Other Classifications:

1. Ownership
a. public dominion or ownership (like rivers)
b. private dominion or ownership (like a fountain pen)

2. Alienability
a. within the commerce of man (or which may be the objects
Title I. — CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY of contracts or judicial transactions)
b. outside the commerce of man (like prohibited drugs)
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
3. Existence
a. present property (res existentes)
Property b. future property (res futurae)
As an object; All things, that which are or may be appropriated.
(Article 414) [Note: Both present and future property, like a harvest, may be the
subject of sale but generally not the subject of a donation.]
As a subject in a law course; it is a branch of civil law which: 4. Materiality or Immateriality
- classifies and defines the different kinds of appropriable a. tangible or corporeal (objects which can be seen or
objects; touched, like the paper on which is printed a P1,000
- provides for their acquisition and loss; and Bangko Sentral Note)
- treats of the nature and consequences of real rights. b. intangible or incorporeal (rights or credits, like the credit
(PARAS, Vol. II) represented by a P1,000 Bangko Sentral Note)
“Thing” v. “Property” [Note: The Philippine peso bills when attempted to be exported may
The Civil Code uses the terms interchangeably. However, be deemed to have been taken out of domestic circulation as legal
“thing” is broader since it includes both appropriable and tender, and may therefore be treated as a COMMODITY. Hence, bills
non-appropriable objects. For example, the planets are carried in excess of that allowed by the Bangko Sentral may be
“things” but we cannot appropriate them, thus are not forfeited under Sec. 1363(f) of the Revised Administrative Code.
technically “property”. (Commissioner of Customs v. Capistrano, L-11075, June 30, 1960)].
[NOTE: Property involves not only material objects but also intangible 5. Dependence or Importance
things, like rights or credits.] a. Principal
b. Accessory
Classification of Things:
1. Res Nullius – “belonging to no one”; since they have not 6. Capability of Substitution
been appropriated (fish in ocean) or those which are a. fungible (capable of substitution by other things of the
abandoned by the owner with the intention of no longer same quantity and quality)
owning them (res derelictae). Includes wild animals free in b. non-fungible (incapable of such substitution, hence, the
their natural habitat (ferae naturae). identical thing must be given or returned)
2. Res Communes – “belonging to everyone”; owned by 7. Nature or Definiteness
everybody in that their use and enjoyment are given to all a. generic (one referring to a group or class)
of mankind. Examples would be the air we breathe, the b. specific (one referring to a single, unique object)
wind, sunlight, and starlight.
8. Divisibility
3. Res Alicujus – “belonging to someone”; are objects, a. divisible
tangible or intangible, which are owned privately, either b. indivisible
in a collective or individual capacity.
9. Consumability (Movables)
Classifications/Kinds of Property: a. consumable
b. non-consumable
Mobility and non-mobility
a. Movable or personal property (like a car) 10. Whether in the Custody of the Court or Free
b. Immovable or real property (like land) a. in custodia legis (in the custody of the court) — when it has
c. Mixed or semi-movables been seized by an offi cer under a writ of attachment or
under a writ of execution. (De Leon v. Salvador, L-30871,
[NOTE: the third kind according to certain authorities. These are Dec. 28, 1970).
movable properties which are, which, under certain conditions, b. “free’’ property (not in “custodia legis’’).
maybe considered as immovable by virtue of their being attached to
an immovable but are treated as movables because they can be Characteristics of Property (USA)
transplanted or dismantled and moved to another place without 1. Utility - for the satisfaction of moral or economic wants
impairing their substance (PARAS, Civil Code)]

1
 2. Substantivity or Individuality – quality of having existence
apart from any other things (i.e., it can exist by itself, and not (4) Statues, reliefs, paintings, or other objects for use or
merely as a part of a whole). Thus, parts of human body ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the
cannot exist by themselves independent of the body; they owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals
become property only when detached/separated from the the intention to attach them permanently to the
body it belongs. Ex. Hair, blood, etc. (DE LEON, Property) tenements;
3. Appropriability – susceptibility of being possessed by men
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements
(DE LEON, Property)
intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or
Importance of classification: works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece
The classification of property into immovables or movables of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the
does not assume its importance from the fact of mobility or non- said industry or works;
mobility, but from the fact that different provisions of the law (6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds
govern the acquisition, possession, disposition, loss, and or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner
registration of immovables and movables. (PARAS, Civil Code)
has placed them or preserves them with the intention to
have them permanently attached to the land, and
1. In Private International Law, the general rule is that
forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these
immovables are governed by the law of the country in
places are included;
which they are located, whereas movables are governed
by personal law of owner. (7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
2. Under the Law of Donation, in order that donation of
immovable may be valid, it must be made in a public (8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter
document (CC, Article 749). thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either running
3. In Criminal Law, usurpation of property can take place or stagnant;
only with respect to real property; while robbery and
theft can be committed only with respect to personal (9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are
property. intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed
4. In Civil Procedure, actions concerning real property are place on a river, lake, or coast;
brought in the RTC where the property or any part
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other
thereof lies, whereas personal property are brought in
real rights over immovable property.
the court where the defendant or any of the defendants
reside or may be found, or where the plaintiff or any of
the plaintiffs reside.
5. In Contracts, only real property can be subject matter of Classification of Real Properties: (NIDA)
real mortgage and antichresis, while only personal 1. Immovable by Nature, or those which cannot be moved from
property can be the subject matter of simple loan or place to place, such as those mentioned in Nos. 1 and 8 in
mutuum, voluntary deposit, pledge, and chattel Article 415 (trees, if they are spontaneous products of soil;
mortgage. lands, roads, mines and quarries as well as sewers, regardless
of any consideration);
Reclassification - act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be
utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, 2. Immovable by Incorporation, or those which are attached to
or commercial – as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the an immovable in such a manner as to form an integral part
requirements and procedures for land use conversion. thereof, such as those mentioned in Nos. 1 (buildings and
other structures adhered to the soil except land and roads), 2
Conversion - act of changing the current use of a piece of (if they were planted through labor, 3 and 4 of Article 415
agricultural land into some other use as approved by the Dept. (those attached to an immovable in a fixed manner,
of Agrarian Reform (DAR). irrespective of ownership);

3. Immovable by Destination, or those which are placed in an

Chapter 1 immovable for the use, ornamentation, exploitation or
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY perfection of such immovable, such as those mentioned in
Nos. 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of Article 415 (and machineries and other
implements);
Art. 415. The following are immovable property:

(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds 4. Immovable by Analogy, or those which are considered
adhered to the soil; immovables by operation of law, such as those mentioned in
No. 10 of Article 415 (real rights over immovable, right of
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are usufruct, easements or servitudes).
attached to the land or form an integral part of an
immovable; Paragraph 1:

(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed - Buildings are considered immovable provided they are of a
manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated permanent structure, substantially adhering to the land, and
therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration not mere superimpositions on the land like barong-barongs or
of the object; 2
 quonset fixtures and provided there is the intent of registration proceedings by others, they become the property
permanent annexation. (See Salmond, Jurisprudence, p449) of the person to whom the land is adjudicated. (Lavarro v.
Labitoria, 54 Phil. 788).
- A house built on rented land can be an object of a real estate
mortgage. It may be even subject of a chattel mortgage - Growing crops on one’s own land; are considered real, except
provided two conditions are present; 1. the parties to the under Chattel Mortgage Law. Sale of crops is sale of personal
contract so agree, and 2. no innocent third party will be property. Growing crops on another’s land is real, except when
prejudiced. uprooted.
Paragraph 3:
- Thus, if a chattel mortgage, duly registered, is made on a
building, and subsequently a real mortgage is made on the - Examples: Fixed fire escape stairway firmly embedded in the walls
land and the building, it is the real mortgage, not the chattel of a house, an aqueduct, or a sewer, or a well.
mortgage which should be preferred. This is particularly true - In case of separation, the breakage or injury to the property must
with respect to third persons. This is really because one who be substantial.
has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of the - Distinguished from Par. 4:
chattel mortgage. (See Evangelista v Abad, 36 O.G. 2913,
Manalang, et al. v. Ofilada, L-8133) Par. 3 Par. 4
(1) cannot be separated from (1) can be separated from
- Constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil; the attachment immovable without breaking immovable without breaking or
must be more or less permanent. A wall or fence, even if or deterioration deterioration.
made of stones, is real property, as long as there is intent to (2) need not be placed by the (2) must be placed by the
permanently annex the same. owner. (Ladera v. Hodges, CA, owner, or by his agent, express
48 O.G. 5374). or implied
Case Doctrines: (3) real property by (3) real property by
1. Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co. (37 Phil 644) incorporation incorporation and destination
The fact that parties decided to deal with the building as
personalty does not change its character as real property. Thus, - If properties in Par. 3. are temporarily removed, but there is an
neither the original registry in the chattel mortgage registry, nor intention to replace them, they should now be considered as
the annotation in said registry of the sale of the mortgaged personal property, inasmuch as the “incorporation” has ceased.
property had any effect on the building. The building is real
property. Paragraph 4:

2. Prudential Bank v. Panis (GR 50008, Aug. 31, 1988) - The objects must be placed by the owner of the immovable
While a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of (buildings or lands) and not necessarily by the owner of the
stipulation of the improvements thereon, a building, under Article object.
415, by itself can be separately considered as an immovable. - If placed by a mere tenant, the objects must remain chattels or
Therefore it may be subject of a real estate mortgage apart from personalty for the purposes of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
the land where it is fixed. (Davao Sawmill v. Castillo, 61 Phil. 709).

4. Bicerra, et al. v. Teneza, et al. (L-16218, Nov. 29, 1962) Paragpraph 5:

The CFI (now RTC) has no jurisdiction over the action for
damages over a house worth P200 that has been forcibly Essential Requisites:
demolished because no real property is being sued upon, the house For machinery to be considered as an immovable, the following
having ceased to exist, and the amount of damages sought does requisites must concur:
not exceed the jurisdictional amount in inferior courts.
1. The placing must be made by the owner of the tenement, his
5. Standard Oil v. Jaranillo (44 Phil. 631) agent, or duly authorized legal representative.
It is the ministerial duty of the registrar of property to record 2. The industry or works must be carried on in the building or on
the chattel mortgage, even if in his opinion, the object is real the land.
property. The law does not confer judicial or quasi-judicial powers 3. The machines, etc., must tend directly to meet the needs of
upon him. Thus, he is not empowered to determine the nature of said industry or works. (ADAPTABILITY).
any document of which registration is sought. 4. The machines must be essential and principal elements in the
industry, and not merely incidental.
Paragraph 2:
- Paragraph 5 refers to real property by destination or purpose
- But the moment they are detached or uprooted from the land,
they become personal property, except in the case of uprooted Effect of Separation:
timber, if the land is timber land. This is because, although no If it is still in the building but not used for the industry, it reverts
longer attached, the timber still forms an “integral part” of the to mere chattel. But if it still needed, although separated
timber land-immovable (Manresa 22) temporarily, it continues to be an immovable.

- Trees and plants annexed to the land are parts thereof, and unless
rights or interests in such trees or plants are claimed in the

3
Case Doctrines: - Fertilizers still in the barn and even those already on the ground
6. Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo (61 Phil. 709) but wrapped inside some newspapers or any other covering are still
Machinery should be considered as personal, if it was placed on to be considered personal property, for they have not yet been
the land by the tenant or by a person who is not the owner of said “actually” used or spread over the land.
land.
Paragraph 8:
7. Valdez v. Central Altagracia, Inc. (225 U.S. 58)
The machinery is immobilized as to the tenant and his assigns if - The “waters” referred to are those still attached to or
the tenant had promised to leave the machinery on the tenement running thru the soil or ground. But “water” itself as
at the end of the lease, or when he acted as agent of the owner of distinguished from “waters,” is clearly personal property.
the land. but not to his creditors not having legal notice of the - Mines, including the minerals still attached thereto,
lease. This rule applies to the tenant’s assigns with legal notice are real properties, but when extracted, the latter become chattels.

8. B.H. Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng (61 Phil. 663) Paragraph 9:

The mortgage of a parcel of land generally includes all future
improvements that mey be found in the property. This includes real - floating houses are real properties if tied to a post or shore and
property such as additional machines and sugar mill purchased. used as residence, but if it journeys from place to place they may be
They are real since they are essential and principal elements for the considered in a category of a vessel, which is a personal property.
sugar central business. - a vessel, as personal property, can be subject of a chattel
mortgage, however, this should be registered in the record of the
9. People’s Bank and Trust Co. v. Dahican Lumber Co. (L-17500, May Collector of Customs and not in the Registry of Deeds or Property.
16, 1967)
In this case, the parties to the real mortgage had treated the [Note: a chattel mortgage on a car should be registered in the
after-acquired properties as real properties by agreeing that they Motor Vehicles Office.]
would be automatically subject to the lien of the real estate
mortgage executed by them. There is no need to register the Paragraph 10:
mortgage deed in the chattel mortgage registry since the after- - The properties referred to in paragraph 10 are not
acquired properties had been immobilized by destination (they material things but rights, which are necessarily intangible.
were used in the development of lumber concession) . (See 3 Manresa 11).

10. Board of Assessment Appeals, Q.C. v. Meralco (10 SCRA 68) Case Doctrine:
Steel towers or poles of the MERALCO are considered as 11. Presbitero v. Fernandez (L-19527, Mar. 30, 1963)
personal (not real) properties. “sugar quotas” are real property, for they are by law considered
“real rights over immovable property” just like servitudes and
BAR QUESTION! easements. (See Art. 415, No. 10). EO 873 regards them as
1) When is machinery attached to land or a tenement considered “improvements” attached, though not physically, to the land.
immovable? [ANS.: Par. 5, Art. 415].
2) Give the exception. [ANS.: When placed on the land or Chapter 2
tenement by a tenant.] (Davao Sawmill v. Castillo, supra).
3) Give the exception to the exception. [ANS.: when the tenant MOVABLE PROPERTY
had promised to leave the machinery on the tenement at the
end of the lease, or when he acted only as agent of the owner
of the land.]. (Valdez v. Central, supra). Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal
property:
Paragraph 6:
(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which
- The “houses” referred to here may already be deemed included in are not included in the preceding article;
paragraph 1 when speaking of “constructions of all kinds
adhered to the soil.” (2) Real property which by any special provision of law
- even if the animals are temporarily outside, they may still be is considered as personalty;
considered as “real property,’’ as long as the intent to return is
present, as in the case of a homing pigeon (3) Forces of nature which are brought under control
- from the point of view of criminal law, they must be considered as by science; and
personal property, and may properly be the object of theft or
robbery. (4) In general, all things which can be transported from
- When the animals inside the permanent animal houses are place to place without impairment of the real property
alienated onerously or gratuitously, it is believed that the to which they are fixed.
transaction is an alienation of personal property, unless the
building or the tenement is itself also alienated.
Tests to determine whether property is movable or immovable:
1. If the property is capable of being carried from place to place.
Paragraph 7: (Test by Description 1)

4
 2. If such change in location can be made without injuring the [Note, however, that a right to recover possession for instance of
real property to which it may in the meantime be attached. a piece of land is considered real, and not personal property. This
(Test of Description 2) is because the object of my right is an immovable.]
3. If finally, if the object is not one of those enumerated or
included in Art 415. (Test by Exclusion) Paragraph 2:

Case Doctrines: Examples:

12. Sibal v. Valdez (50 Phil. 512) - A share of stock in a gold mining corporation is personal
The sugar cane, although a growing crop which is real under property; but the gold mine itself, as well as any land of the
Art. 415, should be considered as personal property for purposes corporation, is regarded as real property by the law.
of the Chattel Mortgage Law, and for purposes of attachment, - The certificate itself evidencing ownership of the share, as well
because the right to growing crops mobilizes the crops by as the share itself, is regarded as personal property.
ANTICIPATION (a gathering as it were in advance, rendering the
crop movable). Q: Is a share in a partnership considered personal property?
A: Yes; as a matter of fact, all shares in all juridical persons should
13. U.S. v Carlos (21 Phil. 543) be considered personal property for there is no reason to
In this case, defendant used a “jumper” to divert the flow of discriminate between shares in a corporation, and shares in other
electricity, causing loss to Meralco and accused of theft. In juridical persons.
defense, he said electricity was an unknown force which cannot
be the object of theft. Court held that while electric current is [Note: The Supreme Court has held that a half-interest in a
not a fluid, still its manifestations and effects like those of gas drugstore business is personal property, capable of being the
may be seen and felt. The true test of what may be stolen is not subject of a chattel mortgage. (Involuntary Insolvency of
whether it is corporeal or incorporeal, but whether, being Stochecker v. Ramirez, 44 Phil. 933). However, a half-interest in a
possessed of value, a person other than the owner, may drugstore, considered as a building (and not a business) is a real
appropriate the same. Electricity, like gas, is a valuable right in real property and is, therefore, by itself real property.]
merchandise, and may thus be stolen.

14. Involuntary Insolvency of Stockholder v. Ramirez (44 Phil. 993) Art. 418. Movable property is either consumable or non-
A half-interest in a drugstore business, being capable of consumable. To the first class belong those movables
appropriation, but not included in the enumeration of real which cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their
properties under Art. 415, should be considered personal nature without their being consumed; to the second class
property, and may thus be the subject of a chattel mortgage. belong all the others.

15. City of Baguio v. Niño (487 SCRA 211, 2006)

There is no explicit provision granting the Bureau of Lands Classification of Movable Property:
(now the Land Management Bureau) or the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) –– which exercises A. According to Nature:
control over the Land Management Bureau (LMB) –– the 1. Consumable ---- this cannot be used according to its nature
authority to issue an order of demolition. without its being consumed.
2. Non-consumable — any other kind of movable property.
16. Hemnani v. Export Control Committee, L-8414, 1957)
“Personal effects” include only such tangible property as B. According to the intention of the parties (as to their possibility
applied to a person and cannot include automobiles, although of being substituted by others of the same kind and quality):
they indeed are personal property. 1. Fungible ---- can be replaced by an equal quality
2. Non-fungible ---- cannot be replaced, the identical object must
Other Incorporeal Movables. be returned.
A patent, a copyright, the right to an invention — these are
intellectual properties which should be considered as personal [NOTE: The Civil Code, in many instances, uses the words
property. “consumable’’ and “fungible’’ interchangeably.].

Paragraph 1: [NOTE: It is evident, however, that fungibles are those replaceable

by an equal quality and quantity, either by the nature of things, or
Examples: by common agreement. If irreplaceable, because the identical
- The right to bring an action to recover my stolen automobile objects must be returned, they are referred to as non-fungibles.].
- The right to collect by judicial action from my debtor who owes
me P1 million. Chapter 3
- If my credit has not yet matured, the right to collect it in the
PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON
future already exists and is also considered personal property,
TO WHOM IT BELONGS
even if for the meantime, the money Is not yet due.
- However, If the object is illegal, it is not considered demandable
and therefore no right exists. Art. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of
private ownership.

5
 ownership or confer title upon the registrant. If the lots in
Property Classified According to Ownership: litigation are of public domain (Art. 502, par. 4, Civil Code), the
(a) public capacity (dominio publico) registration court does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the
(b) private capacity (propiedad privado) lands as private property. Hence, res judicata does not apply.

Case Doctrine: 20. Santos v. Moreno, L-1529, 1967

17. Heirs of Proceso Bautista v. Sps. Barza GR 79167, May 7, 1992 The residents of the surrounding barrios complained that the
The function of administering and disposing of lands of the closure of the canal deprived them of their means of
public domain in the manner prescribed by law is not entrusted transportation and fishing grounds. The court held that it cannot
to the courts but to executive officials. be ordered reopened since they are private properties. Canals
constructed by the State and devoted to public use are of public
[NOTE: Regarding the state, it may own properties both in its public ownership. However, canals constructed by private persons
capacity (properties of public dominion) and in its private capacity within private lands and devoted exclusively for private use must
(patrimonial property).] be of private ownership.

Art. 420. The following things are property of public Navigable and Non-navigable Rivers
dominion: Navigable rivers which are useful for commerce, for navigation,
fishing or any trade, are considered as properties of the public
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, domain; but if the rivers are non-navigable, they would not have
rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, been properties the public dominion.
banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;
21. Hilario v. City of Manila, L-19570, 1967
(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for Hilario sued for indemnity when the City extracted sand and
public use, and are intended for some public service or for gravel from Hilario estate in Rizal. The court held no indemnity
the development of the national wealth. can be adjudicated. The bed of the river is of public dominion,
hence banks as well. While the law provides for easements on
river banks, it speaks for both public and private river banks,
‘Public Dominion’ - means the ownership by the State; that the these private river banks refer only to those existing prior to the
State has control and administration; ownership of the public in Law of Waters (1866).
general that not even the State or subdivisions thereof may make
them the object of commerce as long as they remain properties for 22. Martinez v. Court of Appeals, L-31271, 1974
public use. Such is the case, for example, of a river or a town plaza. Navigable rivers are outside the commerce of man and
therefore cannot be registered under the Land Registration
What are properties of the public dominion? Law. If converted into fi shponds, the latter can be demolished
1. Those intended for public use (Par. 1) notwithstanding the Title, for said Title cannot convert the
- may be used by anybody; Property for public use, in the streams into private ones. The action of the State for reversion
provinces, cities and municipalities, such as provincial (of the rivers) does not prescribe.
roads. City streets, municipal streets, squares, and public
works for public service paid for by the said provinces, Characteristics of properties of public dominion
cities and municipalities. 1. They are outside the commerce of man
2. Those intended for the development of national wealth 2. They cannot be acquired by prescription
- like our natural resources. 3. They cannot be registered under the Land Registration Law
3. Those intended for public service (Par. 2) and be subject of a Torrens Title
- such as the national government buildings, army rifles 4. They cannot be levied upon by execution, nor can they be
army vessels, etc. (may be used only by duly authorized attached.
persons). 5. Generally, can be used by everybody
6. The may either be real or personal
Case Doctrine:
18. Maneclang, et al. v. IAC, GR 66575, 1986 23. Mun. Of Cavite v. Rojas, 30 Phil. 602
A creek which is an arm extending from a river is a property The municipal council withdrew and excluded for public use a
of the public domain, not susceptible to private appropriation part of the plaza in order to lease the same for the benefit of
and acquisitive prescription. It cannot be registered under the defendant. The court held the the lease was null and void
Torrens system nor its conversion to a fishpond alter its nature because streets and plazas are outside the commerce of man
as public domain property. Hence, a compromise agreement and are for public use. In allowing the lease, the municipality
adjudicating ownership of a creek in favor of an individual is null exceeded its authority. The lessee must vacate and must be
and void, has no effect and contrary to law and public policy. reimbursed if he did not get any benefit out of the lease.

19. Republic v. Lat Vda. De Castillo, et al., GR 69002, 1988 24. Commonwealth v. Meneses, 38 O.G. 123, p 2389
Shores are properties of the public domain intended for The constructor of the fishery cannot acquire ownership over
public use and therefore not registrable. Thus, it has long been the river even if he had been in possession for many years. Rivers
settled that portion of the foreshore or of the territorial waters are not subject to private appropriation and the law on
and beaches cannot be registered. Their inclusion in a certificate prescription does not apply to them.
of title does not convert the same into properties of private

6
25. Gobierno Insular v. Naval, (CA) 40 O.G. (11th S) 15, p.59
Although rivers and esteros are not included in the list under 33. City of Manila v. Garcia
the Land Registration Law which could not be registered, still, The squatters can be ejected, they were never really tenants
the purpose of the law is to prevent usurpation of any part of since the lot was public property and for school purposes. The
the public domain (which include rivers and esteros). Therefore, city mayor did not have the authority to issue permits to them,
the respondent did not have any right over the properties thus, the said permits were null and void.
usurped, and registration under his name did not confer any
right of ownership over the said properties. 34. C&M Timber Corp. V Alcala, 83 SCAD 346, 1997
Evaluation of timber licenses and subsequent cancellation in
26. Republic v. Animas, L-37682, 1974 the process of formulating policies with regard to the utilization
Forest lands as such cannot be registered. The mere fact that of timber lands is a prerogative of the executive department and
a person has a certificate of title over them is unavailing. in the absence of evidence showing grave abuse of discretion
courts will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion.
27. Tufexis v. Olaguerra, 32 Phil. 654
The usufruct over a public market granted by the government 35. Villarico v. CA, 309 SCRA 193, 1999
(Spanish) to an individual is a right public of character, and Land within a forest zone cannot be owned by a private
cannot be bought at an auction sale. To allow this would have person and his possession, no matter ow long cannot ripen into
the effect of allowing a stranger who had not been selected by a registrable title.
the government, to take over a public function. The terms of the
concession granted were personal and transferable only by Public Lands ---- In acts of Congress of the U.S., the term ‘public
inheritance. lands’ is uniformly used to describe so much of the national domain
under the Legislative Power of Congress as has not been subjected
28. Insular Gov. v. Aldecoa, 19 Phil. 505 to private right or devoted to public use. (Montano v. Insular Gov.)
The land produced by the action of the sea is of public
ownership and cannot therefore be acquired by any Regalian Doctrine ---- It is the doctrine which reserves to the State
privateperson or entity inasmuch as same belongs to the state. the full ownership of all natural resources or natural wealth that
may be found in the bowels of the earth.
29. Government v. Cabangis, 53 Phil. 112
A owned a parcel of land, but because of the action of the [NOTE: Agricultural lands may be sold to or acquired by private
waves of Manila Bay, part of said land was gradually submerged individuals or entities. However, ownership over mining and forest
in the sea, this remained for years until the government lands cannot be transferred, but leases for them may be had.]
reclaimed the same. The court held that ownership of reclaimed
land is vested in the government, especially when the land had 36. Republic v. CA
remained submerged in sea for many years, in this case, the A Possession of forests lands, no matter how long, cannot ripen
may be said to have abandoned the same. Having become part into private ownership. A parcel of land is within the jurisdiction
of the sea or the seashore,it became property for public use. of Bureau of Forestry and beyond the jurisdiction of cadastral
ourt to register under the Torrens System.
30. Mercado v. Mun. Pres. Of Macabebe, 59 Phil. 592
The canal should be opened. While the use and enjoyment of 37. Alvarez v. PICOP Resources, Inc., 508 SCRA 498 (2006)
the waters could have been acquired by prescription, still when RA 8975 prohibits lower courts from issuing TROs etc., in
he allowed others to use the canal, he lost the exclusive right to connection with implementation of government infrastructure
use the same. Moreover, although the hacienda is registered projects, while PD 605 prohibits issuance of sum in any case
under his name under the Torrens System, this does not confer involving licenses, concessions and the like in connection with
upon him any right to the river or creek since these are the natural resources of the Philippines.
properties of public dominion, and cannot be registered.
38. Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Southwest Mindanao Gold Mining
31. Vda. De Villongco, et al. V. Florencio Moreno, L-17240, 1962 Corp. , 492 SCRA 355 (2006)
The extent or scope of power of administration over mineral
[NOTE: compared to Santos v. Moreno case where the canal was lands and minerals vested in the Director of Mines and Geo-
made by the owner of the land] sciences include the power to prescribe terms and conditions in
granting exploration permits to qualified entities (entities or
32. Vda. De Villongco, et al. V. Moreno individuals possessing the resources and capability to undertake
While it is true that the Secretary of Public Works and mining operations). Nonetheless, the State may not be
Communications can order the removal of constructions on precluded from considering a direct takeover of the mines, if it is
navigable rivers or streams EXCEPT those which had been only plausible remedy in sight to the gnawing complexities
constructed in GOOD FAITH and would not impede free passage generated by the so called “gold rush.”
on the river or cause the inundation of agricultural areas, still the
constructions in this case although made in GOOD FAITH cannot [NOTE: RA 7942 allows mining even in timberland or forestry
be considered as falling under the exception because said subject to existing rights and reservations.]
constructions were made on COASTAL WATERS. There is no
navigable river or stream in coastal waters, neither may there be Governing Law
inundations therein. Hence, the constructions may be properly - Public lands may be disposed of in accordance with
removed or demolished. Commonwealth Act 141. The disposition of public lands is lodged

7
exclusively in the Director of Lands, subject only to the control of e. Rents of buildings owned by the State
the Secretary of Agriculture. (Pindangan Agricultural Co., Inc. v. f. Municipal-owned waterworks system, for while it is open to
Dans, et al., L-14591, Apr. 25, 1962). the public, still the system serves only those who pay the
charges or rentals.
- Sec. 64(e) of the Revised Administrative Code empowers the
President to reserve alienable public lands for a specifi c public
purpose or service, and under the Public Land Act, to release those Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer
reserved. (Republic v. Oct., L-18867, Apr. 30, 1966). intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of
the patrimonial property of the State.
[NOTE: “Government lands” is not synonymous with “Public
lands”. The former is broader, and may include lands devoted to
public use or service as well as public lands before and after they Cases:
were made disposable and also patrimonial lands. Public lands are 40. Faustino Ignacio v. Dir. of Lands, L-12958 (1960)
mere part of government lands.] Only the executive and possibly the legislative departments
have the authority and power to make the declaration that any
Disposition by Public Bidding land so gained by the sea is not necessary for purposes of public
Sale of public lands to the highest bidder does not mean the utility, or for the establishment of special industries or for Coast
government is engaged in profit making; it is only getting money in Guard Service. If no such declaration has been made by said
exchange for its property. However, selling property for 1/2o of is departments, the lot in question forms part of the public
price is DONATING it and such sale is invalid. In such case, the land domain.
officer has exceeded his power to sell.
41. Municipality of Oas v. Roa, 7 Phil. 20
Ownership of Roman Catholic Church When a municipality no longer uses a public plaza as such, and
RCC constructed after the Spanish occupation are owned by the instead constructs buildings thereon for storage of government
Catholic Church itself. But churches constructed during the Spanish property, or for housing purposes, it is clear that the property
regime, built under “forced labor” are outside the commerce of has become patrimonial. Being patrimonial, same may, from
man, sacred and devoted to the worship of God. It did not belong that moment on, be sold to a private individual.
to the public in general, nor the State, nor to any private individual,
nor to priests or the Church itself. 42. Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles
The land can be registered in the name of the buyer-
Public Land Act petitioner, because the street has already been withdrawn from
public use (as when it was considered as an abandoned road by
Case Doctrines: the city council and later authorized its sale in public bidding),
39. Bracewell v. CA, GR 107427, 2000 and accordingly has become patrimonial property. The lot’s sale
Public Land Act requires that the applicant must prove: was therefore valid.
(a) that the land is alienable public land; and
(b) that his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious Different Rule for Abandoned River Beds
possession and occupation of the same must be since time Although, as a rule, property of public dominion when no
immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act. longer used for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial
property of the State (Art. 422), it should be remembered that
When these conditions are complied with, the possessor, by under Art. 461, an abandoned river bed belongs not to the State,
operation of law, acquires a right to a grant, a government grant, but to the private land owner whose land is now occupied by the
without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued. changed course, in proportion to the area lost.

Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities, and
character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial municipalities is divided into property for public use and
property. patrimonial property.

Patrimonial Property Reclaimed Lands

- is the property it owns but which is not devoted to public - are the result of the intervention of man just like in the
use, public service, or the development of the national wealth. It extraction of mineral resources, i.e., gold, oil, petroleum, etc.
is wealth owned by the State in its private, as distinguished from (Chavez v. PEA, 403 SCRA 1 [2003]).
its public, capacity. - does not fall under the category of natural resources which
- Patrimonial properties may be acquired by private under the Constitution are inalienable; it is statutory law which
individuals or corporations thru prescription. (Art. 1113). determines the status of reclaimed land.

Other Examples of Patrimonial Property Donation to a Political Subdivision

a. Friar lands The National Government may donate to municipalities its
b. The San Lorenzo Estate PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY. a municipality is a juridical person
c. Properties obtained by the Government in escheat capable of acquiring properties. when donated, it may become for
proceedings public use or patrimonial property depending on use of it.
d. Those inherited by or donated to the Government

8
FOR EXAMAPLE: when municipality used donated land for public 4118 is valid and constitutional even if city of manila will receive
schools, erection of municipal buildings, plazas, etc. it is for public NO COMPENSATION from the state.
use, but if municipality allows private persons to rent on it and
merely collect rentals, it is patrimonial. Rules With Respect to Properties for Public Use
- If a plaza is illegally leased to private individuals, the lease is
void, and any building on said plaza built by the “lessee” such as
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities and a restaurant, may be demolished. (Capistrano, et al. v. Mayor, et
municipalities consist of the provincial roads, city streets, al., CA 44 O.G. 2798).
municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters,
promenades, and public works for public service paid for by -Properties used by a municipal corporation in the exercise of
said provinces, cities, or municipalities. its governmental powers cannot be attached or levied upon.
(Viuda de Tan Toco v. Mun. Council of Iloilo, 49 Phil. 52)
All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial
and shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the Effect if Private Land is Donated to a Town and Made into a Plaza
provisions of special laws. Private land donated to a town for use as a plaza becomes
property for public use, and may not in turn be donated by the
town to the church, nor can the church acquire ownership over it
Cases: by prescription, for a town plaza is outside the commerce of Man.
43. Province of Zamboanga Del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, et al. (Harty v. Municipality of Victoria)
L-24440, Mar. 28, 1968
After Zamboanga province was divided into two, a law was Cases:
passed providing that all buildings, properties and assets 45. Harty v. Municipality of Victoria, 13 Phil. 152
belonging to former Zamboanga province and located within the A parcel of land allegedly owned by tanedo was partly donated
city are to be transferred free of charge in favor of Zamboanga by him to the church. the remaining part was open for a plaza.
city. A suit was brought alleging that this was unconstitutional for many years, towns people were allowed by tanedo to use
for taking of property without due process and just remainder as public plaza. later church claimed ownership of
compensation. the grant included schools sites, capitol building, remainder on ground that the same had been donated to it by
hospitals, playgrounds. Are the properties public use or the municipality. it was proved that the town heads used to plant
patrimonial? should city pay for it? fruit trees on the plaza. May the church now be considered as
owner of the plaza?
Under the Civil Code, only the playgrounds are for public use,
since it is available to general public, all the rest are patrimonial No. assuming that Tanedo was the original owner, still when
since they are not devoted to public use but to public service. he allowed people to use it as pubic plaza, he was waiving his
[NOTE: public use - if ANYBODY can use; public service - if only right in benefit of town folks. being for public use, the
AUTHORZED can use.] But if we follow the law of Municipal municipality cannot validly donate it to the church. and because
Corporations, as long as the purpose is for public service such as it is for public use, the church could not have acquired it by
public education, health, etc. it should be considered as public prescription. the act of planting fruit trees cannot be regarded as
use. private ownership. it was only an act to enhance beauty of plaza
for benefit of the community.
The law on Municipal Corporation should be followed, and the
properties are considered as public dominion, thus, no Art. 425. Property of private ownership, besides the
compensation would be required. Firstly, while the Civil Code patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities, and
may classify them as patrimonial, they should not be regarded as
municipalities, consists of all property belonging to private
ordinary private property. They should fall under the control of
persons, either individually or collectively.
the State; otherwise certain governmental activities would be
impaired. Secondly, Art. 424, 2nd paragraph itself says “without
prejudice to the provisions (or PRINCIPLES) of special laws.” [NOTE DISCUSSION: The City Treasurer collects real estate taxes
from real estate owners within the city jurisdiction where a tax
44. Salas v. Jarencio L-29788, Aug. 30, 1972 declaration is issued in par with a cert of title on the property. The
The City of Manila had Torrens title over a lot. The municipal City Assessors Office will assess the value of the building.
board of manila requested president to have it declared as
patrimonial property so that it could be SOLD by the city to the Zonal valuation - is the evaluation of the value of the real
actual occupants of the lot. Later a law was passed making the property/land given by the BIR for purposes of taxation to minimize
lots alienable and disposable lots by the STATE not of the CITY discretion of the collector of internal revenue and his agents and
and its disposal was given to the national government entity, examiners to assess. The value varies depending on the zones in
Land Tenure Administration. Can this be lawfully done by the which located.]
national government?
Effect of Possession by Private Persons
Yes. there being no proof that the lot had been acquired by the Possession by private persons since time immemorial carries the
city with own funds, presumption is that is given by the state IN presumption that the land had never been part of the public
TRUST for the benefit of inhabitants. Its residual control domain, or that it had been private property even before the
remained in the state and the state can lawfully dispose of it. RA Spanish conquest. An allegation to this effect is a sufficient

9
averment of private ownership (Nalayan et al. V Nalayan et al. L- religious worship. (Ung Sui Si Temple v. Reg. Of Deeds, L-
14518]; see native title. 6776, May 21, 1955).
d) The constitutional prohibition against the acquisition of land
Ownership of Roads by aliens (save Americans by virtue of the Parity Amendment)
Roads may be either public or private property; hence, if a is ABSOLUTE.
person constructs on his own land a road, it is a private one. This is
particularly true when the government spent nothing for the Q: What should an applicant establish to prove that the land
construction of the road. (See Cuaycong v. Benedicto, 37 Phil. 781) subject of an application for registration is alienable?
A:
Improvements Introduced by the Japanese Occupation Forces on a) An applicant must establish the existence of a positive act of
Private Lands the government such as a presidential proclamation or an
Improvements constructed during the Japanese occupation by executive order, an administrative action, investigation reports of
the Japanese army on private lands do not belong to the private Bureau of Lands investigators, and a legislative act or statute.
owner but to the Philippine government which emerged as victor b) The applicant may also secure a certification from the
in the last world war. Such improvements may refer to railroad government that the lands applied for are alienable and disposable.
tracks or to passageways for airplanes. On the other hand, an c) In Republic v. Tri-Plus Corp., 505 SCRA 41 (2006), the Supreme
automobile seized by the Japanese army from a Filipino during the Court held that applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must
war, and later turned over to the Philippine government, does not prove the following:
become government property, and when sold by the Philippine 1. that the land forms part of the alienable and disposable
government to another private person, the true owner of the car agricultural lands of the public domain; and
may recover same from the buyer. (See Saavedra v. Pecson, L-260, 2. that they have been in open, continuous exclusive and
Mar. 25, 1944). notorious possession and occupation of the same under a
bona fide claim of ownership either since time immemorial or
Ownership Evidenced by a Torrens Title since June 12, 1945.
If the Torrens title of a person includes lands belonging to the
government, it is only the government which can properly question Art. 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an individual
that fact, and a judicial pronouncement is necessary in order to declaration, the expression “immovable things or property,”
have the portion excluded from the Torrens title. (Zobel v.
or “movable things or property,” is used, it shall be deemed
Mercado, L-14515, May 25, 1960).
to include, respectively, the things enumerated in Chapter 1
Cases: and in Chapter 2.
46. Salamat Vda. de Medina v. Cruz GR 39272, May 4, 1988
Whenever the word “muebles,” or “furniture,” is used alone,
a. A Torrens title is generally a conclusive evidence of the
ownership of the land referred to therein. (Sec. 49, Act 496). it shall not be deemed to include money, credits, commercial
b. A strong presumption exists that Torrens titles are regularly securities, stocks, and bonds, jewelry, scientific or artistic
issued and that they are valid. collections, books, medals, arms, clothing, horses or carriages
c. A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any informacion and their accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or
possessoria or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not other things which do not have as their principal object the
annotated on the title. furnishing or ornamenting of a building, except where from
d. All persons dealing with property covered by Torrens the context of the law, or the individual declaration, the
Certificate of Title are not required to go beyond what contrary clearly appears.
appears on the face of the title.
e. Payment of land tax is not an evidence of ownership of a
parcel of land for which payment is made, especially when the
parcel of land is covered by a Torrens title in the name of Title II. — OWNERSHIP
another.
Chapter 1
47. Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage System v. CA 215 SCRA
783 (1992) OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
A certificate is not conclusive evidence of title if it is shown
that the same land had already been registered and an earlier
certificate for the same is in existence. Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights.

Acquisition by Aliens
a) An alien has had no right to acquire since the date of ‘Ownership’ - is the independent and general right of a person to
effectivity of the Philippine Constitution, any public or private control a thing particularly in his possession, enjoyment,
agricultural, commercial, or residential lands (except by disposition, and recovery, subject to no restrictions except those
hereditary succession). (Krivenko v. Register of Deeds). imposed by the state or private persons, without prejudice to the
b) The same rule applies to a foreign corporation, even if it be a provisions of the law.
religious and non-stock foreign corporation. (See Art. XII, Sec.
3 of the 1987 Phil. Constitution). Cases:
c) This is not contrary to religious freedom because the 48. PNB v. CA, 84 SCAD 209 (1997)
ownership of real estate is not essential for the exercise of The owner has right to dispose of his land without limitations,
except by law, nothing would prevent an owner from donating
10
 his naked title to land. However, new owner must respect rights (b) jus utendi — the right to use and enjoy, it may also include
of the tenant. Sec. 7 of RA 3844 (Code of Agrarian Reforms) the right to exclude any person from enjoyment and disposal
gives the agricultural lessee right to work on land once leasehold of the thing (relate to Civil Code, Arts. 429 and 431).
relationship is established. Security of tenure is a legal (c) jus fruendi — the right to the fruits (natural, industrial, and
concession to lessees and deprivation of it is tantamount to civil). Possessor in good faith (CC, Art. 544), usufructuary (CC,
deprivation of means of livelihood. The law provides that the Art. 566), lessee of agricultural (Art. 1676) and antichretic
leasehold relation is not extinguished by the alienation or creditor (CC, Art. 432) are entitled to the fruits even if they are
transfer of legal possession of the landholding not the owner.
(d) jus abutendi — the right to consume (and also to transform
Kinds of Ownership or abuse) subject to the provisions of law (e.g. disposition of
(a) Full ownership (dominium or jus in re propia) — this includes wealth to the prejudice of others)
all the rights of an owner. (e) jus accessiones — the right to accessories.
(b) Naked ownership (nuda proprietas) — this is ownership (f) jus disponendi — the right to dispose
where the right to the use and the fruits has been denied. (g) jus vindicandi — the right to recover or the right of action
against the holder and possessor of the thing or right in order
[NOTE: to recover it (DE LEON, Property, supra at 80-82)
1. Naked ownership + Usufruct = Full ownership
2. Full ownership – Naked ownership = Usufruct LEGAL REMEDIES TO RECOVER POSSESSION OF PROPERTY
3. Full ownership – Usufruct = Naked ownership] Remedies Nature/Definition
Recovery of Personal Property
(c) Sole ownership — where the ownership is vested in only Replevin An action or provisional remedy for the
one person. recovery of personal property which is
(d) Co-ownership (or Tenancy in Common) — when the governed by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.
ownership is vested in two or more owners. 1. As a form of principal remedy - to regain
possession
Manresa says: 2. As a form of provisional remedy - to retain
“The concept of co-ownership is unity of the property, what has been wrongfully detained pendente
and plurality of the subjects. Each co-owner, together with lite
the other co-owners, is the owner of the whole, and at the
same time, the owner of an undivided aliquot part thereof.” Exception: when the property is under
custodia legis
Case Doctrine:
48. Querubin v. Alconcel, L-23050, Sep. 18, 1975 Issue: Physical Possession
An informacion possessoria (possessory information) duly Jurisdiction: RTD or MTC (depending on the
recorded in the Registry of Property is prima facie evidence that amount)
the registered possessor is also the owner of the land involved. Prescription:
4 years (if possession in good faith)
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a 8 years (without other conditions)
thing, without other limitations than those established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against the holder and Recovery of Real Property
possessor of the thing in order to recover it 1. Accion Interdictal A summary action to recover physical or
material possession of property
(1) Rights of an Owner Under the Civil Code
a. Forcible Entry A action for recovery of material possession
Under Art. 428, the owner has:
(a) the right to enjoy (possession de facto) of real property when a
(b) the right to dispose person originally in possession was deprived
thereof by Force, Intimidation, Strategy,
(c) the right to recover or vindicate.
The right to enjoy includes: Threats or Stealth (FISTS).
(a) the right to possess
(b) the right to use Reason: Irrespective of the actual condition
of the title to the property, the party in the
(c) the right to the fruits.
The right to dispose includes: peacable, quiet possession shall not be
turned out by strong hand, violence or terror
(a) the right to consume or destroy or abuse
(b) the right to encumber or alienate. (Javier v. Veridiano, G.R. No. L-48050, 1994).

Actual possessors who can prove prior

(2) Rights of an Owner Under Roman Law / The Seven Attributes
of Owenership (PUF-A²-DV) possession can recover such possession even
against the owner himself. Whatever may be
(a) jus possidendi — the right to possess. It is different from
ownership (judgment of ownership does not include the right the character of such possession, if he has in
his favor priority in time, he has the security
to possess except except when claim of possession is based
upon the claim of ownership)(DE LEON, Property, supra at that entitles him to remain on the property
until he is lawfully ejected by a person having
78).
a better right by accion publiciana or accion
11
 reinvindicatoria (German Management & accion publiciana, in the Court of First
Services v. CA, G.R. L-76216, 1989). Instance (now Regional Trial Court);

Issue: Possession de Facto Issue: Possession de Jure

Jurisdiction: MTC Jurisdiction: RTC
Prescription: 1 year from the date of actual Prescription: 10 years from the time the
entry on the land or dispossession. In case of cause of action arises
strategy or stealth, one year from the time of
its discovery. 3. Accion An action to recover real property based on
b. Unlawful An action for recovery of possession of real Reinvindicatoria ownership.
Detainer property by a landlord, vendor, vendee, or
other person against whom the possession of Issue: Ownership. For this purpose, evidence
the same was unlawfully withheld after the of title or mode may be introduced. On this
expiration or termination of the right to hold point of ownership, the action differs from
possession. accion publiciana where the issue is the better
right of possession (possession de jure); and
A person or squatter who occupies the land from “forcible entry” or “unlawful detainer,”
of another at the latter’s tolerance or where the issue is material possession
permission, without any contract between (possession de facto).
them, is necessarily bound by an implied
promise that he will vacate upon demand, Jurisdiction: RTC where real estate is situated
failing which, a summary action for ejectment
or unlawful detainer is the proper is the The fact that the value of the improvements
proper remedy against him (Yu v. Delara, et on the land is less than the jurisdictional
al. G.R. No. L-16084, Nov. 301962) amount does not deprive the CFI (RTC) of its
authority to take cognizance of the case
Issue: Possession de Facto (Carpena v. Manalo, et al., L-13143, 1961).
Jurisdiction: MTC
Prescription: 1 year from the date of the last Prescription: It must be brought within 10
demand to vacate. years or 30 years as the case may be
(depending on whether the other party seeks
If there is a fixed period for termination of the to obtain ownership by ordinary or
lease, lease ends automatically without need extraordinary prescription).
of demand, one year period is reckoned from
the expiration of the lease (PARAS, Civil [NOTE: Insofar as real property is concerned,
Code) ordinary prescription which requires, aside
from other requirements for prescription,
If the reason for ejectment is non-payment of good faith and just title runs for 10 years;
rent or non-fulfillment of conditions od the extraordinary prescription, which does not
lease, one year period is reckoned from the require good faith or just title, runs for 30
date of demand to vacate (PARAS, Civil Code) years.].
2. Accion Publiciana An ordinary civil proceeding for the recovery
of the better right to possess property and is [NOTE: When brothers, thru fraudulent
resorted to when the dispossession has representations have been able to succeed in
lasted for more than 1 year. obtaining title in their names of a parcel of
land, thereby depriving their sister of her
Kinds of Accion Publiciana: rightful share in the inheritance, a
1. that where the entry was not obtained constructive trust is created in favor of said
though FISTS or failure to state that sister. She has therefore the right to vindicate
deprivation was caused by FISTS. This can be the property REGARDLESS OF LAPSE OF
brought as soon as the dispossession takes TIME. (Eustaquio v. Zuniga, et al. L-17044,
place, without waiting for the lapse of 1 year Apr. 28, 1962 in contrast with rule in Tuason
(Gutierrez v Rosario, G.R. No 4145, January28, and Co. v. Magdangal, Jan. 30 1962, that the
1910) Failure to state that “deprivation” was action for reconveyance based on an implied
caused by FISTS would make the action not or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years).]
one of forcible entry but
accion publiciana. (Gumiran v. Gumiran, G.R. Ancilliary Remedies
No. 6364, January 11, 1912). 1. Writ of Writ of execution commanding the sheriff to
Possession enter into the land and give the possession
That where the one (1)-year period for thereof to the entitled person as decreed by
bringing forcible entry or unlawful detainer the Court.
has already expired. [Here the action may still
be brought after the one-year period as It may be issued only against the person
12
 defeated in the registration case, and against 1. Proof of Identity of Property
anyone unlawfully and adversely occupying He must fix the identity of the land claimed by describing the
the land or any portion thereof, during the location, area, and boundaries thereof.
proceedings, up to the issuance of the final
decree. (Bishop of Legaspi v. Calleja, et al., L- Failure to prove the boundaries of the land - the action to
14134, May 25, 1960). recover will necessarily fail (Santiago v. Santos, G.R. No. L-20241,
1974)
it is the duty of the registration court to issue
said writ when asked for by the successful 2. Proof of Title
claimant. (Demorar v. Ibañez, 97 Phil. 72 In an action to recover, the plaintiff must rely on the strength of
his title and not on the weaknesses of the defendant’s claim.
If the writ of possession cannot be issued to
the successful registrant, and he would be Reasons:
compelled to institute other actions for the a. There is a possibility that neither the plaintiff nor defendant is
recovery of his property, we may well say that the true owner of the property.
he cannot enjoy the fruits of his victory. b. The one in possession is presumed to be the owner, and he
(Pasay Estate Co. v. Del Rosario, 11 Phil. 39) cannot be obliged to show or prove a better title.
c. The possessor in the concept of an owner is presumed to be
Jurisdiction: Court where the case is pending in good faith
Prescription: Imprescriptible d. He who relies on the existence of a fact, should prove that
fact.
2. Writ of Injunction requiring the defendant to do
Preliminary something Notes: If claims of both plaintiff and defendant are weak, judgment
Injunction must be for the defendant, for the latter, being in possession, is
Jurisdiction: Court where the case of presumed to be the owner, and cannot be obliged to show or prove
unlawful detainer or forcible entry is pending a better title (Santos v. Estejada, G.R. No. 8574, 1913)
Prescription: 10 days from filing in case of
forcible entry / 10 days from the time the It is permissible to file both an accion reinvindicatoria and accion
appeal is perfected in case of unlawful interdictal or accion publiciana over the same land, and between the
detainer. same parties, because the issues involved are different. In the
former, the issue is ownership, in the latter, possession (PARAS,
[NOTE: Machinery and equipment used for an industry and Civil Code)
indispensable for the carrying on of such industry, cannot be the
subject of replevin, because under the premises, they are real, and Cases:
not personal property. (Machinery and Engineering Supplies, Inc. v. 49. Northern Motors, Inc. v. Herrera L-32674, 1973
Court of Appeals, 96 Phil. 70).]. If a purchaser of personal property in installments secured
a chattel mortgage and fails to pay. The chattel mortgagee
[NOTE: To make out a case of unlawful detainer, the complaint has the right to have immediate possession of the mortgaged
must show that the withholding of possession, or the refusal to chattel upon breach of contract and may avail of replevin.
vacate, is UNLAWFUL. (Valderrama Lumber Co.v. Sarmiento Co., L-
18535] 50. Stronghold Insurance Co, Inc. v. CA 208 SCRA 336 (1992)
Leisures club's act of filing a replevin suit without intention
[NOTE: A person or squatter who occupies the land of another at to prosecute it constitutes a wanton, fraudulent, oppressive
the latter’s tolerance or permission, without any contract between and malevolent breach of contract which warrants award for
them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate exemplary damages.
upon demand, failing which, a summary action for ejectment or
unlawful detainer is the proper remedy against him. (Yu v. De Lara, 51. La Tondena Distillers, Inc. v. CA, 209 SCRA 544 (1992)
et al., L-16084, Nov. 30, 1962).]. If defendant in a replevin suit wants to have property
taken by sheriff restored to him, he should, within 5 days
[NOTE: The demand to vacate must be absolute, not conditional. from taking:
Moreover, the complaint must state WHEN the demand was made, 1. post a counterbond in double the value of said property
and the fact that such demand had been served personally, or by 2. serve plaintiff with a copy thereof both requirements
serving written notice, or by posting such notice. (Gallarde v. and compliance of 5-day period is mandatory.
Moran, L-19572, July 30, 1965). The demand must be made at least
5 days (building) or 15 days (land) before the action is brought. The remedy of a stranger to the action for replevin is a third-
(Ibid., citing Sec. 2, Rule 70, Rules of Court).]. party claim under Sec. 7, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.

[NOTE: If several demands had been made, the period of one year 52. Oliveras, et al. V. Lopez et al., L-29727 (1988)
must be counted 5 days or 15 days as the case may be from the time A “move in the premises” resolution simply means what is
of the LATEST demand, unless in the meantime an accion publiciana stated therein: the parties are obliged to inform the Court of
has been brought. (Calubayan v. Pascual, L-22645, Sep. 18, 1967).]. developments pertinent to the case which may be of help to
the Court in its immediate disposition.
Requisites in an Action to Recover (CC, Art. 434)
13
 53. Tabora v. Velio, L-60367 (1982)
In cases of real property disputes, the the proper barangay [NOTE: The amendment to the Judiciary Act, already referred to
court is where the property is situated even if the parties with respect to city courts (not municipal courts) and CFI’s having
reside elsewhere. the Lupong Barangay (under PD 1508) will concurrent jurisdiction in cases where possession cannot be
not have jurisdiction If not followed. determined unless the issue of ownership is also resolved.].

54. Masallo v. Cesar 39 Phil. 134 59. Pabico v. Ong Pauco 43 Phil. 572
If owner deprives a person lawfully entitled to possession Land owned by A was sold in an auction. under law, owner is
(such as tenant) through FISTS, the tenant may bring action entitled to redeem it within a year. before expiration of the
of forcible entry even as against the owner. The owner having period, the sheriff forcible put the purchaser in possession of the
surrendered the material possession to the tenant by virtue land. May A file an action for forcible entry against sheriff and
of he lease contract. purchaser?

55. Monteblanco v. Hinigaran Sugar Plantation 63 Phil. 794 YES. because the sheriff and purchaser had no right to eject
The law insists that forcible entry case should be filed win A since the redemption period has not yet expired.
1 year because public interest is involved and should be tried
asap. 60. Ines Sapong, et al. v. Jandayan, L-17593, 1962
The defendant forcefully entered land owned by plaintiffs,
56. Sps. Benitez v. CA 77 SCAD 793 (1997) when sued for forcible entry, the defendant threatened
In forcible entry, since plaintiff is deprived of possession of land plaintiffs to usurp another portion of same land. Plaintiffs sued
through FISTS, he must allege and prove his prior possession to for injunction to prevent this. The Court held that the remedy is
the property. not filing a separate case in connection with forcible entry, to
permit this would militate rule against multiplicity of suits.
[NOTE: if forcible entry is not accomplished through the ff.
means, then forcible entry is not the proper remedy. 70. Pharma Industries, Inc. v. Pajarillaga, L-53788, Oct. 17, 1980
S sold lot to B a retro. s failed to redeem win stipulated period
Stating in the complaint that he had been “deprived” of and B was able to consolidate ownership over property.
possession is not sufficient since it did not state how he had however, s failed to surrender land despite of demand. The
been deprived. (Gumiran v. Gumiran) But stating in the complaint proper remedy of B is to file an action for unlawful detainer.
that the defendant had “unlawfully turned the plaintiff out of
the possession” of the land is sufficient. Prior physical 71. Lao v. CA, 84 SCAD 341 (1997)
possession can be implied from the fact that the complaint Although an action for unlawful detainer is inadequate for
states that the plaintiff had unlawfully been deprived of his the ventilation of issues involving title or ownership of
possession. (Co Tiamco v. Diaz et al., 42 O.G. 1169; Maddammu v. controverted real property, it is more in keeping with procedural
Court, 74 Phil. 230).] due process that where issues of title or ownership are raised in
the summary proceedings for unlawful detainer, said
57. City of Manila v. Gerardo Garcia et al., L-26053 proceeding should be DISMISSED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION,
City of manila owned parcel of land which was later on unless, in the case of an appeal from the inferior court to the
possessed by squatters who built houses in the area. When they Court of First Instance (CFI) (now Regional Trial Court [RTC]),
were discovered, the City Mayor issued to them lease permits the parties agree to the latter court hearing the case in its
and collected rentals from the squatters, later when the City jurisdiction in accordance with Rule 40, Sec. 11 of the Rules of
needed the land for expansion of an elementary school, the Court.
squatters refuse to vacate and contend that they are tenants
evidenced by their permits. 72. Quimson v. Suarez 45 Phil. 101
A new tenant entitled to possess may bring, in lieu of the
No. they are not tenants but squatters who are public landlord, an action of unlawful detainer against the old tenant
nuisance per se and can be summarily abated without aid of whose right to possess has already expired.
court . The Mayor cannot legalize forcible entry through issuing
permits to the squatters. Squatting is unlawful and must not be 73. Rantael v. Court of Appeals, L-47519, Apr. 30, 1980
fostered. If a lease is on a “month to month basis” this is a lease for a
definite period, and therefore PD 20 on the non-ejectment of
58. Aquino v Deala 63 Phil. 582 lessees (with a monthly rent of P300) will not apply. Ejectment
Under law, (Justice of peace courts and) municipal courts can prosper. (This must be distinguished from a case where all
have jurisdiction for forcible entry cases but do not have that has been agreed upon is payment monthly. This is not a
jurisdiction regarding ownership. Now, A sues B for forcible lease with a definite period.)
entry, B contends ownership of property, does this deprive
court of jurisdiction? 74. Pharma Industries, Inc. v. Pajarillaga, L-53788, Oct. 17, 1980
In an action for unlawful detainer, prior possession by the
NO. Otherwise, jurisdiction of court can be changed by mere plaintiff or petitioner is not always a condition precedent.
allegation by defendant which would frustrate ends of justice.
BUT if possession cannot be solved without first knowing true 75. Base v. Leviste, L-52762, Aug. 29, 1980
owner of property, then JURISDICTION is lost and case must be
DISMISSED.

14
 If after the filing of a motion for execution pending appeal, preceding month at the rate determined by the
the accrued rentals are paid, said payment cannot prevent judgment. (Sec. 19, Rule 70, Rules of Court).
execution.
The supersedeas bond answers only for BACK RENTALS
Effect of No Demand to Vacate, in Case Demand is Essential however, and not for those that may accrue during the
If demand to vacate is essential (as in non-payment of rents) but pendency of the appeal (Sison v. Bayona, L-13446, 1960)
demand is not made, the case should be brought before the Court
of First Instance (now Regional Trial Court) and not the justice of 2) If the judgment is in favor of the defendant, there is no judgment
the peace or the municipal court. Error on this point is jurisdictional. for possession that may be executed, because he is entitled to
(Dorado v. Virina, 34 Phil. 264). continue in his possession.

[NOTE: The demand to vacate is essential only if the tenant detains 76. Reyes v. Hon. Sta. Maria L-33213, June 29, 1979
possession (except if the cause is expiration of the period), but is The CFI (RTC) should not have dismissed the case on the
not essential if detention is made by a buyer, seller, or some other theory that it was unlawful detainer. The respondent herein
person. (See Sec. 2, Rule 70, Rules of Court).]. refused to vacate on the ground that he was the owner thereof,
having purchased the same from a third person. It is a case of
Forcible Entry v. Unlawful Detainer accion publiciana, for the claim is possession de jure (not de
Forcible Entry Unlawful Detainer facto).
As to when Possession of the Possession is
possession defendant is unlawful inceptively lawful but 77. Patricio S. Cunanan v. Court of Appeals, L-25511, Sep. 28, 1968
became from the beginning as becomes illegal from The plaintiff filed an accion publiciana case in the CFI (RTC)
unlawful he acquires possession the time defendant after alleging that the defendant usurped his property for over
by force, intimidation, unlawfully withholds one year before filing the action. The CFI had jurisdiction for
strategy, threat or possession after the more than a year has elapsed since the usurpation. If only one
stealth (FISTS). expiration or year or less has elapsed, the action should be instituted in the
termination of his right municipal court (forcible entry or unlawful detainer).
thereto.
As to the No previous demand Demand is 78. Cruz v. Court of Appeals, L-40880, Oct. 23, 1979
Necessity of for the defendant to jurisdictional if the Respondents sought to recover a parcel of land from the
Demand vacate is necessary. ground is non-payment petitioners 26 years after they had abandoned the property, and
of rentals or failure to during which time the petitioners had constructed their
comply with the lease residences on the land. The complaint could either be accion
contract. publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. However, because of the
As to Plaintiff must prove Plaintiff need not have abandonment, the respondents will not be allowed to recover,
Necessity of that he was in prior been in prior physical otherwise stated, the law, justice, and equity will not allow them
Proof of Prior physical possession of possession. “to lie in wait and spring as in an ambush.”
Physical the premises until he
Possession was deprived thereof 79. Alejandro v. CFI of Bulacan, 40 O.G. (9s) 13, p. 128
by the defendant. The fact that the petitioner had filed over the same land
another action involving title is no bar thereto because the latter
As to When 1 year period is 1 year period is counted
the 1 year generally counted from from the date of last is compatible with an action for detainer, and both can co-exist
and can be filed at the same time so long as they pursue different
Period is the date of actual entry demand or last letter
Counted on the land. of demand. purposes and are regulated by different procedure.
From
80. Javier, et al. v. Osmeña, et al., 40 O.G. 11, p. 2277
A reivindicatory action is not an action in rem, but an action
When Judgment Is Executed
in personam. It should therefore bind merely those who had
1) If the Justice of the Peace or municipal trial court decides in favor
been made parties to the action. Judgments rendered in actions
of the plaintiff (and against the tenant), execution shall issue
in personam are enforceable only between the parties and their
immediately, unless:
successors in interest, but not against strangers thereto.
a) An appeal has been perfected, and the defendant, to
stay execution, fi les a suffi cient bond (supersedeas
81. Latigay v. Lebiga, (CA) 40 O.G. (4th S), 8, p. 291
bond) approved by the Justice of the Peace or municipal
When, on the occasion of an ejectment, the question of title
trial court, and executed to the plaintiff to enter the
is raised (by the plaintiff) at the same time, it is not necessary to
action in the Court of First Instance (now Regional Trial
wait for the lapse of one year to maintain an action for recovery
Court) and to pay the rents, damages and costs down to
of property before the Court of First Instance (now RTC). In
the time of the fi nal judgment in the action; and
other words, the question of title may be raised at any time
b) during the pendency of the appeal, he:
before the CFI (now RTC), even if the cause of action should also
i. pays to the plaintiff or to the Court the amount of
constitute acts of ejectment.
rent due from time to time under the contract, if
any, or
82. Armamento v. Guerrero, L-34328, Feb. 21, 1980
ii. in the absence of a contract, he pays to the
An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust,
plaintiff or into the court the reasonable value of
prescribes in ten (10) years. If based on fraud, the action
the use and occupation of the premises for the
15
 prescribes in four (4) years, counted from the discovery of the (b) Use your property so as not to impair the rights of others.
fraud. “Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.’’ “The owner of a thing
cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the
Effect of Denial of Petition for Registration under the Torrens rights of a third person.’’ (Art. 431).
System
The denial of a petition for the registration of land, under the The Limitations on Ownership
Torrens system, is not res judicata to another action brought, either (a) Those given by the State or the Law.
for registration of the same land, or to any action of ejectment. — police power, power of taxation, power of eminent
While an alleged owner of land may have a right sufficient to justify domain
an action of ejectment, he may not have titles sufficient to justify a — the legal easement of waters, the legal easement of right
registration of his land under the Torrens system. While his title is of way.
defective, still the title of his adversary might be more defective. (b) Those given by the owner (or grantee) himself.
(Ramento v. Sablaya.38 Phil. 528) — when the owner leases his property to another, said owner
in the meantime cannot physically occupy the premises;
83. Cesareo Perez, et al. v. Vicente Evite, et al., L-16003, when the owner pledges his personal property, he has in
Judgment for Ownership Usually Carries with It the Right to the meantime to surrender its possession.
Possession. For under Sec. 45 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (c) Those given by the person (grantor) who gave the thing to
(now Sec. 47[c], Rule 39, Rules of Court), a judgment is NOT its present owner.
confined to what appears upon the face of the decision, but also — the donor may prohibit the donees from partitioning the
to those necessarily included therein or necessary thereto. In property for a period not exceeding twenty (20) years.
Marcelo v. Mencias (L-15609), ownership is adjudged, the SC
allowed the issuance of a writ of demolition (to remove the The Limitation of ‘Police Power’
improvements on the land) because said demolition is deemed ‘Police power’ - is the right of the State to regulate and restrict
necessarily included in the judgment. personal and property rights for the common weal. (Director
of Lands v. Abella, 54 Phil. 455).
84. Olejo v. Hon. A. Rebueno, L-39350, Oct. 29, 1975 - the power to prescribe regulations to promote the
Adjudication of Ownership Does Not Necessarily Include health, morals, education, good order or safety, and the
Possession. The exception is when the party defeated has not general welfare of the people. (Primicias v. Fugoso, 80 Phil.
been able to show any right to possess independent of his claim 71; See also Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U.S. 27)
of ownership. In such a case, what the declared owner should - based on the Latin maxim — salus populi est suprema lex
do, if he desires to enforce his right to possess the property, is (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) and sic utere
to file a motion for a writ of execution. tuo ut alienum non laedas (“so use your own as not to injure
another’s property”)
85. Salao v. Salao, L-26699, Mar. 16, 1976
A Torrens Title is generally a conclusive evidence of the For the State to exercise police power, it is essential that:
ownership of the land referred to therein. (Sec. 47, Act 496). A (a) the interests of the public in general, as distinguished
strong presumption exists that Torrens titles were regularly from a particular class, require such interference;
issued and that they are valid. In order to maintain an action for (b) the means should be reasonably necessary for the
reconveyance, proof as to the fiduciary relation of the parties accomplishment of the purpose, and not unduly
must be clear and convincing. (Yumul v. Rivera & Dizon, 64 Phil. oppressive upon individuals. (U.S. v. Toribio, 15 Phil. 85)
13).
[NOTE: such power is not without limitations, notable among which
86. Victorias v. Leuenberger and CA, GR 31189, Mar. 31, 1987 is the prohibition against the taking of private property for public
The Torrens System was not established as a means for the use without just compensation. (Municipality of Lucban v.
acquisition of title to private land. It is intended merely to NAWASA, L-15525, Oct. 11, 1961]
confirm and register the title which one may already have on the
land. No Financial Compensation in Police Power
When by police power, private property is impaired or destroyed
87. Santos v. Aquino, L-32949, Nov. 28, 1980 in the interest of the public weal, financial compensation is not,
If registered land expands or increases in size, the unlike in eminent domain, given to the owner. (U.S. v. Toribio, 15
determination of the ownership over such expansion or increase Phil. 85). What he gets in return, however, are the benefits arising
is lodged not with the original registration court but with a court from a healthy economic standard of society. (See Churchill and
of general jurisdiction. The petition for clarification of title over Tait v. Rafferty, 32 Phil. 580). In a sense, therefore, taking of
the registered land may be regarded as an action for declaratory property because of police power is “damage without injury” —
relief or quieting of title. Hence, the same is within the damnum absque injuria.
competence of an ordinary civil court.
Police Power in Whom is Vested
Right of Ownership Not Absolute Police power is vested primarily in Congress of the Philippines,
There are limitations which are imposed for the benefit of but its exercise may be delegated to municipal corporations (thru
humanity, and which are based on certain legal maxims, such as the the “general welfare clause’’), and sometimes to the President of
following: the Philippines during periods of emergency. (Lim v. Register of
(a) The welfare of the people is the supreme law of the land. Deeds, 46 O.G. 3665). Unless properly authorized by Congress,

16
executive officials cannot ordinarily interfere with the property of be necessary to repel or prevent actual or threatened unlawful
an individual. physical invasion or usurpation of his property; the right to counter,
in certain cases, force with force.
The Power of Taxation and How It Limits Ownership
‘Taxation’ is the inherent power of a State to raise income or Requisites: (ROAD)
revenue to defray necessary governmental expenses for a public 1. Reasonable force:
purpose. 2. Owner or lawful possessor is the person who will exercise;
-Thus, thru taxation, the cost of governing is apportioned 3. Actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation; and
among those who in some measure are privileged to enjoy benefits 4. No Delay in one’s exercise (I.e. at the time if an actual or
and must consequently bear the burdens of government. threatened dispossession, or immediately after the dispossession.
- Real as well as personal property may be taxed, and unless Once delay has taken place, even if excusable, the owner or lawful
the taxes are paid there is danger that the property may be seized possessor must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the
and confiscated by the government. Taxation, in this sense, is a property (CC, Arts. 433, 536; DE LEON, Property)
limitation on the right of ownership.
Correlation: Art. 11 of RPC on self defense includes not only defense
‘Taxation’ Distinguished from ‘Other Governmental Powers’ to a man’s person, but also that of his rights to property. Thus, the
doctrine of self-help can be applied in criminal law.
TAXATION EMINENT DOMAIN
Compensation generally, a better financial or
government (with monetary
consequent protection compensation
to life, liberty, and
property) Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or
Persons operates on a class, operates on an tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or
involved according to some individual (the by any other means without detriment to servitudes
principle of owner of the constituted thereon.
apportionment property)
Nature of the paid by citizen as his allowed by the
duty CONTRIBUTION to a citizen, but NOT as Fencing of Land or Tenements
public burden a contribution to a
public burden Example: A person may fence off his house and lot unless he denies
Manner of generally, no complaint a property owner is others a right of way to which the latter may be entitled.
exercise is filed in court. It is the made a defendant
In Lunod v. Meneses, 11 Phil. 128, the lands of A were being flooded
public that, in general, in
is required to pay the complaint because B, the owner of certain lands closed his (B’s) estate to
(expropriation is a maintain a fishpond, thus closing the outlet to the river of water on
forced sale) A’s property. The question was whether B had the right to so fence
his estate.

Burdens of Ownership TAXATION POLICE POWER

For example, we have the rule of “res perit domino’’ (the owner Purpose To raise revenue to promote the public
bears the loss of the property owned by him). A chattel mortgage welfare by system of
was executed on sugar to guarantee an obligation. Due to non- regulation
payment at maturity, the sugar was offered for sale, but Compensation taxpayer is citizen’s
unfortunately no sale could be made because of lack of shipping compensated by compensation is more
facilities and the eventual involvement of the Philippines in World obvious and or less intangible, an
War II. During the Japanese Occupation, all the sugar mortgaged apparent idealistic realization
were either burned or looted. The mortgagor must bear the loss of benefi ts that society has in
the sugar because at the time of its loss, he was still the owner some way benefited
thereof. The deed of chattel mortgage did NOT transfer ownership Amount paid may be small or big fee paid is just enough
to the mortgagee. (courts cannot to cover necessary
decree the amount expenses for
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right paid as regulation or
to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal unreasonable) inspection
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be HELD: No, B had no right to prevent the outflow of the water from
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or A’s estate. While he had the right to fence his estate, still he should
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his not impair the servitudes or burdens constituted thereon.
property.
Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such
Principle of ‘Self-Help’ manner as to injure the rights of a third person.
The owner has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal of the property by use of such force as may
17
 This is one of the fundamental bases of police power and a just Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a
restriction to the right of ownership.
disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must
Examples: resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
- I cannot blow my saxophone in the middle of the night because
I would unduly disturb the rights of others to a peaceful sleep. Two requirements to raise a disputable (rebuttable) presumption
- If Dan owns a house on an isolated farm in Lucena, he can burn of ownership.
said house; ut if he owns one in Manila, in a busy district (a) actual possession; and
where there are many houses, he cannot burn the house in (b) claim of ownership.
view of possible harm to others.
Thus, a tenant, who admits his tenancy, cannot be presumed to
Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the be the owner. The article applies to both movable and immovable
interference of another with the same, if the interference is property.
necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened
Recourse to Judicial Process
damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from
The true owner has to resort to judicial process to recover his
the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand property, only if the possessor does not want to surrender the
from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him. property to him, after proper request or demand has been made.
(Supia v. Quintero, 59 Phil. 312).

GR: A person cannot interfere with the right of ownership of

another. Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be
EXP: Doctrine of Incomplete Privilege or State of Necessity (CC, identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his
Art. 432) title and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

[NOTE: A third person, who is not the possessor, may repel the
unlawful aggression on a property owned by another. In such Requisites in an Action to Recover
event, he is acting as a negotiorum gestor. The owner or possessor (a) Property must be identified. (In an unquestionable manner;
must indemnify him for injuries sustained while exercising such boundaries proved; in case of doubt, both parties should submit
right (CC, Art. 429)] a plan prepared by a competent person; the description must be
so definite that the officer who would go to where the land is
Acts in a state of necessity are different from defense against situated can locate it.)
unlawful aggression or defense against dangerous objects, (b) Reliance on title of the plaintiff (and not on the weakness of
although the principle which justifies them is the same. If the defendant’s title or claim). (This is because it is possible that
danger comes from another’s property, and the force is employed neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is the true owner of the
against it, the case is one of defense against danger. But if property in question; if the clams of both are weak, judgment
another’s property is used to avert danger not arising from it, the must be for the defendant, being in possession, is presumed to
act is essentially one in a state of necessity; in other words, it is for be the owner and cannot be obliged to shoe or prove a better
the purpose of protecting the actor himself or another person at title.)
the expense of the owner of the property who has no part in the
state of necessity (TOLENTINO, Civil Code). Evidence that may be presented to show ownership (not
conclusive):
Rule Under Criminal Law a. Torrens certificate
Under the Revised Penal Code, the state of necessity is b. Titles granted by Spanish Gov. (like royal cedula and titulo de
considered a justifying circumstance. composition)
c. Long and actual possession
Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act d. Occupation of a building for a long time without paying
which causes damage to another does not incur criminal liability rentals
provided that the following requisites are present: e. Testimony of adverse and exclusive possession of ownership
(a) that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists; corroborated by tax declaration
(b) that the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;
(c) that there be no other practical and less harmful means of [NOTE: These requisites are based on the doctrines enunciated by
preventing it. (Art. 11, par. 4, Rev. Penal Code) our Supreme Court in Del Valle v. Meralco, 34 Phil. 963. These
requisites in turn are based on the proposition that the burden of
Example: proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of
- To prevent fire from spreading and thus burning valuable houses, an issue.]
firemen may dynamite or destroy barong-barongs between the
fire and the shacks so as to stop the fire. The owners of the [NOTE: One who desires to recover land as owner from another
barong-barongs have no right to interfere. However, the owners person upon the theory that the deeds held by the other party are
of the buildings saved will have to compensate the owners of null and void, must first ask that such alleged fraudulent deeds be
the shacks destroyed. set aside (not in a subsidiary action). (Dacer v. Munoz, 12 Phil. 328)]

18
[NOTE: If land registered in the name “T.P. married to J. T.”, the 1) a notice to the owner of the property;
land belongs to T.P. alone as her paraphernal property, if it were 2) a full opportunity to present his side on whether or
conjugal, it would have been issued in the name of both. The words not the purpose of the taking is public; or whether or
“married to” is merely descriptive.] not the government reasonably needs the property;
3) and such other procedural requisites as may be prescribed
under the law.
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except
[NOTE: The mere notice of the intention of the state to expropriate
by competent authority and for public use and always upon the land in the future cannot prevent the landowner from
payment of just compensation. alienating the property, for after all, the condemnation
proceedings may not even be instituted. Moreover, even while
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the proceedings have already begun, it is possible that a sale to a
courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in person willing to assume the risk of expropriation may be
his possession. considered valid. (Rep. v. Baylosis, 61 O.G. 722).]

Estoppel: Before there can be expropriation, there must be proper

‘Eminent Domain’ - superior right of the State to own certain proceedings in cort. An entity which does not follow the proper
properties under certain conditions; a limitation on the right of procedure can be held liable for damages for unlawful trespass. But
ownership; may be exercised even over private properties of this ruling will not apply if the owner of the property is estopped,
cities and municipalities, and even over lands registered with a meaning, if he allowed the entity to make use of his property and
Torrens title incur expenses thereon without making any objection to the
- the right of the State to acquire private property for unauthorized taking. The owner is still entitled to just
public use upon payment of just compensation. (Cooley’s compensation but cannot recover the same. He will be paid
Constitutional Limitations, 8th Ed., p. 110).
- Inherently possessed by the national legislature, the Confiscation: does away with due process, and where no
power of eminent domain may be validly delegated to local compensation is given. This had long been abolished by modern
governments, other public entities and public utilities. (Moday v. fundamental laws.
CA, 79 SCAD 816 [1997]).
- Eminent domain or expropriation is based on the need for Public Use
human progress and community welfare or development.
- Eminent domain refers to the right, expropriation usually
refers to the procedure, thru which the right is exercised.

Essential Requisites of Eminent Domain 89. Republic v. PLDT Co., L-18841 (1969)
(a) taking by competent authority
(b) observance of due process of law 90. Philippine Columbian Association v. Panis, 424 SCAD 1002
(c) taking for public use
(d) payment of just compensation. Payment of “Just Compensation”

Cases: Meaning
88. Republic v. LA Orden, L-12792
Expropriation of land to solve traffic congestion; Case 94. Meralco v. Pineda, 206 SCRA 196 (1992)
should be remanded to lower courts to determine necessity of
traffic relief. This is because courts have the power to inquire 95. Napocor v. Angas 208 SCRA 542 (1992)
into the legality of the proceedings and to verify the existence
of the legal requisites for the exercise of the right of eminent
domain.

[NOTE: The right to expropriate is not an inherent power in a

municipal corporation, and before it can exercise the right, some
law must exist conferring the power upon it. If a law grants it,
whether wisely or not, it must be given effect, provided that all
other requirements of the law are complied with. (City of Manila v.
Chinese Community, 40 Phil. 349)]

Due Process of Law

In connection with expropriation, it has been held that there is
due process of law when there has been a substantial compliance
with the procedure laid down under Rule 69 — Expropriation — of
the Rules of Court (now Rule 67). In other words, there must be
proper expropriation proceedings.

Such proceedings must include:

19