                            HELD:
                                                                                 Being a mere statutory grant, the rights are limited to what the statute
Petitioner didn't present evidence, which provided that the word Lyceum        confers.    It can cover only the works falling under the statutory
acquired secondary meaning. The petitioner failed to adduce evidence that        enumeration or description. A copyright would only cover the drawing or
it had exclusive use of the word. Even if petitioner used the word for a         technical description but will not extend to the actual product. The actual
long period of time, it hadnt acquired any secondary meaning in its favor       product should be covered by a patent to be protected.
because the appellant failed to prove that it had been using the same word
all by itself to the exclusion of others.                                        A patent infringement to be sustained necessarily entails that a patent is
                                                                                 secured and has been issued. No right to the invention arises alone from
172     ASIA BREWERY V. COURT OF APPEALS                                         the issuance of a patent.
        224 SCRA 437
                                                                                                              DONATION
FACTS:
SMC filed a case against petitioner for infringement of trademark. It                                    NATURE OF DONATIONS
alleged that the bottles used by Asia Brewery were confusingly similar to
those used by SMC in the packaging of its beer. The trial court held in
favor of Asia Brewery but was reversed in the appellate court.                    Art. 725. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes
                                                                                 gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it.
HELD:                                                                            (618a)
Using the holistic test, wherein all circumstances were given consideration,
there was no infringement committed by petitioner.                               DONATION AS AN ACT AND AS A CONTRACT
       Although the article says it is an act, it cannot be denied that a                INTER VIVOS                             MORTIS CAUSA
        donation is really a contract                                          Takes effect during lifetime of donor     Takes effect after the death of the
       It itself is a mode of acquiring ownership and doesnt ordinarily                                                donor
        require delivery before ownership may be transferred
                                                                               Must follow     the   formalities   of    Must follow the formalities of wills
ESSENTIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A TRUE DONATION INTER VIVOS                       donations                                 and codicils
   1. The necessary form
   2. Consent or acceptance by donee during donors lifetime                   Cannot be revoked except            for   Can be revoked anytime and for any
   3. Irrevocability                                                           grounds provided for by law               reason while the donor is still alive
   4. Intent to benefit the donee
   5. Resultant decrease in the assets or patrimony of donor                   In case of impairment of the              In case the legitime is impaired,
                                                                               legitime, donations inter vivos are       donations mortis causa are reduced
Art. 726. When a person gives to another a thing or right on                   preferred to donations mortis causa       ahead of donations inter vivos, the
account of the latter's merits or of the services rendered by him to                                                     latter being preferred
the donor, provided they do not constitute a demandable debt, or
when the gift imposes upon the donee a burden which is less than               The   right    of    disposition  is      The right of disposition isnt
the value of the thing given, there is also a donation. (619)                  completely transferred to the donee       transferred to the donee while the
                                                                                                                         donor is still alive
CLASSIFICATION OF DONATIONS
   1. From viewpoint of motive, purpose or cause                               Acceptance by donee        must     be    Acceptance by donee mortis causa
          a. Simplethe cause is pure liberality                               during lifetime of donor                  can be only be done upon donors
          b. Renumeratorydue to past services rendered or future                                                        death
               services or charges and burdens
          c. Onerousburdens and charges equal to the value of the
                                                                               DONATION IN PRAESENTI TO BE DELIVERED IN FUTURO
               thing donated
                                                                                   Considered as a donation inter vivos and all the characteristics
          d. Modalconsideration is less than the value of the thing
                                                                                     referred to above are applicable to it in relation to a donation inter
               donated
                                                                                     vivos
   2. Time of taking effect
          a. Inter vivos
                                                                               Art. 729. When the donor intends that the donation shall take
          b. Mortis causa
                                                                               effect during the lifetime of the donor, though the property shall
                                                                               not be delivered till after the donor's death, this shall be a donation
Art. 727. Illegal or impossible conditions in simple and
                                                                               inter vivos. The fruits of the property from the time of the
remuneratory donations shall be considered as not imposed. (n)
                                                                               acceptance of the donation, shall pertain to the donee, unless the
                                                                               donor provides otherwise. (n)
Art. 728. Donations which are to take effect upon the death of the
donor partake of the nature of testamentary provisions, and shall
                                                                               Art. 730. The fixing of an event or the imposition of a suspensive
be governed by the rules established in the Title on Succession.
                                                                               condition, which may take place beyond the natural expectation of
(620)
                                                                               life of the donor, does not destroy the nature of the act as a
                                                                               donation inter vivos, unless a contrary intention appears. (n)
DONATIONS FROM THE VIEWPOINT OF EFFECTIVITY
                                                                               SUSPENSIVE CONDITION WHICH MAY BE FULFILLED BEYOND THE
DISTINCTION BETWEEN DONATION INTER VIVOS AND MORTIS
                                                                               LIFETIME OF THE DONOR
CAUSA
       Reason for the lawretroactive effect of the fulfillment of the     Art. 737. The donor's capacity shall be determined as of the time of
        suspensive condition                                                the making of the donation. (n)
Art. 731. When a person donates something, subject to the                   DETERMINATION OF CAPACITY
resolutory condition of the donor's survival, there is a donation               Capacity of both donor and donee is determined at the time of
inter vivos. (n)                                                                  perfection of the donation
DONATION SUBJECT TO THE RESOLUTORY CONDITION OF THE                         Art. 738. All those who are not specially disqualified by law
DONORS SURVIVAL                                                            therefor may accept donations. (625)
Art. 732. Donations which are to take effect inter vivos shall be           WHEN IS A PERSON CONSIDERED SPECIALLY DISQUALIFIED BY
governed by the general provisions on contracts and obligations in          LAW
all that is not determined in this Title. (621)                                 Specially disqualified doesnt refer to those incapacitated to
                                                                                  contract like minors and those of unsound mind but to people
SUPPLETORY EFFECT OF RULES ON CONTRACTS                                           such as those mentioned in article 739, etc.
Art. 733. Donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the          Art. 739. The following donations shall be void:
rules on contracts and remuneratory donations by the provisions of          (1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or
the present Title as regards that portion which exceeds the value of        concubinage at the time of the donation;
the burden imposed. (622)                                                   (2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal
                                                                            offense, in consideration thereof;
Art. 734. The donation is perfected from the moment the donor               (3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, descedants and
knows     of   the    acceptance    by    the  donee.   (623)               ascendants, by reason of his office.
                                                                            In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity
PERFECTION OF THE DONATION                                                  may be brought by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt
    Donation is perfected not from the time of acceptance but from         of the donor and donee may be proved by preponderance of
      the time of knowledge of the donor that the donee has accepted        evidence in the same action. (n)
        PERSONS WHO MAY GIVE OR RECEIVE A DONATION                          DONATIONS      THAT       ARE     VOID       BECAUSE      OF    MORAL
                                                                            CONSIDERATIONS
Art. 735. All persons who may contract and dispose of their                    1. The first kindthose made between persons who were guilty of
property may make a donation. (624)                                               adultery or concubinage at the time of the donation
                                                                                      a. The adultery or concubinage need not be proved in a
WHO MAY DONATE; SIMULTANEOUS CAPACITIES                                                    criminal action.      The guilt may be proved by
   It is not enough that a person be capacitated to contract, he must                     preponderance of evidence.
      also have the capacity to dispose                                               b. If the donation was made after the adultery or
                                                                                           concubinage, then it is valid except if the consideration
Art. 736. Guardians and trustees cannot donate the property                                thereof is the commission of the act
entrusted to them. (n)                                                                c. If the perpetrators are merely sweethearts but dont have
                                                                                           any sexual intercourse with one another, then this
REASON FOR THE RULE: they can only do acts of administration and not                       prohibition is not applicable. Remember the elements of
of ownership.                                                                              adultery and concubinage.
                                                                               2. The second kindthose made between persons found guilty of the
                                                                                  same criminal offense, in consideration thereof
             a.  There     must   be     a    criminal    convictionmere      (3) Any person who has accused the testator of a crime for which
                 preponderance of evidence showing guilt is not sufficient     the law prescribes imprisonment for six years or more, if the
             b. It doesnt matter whether the donation was made before         accusation has been found groundless;
                 or after the commission of the offense                        (4) Any heir of full age who, having knowledge of the violent death
    3.   The third kindthose made to a public officer or his wife,            of the testator, should fail to report it to an officer of the law within
         descendants and ascendants by reason of his office                    a month, unless the authorities have already taken action; this
             a. Purposeto prevent bribery                                     prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein, according to law,
                                                                               there is no obligation to make an accusation;
REASON WHY THE DONATION ARE VOID                                               (5) Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the
    Void by reason of public policy                                           spouse of the testator;
                                                                               (6) Any person who by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue
Art. 740. Incapacity to succeed by will shall be applicable to                 influence should cause the testator to make a will or to change one
donations inter vivos. (n)                                                     already made;
                                                                               (7) Any person who by the same means prevents another from
Art. 1027. The following are incapable of succeeding:                          making a will, or from revoking one already made, or who
(1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator during his             supplants, conceals, or alters the latter's will;
last illness, or the minister of the gospel who extended spiritual aid         (8) Any person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the
to him during the same period;                                                 decedent. (756, 673, 674a)
(2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel within the
fourth degree, the church, order, chapter, community, organization,            Art. 741. Minors and others who cannot enter into a contract may
or institution to which such priest or minister may belong;                    become donees but acceptance shall be done through their parents
(3) A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a            or legal representatives. (626a)
ward in his favor before the final accounts of the guardianship have
been approved, even if the testator should die after the approval              MINORS MAY BE DONEES
thereof; nevertheless, any provision made by the ward in favor of
the guardian when the latter is his ascendant, descendant, brother,            MAY MINORS ACCEPT BY THEMSELVES?
sister, or spouse, shall be valid;                                             It depends.
(4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will, the spouse,                   1. If the donation is simpleyes because after all is for the benefit of
parents, or children, or any one claiming under such witness,                          the child. The exception is when a written acceptance is required.
spouse, parents, or children;                                                          In this case, the parents or legal representative must intervene.
(5) Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist who                   2. If the donation is onerous or conditionalbecause there is some
took care of the testator during his last illness;                                     burden is imposed on the child.         The parent and the legal
(6) Individuals, associations and corporations not permitted by law                    representative must intervene.
to inherit. (745, 752, 753, 754a)
                                                                               Art. 742. Donations made to conceived and unborn children may be
Art. 1032. The following are incapable of succeeding by reason of              accepted by those persons who would legally represent them if
unworthiness:                                                                  they were already born. (627)
(1) Parents who have abandoned their children or induced their
daughters to lead a corrupt or immoral life, or attempted against              REQUISITES FOR THE ARTICLE TO APPLY
their virtue;                                                                     1. The child be born alive later
(2) Any person who has been convicted of an attempt against the                   2. Or that the child after being born alive, should live for at least 24
life of the testator, his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;                 hours
DONATION OF THE SAME OBJECT TO TWO OR MORE DIFFERENNT                         An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or
DONEES; CROSS-REFERENCE TO ARTICLE 1544                                       of the document representing the right donated.
    Ampil: technically there can be no double donationremember
      that donation is a mode and sale is only a title                        If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five
                                                                              thousand pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall be made in
Art. 745. The donee must accept the donation personally, or                   writing, otherwise, the donation shall be void. (632a)
through an authorized person with a special power for the purpose,
or with a general and sufficient power; otherwise, the donation
shall be void. (630)                                                          Art. 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid,
                                                                              it must be made in a public document, specifying therein the
FORMALITIES FOR ACCEPTANCE                                                    property donated and the value of the charges which the donee
    The formalities for acceptance if any must also be present,              must satisfy.
      otherwise the donation is void
                                                                              The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a
THRU WHOM ACCEPTANCE MAY BE MADE                                              separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is
    This article speaks of two kinds of authorized personsone with          done during the lifetime of the donor.
      special power and another, one with a general and sufficient
      power                                                                   If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall
                                                                              be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be
Art. 746. Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor            noted in both instruments. (633)
and of the donee. (n)
                                                                              *CONSTANCIA AUTHENTICA
APPLICABILITY OF THE ARTICLE ON WHEN ACCEPTANCE IS TO BE
MADE                                                                                CASE DIGESTS: DONATIONS; PERSONS WHO CAN GIVE AND
    The rule enunciated herein is applicable to donations inter vivos as                           RECEIVE DONATIONS
      well as donations which are onerous
    In the case of onerous donations, without unconditional                  174      ALDABA V. CA
      acceptance, there will be no meeting of minds and thus, no                       27 SCRA 263
      perfection of contract
                                                                              FACTS:
Belen was a prominent and rich woman. When she died, she left as heirs            The donation notwithstanding, if there is reservation of the right of
her husband and daughter. Before her death, she allowed Dr. Aldaba and            disposition, the donation is mortis causa and not inter vivos.
his daughter to live in one of her houses. Now that she is dead, the
surviving heirs wanted the doctor and his daughter out of the house. They         178      SICAD V. CA
refused to do so, claiming a valid donation in their favor, evidenced                      294 SCRA 183
supposedly of a letter by Belen allowing them to stay further in the house.
                                                                                  FACTS:
HELD:                                                                             Aurora executed a deed entitled donation inter vivos in favor of her
Intent to donate is not enough to effect a valid donation.                        grandchildren. There was reservation of right of disposition in her favor
                                                                                  and the property may not be disposed of after 10 years from her death.
175      JUTIC V. CA                                                              Thereafter, the title were registered in the donees name yet the owners
         153 SCRA 269                                                             duplicate is with Aurora. Thereafter, the grandchildren sold the land to
                                                                                  Sicad and Aurora sought to reinstate TCT in her name.
FACTS:
Arsenio was the owner of two agricultural lands. During his lifetime, he          HELD:
executed an affidavit in favor of Melquiades, his brother, for one of the         If there is reservation of disposition with donor, then the donation is of
lots. The affidavit expressed his intention to bequeath to the latter the         mortis causa and not inter vivos.
land.   Despite this, Arsenio mortgaged the property, applied for a
homestead patentall in his right as an owner.                                    A document is what the law defines it to be and not what the parties call it.
If a donation is of mortis causa, it should conform with formalities of a will     The donation in favor of Ursula is of inter vivos and thus, it is valid and
for it to be valid. Otherwise, it shall be void.                                   should be upheld. Given such, as there was no reason to revoke the
                                                                                   donation in her favor, the later donation to a minor is null and void.
181      BONSATO V. CA
         95 PHIL 481                                                               184     GESTOPA V. CA
                                                                                           342 SCRA 105
FACTS:
Respondents sought the annulment of the deeds of donation on the ground            FACTS:
that it wasnt in compliance with the formalities of a will. The petitioners       Spouses Gestopa previously issued a deed of donation mortis cause in
on the other hand claim that they are valid donations and that they were           favor of Mercedes but subsequently, they issued another deed, now inter
not donations mortis causa.                                                        vivos, still in favor of Mercedes. Mercedes now seeks the donated property
                                                                                   but the Gestopas claimed that she isnt entitled to such, the donation being
HELD:                                                                              mortis causa.
If there has been no badge that it is a donation mortis causa, it should be
considered as a donation inter vivos.                                              HELD:
                                                                                   The existence of an acceptance clause in the deed shows that the donation
182      ALEJANDRO V. GERALDEZ                                                     is of inter vivos. There is no acceptance needed when it comes to
         78 SCRA 245                                                               donations mortis causa.
property. The latter claims ownership over the land by virtue of a deed of       Gregorio Cagaoan donated four parcels of land first in favor of Eugenio. He
sale executed in favor of him by Espanol.                                        was able to take possession but he wasnt able to register. On a later date,
                                                                                 another donation was effected, this time in favor of Felix. Felix this time
HELD:                                                                            was able to register.
The donation is simple and pure.
                                                                                 HELD:
There is no showing of any acceptance from Lagazo and thus, there has            Felix has a better right over the property donated. This follows the rules
been no perfected donation.                                                      on double sales.
FACTS:                                                                           FACTS:
Apolinia sought the recovery of a farm lot and house from Danguilan. She         Don Julian had two marriages during his lifetime. During his first one, with
averred that she acquired the property through sale. Danguilan on the            Antonia, he had two children. In the second marriage, he had 4 children
other hand, contends that the property is his by virtue of a donation.           with Milagros. Upon the death of Antonia, the first children sought the
                                                                                 partition of the property. On the disputed Lot 63, there was a compromise
HELD:                                                                            agreement entered into by the parties whereby Lot 63 was supposed to be
The donation being of real property, it is void for not complying with the       exclusively adjudicated in favor of his second wife and children by the
requirements given by law. Donation of real property should be in a public       same.
instrument. In this case, it wasnt.
                                                                                 HELD:
188      REPUBLIC V. GUZMAN                                                      The partition inter vivos of Don Julian is valid. Considering however that
         325 SCRA 90                                                             such would be effective upon his death only, the right of his heirs from the
                                                                                 second marriage would become legally operative only upon the death of
FACTS:                                                                           Don Julianall is just a mere expectancy. Evidently, at the time of
David was a natural-born American citizen. His dad is a naturalized              execution of deed of assignment, Julian remained the owner of the
American citizen. When his dad died, properties were left in favor of him        properties.
and his mother. Thereafter, a quitclaim was executed by the mother,
conveying to him all of her shares in the property. David claims that the                EFFECT OF DONATIONS AND LIMITATIONS THEREON
properties were donated by his mother to him.
                                                                                 Art. 750. The donations may comprehend all the present property
HELD:                                                                            of the donor, or part thereof, provided he reserves, in full
By the language of the quitclaims, the intention was a waiver of her rights,     ownership or in usufruct, sufficient means for the support of
title and interest over the lands in favor of David and not a donation. That     himself, and of all relatives who, at the time of the acceptance of
a donation was far from the mothers mind. The deeds of quitclaim were in        the donation, are by law entitled to be supported by the donor.
the nature of public instruments but they didnt effect a donation. They         Without such reservation, the donation shall be reduced in petition
lack the essential element of acceptance to make the donation valid.             of any person affected. (634a)
188      CAGAOAN V. CAGAOAN                                                      REASON FOR THE LAW ON DONATIONS WITHOUT THE NEEDED
         43 PHIL 554                                                             RESERVATION
                                                                                     This article is important because the claims of the donors own
FACTS:                                                                                 family shouldnt be disregarded
STATUS OF THE DONATION                                                         Art. 752. The provisions of Article 750 notwithstanding, no person
    An excessive donation under this article is not void, but merely          may give or receive, by way of donation, more than he may give or
      reducable to the extent support of the relatives is unimpaired           receive by will.
    The party prejudiced can ask the court for the reduction                  The donation shall be inofficious in all that it may exceed this
                                                                               limitation. (636)
SUPPOSE HE MADE THE RESERVATION BUT THIS DOESNT APPEAR
IN THE DEED OF DONATION, IS THE DONATION ALL RIGHT?                            LIMITATION ON THE GIVER
     Yes, for the law doesnt state that the deed of donation must                A person may not give by donation more than what he can give by
       expressly say that a reservation has been made                                 will
     That indeed there was a reservation can be proved by evidence                And a person may not receive by way of donation more than what
       aliunde                                                                        the giver may give by virtue of a will
PAYMENT OF EXISTING CREDITORS                                                  Art. 753. When a donation is made to several persons jointly, it is
    Aside from the reservation as to support, the donor must also             understood to be in equal shares, and there shall be no right of
      reserve enough of his property to pay off his debts contracted           accretion among them, unless the donor has otherwise provided.
      before the donation, otherwise, there is presumption that the            The preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to donations made
      donation was made to defraud creditors                                   to the husband and wife jointly, between whom there shall be a
                                                                               right of accretion, if the contrary has not been provided by the
Art. 751. Donations cannot comprehend future property.                         donor. (637)
By future property is understood anything which the donor cannot
dispose of at the time of the donation. (635)                                  GENERALLY NO ACCRETION
Art. 754. The donee is subrogated to all the rights and actions                    The usufruct of real property, being real property by itself should
which in case of eviction would pertain to the donor. The latter, on                be donated in the form prescribed for real properties
the other hand, is not obliged to warrant the things donated, save                 The naked ownership and usufruct of personal properties are
when the donation is onerous, in which case the donor shall be                      personal properties themselves, so only the formalities for the
liable for eviction to the concurrence of the burden.                               donation of personal property would be required
The donor shall also be liable for eviction or hidden defects in case
of bad faith on his part. (638a)                                            Art. 757. Reversion may be validly established in favor of only the
                                                                            donor for any case and circumstances, but not in favor of other
SUBROGATION OF DONEE                                                        persons unless they are all living at the time of the donation.
EVICTION, DEFINED.                                                          Any reversion stipulated by the donor in favor of a third person in
    Eviction shall take place whenever by final judgment based on a        violation of what is provided in the preceding paragraph shall be
       right prior to the sale or an act imputable to the vendor/donor,     void, but shall not nullify the donation. (614a)
       the vendee/donee is deprived the whole or of a part of the thing
       purchased/donated                                                    CONVENTIONAL REVERSION
MEANING OF HIDDEN DEFECTS                                                   Art. 758. When the donation imposes upon the donee the obligation
    Those which are not patent upon a physical examination of the          to pay the debts of the donor, if the clause does not contain any
      object donated                                                        declaration to the contrary, the former is understood to be liable to
                                                                            pay only the debts which appear to have been previously
WHEN WARRANTY EXISTS                                                        contracted. In no case shall the donee be responsible for the debts
  1. If the donor is in bad faith                                           exceeding the value of the property donated, unless a contrary
  2. If donation is onerous                                                 intention clearly appears. (642a)
  3. If warranty is expressly made
  4. If donation is propter nuptias unless the contrary is stipulated       STIPULATION THAT DONEE SHOULD PAY DEBTS OF THE DONOR
                                                                               1. Pay only for prior debts contracted after the donation had been
Art. 755. The right to dispose of some of the things donated, or of                made, unless there is stipulation to this effect
some amount which shall be a charge thereon, may be reserved by                2. Pay only for debts up to the value of the property donated
the donor; but if he should die without having made use of this
right, the property or amount reserved shall belong to the donee.           Art. 759. There being no stipulation regarding the payment of
(639)                                                                       debts, the donee shall be responsible therefor only when the
                                                                            donation has been made in fraud of creditors.
DONATIONS WITH RESERVATIONS ON THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE                         The donation is always presumed to be in fraud of creditors, when
                                                                            at the time thereof the donor did not reserve sufficient property to
Art. 756. The ownership of property may also be donated to one              pay      his   debts     prior    to    the     donation.     (643)
person and the usufruct to another or others, provided all the
donees are living at the time of the donation. (640a)                       RULES WHEN THERE IS NO SUCH STIPULATION
                                                                                General rule is that the donee is not required to pay
DONATION OF NAKED OWNERSHIP AND USUFRUCT                                        Exception is when the donation is made in fraud of creditors
    When one person receives the usufruct, it is understood that the
      other donee receives only the naked, and the not the full             PRESUMPTION
      ownership                                                                 The law establishes a presumption when the donation is
                                                                                  apparently in fraud of creditors, namely failure to reserve
FORM                                                                              sufficient property to pay previous debts
Art. 760. Every donation inter vivos, made by a person having no              RULE WHEN DONATION CAN BE COVERED BY THE FREE DISPOSAL
children or descendants, legitimate or legitimated by subsequent                  Insofar as the free disposal is concerned, the donation will remain
marriage, or illegitimate, may be revoked or reduced as provided in                 valid up to that extent
the next article, by the happening of any of these events:
(1) If the donor, after the donation, should have legitimate or               Art. 762. Upon the revocation or reduction of the donation by the
legitimated or illegitimate children, even though they be                     birth, appearance or adoption of a child, the property affected shall
posthumous;                                                                   be returned or its value if the donee has sold the same.
(2) If the child of the donor, whom the latter believed to be dead            If the property is mortgaged, the donor may redeem the mortgage,
when he made the donation, should turn out to be living;                      by paying the amount guaranteed, with a right to recover the same
(3) If the donor subsequently adopt a minor child. (644a)                     from the donee.
TWO KINDS OF INOFFICIOUS DONATIONS                                            When the property cannot be returned, it shall be estimated at
   1. Those referred to in Articles 760 and 761                               what it was worth at the time of the donation. (645a)
   2. Those referred to in Articles 771 and 752
                                                                              WHAT THE DONEE MUST DO IF THE DONATION IS REDUCED
REASON WHY REDUCTION OR REVOCATION IS ALLOWED                                   1. If the property is still with him, return the property
    The law presumes that had the donor known he would have a                  2. If the property has been sold, give the value to the donor
      child or that the child he thought was dead was really alive, he          3. If the property has been mortgaged, the donor may pay off the
      wouldnt have made the donations, because then his only child                 debt, but he can recover reimbursement from the donee
      would have been the object of his affection and generosity                4. If the property cannot be returned, return its value
ADOPTION                                                                      Art. 763. The action for revocation or reduction on the grounds set
   1. Adoption must have judicial approval                                    forth in article 760 shall prescribe after four years from the birth of
   2. The adoption must be that of a minor child                              the first child, or from his legitimation, recognition or adoption, or
   3. It will be observed that this adoption is practically one way of        from the judicial declaration of filiation, or from the time
      allowing the donor to revoke the donation inter vivos at his own        information was received regarding the existence of the child
      will. To allow an adoption of a sui juris as a ground of revocation     believed dead.
      may give rise to adoption fro ulterior purposes
                                                                              This action cannot be renounced, and is transmitted, upon the
APPLICABILITY OF ARTICLE 760                                                  death of the donor, to his legitimate and illegitimate children and
   1. Donations propter nuptias                                               descendants. (646a)
   2. Onerous donations
   3. Mortis causa                                                            PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION FOR REVOCATION OR REDUCTION
                                                                                 1. If the donation was made when there was no child, it is the birth
Art. 761. In the cases referred to in the preceding article, the                    of the first child that counts, and not the birth of subsequent
donation shall be revoked or reduced insofar as it exceeds the                      children.
portion that may be freely disposed of by will, taking into account              2. First child refers to the first legitimate child
the whole estate of the donor at the time of the birth, appearance               3. Mere birth of a natural child is not a ground, it is the recognition
or adoption of a child. (n)                                                         that is the ground of reduction
       Counted from time of legitimation                                       2.   If sold, donated, or mortgaged, the alienation or encumbrance will
                                                                                     be considered void, unless the grantee be an innocent third party
EFFECT IF REASON DISAPPEARS                                                          who has received or registered his own right
    The donation should remain valid
                                                                            PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD                                                             Four years from the non-compliance of the condition
    Four years
                                                                            TRANSMISSIBILITY OF THE RIGHT TO REVOKE
Art. 764. The donation shall be revoked at the instance of the                  The heirs are expressly granted the right to revoke if the donor is
donor, when the donee fails to comply with any of the conditions                  already dead and that the prescriptive period has not yet lapsed
which the former imposed upon the latter.
                                                                            WHEN COURT ACTION IS NOT ESSENTIAL
In this case, the property donated shall be returned to the donor,             Court action is essential for revocation, unless the donee willingly
the alienations made by the donee and the mortgages imposed                       surrenders the property or his value
thereon by him being void, with the limitations established, with              It is the party prejudiced who should bring the suit
regard to third persons, by the Mortgage Law and the Land
Registration Laws.                                                          MAY REVOCATION BE DONE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE DONORS
                                                                            HEIRS?
This action shall prescribe after four years from the noncompliance             Yes, because one right of a creditor is to exercise the rights that
with the condition, may be transmitted to the heirs of the donor,                  couldve been exercised by the debtor
and may be exercised against the donee's heirs. (647a)
                                                                            ACTION TO REVOKE MAY BE WAIVED
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS                                               The action to revoke is waivable by the donor or his successors-in-
    Conditions must be understood to mean the charges and burdens                interest
      imposed
    When the donee fails to comply with any of the conditions              Art. 765. The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the
      imposed by the donor, it is the donor who has the right to impugn     donor, by reason of ingratitude in the following cases:
      the validity of the transaction affecting the donated property        (1) If the donee should commit some offense against the person,
                                                                            the honor or the property of the donor, or of his wife or children
NECESSITY OF COURT ACTION                                                   under his parental authority;
    The donor may not revoke a donation by his own unilateral act,         (2) If the donee imputes to the donor any criminal offense, or any
      even if the donee should have broken any of the conditions            act involving moral turpitude, even though he should prove it,
      imposed by the donation                                               unless the crime or the act has been committed against the donee
    A court action is essential, if the donee refuses to return the        himself, his wife or children under his authority;
      property voluntarily                                                  (3) If he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or
                                                                            morally bound to give support to the donor. (648a)
PERIOD FOR FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS
   1. If there is a period given, said period is controlling, unless        REASON FOR THE LAW ON GROUNDS OF INGRATITUDE
      extended by the donor                                                     One who has been the object of generosity must not turn
   2. If there is no period, the courts may fix a reasonable term                 ungrateful
                                                                                Gratitude is both a moral and legal duty
EFFECT ON PROPERTY DONATED
   1. If still with the donee, he must return the same to the donor         ACTS OF INGRATITUDE COVERED
                                                                               1. Purely personal
    2.   Exclusive                                                                        c. ingratitude
                                                                                2.   The fruits received after failure to fulfill the condition
Art. 766. Although the donation is revoked on account of                        3.   In case of money, it should be paid with the legal rate of interest
ingratitude, nevertheless, the alienations and mortgages effected
before the notation of the complaint for revocation in the Registry         Art. 769. The action granted to the donor by reason of ingratitude
of Property shall subsist.                                                  cannot be renounced in advance. This action prescribes within one
                                                                            year, to be counted from the time the donor had knowledge of the
Later ones shall be void. (649)                                             fact and it was possible for him to bring the action. (652)
Art. 767. In the case referred to in the first paragraph of the             NO RENUNCIATION IN ADVANCE OF ACTION TO REVOKE BECAUSE
preceding article, the donor shall have a right to demand from the          OF INGRATITUDE
donee the value of property alienated which he cannot recover                    The right to revoke because of ingratitude cannot be renounced in
from third persons, or the sum for which the same has been                         advance
mortgaged.
                                                                            FORM OF RENUNCIATION
The value of said property shall be fixed as of the time of the                 When it can be done in the proper case, renunciation may be done
donation. (650)                                                                   either expressly or impliedly since the law requires no formality
                                                                                  under this article
RULE WHEN THIRD PERSONS HAVE THE PROPERTY, OR WHEN IT
HAS BEEN MORTGAGED                                                          PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
   1. Recovery cannot be had from third persons because they are                Within one year
       innocent                                                                 Period must be counted from
   2. Or when the property has been mortgage                                           The donor knew of the fact or cause of ingratitude
                                                                                       Provided that it was possible for him to bring the action
RULE WHEN DONEE IS INSOLVENT
    Rule is that the donor shall have the same rights as of a creditor     Art. 770. This action shall not be transmitted to the heirs of the
      of an insolvent debtor                                                donor, if the latter did not institute the same, although he could
                                                                            have done so, and even if he should die before the expiration of
Art. 768. When the donation is revoked for any of the causes stated         one year.
in Article 760, or by reason of ingratitude, or when it is reduced
because it is inofficious, the donee shall not return the fruits except     Neither can this action be brought against the heir of the donee,
from the filing of the complaint.                                           unless upon the latter's death the complaint has been filed. (653)
If the revocation is based upon noncompliance with any of the               GENERALLY, NO TRANSMISSIBILITY OF RIGHT
conditions imposed in the donation, the donee shall return not only
the property but also the fruits thereof which he may have received         Art. 771. Donations which in accordance with the provisions of
after having failed to fulfill the condition. (651)                         Article 752, are inofficious, bearing in mind the estimated net value
                                                                            of the donor's property at the time of his death, shall be reduced
RETURN OF THE FRUITS                                                        with regard to the excess; but this reduction shall not prevent the
   1. The fruits accruing from the time the action is filed must be         donations from taking effect during the life of the donor, nor shall
      returned if the ground is                                            it bar the donee from appropriating the fruits.
           a. Birth-adoption-reappearance (BAR)
           b. Inofficiousness of the donation because the legitime is       For the reduction of donations the provisions of this Chapter and of
               impaired                                                     Articles 911 and 912 of this Code shall govern. (654)
RULES RE INOFFICIOUS DONATIONS                                                Art. 773. If, there being two or more donations, the disposable
   1. Value of the estate at the time of donors death                        portion is not sufficient to cover all of them, those of the more
   2. Inofficious donations may not only be reduced but they may be           recent date shall be suppressed or reduced with regard to the
       completely cancelled                                                   excess. (656)
   3. Since the inofficiousness of the donation cannot be determined till
       after the donors death, it follows that in the meantime, the          PREFERENCE GIVEN TO EARLIER DONATIONS
       donation is valid and ownership is transmitted to the donee during         It is essential that in cases there is need to reduce, the
       the donors lifetime                                                         subsequent ones must first be reduced
                                                                                  If the donations be constituted at the same time, then there will
SOME IMPLICATIONS FROM THE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP                                    be proportionate reductions on both
   1. The donee gets the fruits while the donor is still alive
   2. The donee can take advantage of natural and artificial                                                     RESUME
      incorporations or attachments
   3. The donee bears the loss in case of destruction or deterioration                    REVOCATION                                REDUCTION
                                                                              This is total regardless whether the      This is as a rule, only partial and
PREFERENCE OF DONATIONS                                                       legitime has been impaired or not         applies only when the legitime has
    Donations inter vivos are preferred over devisees or legatees                                                      been impaired. Thus, the legitime
                                                                              As a rule, for the benefit of the         must always be preserved.
Art. 772. Only those who at the time of the donor's death have a              donor
right to the legitime and their heirs and successors in interest may                                                    As a rule, for the benefit of the heirs
ask for the reduction or inofficious donations.                               As a rule, for the benefit of the heirs   of the donor, since their legitimes
                                                                              of the donor                              are supposed to be preserved
Those referred to in the preceding paragraph cannot renounce their
right during the lifetime of the donor, either by express declaration,        GROUNDS FOR REVOCATION:
or by consenting to the donation.
                                                                                         REVOCATION                                 REDUCTION
                                                                              Fulfillment of resolutory conditions      BAR
The donees, devisees and legatees, who are not entitled to the
                                                                              or charges
legitime and the creditors of the deceased can neither ask for the
                                                                                                                        Inofficiousness
reduction nor avail themselves thereof. (655a)
                                                                              Ingratitude
                                                                                                                        If insufficient property is left for the
PERSONS WHO CAN ASK FOR THE REDUCTION OF INOFFICIOUS
                                                                              BAR/Birth, Adoption, Reappearance         support of the donor and his
DONATIONS
                                                                                                                        relatives
   1. The compulsory heirs of the donor
   2. Heirs and successors-in-interest of the compulsory heirs
                                                                              VOID, INEFFECTIVE OR UNPERFECTED DONATIONS
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD                                                              1. Those not perfected in accordance with the forms and solemnities
    Action must be brought within 5 years from the time of donors                  of the law
      death                                                                      2. Those made with property outside the commerce of man
                                                                                 3. Those made with future property except those provided in
COLLATION                                                                            marriage settlements
    If the donee happens to be a compulsory heir, he must collate or            4. Those made to persons specially disqualified
      bring back the value of the property donated, for its value is             5. By reason of possible undue influence
      considered already an advance of his legitime or inheritance
N.B:
    1.     Donation is hard to sustain given the many requirements and           FACTS:
           conditions that have to be met.                                       Cruz donated an apartment and lot in favor of her nieces. She was a
      2.   Donation is both an act and a contract                                childless widow. Thereafter, she adopted a minor and sought to annul the
      3.   There should be consideration given to the differences between a      donation.
           donation inter vivos and donation mortis causa
      4.   Take note that there are different applicable rules when it comes     HELD:
           to Civil Law and Taxation. The same question may be asked             The donation may not be revoked or reduced if there is no adequate
           regarding donation but there can be different answers depending       allegation that the legitime would be impaired and if there has been no
           on the law being applied, on whether it is civil law or tax law.      inventory submitted.
                                                                                   Eduarte. Pedro claimed that the signature on the second deed was a
HELD:                                                                              forgery and he sought to revoke the first donation.
If there has been no compliance with the resolutory condition, the donation
may now be revoked and all rights which have been acquired under it shall          HELD:
be deemed lost and extinguished.                                                   All crimes which offend the donor show ingratitude and are causes for
                                                                                   revocation.
196      PARKS V. PROVINCE OF TARLAC
         49 PHIL 142                                                               199     NOCEDA V. CA
                                                                                           313 SCRA 504
FACTS:
Cider and Hill donated parcels of land in favor of the Municipality of Tarlac,     FACTS:
under certain conditions. Without revoking donation, they sold the land to         Directo together with her nephew and another, extrajudicially partitioned
Parks. The Municipality then conveyed the property to the Province.                the land donated to them. On the same date, she donated in favor of
Parks filed an action to recover property.                                         Noceda a part of her land. On her share of the land, she fenced it and
                                                                                   constructed three huts therein. On a later date, Noceda removed the
HELD:                                                                              fence, entered the premises and used the three lots. Despite demands for
The characteristic of a condition precedent is that the acquisition of a right     him to vacate, he refused to do so, prompting Directo to file a case against
isnt effected while said condition is not complied with or isnt deemed           him and revoke the donation made by her.
complied with.      Meanwhile, nothing is acquired and there is only
expectancy of right. Consequently, when a condition is imposed, the                HELD:
compliance of which cannot be effected except when the right is deemed             The acts of Noceda are acts of usurpation which is an offense against the
acquired, such condition cannot be a condition precedent.                          property of Directo and considered an act of ingratitude of a donee against
                                                                                   a donor. The law doesnt require conviction of the donee, it is enough that
197      AUSTRIA-MAGAT V. CA                                                       his offense is proved in the action for revocation.
         375 SCRA 556
FACTS:
Comerciante had 5 children. She then bought a residential house and lot
which she donated to her children. The deed contained an acceptance and
irrevocability clause. Thereafter she executed a deed of absolute sale in
favor of Apolinaria.
HELD:
The act of selling the subject property to petitioner herein cannot be
considered as a valid act of revocation of the deed of donation for the
reason that a formal case to revoke must be filed in court.
198      EDUARTE V. CA
         253 SCRA 391
FACTS:
Pedro executed a deed of donation in favor of Helen. Amazingly, another
deed showed up wherein he conveyed the whole property to the same. He
donated a portion of his land to a Christian church and then sold another to