propp 2021

Property

PROPERTY Properties NOT susceptible of appropriation

CHARACTERISTICS 1. Common things (res communes) –
XPN: Those that may be appropriated
GR: Those properties belonging to everyone. under certain conditions in a limited way.
While in particular no one owns common e.g. electricity, oxygen, distilled water
property, still in another sense, res communes are
really owned by everybody in that their use and 2. Not susceptible due to physical impossibility
enjoyment are given to all of mankind. (Paras, e.g. sun, moon, and other heavenly bodies
2008) e.g. air, wind, sunlight.
3. Not susceptible due to legal impossibility
All things which are or may be the object of e.g. human body while the person is alive
appropriation considered as either real or
personal property. (NCC, Art. 414) The human body is NOT a property
It is neither real nor personal property, whether
It is an object or a right which is appropriated or alive or dead. It is not even property at all, in that
susceptible of appropriation by man, with it generally cannot be appropriated.
capacity to satisfy human wants and needs.
(Pineda, 1999) While a human being is alive, he cannot, as such,
be the object of a contract, for he is considered
NOTE: Property does not only cover material outside the commerce of man. He may donate
things because it mentions of rights which could part of his blood, may even sell part of his hair,
either be classified as real or personal right. but he cannot sell his body. (Paras, 2008)

Distinction between things and property Under the R.A. 7170 or the Organ Donation Act
of 1991, donation of all or a part of a human body
1. The term thing is broader in scope than may only occur after a person’s “death” (i.e., the
property. All kinds of property are things irreversible cessation of circulatory and
but not all things are property; respiratory functions or the irreversible
cessation of all functions of the entire brain,
2. Things refer to all objects that exist including the brain system) [Sec. 2(j), RA 7170, as
including those which could not be amended]
appropriated by man. Property refers to
objects already possessed by man or are in CLASSIFICATIONS OF PROPERTY
their possession;
1. As to nature/mobility
3. Things involve only corporeal objects. a. Immovable or real property; and
Property may refer to intangible matters. b. Movable or personal property.
(Pineda, 2009)
2. As to ownership
Q: Are the rights under the Bill of Rights a. Public dominion; and
considered as property? b. Private ownership.

A: NO. They are not susceptible of 3. As to alienability
appropriation. a. Alienable or within the commerce of
men; and
Requisites for a thing to be considered as b. Inalienable or outside the commerce
property (USA) of men.

1. Utility –It can serve as a means to satisfy 4. As to individuality
human needs; a. Specific property; and
b. Generic property.
2. Substantivity/Individuality – It has a
separate and autonomous existence and not 5. As to susceptibility to touch
simply a part of a whole. a. Tangible; and

3. Appropriability - Susceptibility to
ownership/possession, even if not yet
actually appropriated.

171

Civil Law

b. Intangible. irrespective of its ownership;
6. As to susceptibility to substitution 3. Destination – Things placed in buildings or

a. Fungible; and on lands by the owner of the immovable or
b. Non-fungible. his agent in such a manner that it reveals the
intention to attach them permanently
7. As to accession dependence or importance thereto; and
a. Principal; and
b. Accessory 4. Analogy – Classified by express provision of
law or those which are not actually tangible
8. As to existence properties but are rights and interests over
a. Existing or present property (res existing immovable properties.
existentes); and
b. Future property (res futurae) IMMOVABLE BY NATURE AND
INCORPORATION
9. As to consumability
a. Consumable; and Par. 1, Art. 415. Land, buildings, roads and
b. Non-consumable constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil.

10. As to divisibility Land
a. Divisible; and
b. Indivisible By its very nature is immovable property. In
whatever transaction land is involved, it is
CLASSIFICATIONS OF THINGS always immovable.

1. Res nullius – belonging to no one A truck full of soil taken from the land (like
Those objects which have not yet been garden soil) becomes a personal property
appropriated, or have been abandoned by because it is no longer adhered to the land.
the owner with the intention of no longer However, the moment it is used to cover a land
owning them. for ornamentation or gardening, it becomes
immovable again. (Pineda, 2009)
2. Res communes – belonging to everyone
Things which are used and enjoyed by all of Building
mankind. (e.g. sunlight, starlight, and wind)
GR: A building is always immovable whether
3. Res alicujus – belonging to someone built in one’s own land or rented.
Objects, whether tangible or intangible,
which are privately owned, either in a XPN: When a building is merely superimposed
collective or individual capacity on the soil or is sold for immediate demolition,
in which case it may be considered as movable
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY BY MOBILITY or personal property. (e.g. Barong-barongs are
not permanent structures but mere
REAL OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY superimpositions on land.)
(1995, 1997, 2007 BBAR)
Effect of demolition of a house
Categories of immovable property:
Once a house is demolished, its character as an
Real properties are categorized by: (NIDA) immovable ceases because a house is classified
as an immovable property by reason of its
1. Nature – Those which by their essence and adherence to the soil on which it is built.
nature are immovable or cannot be moved (Bicerra v. Teneza, G.R. No. L-16218, November
from one place to another; 29, 1962)

2. Incorporation – Those which are attached to Mortgage of a building erected on a land
an immovable in a fixed manner and belonging to another
considered as an integral part thereof,
A building, by itself, may be mortgaged apart
from the land on which it was built even if a

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 172
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the 2. A personal property.
absence of stipulation of the improvements
thereon, buildings. Such a mortgage would still The moment trees are detached or uprooted
be a real estate mortgage (REM) for the building from the land it is considered as personal
would still be considered immovable property property.
even if dealt with separately and apart from the
land. (Yee v. Strong Machinery Company, G.R. No. NOTE: In case of uprooted timber, they are still
11658, February 15, 1918) not considered as personal property because
timber is an integral part of the timber land.
A building can be the subject of a chattel
mortgage Growing fruits

When the parties have so expressly designated, GR: Growing fruits are considered as real
especially when it is considered that the property so long as they are still attached to the
property given as a security is a house of mixed soil. Once removed from the soil, they become
materials which by its very nature is considered personal properties.
as personal property. (Luna v. Encarnacion, G.R.
No. L-4637, June 30, 1952) XPN: Growing fruits may be exceptionally
treated as personal property pursuant to the
Requisites for a building to be the subject of a provisions of Art. 416(2) of the New Civil Code.
chattel mortgage (Rabuya, 2008)

1. Parties mutually agreed to consider the E.g.
house a personal property; and 1. For the purposes of sale of the whole or part

2. That no innocent third party isprejudiced. of the crops;
2. For purposes of attachment and execution;
NOTE: Under the doctrine of estoppel, parties to
a contract who agreed to treat as personal and
property that which by nature would be real 3. For applying the provisions of the Chattel
property are prohibited from assuming
inconsistent positions and repudiating an Mortgage Law.
obligation voluntarily assumed.
IMMOVABLE BY INCORPORATION
Insofar as execution proceedings are considered, Par. 3, Art. 415. Everything attached to an
the house or building is considered real immovable in a fixed manner, in such a
property. way that it cannot be separated therefrom
without breaking the material or
A building subjected to a chattel mortgage deterioration of the object.
cannot be sold extrajudicially. For purposes of
sale at public auction on execution sales, the An incorporated thing is considered as real
building or house shall be treated as real property when in cases of separation, the injury,
property. The requirements of the Rules of Court breakage, or deterioration is substantial.
on foreclosure of real estate mortgages must
therefore be followed. (Pineda, 2009) Res vinta

Par. 2, Art. 415. Trees, plants and growing These are immovables by incorporation, which
fruits, while they are attached to the land or when separated from the immovable, regain
form an integral part of an immovable. their condition as movable.

Trees and Plants Steel towers are personal properties

1. A real property; or They are not buildings adhered to the soil [(NCC,
a. By nature - If they are spontaneous Art. 415(1)]; they are not attached to an
products of the soil; or immovable in a fixed manner; they can be
b. By incorporation - If they have been separated without substantial damage or
planted through cultivation orlabor. deterioration, and they are not machineries
intended for works on the land. (Board of

173

Civil Law

Assessment Appeals v. Meralco, G.R. No. L- 15334, 1. The industry or work must be Carried on in
January 31, 1964) a building or on a piece of land;

IMMOVABLE BY INCORPORATION & BY 2. The machinery must:
DESTINATION a. Be placed by the Owner of the
tenement or his agent;
Par. 4, Art. 415. Statues, reliefs, paintings b. Tend directly to meet the needs of
or other objects for use or ornamentation, the said industry or work; and
placed in buildings or on lands by the
owner of the immovable in such a manner 3. Be Essential and principal to the industry or
that it reveals the intention to attach them work, and not merely incidental thereto.
permanently to the tenements.
Machinery placed by a tenant or by a
“Placed by the owner” usufructuary is NOT real property.

This means that the objects must be placed by Since it is placed by a person having only a
the owner of the immovable and not necessarily temporary right, it does not become
the owner of the object. immobilized. (Valdez v. Central Altagracia, 225
U.S. 58, 1912)
Requisites
Where a tenant places the machinery under the
1. Placed in buildings or on lands by the owner express provision of lease that it shall become a
of the immovable or by his agent; and part of the land belonging to the owner upon the
termination of the lease without compensation
2. Placed there in a manner that it reveals the to the lessee, the tenant acts as an agent of the
intention to attach them permanently to the owner and the immobilization of the
tenements. machineries arises from the act of the owner in
giving by contract a permanent destination to
Par. 3 distinguished from Par. 4 the machinery. (Ibid.)

PAR. 3 PAR. 4 Equipment and living quarters of the crew
permanently attached are immovable
Cannot be Can be separated properties

separated from the from the It is intended to meet the needs of the industry
immovable immovable without being undertaken by MPC. The equipment
partakes of the nature of the immovable upon
without breaking breaking or which it has been placed.
The living quarters, if attached to the immovable
or deterioration. deterioration. platform with permanence, becomes an
immovable as well. Permanence means they
Need not be placed Must be placed by cannot be separated without destroying the
by the owner. the owner of the platform or the quarters. If the attachment is not
immovable, or by permanent, or not merely superimposed on the
his agent whether platform, then the living quarters are movable
express or implied. properties. (2007 BAR)

Real property by Real property by Equipment of a transportation business
incorporation. incorporation and classified as personal property
destination.
A transportation business is not carried on in a
Par. 5, Art. 415. Machinery, receptacles, building or on a specified land. Hence,
instruments or implements intended by the equipment destined only to repair or service a
owner of the tenement for an industry or transportation business may not be deemed real
works which may be carried on in a property, but personal property.
building or on a piece of land & which tend
directly to meet the needs of the said
industry or works.

Requisites for machinery to be considered
real property (COTE)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 174
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

Machines must be essential and principal third persons acting in good faith are not
elements in the industry and must directly meet affected by its stipulation characterizing the
the needs of said industry. It does not include subject machinery as personal. (Serg’s Products,
movables which are merely incidentals, without Inc. v. PCI Leasing and Finance, Inc., G.R. No.
which the business can still continue or carry on 137705, August 22, 2000)
their functions.
Par. 6, Art. 415. Animal houses, pigeon-
Cash registers, typewriters, etc. usually found houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding
and used in hotels and restaurants are merely places of similar nature, in case their
incidentals not considered immobilized by owner has placed them or preserves them
destination because these businesses can carry with the intention to have them
on their functions without this equipment. permanently attached to the land, and
(Mindanao Bus Co. v. City Assessor and Treasurer, forming a permanent part of it; the
G.R. No. L-17870, September 29, 1962) animals in these places are included.

Machineries bolted or cemented on real Animal Houses, Pigeon Houses, Etc.
property mortgaged
These are immovables by destination or by
It is NOT considered an immovable property. incorporation. The Code requires that they be
The fact that machineries were bolted or placed by the owner of the land in order to
cemented on real property mortgaged does not acquire the nature of real property. However,
make them ipso facto immovable under Art. 415 they are still considered as real property even if
(3) and (5) as the parties’ intent has to be looked not placed by the owner if such structures are
into. adhered to the soil in a permanent manner.

When immovable property by nature may be Beehives, Fishponds or Breeding Places of
treated as a chattel Similar Nature Are Real Property; Animals
Contained Therein, Included
Even if the properties appear to be immovable
by nature, nothing detracts the parties from When purposely constructed or attached to the
treating them as chattels to secure an obligation ground or on another immovable (like a tree-
under the principle of estoppel. (Tsai v. CA, G.R. wall), fishponds and other similar breeding
No. 120098, October 2, 2001) places, like cemented container where breeding
of fishes or crustaceans is done, are considered
Effect of temporary separation of movables immovable property if the owner of the land or
from the immovables to which they are tenement intended them to be permanent
attached
The animals in the animal houses, the pigeons in
There are two views: the pigeon houses, the bees in the beehives, the
1. They continue to be regarded as fish in the fishponds are included and
considered part of the immovable property.
immovables; and (Pineda, 2009)
2. Fact of separation determines the condition
Cages are not included
of the objects thus recovering their It will be considered as personal property since
condition as movables. they can be moved from one place to another.

Machines though essential and principal Par. 7, Art. 415. Fertilizer actually used on a
elements of the industry are personal piece of land.
properties when provided in the lease
agreement Fertilizers in sacks are not included

The Court’s holding that the machines should be Fertilizers which are still in the sacks, although
deemed personal property pursuant to the Lease there is intention to place them or use them on
Agreement is good only insofar as the land, are movable. Only fertilizers actually used
contracting parties are concerned. Hence, while on a piece of land are deemed immovable since
the parties are bound by the Lease Agreement,

175

Civil Law

it is already placed in the land and can never be the civil law and common law and occasionally
separated from it. referred to as peculiar kind of personal property.
It is essential that a record of documents affecting
Par. 8, Art. 415. Mines, quarries and slag the title to a vessel be entered in the record of
dumps, while the matter thereof forms part the Collector of Customs at the port of entry.
of the bed, and waters either running or (Code of Commerce, Art.585)
stagnant.
Par. 10, Art. 415. Contracts for public works
By their nature, mines quarries and slag dumps and servitudes and other real rights over
are immovable property. immovable property.

Mines - These are mineral lands where Immovable by Analogy
excavations are done to extract minerals such as
gold, ores etc. These properties refer to contracts for public
works, servitudes and real rights over
Quarries - These are lands where stones are immovable property (like usufruct). They are
chipped of or where sand is being extracted. inseparable from their sources which are
immovable, Hence, for convenience, they are
Slag dumps - They consist of waste and dirt considered immovable not by their nature,
taken from a mine and mounted on the surface destination or incorporation but by analogy.
of the ground under excavation While no tangible, they have the characteristics
of real property. (Pineda, 2009)
Running or Stagnant Waters – These waters
refer to waters still running through the soil or e.g. Contract over a construction of a bridge
ground in mines and quarries. (Pineda, 2009)
Art. 416. The following things are deemed
Par. 9, Art. 415. Docks and structure which, to be personal property:
though floating, are intended by their (1) Those movables susceptible of
nature and object to remain at a fixed place appropriation which are not included in
on a river, lake or coast. the preceding article;
(2) Real property which by any special
When power barges are classified as real provision of law is considered as
properties personality;
(3) Forces of nature which are bought
Power barges are categorized as immovable under control by science; and
property by destination, being in the nature of (4) In general, all things which can be
machinery and other implements intended by transported from place to place without
the owner for an industry or work which may be impairment of the real property to which
carried on in a building or on a piece of land and they are fixed.
which tend directly to meet the needs of said Art. 417 The following are also considered
industry or work. (Fels Energy, Inc. v. Province of as personal property:
Batangas, G.R. No. 168557, February 19, 2007) (1) Obligations and actions which have
for their object movables or demandable
Floating platform is an immovable property sums; and

The platform is an immovable property by (2) Shares of stock of agricultural,
destination. It was intended by the owner to commercial and industrial entities,
remain at a fixed place on a river or coast. Art. although they may have real estate
415 (9) of the NCC considers as real property
“docks and structures which, though floating are PERSONAL OR MOVABLE PROPERTY
intended by their nature and object to remain at a (1995 BAR)
fixed place on a river, lake, or coasts.” (Fels
Energy, Inc. v. The Province of Batangas, G.R. No. Movable properties (SOFTSS)
168557, February 16, 2007)
1. Movables Susceptible of appropriation
Vessels are considered personal property under

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 176
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

which are not included in Art. 415; enhances, decodes and transmits said calls using
2. Real property which by any Special its complex communications infrastructure and
facilities. (Laurel v. Abrogar, G.R. No. G.R. No.
provision of law considers as personality; 155076, January 13, 2009)
e.g. Growing crops under the Chattel
Mortgage Law Tests to determine whether a property is a
movable property (MES)
3. Forces of nature which are brought under
the control of science; 1. Test of Exclusion – Everything not included
e.g. Electricity generated by electric in Art. 415 of NCC; e.g. ships or vessels or
powers, solar light for batteries power. interest in a business

4. In general, all things which can be 2. By reason of a Special law – Immovable by
Transported from place to place without nature but movable for the purpose of the
impairment of the real property to which special law; e.g. Growing crops for purposes
they are fixed (NCC, Art. 416); of the Chattel Mortgage Law

5. Obligations and actions which have for their 3. Test of Mobility – If the property is capable of
object movables or demandable sums; and being carried from place to place without
injuring the real property to which it may in
6. Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial the meantime be attached.
and industrial entities, although they have
real estate. (NCC, Art. 417) Art. 418. Movable property is either
consumable or non-consumable. To the first
Special Kind of Personal Property class belong those movables which cannot
be used in a manner appropriate to their
The author, composer, painter, sculptor, nature without their being consumed; to the
inventor have rights over their works. These
rights are personal property. (Pineda, 2009) second class belong all others.

Interest in business is a personal property CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY BY NATURE

With regard to the nature of the property Properties classified according to
mortgaged which is one-half interest in the consumability
business, such interest is a personal property
capable of appropriation and not included in the 1. Consumable property – That which cannot be
enumeration of real properties in articles 335 of used according to its nature without being
the Civil Code, and may be the subject of consumed or being eaten or used up;
mortgage. (Strochecker v. Ramirez, G.R. No.
18700, September 26, 1922) e.g. cigarette, glass of wine

The business of providing 2. Non-consumable property – That which can
telecommunication is a personal property be used according to its nature without
being consumed or being eaten or used up.
The business of providing telecommunication or
telephone service is likewise personal property e.g. eyeglasses, book
which can be the object of theft under Art. 308 of
the RPC. Properties classified according to
susceptibility to substitution
Indeed, while it may be conceded that
international long-distance calls, the matter 1. Fungible property – That property which
alleged to be stolen in the instant case, take the belongs to a common genus permitting its
form of electrical energy, it cannot be said that substitution; and
such international long-distance calls were
personal properties belonging to PLDT since the 2. Non- fungible property – That property
latter could not have acquired ownership over which is specified and not subject to
such calls. PLDT merely encodes, augments, substitution.

NOTE: As to whether a property is fungible or
non-fungible is determined by the agreement of

177

Civil Law

the parties and not on the consumability of the character;
thing. (2) Those which belong to the State,
without being for public use, and are
Art. 419. Property is either of public intended for some public service or for the
dominion or of private ownership development of the national wealth.

CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY Kinds of property of public dominion (USD)
BY OWNERSHIP
1. For public Use – may be used by anybody;
1. In relation to the State 2. Intended for public Service and not for
a. Public Dominion; and
b. Patrimonial. public use – may be used only by duly
authorized persons; and
2. In relation to political subdivisions/local 3. For the Development of the national wealth
government unit – like our natural resources. (NCC, Art. 420)
a. Public use; and
b. Patrimonial. Characteristics of properties of public
dominion (ULEP-ROB)
3. In relation to privatepersons
a. Owned individually; and 1. In general, they can be Used by everybody;
b. Owned collectively. 2. Cannot be Levied upon by execution or

NOTE: Sacred and religious objects are attachment;
considered outside the commerce of man. They 3. May Either be real or personal property;
are neither public nor private party. (Barlin v. 4. Cannot be acquired by Prescription;
Ramirez, G.R. No. L-2832, November 24, 1906) 5. Cannot be Registered under Land

PUBLIC DOMINION Registration Law and be the subject of
Torrens Title;
It means ownership by the public in general, in 6. Outside the commerce of man – cannot be
that not even the State or subdivisions thereof alienated or leased or be subject of any
may make them the object of commerce as long contract;
as they remain properties for public use. (Paras, 7. Cannot be Burdened by voluntary
2008) easement.

Properties classified as public dominion cannot Art. 421. All other property of the State,
be alienated but are not totally outside the which is not of the character stated in the
commerce of man as the Constitution allows the preceding article, is a patrimonial property.
State to enter into co-production, joint ventures
or production-sharing agreements with private Patrimonial Property
individuals or corporations for their exploration,
development and utilization. This is a property pertaining to the State which
is not intended for public use, public service, or
NOTE: In order to be classified as property of for the development of the national wealth. It is
public dominion, an intention to devote it to intended rather for the attainment of the
public use or to public service is sufficient and it economic ends of the State, that is, for its
is not necessary that it must actually be used as subsistence.
such.
NOTE: The patrimonial property of the State or
Art. 420. The following things are property any of its subdivisions may be acquired by
of public dominion: private individuals or juridical persons through
(1) Those intended for public use, such prescription. It can be the object of an ordinary
as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and contract. (Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co., Inc. v.
bridges constructed by the State, banks, Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975])
shores, roadsteads, and others of similar
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when
no longer intended for public use or for
public service, shall form part of the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 178
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

patrimonial property of the State. them are patrimonial.
Conversion From Property of Public Charging of fees does not remove property as
Dominion To Patrimonial Property, How public dominion
Effected.
The charging of fees to the public does not
When no longer intended or operated for public determine the character of the property whether
use or public service, a property of public it is of public dominion or not. The airport lands
dominion shall form part of the State’s and buildings are devoted to public use because
patrimonial property as of the date the they are used by the public for international and
Government, through the Executive or domestic travel and transportation. The
Legislative Departments, has formally declared terminal fees MIAA charges to passengers, as
that it is no longer needed for said purposes. well as the landing fees MIAA charges to airlines,
(Ignacio vs. Director of Land [S.C], 58 Off. Gaz. constitute the bulk of the income that maintains
2403 [1960]; Cebu Oxygen Acetylynne Co. vs. the operations of MIAA. (Manila International
Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481) Airport Authority v. CA, G.R. No. 155650, July 20,
2006)
Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities,
and municipalities is divided into property PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
for public use and patrimonial property.
Art. 425. Property of private ownership,
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the besides the patrimonial property of the
provinces, cities, and municipalities, consist State, provinces, cities, and municipalities,
of the provincial roads, city streets, consists of all property belonging to private
municipal streets, the squares, fountains, persons, either individually or collectively.
public waters, promenades, and public
works for public service paid by said Properties in private ownership of private
provinces, cities, or municipalities persons or entities
All other property possessed by any of them
is patrimonial and shall be governed by this All properties not belonging to the State or its
Code, without prejudice to the provisions of political subdivision are properties of private
special laws. ownership pertaining to private persons, either
individually or collectively.
Properties for public service and properties
for the development of national wealth Patrimonial property of the State

1. Public service – It depends on who pays for It is the property intended for the attainment of
the service. If paid for by the political the economic ends of the State, that is, for
subdivision, public; if for profit, patrimonial; subsistence. It is owned by the State in its private
and or proprietary capacity. It is the property not
devoted to public use, public service, or the
2. National wealth – It is still property for development of the national wealth.
public use under the regalian doctrine.
An executive or legislative act is necessary to
Property of municipal corporations reclassify property into patrimonial. The
conversion cannot be inferred from non-use.
1. Provincial roads;
2. City streets; NOTE: It may be disposed of by the State in the
3. Municipal streets; same manner that private individuals dispose of
4. Squares; their own property subject, however, to
5. Fountains; administrative laws and regulations.
6. Public waters;
7. Promenades; and The fact that the Roppongi site has not been
8. Public works for public service paid for by used for a long time for actual Embassy service
does not automatically convert it to patrimonial
said provinces, cities, or municipalities. property. An abandonment of the intention to
(NCC, Art. 424) use the Roppongi property for public service and

NOTE: All other property possessed by any of

179

Civil Law

to make it patrimonial property must be definite. been in open, continuous, exclusive, and
Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non- notorious possession and, occupation of
use alone. (Laurel vs Garcia, G.R. No. 92013, July agricultural lands of the public domain, under a
25, 1990) bona fide claim of acquisition or ownership,
since June 12, 1945”.
Any such conversion happens only if the
property is withdrawn from public use. Section 48(b) of the Public Land Act therefore
Accordingly, the withdrawal of the property in requires that two (2) requisites be satisfied
question from public use by the City of Cebu and before claims of title to public domain lands may
its subsequent sale to the petitioner is valid. be confirmed: first, that the land subject of the
(Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 claim is agricultural land; and second, open,
SCRA 481, August 29, 1975) continuous, notorious, and exclusive possession
of the land since June 12, 1945. That the Iligan
Sewage system of a city is a patrimonial property was alienable and disposable,
property agricultural land, has been admitted. What is
claimed instead is that petitioners' possession is
It is property of the city, purchased with private debunked by how the Iligan Property was
funds and not devoted to public use (it is for supposedly part of a military reservation area57
profit). It is therefore patrimonial under the Civil which was subsequently reserved for Iligan
Code. Nor can the system be considered “public City's slum improvement and resettlement
works for public service” under Art. 424 because program, and the relocation of families who
such classification is qualified by ejusdem were dislocated by the National Steel
generis; it must be of the same character as the Corporation's five-year expansion program.
preceding items. (City of Cebu v. NAWASA, G.R. (Heirs Of Leopoldo Delfin And Soledad Delfin,
No. 12892, April 20, 1960) Namely Emelita D. Fabrigar And Leonilo C. Delfin
v. National Housing Authority, G.R. No. 193618,
Q: The Delfin Spouses claimed that they were November 28, 2016, as penned by J. Leonen)
the owners of a 28,800 square meter parcel
of land in Iligan City. They had been Private ownership of land prohibited to
declaring the Iligan Property in their names Aliens (KRIVENKO DOCTRINE)
for tax purposes since 1952, and had been
planting it with mangoes, coconuts, corn, GR: Aliens have no right to acquire any public or
seasonal crops, and vegetables. They alleged private agricultural, commercial or residential
that NHA took possession of a 10,798 square lands in the Philippines.
meter portion of the property. Despite their
repeated demands for compensation, the The same rule is applicable to a foreign
National Housing Authority failed to pay the corporation even if it is a religious and non-stock
value of the property. corporation. A foreign-owned corporation
cannot be the transferee of a land in the
The NHA alleged that the Delfin Spouses' Philippines even temporarily. (Pineda, 2009)
property was part of a military reservation
area. It reserved the area in which property XPN: Aliens may only acquire such lands by
is situated for Iligan City's slum improvement hereditary succession. (Krivenko v. Registry of
and resettlement program as cited in deeds, G.R. No. L-630, November 15, 1947)
Proclamation No. 2143, and the relocation of
families who were dislocated by the National Effect of a subsequent sale by the disqualified
Steel Corporation's five-year expansion alien vendee to a qualified Filipino citizen
program. Does the Spouses have the right to
claim the just compensation? If land is invalidly transferred to an alien who
subsequently becomes a citizen or transfers it to
A: YES. Section 48 of Commonwealth Act a citizen, the flaw in the original transaction is
141(Public Land Act) enabled the confirmation considered cured and the title of the transferee
of claims and issuance of titles in favor of is rendered valid.
citizens occupying or claiming to own lands of
the public domain or an interest therein. Section Thus, the subsequent transfer of the property to
48 (b) specifically pertained to those who "have qualified Filipinos may no longer be impugned

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 180
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

on the basis of invalidity of the initial transfer. XPN: When the law or the individual declaration
The objective of the constitutional provision to clearly provides that the aforesaid things are
keep our lands in Filipino hands has been included.
achieved. (Lee v. Republic of the Philippines, G.R.
No. 12819, October 3, 2001) OWNERSHIP

NOTE: The constitutional proscription on alien Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over
ownership of lands of the public or private things or rights.
domain was intended to protect lands from
falling in the hands of non-Filipinos. (Lee v. Ownership is the juridical relation of a person
Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 12819, over a thing by virtue of which said person has
October 3, 2001) the exclusive power or authority to receive all
the benefits and advantages arising from said
Regalian Doctrine: All lands not otherwise thing, save those restricted by law or the
appearing to be clearly within private ownership recognized rights of others.
are presumed to be owned by the state. (Pineda,
2009) Kinds of ownership

Reversion - An action where the ultimate relief 1. Full ownership – Includes all the rights of an
sought is to revert the land back to the owner;
government under the Regalian Doctrine.
(Pineda, 2009) NOTE: Naked ownership + Usufruct

Art. 426. Whenever by provision of the law, 2. Naked ownership – Ownership where the
or an individual declacration, the rights to the use and to the fruits have been
expression “immovable things or property,” denied;
or “movable things or property, “is used, it
shall be deemed to include, respectively, the NOTE: Full ownership – Usufruct
things enumerated in Chapter 1 and in
Chapter 2. 3. Sole ownership – Ownership is vested in only
one person; and
Whenever the word “muebles,” or
“furniture,” is used alone, it shall not be 4. Co-ownership– Ownership is vested in two
deemed to include money, credits, or more persons. There is Unity of the
commercial securities, stocks and bonds, property, and plurality of the subjects.
jewelry, scientific or artistic collection,
books medals, arms, clothing, horses or Q: Respondents inherited the subject
carriages and their accessories, grains, property from Emiliana Bacalso, by virtue of
liquids and merchandise, or other things Decree No. 98992. Sometime later, they
which do not have as their principal object found the heirs of Alejandra Delfin to be
the furnishing or ornamenting of a building occupying the said property, to which they
except where from the context of the law, or even constructed houses there. The heirs
the individual declaration, the contrary argued they have better right for it was
clearly appears. inherited to them after it was bought by the
predecessor from Emiliana Bacalso; also,
“Muebles” Or “Furniture” When Used Alone; they are the ones paying the subject
Effects. property’s realty taxes. Do the respondents
have the better right to the ownership and
If used alone in a contract or agreement, it will possession of the subject property?
not include things found therein like money,
jewelry, collections, books, medals, arms, A: YES, respondents have the better right to the
clothing, etc., which do not have as their ownership and possession of the subject
principal purpose the furnishing or the property. The basis is the LRA certification,
ornamenting of the building where the daybook entry, and Decree No. 98992 that was
“muebles” or “furniture” is found. issued to Emiliana Bacalso. The Decree bars all
claims and rights which arose as may have

181

Civil Law

existed prior to the decree of registration. (Heirs Jose emerged as the highest bidder. A
of Delfin v. Rabadon, G.R. No. 165014, July 31, Certificate of Sale was thus issued in his
2013) favor. The period of redemption expired
without the subject property being
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy redeemed; hence, a Final Bill of Sale was
and dispose of a thing, without other issued and registered in Jose's name.
limitations than those established by law. Thereafter, the latter executed an Affidavit of
The owner has also a right of action against Consolidation of Ownership. This
the holder and possessor of the thing in notwithstanding, Nicolasa persisted in her
order to recover it. occupancy of the subject property and
refused to deliver possession to Jose. Is the
Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a Writ of Possession and Notice to Vacate
thing has the right to exclude any person issued by the RTC is valid?
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as A: YES. "It is well-settled that the purchaser in
may be reasonably necessary to repel or an extrajudicial foreclosure of real property
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful becomes the absolute owner of the property if
physical invasion or usurpation of his no redemption is made within one 1 year from
property the registration of the certificate of sale by those
entitled to redeem. As absolute owner, he is
JUS UTENDI, FRUENDI, ABUTENDI, entitled to all the rights of ownership over a
VINDICANDI, DISPODENDI, POSSIDENDI, property recognized in Article 428 of the New
Civil Code, not least of which is possession, or jus
ACCESIONES possidendi."

Attributes of ownership It should be clarified that the purpose of a
petition for the issuance of a writ of possession
1. Right to enjoy (jus utendi) (NCC, Art. 428); under Act No. 3135, as amended by Act No.
2. Right to the fruits (jus fruendi); 4118, is to expeditiously accord the mortgagee
3. Right to abuse (jus abutendi); who has already shown a prima facie right of
4. Right to dispose (jus dispodendi) (NCC Art. ownership over the subject property (based on
his consolidated title over the same) his
428); incidental right to possess the foreclosed
5. Right to recover (jus vindicandi) (NCC. Art. property. To reiterate, "possession being an
essential right of the owner with which he is able
428); to exercise the other attendant rights of
6. Right to accessories (jus accessiones); ownership, after consolidation of title, the
7. Right to possess (jus possidendi).; purchaser in a foreclosure sale may demand
8. Right to exclude (NCC, Art. 429); and possession as a matter of right."
9. Right to enclose (NCC, Art. 430).
Thus, it is only upon a credible showing by a
Lease merely follows the property as a lien third- party claimant of his independent right
or encumbrance over the foreclosed property that the law's
prima facie deference to the mortgagee's
Q: On April 15, 1991, Nicolasa authorized her consolidated title should not prevail. Verily, a
daughter, Carmelita, Artemio's sister, to mere claim of ownership would not suffice.
mortgage the subject property to Jose, the
predecessor-in-interest of Jose, Jose Jr. and As jurisprudence prescribes, the demonstration
Virginia in order to secure a loan in the by the third party- claimant should be made
amount of P112,000.00. As Nicolasa failed to within the context of an adversarial hearing,
settle her loan obligation when it fell due, where the basic principles of Evidence and Civil
Jose, led an application for extra-judicial Procedure ought to be followed, such as: (1) it is
foreclosure of mortgage before the Regional the claimant who has the burden of proving his
Trial Court of Olongapo City, Branch 72 claim; (2) the claim must be established through
(RTC), docketed as Case No. 07-0-91. After a preponderance of evidence; and (3) evidence
the requirements of posting, notices, and not presented or formally offered cannot be
publication were complied with, the subject
property was sold at a public auction, where

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 182
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

admitted against the opposing party. In this case, of a writ of possession before the trial court,
none of these principles were followed for the CA claiming entitlement to the said writ by
considered evidence that were not only virtue of the Final Deed of Sale covering the
submitted in a totally different case against an subject lots. Gerry opposed the petition,
entirely different party, but are also innately arguing that he purchased and has, in fact,
inadequate to — at least — prima facie show the been in actual, open and exclusive possession
source of the third party claimant's independent of the same properties for at least 15 years.
title, all to the detriment of the mortgagee who Is the Rural Bank of Sta. Barbara, Inc. is
had already consolidated his title to the entitled to a writ of possession over the
contested property. (Heirs of Peñaflor v. Dela subject lots?
Cruz, G.R. No. 197797, August 8, 2017)
A: YES. It is well-established that after
REMEDIES TO RECOVERPOSSESSION consolidation of title in the purchasers’ name for
failure of the mortgagor to redeem the property,
Legal remedies to recover possession of the purchasers right to possession ripens into
one’s property the absolute right of a confirmed owner. At that
point, the issuance of a writ of possession, upon
1. Personal property – Replevin proper application and proof of title, to a
purchaser in an extrajudicial foreclosure sale
2. Real property becomes merely a ministerial function, unless it
a. Accion Interdictal; appears that the property is in possession of a
i. Forcible entry; or third party claiming a right adverse to that of the
ii. Unlawful detainer. mortgagor.
b. Accion Publiciana; or
c. Accion Reinvindicatoria. Gerry Centeno acquired the subject lots from his
parents, Sps. Centeno, on March 14, 1988 after
3. Ancillary remedies common toboth they were purchased by Rural Bank of Sta.
a. Writ of preliminary mandatory Barbara, Inc. and its Certificate of Sale at Public
injunction; or Auction was registered with the Register of
b. Writ of possession. Deeds of Iloilo City in 1971. It cannot therefore
be disputed that Gerry is a mere successor-in-
Q: Spouses Gregorio and Rosario Centeno interest of Sps. Centeno. Consequently, he cannot
previously owned the subject lots, which they be deemed as a third party who is actually
mortgaged in favor of Rural Bank of Sta. holding the property adversely to the judgment
Barbara, Inc. as security for a P1,753.65 loan. obligor under legal contemplation. (Rural Bank
Sps. Centeno, however, defaulted on the loan, of Sta. Barbara, Inc. v. Gerry Centeno, G.R. 200667,
prompting the bank to cause the March 11, 2013)
extrajudicial foreclosure of the mortgage.
Consequently, the subject lots were sold to Q: On June 26, 2003, petitioner Teodorico A.
the bank, being the highest bidder at the Zaragoza (petitioner) bought a 3,058-square
auction sale. Sps. Centeno failed to redeem meter (sq. m.) parcel of land. His father leased
the subject lots within the one- year a 1,000-sq. m. portion of Lot 937-A (subject
redemption period pursuant to Section 6 of land) to respondent Iloilo Santos Truckers,
Act No. 3135. Yet, they still continued with Inc. (respondent). This notwithstanding,
the possession and cultivation of the petitioner allowed the lease to subsist and
aforesaid properties. respondent had been diligent in paying its
monthly rent amounting to P10,000.00 per
Gerry Centeno, son of Sps. Centeno, later on month. Petitioner claimed that when his
purchased the said lots from his parents. father died, respondent stopped paying rent.
Accordingly, Rosario paid the capital gains
taxes on the sale transaction and tax On the other hand, respondent maintained
declarations were eventually issued in the that it was willing to pay rent, but was
name of Gerry. uncertain as to whom payment should be
made. Respondent made a consignation on
On March 19, 1998, Rural Bank of Sta. the RTC br. 24 for the amount of P521,396.89
Barbara, Inc. filed a petition for the issuance equivalent for the rent of February 2007 to

183

Civil Law

March 2011. NOTE: A property validly deposited in custodia
Petitioner averred that the amount was legis cannot be subject of a replevin suit. (Calub
insufficient to cover the unpaid rentals plus v. CA, G.R. No. 115634, April 27, 2000)
interests from February 2007 to May 2011.
Petitioner clarified that his earlier demand to RECOVERY OF POSSESSION
pay was for the period of February 2007 to OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
May 2011. Thus, petitioner posited that
respondent had continuously failed and Accion interdictal
refused to comply with the terms and
conditions of the lease contract concerning It is a summary action to recover physical or
the payment of monthly rental. May material possession only and it must be brought
petitioner eject respondent from the subject within one year from the time the cause of
land? action arises. It may be:

A: YES. For an unlawful detainer suit to prosper, 1. Forcible Entry; or
the plaintiff-lessor must show that: first, 2. Unlawful detainer.
initially, the defendant-lessee legally possessed
the leased premises by virtue of a subsisting Accion publiciana
lease contract; second, such possession
eventually became illegal, either due to the It refers to an ejectment suit filed within 10
latter's violation of the provisions of the said years after the expiration of one year from
lease contract or the termination thereof; third, accrual of cause of action or from the unlawful
the defendant-lessee remained in possession of witholding of possession of the realty. (Gabriel Jr.
the leased premises, thus, effectively depriving v. Crisologo, G.R. No. 204626, June 9, 2014)
the plaintiff-lessor enjoyment thereof; and
fourth, there must be a demand both to pay or It is an ordinary civil proceeding to recover the
to comply and vacate and that the suit is brought better right of possession, except in cases of
within one (1) year from the last demand. forcible entry and unlawful detainer. What is
involved here is not possession de facto but
In this case, all requisites have been indubitably possession de jure.
complied with, considering that at the time the
suit was instituted on June 21, 2011: (a) there Accion reinvindicatoria
was a subsisting lease contract between
petitioner and respondent; (b) , respondent was It is an action to recover real property based on
not updated in its monthly rental payments, as ownership. Here, the object is the recovery of
there is no evidence of such payment for the the dominion over the property as owner.
months of April, May, and even June 2011-- said
omission constitutes a violation of the lease NOTE: Where the facts averred in the complaint
contract on the part of respondent; (c) reveals that the action is neither one of forcible
respondent was still in possession of the subject entry nor unlawful detainer but essentially
land; and (d) the case was filed within one (1) involves a boundary dispute, the same must be
year from petitioner's letter dated May 24, 2011 resolved in an accion reinvindicatoria.
demanding that respondent pay monthly rentals (Sarmiento v. CA, G.R. No. 116192, November 16,
and at the same time, vacate the subject land. 1995)
(Teodorico Zaragoza v. Iloilo Santos Truckers,
Inc., G.R. No. 224022,June 28, 2017) Requisites of accion reivindicatoria

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION OF 1. Identity of property; and
MOVABLE PROPERTY 2. Plaintiff’s title to the property.

Replevin Q: A contract of lease executed by Alava
(lessor) and Anita Lao (lessee) was not
It is the remedy when the complaint prays for registered with the Register of Deeds. Aside
the recovery of the possession of personal from Anita, Rudy Lao also leased a portion of
property. the same property where he put up his
business. At that time, Rudy knew that Anita

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 184
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

and her husband were the owners of the said liability until they vacate the premises.
building. He also knew that she had leased Whether or Not they can suspend their
that portion of the property, and that Jaime payment?
Lao, their son, managed and maintained the
building, as well as the business thereon. A: NO. In this case, the disconnection of
Rudy eventually purchased the entire electrical service over the leased premises on
property from Alava. Rudy then filed a May 14, 2004 was not just an act of physical
complaint for unlawful detainer against disturbance but one that is meant to remove
Jaime alleging that the latter had occupied a respondents from the leased premises and
portion of his property without any lease disturb their legal possession as lessees.
agreement and without paying any rentals, Ordinarily, this would have entitled respondents
and prayed that an order be rendered to invoke the right accorded by Article 1658 of
directing Jaime to vacate the premises. the Civil Code. However, this rule will not apply
Should the complaint be dismissed? in the present case because the lease had already
expired when petitioner requested for the
A: YES. The records in this case show that the temporary disconnection of electrical service.
respondent has been in possession of the Petitioner demanded respondents to vacate the
property in question, not by mere tolerance or premises by May 30, 2004. Instead of
generosity of Rudy, but as the manager of his surrendering the premises to petitioner,
mother, who conducted her business in the respondents unlawfully withheld possession of
building which stood on a portion of the the property. Respondents continued to stay in
property leased from Alava. Jaime’s possession the premises until they moved to their new
was in behalf of his mother, and not in his own residence on September 26, 2004. At that point,
right. (Lao v. Lao, G.R. No. 149599, May 16, 2005) petitioner was no longer obligated to maintain
respondents in the "peaceful and adequate
Q: In August 2001, the Spouses Javier offered enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of
to purchase the Marikina property. However, the contract." (Victoria Racelis v. Sps. Javier, G.R.
they could not afford to pay the price of No. 189609, January 29, 2018, as penned by J.
₱3,500,000.00. They offered instead to lease Leonen)
the property while they raise enough money.
Racelis hesitated at first but she eventually Effect of non-registration of the contract of
agreed. The parties agreed on a month-to- lease
month lease and rent of ₱10,000.00 per
month. This was later increased to Although the lease contract was not filed with
₱11,000.00. The Spouses Javier used the the Register of Deeds, nevertheless, the buyer of
property as their residence and as the site of the property was bound by the terms and
their tutorial school. conditions of said contract. The lease, in effect
became a part of the contract of sale. He had no
Sometime in 2002, Racelis inquired whether cause of action for unlawful detainer against the
they are still interested to purchase the lessee because of the subsisting contract of lease;
property then Sps. Javier agreed and even hence, he could not file the complaint against
said that they would pay Php 100,000.00 to her. (Lao v. Lao, G.R. No. 149599, May 16, 2005)
buy them more time within which to pay the
purchase price. But they only delivered Php Q: Spouses Magtanggol managed and
78,000.00 but they consistently paid rent operated a gasoline station on a 1,000 sq.m.
until February 2004. Then Racelis wrote to lot which they leased from Francisco Bigla-
inform them that her family had decided to awa. The contract was for a period of three
terminate the lease agreement and to offer years. When the contract expired, Francisco
the property to other interested buyers. In asked the spouses to peacefully vacate the
the same letter, Racelis demanded that they premises. The spouses ignored the demand
vacate the property by May 30, 2004. The and continued with the operation of the
Spouses Javier refused to vacate due to the gasoline station.
ongoing operation of their tutorial business.
They insisted that the sum of ₱78,000.00 was One month after, Francisco, with the aid of a
advanced rent and proposed that this group of armed men, caused the closure of
amount be applied to their outstanding the gasoline station by constructing fences

185

Civil Law

around it. No previous demand Demand is
Was the act of Francisco and his men lawful?
Why? (2014 BAR) for the defendant to jurisdictional if the
vacate is necessary. ground is non-
A: NO, the act was not lawful. Even if the lessee’s
right to occupy the premises has expired, the payment of rentals
lessor cannot physically oust the lessee from the or failure to comply
leased premises if the latter refuses to vacate.
The lessor must go through the proper channels with the lease
by filing an appropriate case for unlawful
detainer or recovery of possession. Every contract.
possessor has a right to be respected in his
possession (NCC, Art. 539) and in no case can As to necessity of proof of prior physical
possession be acquired through force or possession
intimidation as long as there is a possessor who
objects thereto (NCC, Art. 536). The act of Plaintiff must prove Plaintiff need not
Francisco is an abuse of rights because even if he
has the right to recover possession of his that he was in prior have been in prior
property, he must act with justice and give the
lessees their day in court and observe honesty physical possession physical possession.
and good faith. of the premises until NOTE: The fact that

he was deprived petitioners are in

thereof by the possession of the lot
defendant. does not

automatically
entitle them to

remain in

possession. (Ganilla
v. CA, G.R. No.

150755, June 28,
2005)
DISTINCTION BETWEEN FORCIBLE ENTRY
AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER As to when one-year period is counted from

Forcible Entry Unlawful Detainer One-year period is One-year period is
generally counted counted from the
As to when possession became unlawful from the date of date of last demand
actual entry of the or last letter of
Possession of the Possession is land. demand.

defendant is unlawful inceptively lawful

from the beginning as but becomes illegal REQUISITES FOR RECOVERY OF PROPERTY
he acquired from the time

possession by defendant 1. Clearly identify the land he is claiming in
(FISTS) unlawfully accordance with the title/s on which he
bases his right of ownership; and
1. Force; withholds
NOTE: Burden of proof lies on the party
2. Intimidation; possessions after who asserts the affirmative of an issue. The
3. Strategy; the expiration or description should be so definite that an
officer of the court might go to the locality
4. Threat; or termination of his where the land is situated and definitely
locate it.
5. Stealth. right thereto.
2. Prove that he has a better title than the
NOTE: The question defendant.
of possession is a. Best proof is a Torrens certificate; and
b. Tax receipts, tax declarations are only
primordial, while prima facie evidence of ownership; it is
rebuttable.
the issue of
ownership is NOTE: Plaintiff’s title must be founded on
positive right or title and not merely on the lack
generally in or inefficiency of the defendant’s title. In other
unessential words, he shall not be permitted to rely upon the
defects of the defendant’s title. (NCC, Art. 434)
unlawful detainer.

(Rosa Rica Sales
Center v. Sps. Ong,

G.R. 132197, August

16, 2005)

As to necessity of demand

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 186
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

Q: In 1998, Intramuros leased certain real deforciant illegally occupying the land or
properties of the national government which property the moment he is required to
it administered to Offshore Construction. leave. More than once has this Court adjudged
Three properties were subjects of the that a person who occupies the land of another
Contracts of Lease: Baluarte De San Andres, at the latter's tolerance or permission without
Baluarte De San Francisco De Dilao and any contract between them is necessarily bound
Revellin De Recoletos. All three properties by an implied promise that he will vacate upon
were leased for five years from September demand, failing which a summary action for
1,1998 to August 31,2003. ejectment is the proper remedy against him.
(Intramuros Administration v. Offshore
Offshore Construction occupied and Construction Development Company, G.R. No.
introduced improvements in the leased 196795, March 7, 2018, as penned by J. Leonen)
premises. However, Intramuros and the DOT
halted the projects due to Offshore Reasons why the plaintiff is NOT allowed to
Construction’s non-conformity with PD 1616, rely on the weakness of defendant’s title
which required 16th to 19th centuries
Philippine-Spanish Architecture in the area. 1. Possibility that neither the plaintiff nor the
During the lease period, Offshore defendant is the true owner of the property.
Construction failed to pay its utility bills and In which case, the defendant who is in
rental fees, despite several demand letters. possession will be preferred;
Intramuros tolerated the continuing
occupation, hoping that Offshore 2. One in possession is presumed to be the
Construction would pay its arrears. To settle owner and he cannot be obliged to show or
its arrears, Offshore Construction proposed prove a better title;
to pay the DOT’s monthly operational
expenses and the parties executed a 3. Possessor in the concept of an owner is
Memorandum of Agreement covering the presumed to be in good faith and he cannot
period of August 15,2004 to August 25,2005. be expected to be carrying every now and
But Offshore Construction failed to pay its then his proofs of ownership over the
arrears amounting to Php 13,448,867.45. Is property; and
Intramuros entitled to possession to the said
leased properties to Offshore Construction? 4. He who relies on the existence of a fact,
should prove that fact. If he cannot prove,
A: YES, Intramuros tolerance of respondent's the defendant does not have to prove.
occupation and use of the leased premises after
the end of the lease contracts does not give the REAL v. PERSONAL RIGHTS
latter a permanent and indefeasible right of
possession in its favor. When a demand to vacate Real Right Personal Right
has been made, as what petitioner had done, (Right of (Right to possess;
respondent’s possession became illegal and it
should have left the leased premises. More than possession; possidendi)
once has this Court adjudged that a person who possessionis)
occupies the land of another at the latter's
tolerance or permission without any contract Creation
between them is necessarily bound by an
implied promise that he will vacate upon Created by both Created by title
demand, failing which a summary action for
ejectment is the proper remedy against him. The title and mode alone.
situation is not much different from that of a directly over a It is not directly
tenant whose lease expires but who continues in
occupancy by tolerance of the owner, in which thing. created over a
case there is deemed to be an unlawful thing but is
deprivation or withholding of possession as of exercised through
the date of the demand to vacate. In other words, another against
one whose stay is merely tolerated becomes a whom the action is

to be brought.

Object

Generally corporeal Incorporeal or

or tangible. intangible.
Object is specific Object covers all
property or thing. the present and
future property of
the debtor. (NCC,

Art. 2236).

187

Civil Law

Subjects d. Lease;
4. Grantor of the property on the grantee, either
a. One definite a. An active
by:
active subject subject (creditor); a. Contract
(e.g. owner) and b. Donation or
c. Will;
b. One indefinite b. A definite
passive subject passive subject 5. Those arising from Conflicts of private rights -
Those which take place in accession
which is the (debtor). continua;

whole world 6. Constitution - On the prohibition against the
Right of pursuit is acquisition of private lands by aliens;

therefore available. 7. Acts in state of necessity – The law permits
Real right follows injury or destruction of things owned by
another provided this is necessary to avert a
its object in the greater danger (with right to indemnity v.
principle of unjust enrichment); and
hands of any
possessor. 8. True owner must resort to judicial process –
When thing is in possession of another; law
Enforceability creates a disputable presumption of
ownership to those in actual possession.
Enforceable against Enforceable only (2008 BAR)
the whole world. against the original
Art. 429. The owner of lawful possessor of a
debtor or his thing has the right to exclude any person
transferee charged from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as
with notice of the may be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
personal rights physical invasion of usurpation of his
property
Limit
PRINCIPLE OF SELF-HELP
Limited by No such limitation.
usefulness, value or This principle authorizes an owner or lawful
possessor of a property to use reasonable force
productivity of the to prevent or repel an actual or threatened
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
thing. property. (NCC, Art. 429) There must be no delay
in the pursuit, otherwise, his recourse will be to
Extinguishment go to the court for the recovery of property.

Extinguished by Not so Requisites of the Principle of Self-Help
loss or destruction extinguished. (RODA)
of the thing Claim for damages
may still be 1. Reasonable force used
pursued-in case of 2. Such force is used by the owner or lawful

loss or destruction possessor
of the thing. 3. There is no delay
4. Actual or threatened physical invasion or
LIMITATIONS ON THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP
usurpation of the property.
Those imposed by the: (SLOG-C2-SO)
Counterpart of Self-Help in Criminal Law
1. State in the exercise of:
a. Power of taxation;
b. Police power; and
c. Power of eminent domain

2. Law; a. Legal easements (i.e.,

easements of waters and of
right of way) and

b. The requirement of legitime in

succession;

3. Owner himself;
a. Voluntary easement
b. Mortgage
c. Pledge

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 188
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

The loose counterpart of the principle of self- Property owner can use his property in any
help under the criminal law is self-defense manner he desires provided he does not injure
provided for in Article 11, par. 1 of the Revised the rights of others (sic utere tuo ut alienum non
Penal Code Art. 11. laedas). (Pineda, 2009)

Justifying circumstances. — The following do not Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence
incur any criminal liability: his land or tenements by means of walls,
ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or means without detriment to servitudes
rights, provided that the following constituted thereon.
circumstances concur:
Limitation on the right of the owner to
First. Unlawful aggression. enclose or fence one’s land or tenement
Second. Reasonable necessity of the
means employed to prevent or repel it. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on tenement by means of walls, ditches, live or dead
the part of the person defending hedges or by any other means provided that in
himself. so fencing the property, no servitude or
easement constituted thereon should be
Right of self-help exercised by third person impaired. (Pineda, 2009)

A third person who is not a possessor may repel DOCTRINE OF STATE OF NECESSITY
unlawful possession on the property owned by
another. In such an event, he is acting as a The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the
negotorium gestor. The owner must indemnify interference of another with the same, if the
him for injuries sustained. (Pineda, 2009) interference is necessary to avert an imminent
danger and the threatened damage, compared to
Test of reasonableness the damage arising to the owner from the
interference, is much greater. The owner may
The reasonableness of the defensive acts demand from the person benefited indemnity
resorted to by a possessor is determined not by for the damage to him. (NCC, Art. 432)
what he imagined to exist but by the objective
situation. (Pineda, 2009) He will be liable for This principle authorized the destruction of
damages, if he uses force more than what is property which is lesser in value to avert the
necessary in repelling the aggression. danger poised to another property of greater
value.
German Management's drastic action of
bulldozing and destroying the crops of private Requisites of Doctrine of State of Necessity
respondents on the basis of the doctrine of self-
help was unavailing because the doctrine of self- 1. Interference necessary to avert an imminent
help can only be exercised at the time of actual danger and the threatened damage to the
or threatened dispossession which is absent in actor or a thirdperson;
the case at bar. (German Mgmt. Services Inc. v. CA,
G.R. No. 76216, September 14, 1989) 2. Damage to another is much greater than the
damage to the property.
NOTE: The intruder must not have succeeded in
its entry, for otherwise, he must resort to court Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of
action; self-help cannot apply. One cannot put ownership raises a disputable presumption
the law into his own hands. Art. 429 must be of ownership. The true owner must resort to
read in relation to Art. 536. judicial process for the recovery of the
property.
“Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas”
Disputable presumption of ownership
The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in
such manner as to injure the rights of a third There is disputable presumption of ownership
person. (NCC, Art. 431) when a person is in actual possession of the
property under the claim of ownership. (Pineda,

189

Civil Law

2009) or otherwise informally appropriated or
injuriously affected; and
Resort of the owner rebutting the 5. The utilization of the property for public use
presumption must be in such a way as to oust the owner
and deprive him of all beneficial enjoyment
Under Art. 433 the remedy is judicial process to of the property. (National Power Corporation
recover the property of the person. vs. Court of Appeals, 254 SCRA 577)

Requisites to prove claim of ownership Q: Alfredo Hababag, Sr. (Alfredo) was the
owner of several parcels of agricultural land
1. Proper identification of the property; and situated in the Municipality of Gubat,
2. Title must be clear, strong and credible. Sorsogon. The aforesaid landholdings were
voluntarily offered for sale (VOS) to the
(Pineda, 2009) government under Republic Act No. (RA)
6657, otherwise known as the
Art. 434. In an action to recover, the "Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
property must be identified, and the 1988,". The Land Bank of the Philippines
plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title (LBP) initially valued the subject lands at
and not on the weakness of the defendant’s P1,237,850.00, but Alfredo rejected the
claim. valuation. After summary administrative
proceedings for the determination of the
Requisites For Action To Recover Property amount of just compensation, the Office of
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
1. To clearly identify the land he is claiming in (PARAD) of the Department of Agrarian
accordance with the title or titles on which Reform (DAR) Adjudication Board (DARAB)
he bases his right of ownership; and, fixed the value of the subject lands at
P1,292,553.20.
2. To prove that he has a better title than the
defendant. (Pineda, 2009) Dissatisfied, Alfredo filed a Complaint for the
determination of the amount of just
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his compensation before the RTC. RTC rendered
property except by competent authority a Decision fixing the amount of just
and for public use and always upon payment compensation of the subject lands at
of just compensation P5,653,940.00. The RTC applied the Income
Should this requirement be not first Productivity Approach. CA set aside the RTC's
complied with, the courts shall protect and, valuation for failure to give due
in a proper case, restore the owner in his consideration to the factors enumerated in
possession. Section 17 of RA 6657 and the formula under
DAR AO 6-92, as amended by DAR AO 11-94.
Eminent Domain Moreover, contrary to the limitation imposed
by DAR AO 6-92 - i.e., that the computed
This is the superior right of the State to acquire value using the applicable formula shall not
private property whether registered or not for exceed the landowner's offer to sell - the CA
public use upon payment of just compensation. found that the amount as recomputed by the
It is one of the limitations on the right of RTC was way beyond the landowner's offer of
ownership in the pursuit of public interest. P1,750,000.00 as stated in the Claims
(Pineda, 2009) Valuation and Processing Form. Is the CA
correct in setting aside the computation of
Elements of “Taking” of Property For RTC?
Purposes of Eminent Domain
A: YES. Just compensation is defined as the full
1. The expropriator must enter a private and fair equivalent of the property taken from
property; its owner by the expropriator. It has been
repeatedly-stressed by this Court that the
2. The entrance into private property must be measure is not the taker's gain but the owner's
for more than a momentary period; loss. The word "just" is used to intensify the

3. The entry into the property should be under
warrant or color of legal authority

4. The property must be devoted to a public use

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 190
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

meaning of the word "compensation" to convey data gathered therefrom adequately consider
the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the factors set forth in Section 17 of RA 6657, as
the property to be taken shall be real, well as the DAR formula. As such, the CA's
substantial, full [and]ample. computation, which was derived from the same,
must be sustained. Lest it be misunderstood, the
In this relation, the RTC, sitting as a Special ascertainment of just compensation on the basis
Agrarian Court, has been conferred with the of the landholdings' nature, location, and market
original and exclusive power to determine just value, as well as the volume and value of the
compensation for parcels of land acquired by the produce is valid and accords with Section 17 of
State pursuant to the agrarian reform program. RA 6657 and the DAR formula, as in this case
To guide the RTC in this function, Section 17 of
RA 6657 enumerates the factors which must be On the contrary, the Court finds the RTC's
taken into consideration to accurately determine valuation to be improper, as it contradicts the
the amount of just compensation to be awarded definition of "market value" as crafted by
in a particular case. They are: (a) the acquisition established jurisprudence on expropriation.
cost of the land; (b) the current value of like (Land Bank of the Philippines v. Alfredo Hababag,
properties; (c) the nature and actual use of the Sr., Substituted by his wife, Consolacion, and
property, and the income therefrom; (d) the children, namely: Manuel, Salvador, Wilson,
owner's sworn valuation; (e) the tax Jimmy, Alfredo, Jr., and Judith, all surnamed
declarations; (f) the assessment made by Hababag, G.R. No. 171352, September 16, 2015)
government assessors; (g) the social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers Q: The Republic of the Philippines filed
and the farmworkers, and by the government to before the RTC a complaint against an
the property; and (h) the nonpayment of taxes unknown owner for the expropriation of a lot
or loans secured from any government financing located in Barangay Ugong, Valenzuela City
institution on the said land, if any. Corollarily, for the construction of the C-5 Northern Link
pursuant to its rule-making power under Section Road Project, otherwise known as North
49 of the same law, the DAR translated these Luzon Expressway (NLEX) Segment 8.1,
factors into a basic formula, which courts have traversing from Mindanao Avenue in Quezon
often referred to and applied, as the CA did in City to the NLEX in Valenzuela City. Petitioner
this case. It, however, bears stressing that courts applied for a writ of possession over the
are not constrained to adopt the said formula in subject lot on May 5, 2008, which was
every case since the determination of the granted, and was required to deposit with
amount of just compensation essentially the court the amount of P550,000.00 (i.e., at
partakes the nature of a judicial function. In this P2,750.00/sq. m.) as provisional deposit.
accord, courts may either adopt the DAR formula However, respondent Macabagdal was
or proceed with its own application for as long substituted as party- defendant upon
as the factors listed in Section 17 of RA 6657 sufficient showing that the subject lot is
have been duly considered. registered in her name under the Transfer
Certificate Title of the lot. Respondent did not
In keeping with these considerations, the Court oppose the expropriation, and received the
finds the CA's valuation - which made use of the provisional deposit.
DAR formula - as reflective of the factors set
forth in Section 17 of RA 6657. Records disclose The RTC appointed a board of commissioners
that the CA's computation, as adopted from the to determine the just compensation for the
LBP's own computation, is based on: (a) actual subject lot, which thereafter submitted
production data; (b) the appropriate industry report dated May 23, 2014, recommending a
selling prices of the products from the Philippine fair market value of P9,000.00/sq. m. as the
Coconut Authority and the Bureau of just compensation for the subject lot, taking
Agricultural Statistics of Sorsogon; and (c) the into consideration its location, neighborhood
actual uses of the property. Likewise, the (a) and land classification, utilities, amenities,
income from the coconut fruit- bearing trees, as physical characteristics, occupancy and
well as the unirrigated riceland, (b) cumulative usage, highest and best usage, current
cost of the non-fruit-bearing trees; and (c) market value offerings, as well as previously
market value of the cogonal land have been duly decided expropriation cases of the same RTC
considered. The Court observes that the holistic involving properties similarly situated in the

191

Civil Law

same barangay. The Court of Appeals A: YES. No expropriation proceeding can
affirmed this decision and imposed interest continue if the property to be expropriated will
the rate of 12% per annum from the time of not be for public use. In Metropolitan Water
the filing of the complaint until June 30, District v. De Los Angeles, the Court held that the
2013, and thereafter, at 6% per annum until fundamental basis then of all actions brought for
full payment. Is the 12% per annum interest the expropriation of lands, under the power of
on the unpaid balance be computed from the eminent domain, is public use. That being true,
time of the taking of the subject until full the very moment that it appears at any stage of
payment valid? the proceedings that the expropriation is not for
a public use, the action must necessarily fail and
A: NO. The value of the landholdings should be should be dismissed, for the reason that the
equivalent to the principal sum of the just action cannot be maintained at all except when
compensation due, and interest is due and the expropriation is for some public use.
should be paid to compensate for the unpaid Considering that the National Power
balance of this principal sum after taking has Corporation is no longer using respondents'
been completed. From the date of the taking of properties for the purpose of building the
the subject lot on May 5, 2008 when the RTC Substation Project, it may be allowed to
issued a writ of possession in favor of petitioner, discontinue with the expropriation proceedings,
until the just compensation therefor was finally subject to the approval of the court. (National
fixed at P9,000.00/sq. m., petitioner had only Power Corporation v. Socorro T. Posada, Renato
paid a provisional deposit in the amount of Bueno, Alice Balin, Adrian Tablizo, Teofilo
P550,000.00 (i.e., at P2,750.00/sq. m.). Thus, this Tablizo, and Lydia T. Olivo, Substituted By Her
left an unpaid balance of the "principal sum of Heirs, Alfredo M. Olivo, Alicia O. Salazar, Anita O.
the just compensation," warranting the Ordono, Angelita O. Lim, And Adelfa O. Espinas,
imposition of interest. It is settled that the delay G.R. No. 191945, March 11, 2015, as penned by J.
in the payment of just compensation amounts to Leonen)
an effective forbearance of money, entitling the
landowner to interest on the difference in the Art. 436. When any property is condemned
amount between the final amount as adjudged or seized by competent authority in the
by the court and the initial payment made by the interest of health, safety or security, the
government. It bears to clarify that legal interest owner thereof shall not be entitled to
shall run not from the date of the filing of the compensation, unless he can show that such
complaint but from the date of the issuance of condemnation or seizure is unjustified.
the Writ of Possession on May 5, 2008, since it is
from this date that the fact of the deprivation of Extent of ownership of parcel of land
property can be established. As such, it is only
proper that accrual of legal interest should begin The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its
from this date. (Republic v. Leonor Macabagdal, surface and of everything under it, and he can
G.R. No. 227215, January 10, 2018) construct thereon any works or make any
plantations and excavations which he may deem
Q: National Power Corporation instituted proper, without detriment to servitudes and
expropriation proceedings for the subject to special laws and ordinances. He
acquisition of a right-of-way easement and cannot complain of the reasonable requirements
for the construction of the Substation Island of aerial navigation. (NCC, Art. 437)
Grid Project over the parcels of land owned
by respondents. During the pendency of the AD COLEUM
proceedings, NPC filed a motion to
discontinue the proceedings since the delay The owner of a land has rights not only to its
in the possession of the properties would surface but also to everything underneath and
adversely affect the project. NPC also claims the airspace above it up to a reasonable height.
that the properties were no longer needed as Presumably, the landowner’s right extends to
it was set to acquire an alternative site. such height or depth where it is possible for
them to obtain some benefit or enjoyment, and it
May NPC be allowed to discontinue the is extinguished beyond such limit as there would
expropriation proceedings? be no more interest protected by law. (Napocor
v. Ibrahim, G.R. No. 168732, June 29, 2007)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 192
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the If the finder is married
owner of the land, building, or other If the finder is married, he or she gets one half of
property on which it is found. the treasure or its value. His or her spouse is
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made entitled to share one-half of that share, it being a
on the property of another, or of the State or conjugal property. (NCC, Art. 117, par. 4, FC)
any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-
half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If Requisites in order that the finder be entitled
the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be to any share in the hidden treasure (ACTA)
entitled to any share of the treasure.
1. Discovery was made on the property of
If the things found be of interest to science Another, or of the State or any of its political
or the arts, the State may acquire them at subdivisions;
their just price, which shall be divided in
conformity with the rule stated. 2. Made by Chance; and
3. He is not a Trespasser or Agent of the
Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal
purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit landowner. (NCC, Art. 438, par. 2)
of money, jewelry or other precious objects,
the lawful ownership of which does not NOTE: If the things found be of interest to
appear. science or the arts, the State may acquire them
at their just price, which shall be divided in
HIDDEN TREASURE conformity with the rule stated. (NCC, Art. 438)

Treasure is understood, for legal purposes, as “By chance”
any hidden and unknown deposit of money,
jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful The finder had no intention to search for the
ownership of which does not appear. (NCC, Art. treasure. There is no agreement between the
439) (1997, 2008, 2014 BAR) owner of the property and the finder for the
search of the treasure.
“Other precious objects”
Yamashita treasure
Under the ejusdem generis rule, the phrase
should be understood as being similar to money The State is entitled to 75% share and the finder
or jewelry. to 25%. (PD 7056-A)

Oil or gold NOT considered as hidden The finder is not entitled to the hidden
treasure treasure if it was deliberately searched.
(1976 BAR)
These are natural resources. The Regalian
Doctrine applies and not the provisions on It was not found by chance (NCC, Art. 438).
hidden treasure. Moreover, treasure is defined as hidden and
unknown deposit of precious objects, the lawful
Rule regarding discovery of hidden treasure ownership of which does not appear. There
(NCC, Art. 438 in relation to Art. 718) being a tip, the deposit is known. (NCC, Art. 439)

GR: If the finder is the owner of the land, Nature and ownership of the old notes and
building, or other property where it is found, the coins
entire hidden treasure belongs to him.
The ownership of the vault, together with the
XPN: If the finder is not the owner or is a notes and coins can now legally be considered as
stranger (includes the lessee or usufructuary), he hidden treasure because its ownership is no
is entitled to ½ thereof. (NCC, Art. 566) longer apparent. The contractor is not a
trespasser and therefore entitled to one-half of
the hidden treasure and the owner of the
property is entitled the other half. (NCC, Art.
438) Since the notes and coins have historical
value, the government may acquire them at their
just price which in turn will be divided equally

193

Civil Law

between them. (NCC, Art. 438, par. 3) The vault implicitly included in ownership, without which
has been buried for about a century and the it will have no basis or existence. (Paras, 2008)
successor of the bank which previously owned it
cannot succeed by inheritance to the property. NOTE: In general, the right to accession is
(2008 BAR) automatic (ipso jure), requiring no prior act on
the part of the owner or principal.
NOTE: Bills and notes found are not hidden
treasures. The owner can be traced through the Q: Filipinas Palm Oil Plantation Inc. is a
serial numbers. private organization engaged in palm oil
plantation with a total land area of more than
Q: O, owner of Lot A, learning that Japanese 7,000 hectares of National Development
soldiers may have buried gold and other Company (NDC) lands in Agusan del Sur.
treasures at the adjoining vacant Lot B, Harvested fruits from oil palm trees are
belonging to Spouses X and Y, excavated in converted into oil through Filipinas' milling
Lot B where she succeeded in unearthing plant in the middle of the plantation area.
gold and precious stones. How will the Within the plantation, there are also three
treasures found by O to be divided – (1) (3) plantation roads and a number of
100% to O as finder, (2) 50% to O and 50% residential homes constructed by Filipinas
to X and Y, (3) 50% to O and 50% to the State for its employees.
(4) none of the above? (2010 BAR)
The LBAA found that the P207.00 market
A: NONE OF THE ABOVE. The finding of the value declared in the assessment by the
treasure was not by chance because O knew that Provincial Assessor was unreasonable. It
the treasure was in Lot B. While a trespasser is found that the market value should not have
also not entitled to any share and there is no been more than P85.00 per oil palm tree. The
indication in the problem whether or not O was sudden increase of realty tax assessment
a trespasser, O is not entitled to share because level from P42.00 for each oil palm tree in
the finding was not by chance. 1993 to P207.00 was confiscatory. The LBAA
adopted Filipinas' claim that the basis for
ACCESSION assessment should only be 98 trees. Although
one (1) hectare of land can accommodate
The right pertaining to the owner of a thing over 124 oil palm trees, the mountainous terrain
everything which is produced thereby, or which of the plantation should be considered.
is incorporated or attached thereto, either Because of the terrain, not every meter of
naturally or artificially. (NCC, Art. 440) land can be fully planted with trees. The
LBAA found that roads of any kind, as well as
Right of accession all their improvements, should not be taxed
since these roads were intermittently used
It is that right of ownership of which an owner of by the public.
a thing has over the products of said thing
(accession discreta), as well as to all things Should the roads the respondent constructed
inseparably attached or incorporated thereto within the leased area be assessed with real
whether naturally or artificially (accession property taxes?
continua). (Pineda, 2009)
A: NO, the roads that respondent constructed
Accession is NOT a mode of acquiring within the leased area should not be assessed
ownership with real property taxes.

It is not one of the modes enumerated under Art. The roads that respondent constructed became
712 (different modes of acquiring ownership). It permanent improvements on the land owned by
is, therefore, safe to conclude that accession is the NGPI-NGEI by right of accession under the
not a mode of acquiring ownership. Civil Code, thus:

Reason: Accession presupposes a previously Article 440. The ownership of property gives the
existing ownership by the owner over the right by accession to everything which is
principal. Fundamentally, accession is a right produced thereby, or which is incorporated or

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 194
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

attached thereto, either naturally or artificially. are considered as natural or industrial
Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on fruits.
the land of another and the improvements or
repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the Which respect to animals, it is sufficient that
land[.] they are in the womb of the mother,
although unborn.
Despite the land being leased by respondent
when the roads were constructed, the Existence of the fruit
ownership of the improvement still belongs to
NGPI-NGEI. As provided under Article 440 and It depends on the type of fruit:
445 of the Civil Code, the land is owned by the 1. Annual (must be planted every year/must
cooperatives at the time respondent built the
roads. Hence, whatever is incorporated in the re-plant after harvest; rice, wheat, corn) –
land, either naturally or artificially, belongs to deemed manifest the moment their
the NGPI-NGEI as the landowner. (Provincial seedlings appear; and
Assessor Of Agusan Del Sur v. Filipinas Palm Oil 2. Perennial (only planted once and bear fruit
Plantation, Inc., G.R. No.183416, October 5, 2016, for several seasons; mango and coconut
as penned by J. Leonen) trees) – deemed to exist only when they
actually appear.
Art. 441. To the owner belongs:
(1) The natural fruits; Animal young
(2) The industrial fruits;
(3) The civil fruits. They are considered existing even if still in the
maternal womb. They should be considered
ACCESSION DISCRETA existing only at the commencement of the
maximum ordinary period for gestation.
The right of accession with respect to what is
produced by the property. Pratus sequitor ventrem – offspring follows
the mother
To the owner belongsthe:
This legal maxim means that the offspring
1. Natural fruits - The spontaneous products of follows the dam (mother). The legal
the soil, and the young and other products of presumption, in the absence of proof to the
animals; contrary, is that the calf, as well as its mother
belongs to the owner of the latter, by the right of
2. Industrial fruits - Are those produced by accretion. (US v. Caballero, G.R. No. 8608,
lands of any kind through cultivation or September 26, 1913) Thus, when the ownership
labor; over the offspring of the animal when the male
and female belongs to different owners, the
3. Civil fruits - The rents of buildings, the price owner of the female was considered also the
of leases of lands and other property and the owner of the young, unless there is a contrary
amount of perpetual or life annuities or custom or speculation.
other similar income. (NCC, Art. 441-442)
Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown
Obligation of the owner who receives the on the land of another and the
fruit from a third person improvements or repairs made thereon,
belong to the owner of the land, subject to
He who receives the fruits has the obligation to the provisions of the following articles.
pay the expenses made by a third person in their
production, gathering and preservation. (NCC, When fruits are deemed to exist
Art. 443) (2009 BAR)
1. Civil fruits accrue daily and are considered
Meaning of third person personal property and may be pro-rated;
and
One who is NOT the owner, builder, planter or
sower. 2. Natural and industrial fruits, while still
growing, are considered as real property;
Art. 444. Only such as are manifest or born ordinarily, they cannot be pro-rated.

195

Civil Law

Art. 446. All works, sowing, and planting are 1. He who is in Bad faith is liable for damages.
presumed made by the owner and at his 2. Accessory follows the principal;
expense, unless the contrary is proved. 3. Union or incorporation must generally be

Ownership of fruits effected in such a manner that to separate
the principal from the accessory would
GR: Fruits belong to the owner. (NCC, Art. 441) result in substantial Damage to either or
diminish its value;
XPNS: If the thing is: (PULPA) 4. To the Owner of the thing belongs the
1. In possession of a Possessor in good faith extension or increases to such thing;
5. Bad faith of one party Neutralizes the bad
(NCC, Art 546) (1992, 1996, 2000 BAR); faith of the other so that they shall be
before the possession is legally interrupted; considered in good faith;
2. Subject to a Usufruct (NCC, Art. 566); 6. He who is in Good faith may be held
3. Lease of rural land; responsible but not penalized; and
4. Pledged [NCC, Art. 1680 and Art. 2102(7)]; 7. No one shall unjustly Enrich himself at the
pledge is entitled to the fruits but has the expense of another.
obligation to compensate or set-off what he
receives with those which are owing to him; FOR IMMOVABLES
or
5. In possession of an Antichretic creditor. ACCESSION INDUSTRIAL
(NCC, Art. 2132)
Three kinds of industrial endeavors (BPS)
GENERAL RULLES OF ACCESSION
1. Building – Erecting a structure or
Accession exists only if separation is not feasible. construction of any kind, with roof for
Otherwise, separation may be demanded. residential, office, social, commercial or
other purposes;
ACCESSION CONTINUA
2. Planting – Setting into the soil or land seeds
It is the right pertaining to the owner of a thing or seedlings of trees such as mangoes,
over everything incorporated or attached coconuts, etc;
thereto either naturally or artificially; by
external forces. 3. Sowing – The act of scattering or spreading of
germinated seeds indiscriminately or evenly
1. Immovable Property through hand or mechanical device.
a. Accession industrial (Art. 445-455)
i. Building; Maxims in connection with accession
ii. Planting; and industria
iii. Sowing.
1. The accessory follows the principal;
b. Accession natural 2. The accessory follows the nature of that to
i. Alluvium (Art. 457);
ii. Avulsion (Art. 459); which it relates; and
iii. Change of course of rivers (Art. 461- 3. What is built upon the land goes with it; or
462); and
iv. Formation of islands. (Art. 464- 465) the land is the principal, and whatever is
built on it becomes the accessory.
2. Movable property
a. Adjunction or Conjunction; Rule on ownership regarding accession
b. Mixture; and industrial
c. Specification.
GR: The owner of the land is the owner of
Basic principles in accession continua whatever is built, planted or sown on that land,
(BADONG-E) including the improvements or repairs made
thereon.

XPNs:
1. When the doer is in good faith the rule is

modified; or

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 196
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Property

2. Improvements on the land of one of the
spouses at the expense of the conjugal
partnership will belong to the partnership or
to the spouse who owns the land depending
on which of the two properties has a higher
value. (FC, Art. 120)

NOTE: If the doer is in bad faith, he is entitled
only to necessary expenses for the preservation
of the land.

Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes
thereon, personally or through another,
plantings, constructions or works with the
materials of another, shall pay their value;
and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be
obliged to the reparation of damages. The
owner of the materials shall have the right
to remove them only in case he can do so
without injury to the work constructed, or
without the plantings, constructions or
works being destroyed. However, if the
landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of
the materials may remove them in any event,
with a right to be indemnified for damages.

Good faith and bad faith distinguished.
Good Faith - A person who is not aware that
there exists in his title or mode of acquisition
any flaw which invalidates it.
Bad Faith - A person who is aware that there
exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw
which invalidates it.
When Both Parties Are in Bad Faith
If both parties are in bad faith, the bad faith of
one cancels the bad faith of the other. Hence,
both are considered in good faith.
NOTE: Good faith is always presumed; and upon
him who alleges bad faith on the part of the
possessor rests the burden of proof.

197

Property

RULE IF THE PLANTER AND OWNER OF THE LAND ARE DIFFERENT

Planter Gathered Fruits Planter in BF
Landowner Planter in GF Reimbursed for expenses for
production, gathering and
Planter Keeps fruits before possession is preservation. (NCC, Art. 443)
Landowner legally interrupted. (NCC, Art. 544,
par. 1) (2008 Bar) Owns fruits provided he pays
planter expenses for production,
No necessity to reimburse the gathering and preservation.
planter of expenses since the (NCC, Art. 443)
planter retains the fruits. (NCC,
Art. 544, par. 1) Planter in BF

Standing Crops
Planter in GF

Reimbursed for expenses, for Loses what is built, planted or
production, gathering and sown without right to
preservation. (NCC, Art.443) indemnity. (NCC, Art 449)
Entitled to reimbursement for
the necessary expenses of
preservation of the land. (NCC,
Art. 452)

Owns fruits provided he pays Owns fruits. (NCC, Art. 449)
planter expenses for production,
gathering and preservation. (NCC,
Art. 443)

RULE WHEN THE LAND OWNER IS THE BUILDER, PLANTER OR SOWER (1999 BAR)

Land Owner and Builder, Planter or Sower Owner of Materials
Good faith Good faith

Acquire building etc. after paying indemnity for 1. Receive indemnity for value of materials; or
value of materials. (NCC, Art. 447) (1999 Bar)
2. Remove materials if without injury to works,
Bad faith plantings or constructions. (NCC, Art.447)
1. Acquire building etc. after paying value of Good faith

materials; and 1. Be indemnified for value of materials and
2. indemnity for damages, subject to the right of damages; or

the owner of materials to remove. (NCC, Art. 2. Remove materials, with or without injury and
447) be indemnified for damages. (NCC, Art. 447)

Good faith Bad faith
1. Lose materials w/o being indemnified and
1. Acquire w/o paying indemnity and right to
damages (NCC, Art 445 and 449, by analogy); pay damages (NCC, Articles 445 and 449, by
and analogy); and

2. Pay necessary expenses for preservation. 2. Recover necessary expenses for preservation
(NCC, Articles 452 and 546) of land without the right to retain the thing
until the indemnity is paid. (NCC, Articles 452
Bad faith and 546)
Bad faith

As though both acted in good faith (in pari delicto). ( NCC, Art. 453) (1999 BAR)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 198
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

RULE WHEN THE LAND OWNER IS NOT THE BUILDER, PLANTER OR SOWER

Land Owner Builder, Planter, Sower and Owner of Materials
Good faith Good faith
He can either: (NCC, Art. 448) (1992, 1996, 2000
Bar) If the Land Owner:
1. Acquire improvements after paying indemnity 1. Acquires the improvements after paying
for: indemnity, Builder, Planter, or Sower has the
a. Necessary expenses; and right to retain the thing (and cannot be
b. Useful expenses which could either be: required to pay rent) until indemnity is paid.
1. Original costs of improvements; or (NCC, Art. 546)
2. Increase in the value of the whole.
(NCC, Articles 443 and 546) 2. If the useful improvements can be removed
without damage to the principal thing, the
2. Sell the land to builder or planter or collect Builder, Planter or Sower may remove them,
rent from sower unless the value of the land is unless the person who recovers the
considerably greater than the building etc., in possession exercises the other. (NCC, Articles
which case, the builder and planter shall pay 547 and 447)
rent.
3. Sells the land, Builder or Planter cannot be
The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease obliged to buy the land if its value is
and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the considerably more than that of the building or
terms thereof. trees.

In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent.

The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease

and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the

terms thereof. (NCC, Art. 448) (1992, 1996, 1999,
2000, 2001 BAR)

Good faith Bad faith

1. The land owner can either: 1. Lose improvements without right to be
indemnified unless the latter sells the land.

a. Acquire improvements without paying (NCC, Art. 449) (1996, 2000 BAR)
indemnity and collect damages. (NCC,

Articles 445, 449 and 451) 2. Recover necessary expenses for

preservation of land without the right to
b. Order the demolition of work or retain the thing until the indemnity is paid.

restoration to former condition and collect (NCC, Articles 452 and 546)
damages in both cases (NCC, Art. 450); or

3. Pay damages to land owner. (NCC, Art. 451)

c. Sell the land to builder and planter or rent
it to the sower, and collect damages in both

cases. (NCC, Art. 450) (2008 Bar)

2. Pay necessary expenses for preservation. Good Faith
(NCC, Articles 452 and 546)
Bad Faith 1. Receive indemnity for improvements and
receive damages; or
Acquires improvements after paying indemnity and
damages to builder, planter, sower, unless the latter 2. Remove them in any event and receive
decides to remove. (NCC, Articles 454 and 447) damages. (NCC, Articles 454 and 447)

He cannot compel the builder planter or sower to
buy the land.

The reason why said article (NCC, Art. 447) applies

199

Property

may be explained as follows:

That if the land owner knew that something was

being built, planted or sown on his land by another
and he did not interpose any objection thereto, it is

as if he was the one building, planting or sowing in

bad faith on his own land with materials belonging
to another, using the owner of the materials as his

worker. (Rabuya, 2008)

Bad Faith Bad Faith

As though both acted in good faith (in pari delicto). (Art. 453)

RULE WHEN THE LAND OWNER, BUILDER, PLANTER,
SOWER AND OWNER OF MATERIALS ARE DIFFERENT PERSONS

Land-Owner Builder, Planter, Sower Owner of Materials
Good faith Good faith Good faith

He shall answer subsidiarily for Pay value of materials to its
their value and only in the owner without paying damages
event that the one who made (NCC, Art. 455) and if the Land
use of them has no property Owner:

with which to pay. (NCC, Art. 1. Acquires the improvement,
455) Builder, Planter, or Sower
may demand from the
He can either (NCC, Art. 448): landowner the value of the
materials and labor. (NCC,
1. Acquire improvements Art 455)

after paying indemnity And he has the right to 1. Collect value of materials
for: retain the thing (and cannot primarily from builder,
be required to pay rent) planter, sower, subsidiarily
a. Necessary expenses; until indemnity is paid. from land owner (NCC, Art.
(NCC, Art. 546) 455); or
and expenses
b. Useful If the useful improvements
can be removed without
which could either damage to the principal
be: thing, the possessor in good
faith may remove them, 2. Remove the materials only if
c. Original costs of unless the person who without injury to the work
recovers the possession constructed, or without the
improvements; or exercises the other (NCC, plantings, constructions or
d. Increase in the value Articles 547 and 447); or works being destroyed. (NCC,
Art. 447)
of the whole. (NCC, 2. Sells the land or rents it,
Art. 546 & 443) Builder or Planter cannot
be obliged to buy the land if
2. Sell the land to builder its value is considerably NOTE: Landowner is subsidiarily
and planter or collect rent more than that of the
from sower unless the building or trees. liable only if he
value of the land is appropriates/acquires the
considerably greater than In such case, he shall pay
the building etc., in which reasonable rent. improvements.
case, the builder and
planter shall pay rent.

The parties shall agree
upon the terms of the
lease and in case of
disagreement, the court
shall fix the terms thereof.

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 200
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

Land-Owner The parties shall agree upon the Owner of Materials
Good faith terms of the lease and in case of Good faith
Option to: disagreement, the court shall fix
the terms thereof. (NCC, Art. 448)

Builder, Planter, Sower

Bad faith

1. Acquire improvements

without paying indemnity
and collect damages (NCC,

Art. 445 & 449); 1. Lose improvements without
right to be indemnified

2. Order the demolition of unless the landowner sells

work or restoration to the land (NCC, Art. 449);
former condition and
collect damages in both 2. Recover necessary expenses 1. Collect value of materials
cases (NCC, Art. 450); or for preservation of land primarily from builder, planter,
3. without the right to retain sower, subsidiarily from land
Sell the land to builder the thing until the indemnity owner (NCC, Art. 455); or

and planter or rent it to is paid (NCC, Art. 452 & 546); 2. Remove materials in any event
the sower and collect Pay value of materials to its if builder, planter, sower
damages in both cases. 3. owner plus damages (NCC, acquired materials.
(NCC, Art. 450) (2008

BAR) Art. 455); and

4. Pay necessary expenses 4. Pay damages to land owner.

for preservation (NCC, (NCC, Art. 451)
Articles 452 and 546); and

5. Subsidiarily liable to
owner of materials.

Land-Owner Builder, Planter, Sower Owner of Materials
Good faith Bad faith
Good faith
If the Land Owner: 1. Loses materials without right
Land Owner can either: (NCC, to indemnity (NCC, Art. 449);
Art. 448) 1. Acquires the improvement, and
Builder, Planter, or Sower
1. Acquire improvements has the right to retain the 2. Pays damages (NCC, Art. 451)
thing (and cannot be The builder, planter or sower
after paying indemnity required to pay rent) until would be considered merely an
for: indemnity is paid. (NCC, agent of the owner of materials.
Art. 546)
a. Necessary expenses; Therefore, the provisions of Article
and If the useful improvements 449 of the Civil Code will apply by
can be removed without analogy. He is even liable for
b. Useful expenses damage to the principal damages. (Rabuya, 2008)
thing, the possessor in
which could either good faith may remove
be: them, unless the person
who recovers the
i. Original costs of possession exercises the
other (NCC, Art. 547); or
improvements;
or

ii. Increase in the
value of the

whole. (NCC,

Articles 546 and
443)

201

Property

4. Sell the land to builder and 2. Sells or rents it, Builder or
planter or collect rent from Planter cannot be obliged
sower unless the value of to buy the land if its value
the land is considerably is considerably more than
greater than the building that of the building or
etc., in which case, the trees.
builder and planter shall In such case, he shall pay
pay rent. reasonable rent.

The parties shall agree The parties shall agree
upon the terms of the lease upon the terms of the lease
and in case of and in case of
disagreement, the court disagreement, the court
shall fix the terms thereof. shall fix the terms thereof.
(NCC, Art. 448)
Without subsidiary liability for
cost of materials. Without indemnity to owner of
materials and collects damages
from him.

Land Owner Builder, Planter, Sower Owner of Materials
Good faith Bad faith Bad faith

Option to:

1. Acquire improvements 1. Lose improvements
without paying indemnity
and collect damages (NCC, without right to be
Articles 445 and 449); indemnified unless the

2. Order the demolition of landowner sells the land
work or restoration to (NCC, Art. 449);
former condition and
collect damages in both 1. Recover value from Builder,
cases (NCC, Art. 450); or
2. Recover necessary Planter, Sower (in pari delicto);
3. Sell the land to builder expenses for preservation
and planter or rent it to
the sower, and collect of land without the right to 2. If Builder, Planter, Sower
damages in both cases
(NCC, Art. 450); retain the thing until the acquired improvements,
indemnity is paid (NCC, remove the materials only if
4. Has right to demand
damages from both (NCC, Articles 452 and 546); without injury to the work
Art. 451); constructed, or without the

5. Pay necessary expenses 3. Pay the value of the plantings, constructions or
for preservation (NCC, Art.
452 & 546); and materials to the owner of works being destroyed (NCC,
the materials.; and Art. 447);
6. Not subsidiarily liable to
the owner of the materials Since both the owner of the 3. No action against land owner;
because as to him, the two materials and the builder, and
acted in bad faith. (De
Leon, 2006) etc. acted in bad faith, as
Land-Owner between them, they are 4. May be liable to the land owner

treated as having both for damages. (NCC, Art. 451)

acted in good faith. (De
Leon, 2006)

4. Pay damages to land
owner. (NCC, Art. 451)

Builder, Planter, Sower Owner of Materials

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 202
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

Bad faith Good faith Good faith

1. Acquires improvements If he pays the owner of the 1. Collect value of materials
after paying indemnity materials, plants or seeds: primarily from builder,
and damages, unless the planter, sower, subsidiarily
latter decides to remove 1. He may demand from the from land owner (NCC, Art.
(NCC, Art. 454, 447 & 443); landowner the value of the 455); or
and materials and labor (NCC,
Art 455) and shall also be 2. Remove the materials in any
2. Cannot compel builder, obliged to the reparation of event, with a right to be
planter and sower to buy damages (NCC, Art. 447); or indemnified for damages.
land. (NCC, Art. 447)
2. Remove the materials in
any event, with a right to
be indemnified for
damages. (NCC, Articles 454
and 447)

Land Owner Builder, Planter, Sower Owner of Materials
Bad faith Good faith Bad faith

1. Acquires improvements If he pays the owner of the 1. Loses materials without right
after paying indemnity materials, plants or seeds: to indemnity (NCC, Art. 449);
and damages, unless the and
builder, planter or sower 1. He may demand from the
decides to remove (NCC, landowner the value of the 2. Pays damages. (NCC, Art. 451)
Art. 454, 447 & 443); and materials and labor (NCC,
Art. 455) and shall also be The builder, planter or sower
2. Cannot compel builder, obliged to the reparation of would be considered merely an
planter and sower to buy damages (NCC, Art. 447); or agent of the owner of materials.
land.
2. Remove the materials in Therefore, the provisions of Article
Land-Owner any event, with a right to 449 of the Civil Code will apply by
be indemnified for analogy. He is even liable for
Bad faith damages. (NCC, Articles 454 damages. (Rabuya, 2008)
and 447)
The owner of the land shall Owner of Materials
answer subsidiarily for their Builder, Planter, Sower Good faith
value and only in the event that Bad faith
the one who made use of them 1. Collect value of materials
has no property with which to Pay value of materials to its primarily from builder,
pay (NCC, Art. 455); and owner (NCC, Art. 455) and planter, sower, subsidiarily
from land owner (NCC, Art.
Land Owner can either: (NCC, If the Land Owner: 455); or
Art. 448)
1. Acquires the improvement, 2. Remove the materials in any
Builder, Planter, or Sower event, with a right to be
may demand from the indemnified for damages.
landowner the value of the (NCC, Art. 447)
materials and labor. (NCC,
1. Acquire improvements Art 455)

after paying indemnity And he has the right to
for: retain the thing (and cannot
be required to pay rent)
1. Necessary expenses, until indemnity is paid (Art.
546).
and expenses
2. Useful

which could either
be:

203

Property

i. Original costs of If the useful improvements
improvements can be removed without
damage to the principal
ii. Increase in the thing, the possessor in good
value of the faith may remove them,
unless the person who
whole. (NCC, recovers the possession
exercises option 2 (NCC,
Articles 546 and Articles 547 and 447);
443)

2. Sell the land to builder and 2. Sells or rents it, Builder or
planter or collect rent from Planter cannot be obliged to
sower unless the value of buy the land if its value is
the land is considerably considerably more than that
greater than the building of the building or trees.
etc., in which case, the
builder and planter shall In such case, he shall pay
pay rent. reasonable rent.

The parties shall agree The parties shall agree upon
upon the terms of the lease the terms of the lease and in
and in case of case of disagreement, the
disagreement, the court court shall fix the terms
shall fix the terms thereof. thereof. (NCC, Art. 448)

Land-Owner Builder, Planter, Sower Owner of Materials

Bad faith Bad faith Bad faith

Same as though both acted in good faith (in pari delicto). (NCC, Art. 453)

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 204
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

When there is good faith on the part of both and assume the relation of lessor andlessee;
the owner of the land and the builder, 2. In Ignacio v. Hilario, G.R. L-175, April 30,
planter or sower
1946, Pen Development Corporation v.
The owner of the land only has the options of Martinez Leyba, Inc., G.R. No. 211845, August
paying the value of the building or selling the 9, 2017 owner of the land may have the
land. improvement removed; or
3. In Bernardo v. Bataclan, G.R. No. L-44606,
He cannot refuse either to pay or sell and compel November 28, 1938, the land and the
the owner of the building to remove it from the improvement may be sold in a public
land where it is erected. He is entitled to such auction, applying the proceeds first to the
removal only when, after having chosen to sell payments of the value of the land, and the
the land, the other party fails to pay for the excess if any, to be delivered to the owner of
same. (Ignacio v. Hilario, G.R. No. L-175, April 30, the house in payment thereof.
1946; Sps. Espinoza vs. Mayandoc, G.R. No.
211170, July 3, 2017) As to the pending crops planted in good faith,
the landowner has the option of allowing the
The landowner upon demand for payment planter in good faith to continue the cultivation
CANNOT automatically become the owner of the and to harvest the crops, or to continue the
improvement for failure of the builder to pay for cultivation and harvest the crops himself. In the
the value of the land. There is nothing in Articles latter option, however, the landowner shall have
448 and 546 which would justify the conclusion the right to a part of the expenses of cultivation
that upon failure of the builder to pay the value and to a part of the net harvest, both in
of the land, when such is demanded by the proportion to the time of possession. (NCC, Art.
landowner, the land owner becomes 545)
automatically the owner of the improvement
Q: Believing that a piece of land belonged to
under Art. 445. him, A erected thereon a building, using
materials belonging to C. The owner of the
When the land’s value is considerably more than land, B, was aware of the construction being
the improvement, the landowner cannot compel made by A, but did not do anything to stop it.
the builder to buy the land. In such event, a What are the rights of A, B, and C, with
“forced lease” is created and the court shall fix respect to the building and as against each
the terms thereof in case the parties disagree other? (1984 BAR)
thereon. (Depra v. Dumalo, G.R. No. L-57348, May
16, 1985; Communities Cagayan, Inc. v. Sps. A: B, regardless of his good or bad faith, becomes
Arsenio, G.R. No. 176791, November 14, 2012) the owner of the building. (NCC, Arts. 445 and
448) However, A, a builder in good faith will be
Rule when landowner sells the land to a third entitled to reimbursement of his necessary and
person who is in bad faith useful expenses, with right to retain the same
until paid. He may also remove the construction,
Builder must go against the third person but if since B acted in bad faith in not stopping the
the latter has paid the land owner, a case against construction. (NCC, Arts. 454 and 447) C shall
such land owner may still be filed by the builder have the right to reimbursement and may also
and the third person may file a third-party remove them but only if he can do so without
complaint against land owner. injury to the work. (NCC, Art. 447)

Recourse left to the parties where the builder Q: Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew
fails to pay the value of the land that X was constructing on his (Y's) land but
simply kept quiet about it, thinking perhaps
The Civil Code is silent on this point. Guidance that he could get X's house later. What are
may be had from these decisions: the respective rights of the parties over X's
house in this case? (1999 BAR)
1. In Miranda v. Fadullon, G.R. No. L-8220,
October 29, 1955, the builder might be made A: Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad
to pay rental only, leave things as they are, faith (Art. 453), X as the party in good faith may
(a) remove the house and demand

205

Property

indemnification for damages suffered by him, or the spouses Nuguid benefit from the
(b) demand payment of the value of the house improvement?
plus reparation for damages (Art. 447, in relation
to Art. 454). Y continues as owner of the lot and A: NO. Since spouses Nuguid opted to
becomes, under the second option, owner of the appropriate the improvement for themselves
house as well, after he pays the sums demanded. when they applied for a writ of execution
despite knowledge that the auction sale did not
Q: Bartolome constructed a chapel on the include the apartment building, they could not
land of Eric. What are Bartolome’s rights if he benefit from the lot’s improvement until they
were: (1) possessor of the land in good faith, reimbursed the improver in full, based on the
or (2) in bad faith? (1996 BAR) current market value of the property. (Pecson v.
CA, G.R. No. 115814, May 26, 1995)
A:
(1) A chapel is a useful improvement, Bartolome The builder is entitled to a refund of the
may remove the chapel if it can be removed expenses he incurred and not on the market
without damage to the land, unless Eric chooses value of the improvement (2000 BAR)
to acquire the chapel. In the latter case,
Bartolome has the right of reimbursement of the Under Art. 448 in relation to Art. 546, the
value of the chapel with right of retention until builder in good faith is entitled to a refund of the
he is reimbursed. (NCC, Arts. 448, 546 & 547) necessary and useful expenses incurred by him,
or the increase in value which the land may have
(2) Bartolome loses whatever he built, without acquired by reason of the improvement, at the
any right to indemnify. (NCC, Art. 449) option of the landowner. The builder is entitled
to a refund of the expenses he incurred, and not
Q: Pecson owned a commercial lot on which to the market value of the improvement.
he built a building. For failure to pay realty
taxes, the lot was sold at public auction to NOTE: The case of Pecson v. CA, G.R. No. 115814,
Nepomuceno, who in turn sold it to the May 26, 1995 is not applicable.
spouses Nuguid. The sale, however, does not
include the building. The spouses The landowner is entitled to the rentals of
subsequently moved for the delivery of the building if he opted to appropriate it,
possession of the said lot and apartment. subject to the right of retention of the builder
Pecson filed a motion to restore possession in good faith (2000 BAR)
pending determination of the value of the
apartment. The landowner is entitled to the rentals of the
building. As the owner of the land, he is also the
May Pecson claim payment of rentals? owner of the building being an accession
thereto. However, the builder in good faith is
A: YES, Pecson is entitled to rentals by virtue of entitled to retain the building until indemnity is
his right of retention over the apartment. The paid. Consequently, he is also entitled to retain
construction of the apartment was undertaken the rentals. He, however, shall apply the rentals
at the time when Pecson was still the owner of to the indemnity payable to him after deducting
the lot. When the Nuguids became the reasonable cost of repair and maintenance.
uncontested owner of the lot, the apartment was
already in existence and occupied by tenants. Q: The Church, despite knowledge that its
intended contract of sale with the National
NOTE: Art. 448 does not apply to cases where Housing Authority (NHA) had not been
the owner of the land is the builder but who perfected, proceeded to introduce
later lost the land; not being applicable, the improvements on the disputed land. On the
indemnity that should be paid to the buyer must other hand, NHA knowingly granted the
be the fair market value of the building and not Church temporary use of the subject
just the cost of construction thereof. To do properties and did not prevent the Church
otherwise would unjustly enrich the new owner from making improvements thereon. Did the
of the land. Church and NHA act in bad faith?

Q: Pending complete reimbursement, may A: YES. The Church and the NHA, both acted in

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 206
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

bad faith, hence, they shall be treated as if they improvements in case the owner decides to
were both in good faith. (National Housing appropriate them. They cannot be asked to
Authority v. Grace Baptist Church, G.R. No. remove the improvements because that is not
156437, March 1, 2004) one of the options given by law to the landowner
in case the builder is in good faith.
Q: A squatter, X, is sought to be evicted by the
landowner Y, seeks reimbursement from the When there is bad faith on the part of both
latter for the improvements he made on the the owner of the land and the builder,
property, while Y demands the value of all planter or sower
the fruits X gathered from the land during
the occupancy thereof. Is X entitled to the Q: The Municipality instituted an action for
indemnity he prays for? Is he bound to pay the recovery of a tract of land in the pueblo of
for the fruits he received? Why? (1983 BAR) Oas claiming that it was a part of the public
square. Roa alleged that he was the owner of
A: As a possessor in bad faith, X may recover the property and admitted in writing that he
only the necessary expenses he may have knew that the land is owned by the
incurred while in possession and Municipality and that Castillo, whom he
reimbursement for useful improvements bought the property from did not own the
introduced by him if owner Y chooses to retain land. On the other hand, when Roa
them and X must pay Y the value of all the fruits constructed a substantial building on the
he received. property in question the Municipality did not
oppose the construction. Is there bad faith on
Q: Mr. and Mrs. X migrated to the US with all both of the parties?
their children. As they had no intention of
coming back, they offered their house and lot A: YES. Roa was not a purchaser in good faith.
for sale to their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A The Municipality, having permitted the erection
(the buyers) who agreed to buy the property by the defendant of a building on the land
for 128 Million. Because Mr. and Mrs. A without objection, acted in bad faith. The rights
needed to obtain a loan from a bank first, and of the parties must, therefore, be determined as
since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate, if they both had acted in good faith. When there
the latter told the buyers that they could has been bad faith, not only on the part of the
already occupy the house, renovate it as it person who built, sowed, or planted on
was already in a state of disrepair, and pay another's land, but also on the part of the owner
only when their loan is approved and of the latter, the rights of both shall be the same
released. While waiting for the loan as if they had acted in good faith. Therefore, the
approval, the buyers spent Pl Million in owner of the land on which the building, sowing,
repairing the house. A month later, a person or planting is done in good faith shall have a
carrying an authenticated special power of right to appropriate as his own the work,
attorney from the sellers demanded that the sowing, or planting after the indemnity
buyers either immediately pay for the mentioned in Articles 453 and 454, or, to oblige
property in full now or vacate it and pay the person who has built or planted, to pay him
damages for having made improvements on the value of the land and to force the person who
the property without a sale having been sowed to pay the proper rent. (Art. 453)
perfected. (Municipality of Oas vs Roa, G.R. No. L-2017,
November 24, 1906)
What are the buyers' options or legal rights
with respect to the expenses incurred in Good faith can concur with negligence
improving the property under
circumstances? (2015 BAR) Art. 456 applies to Arts. 447-455 where good
faith was mentioned.
A: The buyers here may be deemed possessors
or builders in good faith because they were Good faith does not necessarily preclude
made to believe that they were allowed to make negligence, for, in fact, in negligence there is no
repairs or renovation by the sellers themselves. intention to do wrong or cause damage unlike in
As builders in good faith, they have the right to bad faith which presupposes such intention. (De
seek reimbursement for the value of the Leon, 2006)

207

Property

Thus, person who is in good faith may be guilty made or artificial accretions to lands that adjoin
of negligence for which he may be made liable canals or esteros or artificial drainage system.
under Art. 2176 involving quasi-delicts. (Pineda, (Ronquillo v. CA, G.R. No 43346, March 20, 1991)
2009)
NOTE: If the deposits accumulate, not through
ACCESSION NATURAL the effects of the current of the water, but
because of the constructions made by the owner
ALLUVION purely for defensive purposes against the
damaging action of the water, the deposits are
Alluvium or alluvion (2001, 2003, 2008, still deemed to be alluvion and will belong to the
2009 BAR) riparian owner.

It is the gradual deposit of sediment by natural If the deposit is brought about by sea water
action of a current of fresh water (not sea water),
the original identity of the deposit being lost. When the sea moves towards the estate and the
Where it is by sea water, it belongs to the State. tide invades it, the same becomes a foreshore
(Government of Philippine Islands v. Cabangis, land which consequently becomes part of the
G.R. No. L-28379, March 27, 1929) public domain. Thus, it belongs to the state.

NOTE: Art. 457 of NCC states “To the owners of Registration
the lands adjoining the banks of the rivers
belongs the accretion which they gradually Alluvial deposits must be registered. Though,
receive from the effects of the current of the automatically it is owned by the riparian owner
waters. (Heirs of Navarro v. IAC, G.R. No. 68166, February
12, 1997), it is still subject to acquisitive
Riparian owner prescription which may divest the riparian
owner the ownership over the accretion.
He is the owner of the land adjoining rivers.
Failure to register
Accretion v. Alluvium
If the riparian owner fails to register the
Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposits within the prescriptive period of
deposited while alluvium is the soil deposited. acquiring real property (10 years if ordinary
prescription or 30 years if extraordinary
Requisites of accretion prescription), it subjects said accretion to
acquisition thru prescription by third persons.
1. Deposit be gradual and imperceptible; (Reynante v. CA, G.R. No. 95907, April 8, 1992)
2. Resulted from the effects of the current of
However, registration under the Torrens System
the water; and does not protect the riparian owner against the
3. The land where the accretion takes place is diminution of the area of his registered land
through gradual changes in the course of an
adjacent to the banks of a river. adjoining stream.

If all the requisites are present, the riparian Q: Benjamin is the owner of a titled lot which
owner is automatically entitled to the accretion. is bounded on the north by the Maragondon
River. An alluvial deposit of two (2) hectares
NOTE: The alluvion starts to become the was added to the registered area. Daniel took
property of the riparian owner from the time possession of the portion formed by
that the deposit created by the current of water accretion and claims that he has been in
becomes manifest. (Heirs of Navarro v. IAC, G.R. open, continuous and undisturbed
No. 68166, February 12, 1997) possession of said portion since 1923 as
shown by a tax declaration. In 1958,
Man-made or artificial accretions to lands Benjamin filed a Complaint for Quieting of
NOT included Title and contends that the alluvium belongs
to him as the riparian owner and that since
The rule on alluvion does not apply to man-

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 208
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

the alluvium is, by law, part and parcel of the the riparian owners. Are the petitioners the
registered property, the same may be exclusive owners of the First and Second
considered as registered property. Decide Accretion?
the case and explain. (2016 BAR)
A: NO. Petitioners are not the riparian owners of
A: I will decide in favor of Daniel and dismiss the Motherland to which the First Accretion had
the action to quiet title filed by Benjamin. attached, hence, they cannot assert ownership
over the First Accretion. Consequently, as the
Under Article 457 of the Civil Code, the owner of Second Accretion had merely attached to the
lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the First Accretion, they also have no right over the
accretion which they gradually receive from the Second Accretion. Neither were they able to
effects of the current of the waters. The show that they acquired these properties
accretion, however, does not automatically through prescription as it was ·not established
become registered land. It must be brought that they were in possession of any of them.
under the Torrens system of registration by Being the owner of the land adjoining the
Benjamin, the riparian owner. Since he did not, foreshore area, respondent is the riparian or
the then increment, not being registered land, littoral owner who has preferential right to lease
was open to acquisition through prescription by the foreshore area. Accordingly, therefore,
third persons, like Daniel. (Ignacio Grande, et. al. alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek or a
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-17652, June 30, river do not form part of the public domain as
1962; Leonida Cureg v. Intermediate Appellate the alluvial property automatically belongs to
Court, G.R. No. 73465, September 7, 1989) the owner of the estate to which it may have
been added. The only restriction provided for by
Reasons for granting a riparian owner the law is that the owner of the adjoining property
right to alluvion deposited by a river must register the same under the Torrens
system; otherwise, the alluvial property may be
1. To compensate him for: subject to acquisition through prescription by
a. Danger of loss that he suffers due to the third persons. (Heirs of Francisco I. Narvasa, Sr.
location of his land; and et.al v. Emiliana Imbornal et.al, G.R. No. 182908,
b. The encumbrances and other easements August 6, 2014)
on his land
Art. 459. Whenever the current of a river,
2. To promote the interests of agriculture as he creek or torrent segregates from an estate
is in the best position to utilize the accretion. on its bank a known portion of land and
transfers it to another estate, the owner of
The owners of estates adjoining ponds or the land to which the segregated portion
lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the belonged retains the ownership of it,
natural decrease of the waters, or lose that provided that he removes the same within
inundated by them in extraordinary floods. two years.
(NCC, Art. 458)
CHANGE IN THE COURSE OF THE RIVER
NOTE: This rule does not apply to lakes.
Whenever a river, changing its course by natural
Q: The First Accretion adjoined the southern causes, opens a new bed through a private
portion of the Motherland. Decades later, the estate, this bed shall become of public dominion.
Second Accretion abutted the First Accretion (NCC, Art. 462)
on its southern portion. OCT was issued in
the names of all the respondents covering Requisites (NAPA)
the Second Accretion. Petitioners alleged
that through deceit, fraud, falsehood, and 1. There must be a Natural change in the
misrepresentation, respondent Victoriano, course of the waters of the river; otherwise,
with respect to the First Accretion, and the the bed may be the subject of a State grant;
respondents collectively, with regard to the
Second Accretion, had illegally registered the 2. The change must be Abrupt orsudden;
said accretions in their names, 3. The change must be Permanent; and
notwithstanding the fact that they were not

209

Property

NOTE: The rule does not apply to temporary ALLUVIUM AVULSION
overflowing of the river.
Gradual and Sudden or abrupt
4. There must be Abandonment by the owner
of the bed. imperceptible. process.

NOTE: Abandonment pertains to the decision Soil cannot be Identifiable and
not to bring back the river to the old bed. identified. verifiable.

Effect when the river bed is abandoned Belongs to the Belongs to the
owner of the owner from whose
River beds which are abandoned through the
natural change in the course of the waters ipso property to property
facto belong to the owners whose lands are
occupied by the new course in proportion to the which it is attached. it was detached.
area lost. However, the owners of the lands
adjoining the old bed shall have the right to Merely an Detachment
acquire the same by paying the value thereof, attachment. followed by
which value shall not exceed the value of the
area occupied by the new bed. (NCC, Art. 461) attachment.

NOTE: The rule on abandoned river bed does Requisites of avulsion (CAI)
not apply to cases where the river simply dries
up because there are no persons whose lands 1. Transfer is caused by the Current of a river,
are occupied by the waters of the river. creek, or torrent;

Under the Water Code, the government or the 2. Transfer is sudden or Abrupt; and
riparian owner may return the river back to the 3. The portion of the land transported is known
original bed. (P.D. 1067, Art. 58)
or Identifiable.
Art. 460. Trees uprooted and carried away
by the current of the waters belong to the NOTE: By analogy, land transferred from one
owner of the land upon which they may be tenement to another by forces of nature other
cast, if the owners do not claim them within than the river current can still be considered as
six months. If such owners claim them, they
shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering an avulsion.
them or putting them in a safe place.
Rule on acquisition of titles over an avulsion
AVULSION
GR: Original owner retains title.
It is the deposit of known (identifiable) portion
of land detached from the property of another XPNs: The owner must remove (not merely
which is attached to the property of another as a claim) the transported portion within two years
result of the effect of the current of a river, creek to retain ownership, otherwise, the land not
or torrent. (2001 BAR) removed shall belong to the owner of the land to
which it has been adjudicated in case of:
Whenever the current of a river, creek, or
torrent segregates from an estate on its banks a 1. Abandonment; or
known portion of land and transfers it to 2. Expiration of two years, whether the failure
another estate, the owner of the land to which
the segregated portion belonged retains the to remove be voluntary or involuntary, and
ownership of it, provided that he removes the irrespective of the area of the portion known
same within 2 years. (NCC, Art. 459) (2001 BAR) to have been transferred.

Alluvium vs. Avulsion (2001 BAR) Rule on avulsion of uprooted trees

GR: The owner of the tree retains ownership.

XPN:
1. The owner must claim them within a period

of six months; and

NOTE: The claim does not require actual
recovery. It can be recovered on the basis of
prescriptive period for acquiring movables
which is four years.
2. If uprooted trees have been transplanted by
the owner of the land which the trees may

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 210
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

have been cast and said trees have taken If formed on non-navigable/non-floatable
root in said land, the owner of the trees,
upon making the claim, is required to refund rivers
the expenses incurred in gathering them or
in putting them in safe place, including the Nearer in margin to Owner of nearer
expenses incurred by the owner of the land one bank margin is the sole
for the preservation of the trees. (Rabuya,
owner
2008)
If equidistant Island divided

longitudinally in halves.

Art. 463. Whenever the current of a river Q: Eduave is the owner of land forming part
divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of an island in a non-navigable river. Said
of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of land was eroded due to a typhoon,
the land retains his ownership. He also destroying the bigger portion thereof and
retains it if a portion of land is separated improvements thereon. Due to the
from the estate by the current. movements of the river deposits on the part
of the land that was not eroded, the area was
Effects of Ramifications of A River increased. Later, Eduave allowed Dodong to
introduce improvements thereon and live
1. Some parts of the original estate may be there as a caretaker. However, Dodong later
isolated but remaining steady and secure on denied Eduave’s claim of ownership so the
their location; latter filed action to quiet title over the
property. Who has a better right to the land?
2. Other parts may be separated and pushed
away from the original estate. A: EDUAVE has a better right to the land. The
land in question is an island that appears in a
Art. 464. Islands which may be formed on non- floatable and non-navigable river, and it is
the seas within the jurisdiction of the not disputed that Eduave is the owner of the
Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or parcel of land. The island belongs to the owner
floatable rivers belong to the State. of the parcel of land nearer the margin. (NCC,
Art. 465) Because the island is longer than the
Art. 465. Islands which through successive property of Eduave, he is deemed ipso jure the
accumulation of alluvial deposits are owner of that portion which corresponds to the
formed in non-navigable and non-floatable length of his property along the margin of the
rivers, belong to the owners of the margins river. (Jagualing v. CA, G.R. No. 94283, March 4,
or banks nearest to each of them, or to the 1991)
owners of both margins if the island is in the
middle of the river, in which case it shall be NOTE: There is no accession when islands are
divided longitudinally in halves. If a single formed by the branching of a river; the owner
island thus formed be more distant from retains ownership of the isolated piece of land.
one margin than from the other, the owner
of the nearer margin shall be the sole owner MOVABLES

thereof. Art. 466. Whenever two movable things
belonging to different owners are, without
ISLANDS bad faith, united in such a way that they
form a single object, the owner of the
Rules on ownership with regard to formation principal thing acquires the accessory,
indemnifying the former owner thereof for
of islands
its value
LOCATION OWNER

If formed on the sea

Within territorial State Different kinds of accession continua as
regard movables
waters
1. Adjunction or conjunction;
Outside territorial First country to occupy 2. Mixture; and
waters 3. Specification.

If formed on lakes or navigable/floatable
rivers

State

211

Property

Adjunction the two things incorporated is the principal
one, the thing of the greater value shall be
It is the process by virtue of which two movable so considered, and as between two things of
things belonging to different owners are united equal value, that of the greatervolume.
in such a way that they form a single object and
each of the things united preserves its own Tests to determine the principal
nature. (NCC, Art. 466)
1. That of greater value;
Requisites of adjunction (2BUS) 2. If two things are of equal value – That of

There is adjunction when there are: greater volume;
3. If two things are of equal volume – That to
1. Two (2) movables;
2. Belonging to different owners; which the other has been united as an
3. United forming a single object; and ornament, or for its use or perfection;and
4. Separation would impair their nature or 4. That which has greater merits, utility and
volume if things. (NCC, Art. 468)
result in substantial injury to eitherthing.
NOTE: In painting and sculpture, writings,
Classes of adjunction or conjunction printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the
board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment
1. Painting (pintura); shall be deemed the accessory thing. (NCC, Art.
2. Engraftment or Inclusion - Like setting a 468)

precious stone on a golden ring; Ownership when the adjunction involves
3. Writing (escritura); three or more things
4. Weaving; and
5. Soldering- Joining a piece of metal to another If the adjunction involves three or more things,
the court should first distinguish the principal
metal and apply Art. 466 in an equitable manner such
that the principal acquires the accessory,
a. Ferruminacion -Principal and accessory indemnifying the former owner thereof for its
are of the same metal; or value.

b. Plumbatura – Different metals (NCC, Art. Art. 469. Whenever the things united can be
468) separated without injury, their respective
owners may demand their separation.
Ownership of the resulting object
Nevertheless, in case the thing united for
The owner of the principal by law becomes the use, embellishment or perfection of the
owner of the resulting object and should other, is much more precious than the
indemnify the owner of the accessories for the principal thing, the owner of the former
values thereof. may demand its separation, even though the
thing to which it has been incorporated may
Good faith is necessary in Adjunction suffer some injury.

Art. 526 explains that good faith is that condition Separation of things is allowed in the
of the mind where the person concerned is not following cases:
aware that there exists in his title or mode of
acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. 1. Separation without injury;
If the owner of the principal thing acted in bad 2. Separation with injury – Accessory is much
faith, Art. 470 (par. 2) will apply NOT Art. 466.
(Pineda, 2009) more precious than the principal, the owner
of the former may demand its separation
Art. 467. The principal thing, as between even though the principal may suffer injury;
two things incorporated, is deemed to be 3. Owner of the principal acted in Bad faith.
that to which the other has been united as (NCC, Art. 469)
an ornament, or for its use or perfection.
Art. 468. If it cannot be determined by the Art. 470. Whenever the owner of the
rule given in the preceding article which of

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 212
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

accessory thing has made the incorporation though there is or without
in bad faith, he shall lose the thing
incorporated and shall have the obligation injury to the injury to
to indemnify the owner of the principal principal and pay principal and
thing for the damages he may have suffered.
If the one who has acted in bad faith is the damages. receive
owner of the principal thing, the owner of damages.

the accessory thing shall have a right to Bad faith
choose between the former paying him its
value or that the thing belonging to him be Same as though both acted in good faith.
separated, even though for this purpose it
be necessary to destroy the principal thing; Art. 471. Whenever the owner of the
and in both cases, furthermore, there shall material employed without his consent has
be indemnity for damages. a right to an indemnity, he may demand that
this consist in the delivery of a thing equal
If either one of the owner has made the in kind and value, and in all other respects,
incorporation with the knowledge and to that employed, or else in the price
without the objection of the other, their
respective rights shall be determined as thereof, according to expert appraisal.
though both acted in good faith.
Indemnity
Rights of owners over the thing in adjunction
It is made either by:
PRINCIPAL OWNER OF THE 1. Delivery of a thing equal in kind and value;
ACCESSORY
or
2. Payment of its price including the

sentimental value. (NCC, Art. 471)

Good faith

1. Acquire 1. Receive for Art. 472. If by the will of their owners two
accessory and payment things of the same or different kinds are
mixed, or if the mixture occurs by chance,
pay owner of the value of and in the latter case the things are not
accessory for its accessory; or separable without injury, each owner shall
acquire a right proportional to the part
value; or 2. GR: Demand belonging to him, bearing in mind the value
2. Demand separation of the things mixed or confused.
provided the
separation thing suffers no Art. 473. If by the will of only one owner, but
provided the thing in good faith, two things of the same or
different kinds are mixed or confused, the
suffers no injury. injury. rights of the owners shall be determined by
the provisions of the preceding article.
XPN: If
accessory is If the one who caused the mixture or
confusion acted in bad faith, he shall lose
more precious the thing belonging to him thus mixed or
confused, besides being obliged to pay
than principal, indemnity for the damages caused to the
he may demand owner of the other thing with which his own
was mixed.
separation with
or without Mixture

injury to the It is the combination of materials where the
respective identities of the component elements
thing. are lost either voluntarily or by chance. (NCC,
Articles. 472-473)
Good faith Bad faith

Acquire accessory Lose accessory and
without paying the pay damages.

owner of accessory

and entitled to
damages.

Bad faith Good faith

1. Pay value of 1. Receive
accessory and pay payment and

damages; or damages; or

2. Have the things 2. Have accessory
separated, even separated with

213

Property

Kinds of mixtures (COM-CON) new thing to himself, after first paying
1. Commixtion – mixture of solids; and indemnity for the value of the work, or
2. Confusion – mixture of liquids demand indemnity for the material.

Proportionate Ownership In Commixtion Or If in the making of the thing bad faith
Confusion intervened, the owner of the material shall
have the right to appropriate the work to
If the things mixed or confused are not separable himself without paying anything to the
without injury, each owner shall have a right to maker, or to demand of the latter that he
the resulting thing proportionate to the value of indemnify him for the value of the material
the thing he owns. (Pineda, 2009) and the damages he may have suffered.
However, the owner of the material cannot
Rules regarding mixtures appropriate the work in case the value of
the latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is
considerably more than that of the material.

By Will of Both Owners or by Accident

Good faith Specification (NCC, Art. 474)

1. Right is subject to stipulations; or It is the giving of new form to another’s material
through application of labor. The material
2. Right is in proportion to the part belonging undergoes a transformation or change of
identity. The labor is the principal and the
to. him (Co-ownership arises) (NCC, material used is the accessory.
Art.422)

By will of only one owner/ by chance

Good faith

1. Have the things separated provided the Respective rights of the maker and the owner
thing suffers no injury; or of the materials in specification

2. If cannot be separated without injury,
acquire interest on mixture in proportion
OWNER OF
to his part (co-ownership). MAKER MATERIALS (OM)

Bad faith (caused Good faith Good faith

the mixture) GR: Appropriate the Receive payment for

First owner will lose Second owner will thing transformed and value of materials.

his part on the acquire entire mixture pay the owner of the
mixture and pay and entitled to
materials for its value.
damages to the damages.
second owner.
XPN: If the material is
Bad faith Good faith (caused
the mixture) more precious than the
thing transformed, the
As if both acted in GF, As if both acted in GF,
owner of the materials
because the 2nd since the first owner has the option to:
owner in GF was the is in BF and the
1. Acquire the work
one who caused the second owner who
and indemnify the
ratification, because caused the mixture in maker for his
the first owner. GF in a way ratifies
labor; or
the BF of first owner.
2. Demand indemnity
for the material.
Art. 474. One who in good faith employs the
material of another in whole or in part in Good faith
order to make a thing of a different kind,
shall appropriate the thing thus 1. Receive payment 1. Appropriate new

transformed as his own, indemnifying the for value of his thing and pay the
owner of the material for its value.
work; or maker for the
2. Appropriate the work; or

new thing and 2. Receive payment

pay the owner of for value of
materials for its materials.
If the material is more precious than the
transformed thing or is of more value, its value.
owner may, at his option, appropriate the
Bad faith Good faith

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 214
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

1. Lose the new thing 1. Appropriate the QUIETING OF TITLE
new thing
and pay damages without paying It is a proceeding in equity, the purpose of which
to owner of the and receive is the declaration of the invalidity of a claim on a
damages; or title or the invalidity of an interest in property
materials; or adverse to that of the plaintiff, and thereafter to
2. Pay value of free the plaintiff and all those claiming under
him from any hostile claim thereon. (Pineda,
materials and 2009)

damages to owner NOTE: Not Quieting of title is a common law remedy for the
of the materials. available if the removal of any cloud upon, doubt, or uncertainty
affecting title to real property. Whenever there
new thing is is a cloud on title to real property or any interest
more valuable in real property by reason of any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that
than materials is apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth
and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
for scientific unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said
or artistic title, an action may be brought to remove such
cloud or to quiet the title. In such action, the
reasons. competent court is tasked to determine the
respective rights of the complainant and the
2. Receive payment other claimants, not only to place things in their
for the value of proper places, and make the claimant, who has
materials and no rights to said immovable, respect and not
damages disturb the one so entitled, but also for the
benefit of both, so that whoever has the right
Adjunction, mixture, and specification will see every cloud of doubt over the property
distinguished dissipated, and he can thereafter fearlessly
introduce any desired improvements, as well as
ADJUNCTIO MIXTURE SPECIFICATIO use, and even abuse the property. (Phil-Ville
N Development and Housing Corporation v. Maximo
Involves N Bonifacio, et al., G.R. No. 167391, June 8, 2011)
Involves at at least
least two two May involve Nature of the action to quiet title
things. things. one thing (or
Co- Significantly, suits to quiet title are characterized
Accessory ownershi more) but form as proceedings quasi in rem. Technically, they
follows the p results. are neither in rem nor in personam. In an action
principal. Things is changed, quasi in rem, an individual is named as
Things joined mixed or defendant. However, unlike suits in rem, a quasi
retain their confused Accessory in rem judgment is conclusive only between the
nature. may follows the parties. A proceeding quasi in rem is one brought
either against persons seeking to subject the property
retain or principal. of such persons to the discharge of the claims
lose their assailed. (Portic v. Cristobal, G.R. No. 156171, 22
respective The new object April 2005)
natures.
retains or Classifications of actions
preserves the
1. Remedial action – one to remove cloud on
nature of the title; and

original object. 2. Preventive action – one to prevent the
casting of a (threatened) cloud on the title.
Art. 475. In the preceding articles,
sentimental value shall be duly
appreciated.

Sentimental Value

The value placed by the owner on the property
is more than the actual value by reason of some
sentiments like, love, affection, respect and
honor.

215

Property

Scope of the action to quiet title Oños' opposition, and upon order of the RTC,
Lim converted the petition for reconstitution
Only real properties can be subject of an action into a complaint for quieting of title. The
for quieting of title. (Pineda, 2009) Oños now contend that this action for
quieting of title should be disallowed
Requisites for an action to quiet title (LCDR) because it constituted a collateral attack on
OCT No. RO-9969-(O-20449). Is their
1. Plaintiff must have a Legal or equitable title contention correct?
to, or interest in the real property which is
the subject matter of theaction; A: NO. The attack is direct when the objective is
to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its
NOTE: He need not be in possession of said enforcement. On the other hand, the attack is
property. (NCC, Art.477) indirect or collateral when, in an action to obtain
a different relief, an attack on the judgment is
2. There must be Cloud in such title; nevertheless made as an incident thereof. The
averments readily show that the action was
3. Such cloud must be Due to some(IRCEP) neither a direct nor a collateral attack for Lim
a. Instrument; was asserting only that the existing title
b. Record; registered in the name of the petitioners'
c. Claim; predecessors had become inoperative due to the
d. Encumbrance; or conveyance in favor of Lim's mother, and
e. Proceeding which is apparently valid resultantly should be cancelled. (Oño vs Lim, G.R.
but is in truth invalid, ineffective, No. 154270, March 09, 2010)
voidable or unenforceable, and is
prejudicial to the plaintiff’s title; and Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title
to real property or any interest therein, by
4. Plaintiff must reason of any instrument, record, claim,
a. Return to the defendant all benefits he encumbrance or proceeding which is
may have received from the latter; or apparently valid or effective but is in truth
b. Reimburse him for expenses that may and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
have redounded to his benefit. unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to
said title, an action may be brought to
Reasons for quieting of title remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a
1. Prevent future litigation on the ownership of cloud from being cast upon title to real
the property; property or any interest therein.

2. Protect true title & possession; Rules in actions for quieting of title
3. To protect the real interest of both parties;
1. These put an end to vexatious litigation in
and respect to property involved; plaintiff
4. To determine and make known the precise asserts his own estate & generally declares
that defendant’s claim is without foundation;
state of title for the guidance of all.
2. Remedial in nature;
Persons who may file an action to quiet title 3. Not suits in rem nor personam but suits

1. Registered owner; against a particular person or persons in
2. A person who has an equitable right or respect to the res (quasi in rem);
4. May not be brought for the purpose of
interest in the property; or settling a boundary disputes;
3. The State. 5. Applicable to real property or any interest
therein;
Q: Lim filed in the RTC in Cebu City a petition 6. An action to quiet title brought by the
for the reconstitution of the owner's person in possession of the property is
duplicate copy of OCT No. RO-9969-(O- IMPRESCRIPTIBLE; and
20449), alleging that said OCT had been lost 7. If he is not in possession, he must invoke his
during World War II by his mother, Luisa, remedy within the prescriptive period as
who acquired title to it by virtue of a deed of
sale, albeit unregistered. On account of the

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 216
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

follows; Plaintiff asserts own Plaintiff declares his
a. Ordinary prescription- 10 years
b. Extraordinary prescription- 30 years. claim and declares own claim and title
that the claim of the and at the same time

Requisites for existence of a cloud (ATP) defendant is indicates the source
unfounded and calls and nature of

1. There is an Apparently valid or effective on the defendant to defendant’s claim
instrument;
justify his claim on pointing its defect
the property that and prays for the

NOTE: They must appear valid or effective – same may be declaration of its
and extraneous evidence is needed to prove determined by the validity.
their invalidity or ineffectivity.
court.

Filed against whom

2. But such instrument is in Truth: Against people who Against defendant who
a. Invalid;
b. Ineffective; have claims; claims asserts claims based on
c. Voidable;
d. Unenforceable; are more general in an invalid instrument
e. Has been extinguished or terminated; or nature (but not apparent).
f. Has been barred by extinctive
prescription. Action to quiet title cannot be availed until
the donation has been first revoked
3. Such instrument may be Prejudicial to the
title. The barangay traces its claim of ownership over
the disputed property to a valid contract of
Purpose of an action to remove cloud on title donation which is yet to be effectively revoked.
Such rightful claim does not constitute a cloud
It is intended to procure the cancellation, or on the supposed title of Edgardo over the same
delivery of, release of an instrument, property removable by an action to quiet title.
encumbrance, or claim constituting a claim on (Dolar v. Brgy. Lublub, G.R. No. 152663, November
plaintiff’s title, and which may be used to injure 18, 2005)
or vex him in the enjoyment of his title.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or
Action to quiet title v. Action to remove cloud equitable title to, or interest in the real
on title property which is the subject matter of the

action. He need not be in possession of said
property.

ACTION TO QUIET ACTION TO REMOVE Indispensable Requirement for Action To
Quiet Title
TITLE CLOUD ON TITLE

As to purpose For an action to quiet title or remove cloud on a
title to stand, the plaintiff must have legal or
To put an end to To procure the
equitable title to or interest in the subject real
vexatious litigation in cancellation; delivery; property. This requirement is indispensable, the
respect to the release of an absence of which is fatal to the action. (Pineda,
2009)
property involved. instrument,
encumbrance or claim,

which constitutes a

claim in plaintiff’s title, Legal title covers a situation when the owner is
and which may be used registered as the owner of the property.
Equitable title covers a situation when the
to injure or to vex him person has the beneficial ownership of the

in his enjoyment of his property. (Ibid.)
title.

As to nature of the action

Remedial in nature, Preventive in nature, Art. 478. There may also be an action to
quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom
involving a present to remove a cloud when the contract, instrument or other
obligation has been extinguished or has
adverse claim. which may be used terminated or has been barred by extinctive
for future actions.

As to nature of claims

217

Property

prescription. must demolish the same to forestall the
possibility of causing death or harm to anyone,
PRESCRIPTION OR or injury to property. (Pineda, 2009)
NON-PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION
Art. 483. Whenever a large tree threatens to
Prescriptive periods for bringing an action to fall in such a way as to cause damage to the
quiet title land or tenement of another or to travelers
over a public or private road, the owner of
1. Plaintiff in possession – Imprescriptible; or the tree shall be obliged to fell and remove
2. Plaintiff not in possession – it; and should he not do so, it shall be done
at his expense by order of the
a. 10 years (ordinary) or administrative authorities.
b. 30 years (extra-ordinary).
CO - OWNERSHIP
Imprescriptibility of action to quiet title
Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever
It is imprescriptible if plaintiff is in possession. If the ownership of an undivided thing or
not, it prescribes within period for filing accion right belongs to different persons.
publiciana or accion reinvidicatoria. In default of contracts, or of special
provisions, co-ownership shall be governed
Laches by the provisions of this Title.

It is the failure or neglect, for unreasonable and There is co-ownership whenever the ownership
unexplained length of time, to do that which by of an undivided thing or right belongs to
exercising due diligence, could or should have different persons. (NCC, Art. 484) It is the right of
been done earlier. common dominion which two or more persons
have in a spiritual (or ideal) part of the thing
The negligence or omission to assert a right which is not physically divided.
within a reasonable time, warranting a
presumption that the party entitled to assert it CHARACTERISTICS OF
either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. CO-OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
(Tijam v Sibonghanoy, G.R. No. L-21450, April 15,
1968) 1. Plurality of subjects or owners;
2. There is no mutual representation by the co-
An action filed within the period of limitations
may still be barred by laches. (NCC, Articles owners;
1431, 1433 and 1437) 3. It exists for the common enjoyment of the

RUINOUS BUILDINGS AND TREES IN DANGER co-owners;
OF FALLING 4. There is a single object which is not

Art. 482. If a building, wall, column, or any materially divided;
other construction is in danger of falling, 5. It has no distinct legal personality; and
the owner shall be obliged to demolish it or 6. It is governed first of all by the contract of
to execute the necessary work in order to
prevent it from falling. the parties; otherwise, by special legal
provisions, and in default of such provisions,
If the proprietor does not comply with this by the provisions of Title III of the New Civil
obligation, the administrative authorities Code on co-ownership.
may order the demolition of the structure at
the expense of the owner, or take measures Legal effect of co-ownership
to insure public safety.
Co-ownership creates rights in favor of each one
If a building, wall, column or any other of the co-owners with respect to the property
construction is in danger of falling, the owner owned in common.

The rights of a co-owner can be viewed in two
senses:
1. His right over the thing owned in common is

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 218
2021 GOLDEN NOTES

Civil Law

limited by the other co- owner’s the others for the
concomitant rights; or
2. His right over his ideal share or his purpose of
undivided interest over the same property; prescription.
the individual co-owner has absolute control
and ownership over his ideal share. Prescription

Prescription will Prescription will not
continue to run run among them.
among co-owners.
Requisites of co-ownership (PUS)

1. Plurality of owners; Co-ownership vs. Partnership
2. Unity of object, which is an undivided thing
CO-OWNERSHIP ORDINARY
or right; and
3. Each co-owner’s right must be limited only PARTNERSHIP

to his ideal Share of the physical whole. No legal personality Has legal

personality.

NOTE: By the very nature of co-ownership, a co- Can be created Can be created only or i
owner cannot point to any specific portion of the without the by contract, express
property owned in common as his own because
his share remains intangible and ideal. (Spouses formalities of a
Avila et al v. Spouses Barabat, GR. No. 141993,
May 17, 2006) contract

By contract or by By contract only.
will.
No term limit is set
Agreement to exist by law.

Rules to govern in co-ownership for more than 10 There is mutual
representation.
years is void. Dissolved by death
or incapacity of a
1. Contracts; No mutual partner.
2. Special provision of law; and representation. A partner cannot be
3. Provisions of the civil code. substituted without
Not dissolved by the the consent of the
others.
death/incapacity of

Co-ownership vs. Joint tenancy a co- owner.

A co-owner can
dispose of his share
CO-OWNERSHIP JOINT OWNERSHIP
w/o the consent of
Tenancy in Joint Tenancy
the others hence in a
common way a co- owner is

As to the extent of ownership substituted.

Each co-owner is the Each joint owner Profits of a co-owner Profits may be
owner of his own owns the whole
depend on his stipulated upon;
ideal share. thing. proportionate share. (e.g., profit-

As to disposition sharing agreements).

Each co-owner may Joint owner may not For collective For profit.
dispose of his dispose of his own
undivided share share without the enjoyment.
without the other co- consent of all the
owners’ consent. rest, because he No public May be made in any
really has no ideal instrument is form except when
share. real property is
needed even if the contributed.

object of the co-
ownership is an
As to transfer of shares in case of death
immovable.
Upon the death of a Upon the death of a
co- owner, his ideal joint owner, his Alienation of property co-owned
share goes to his share goes to the
heirs. other joint owners When a co-owner sells the whole property as
by accretion. his, the sale will affect only his own share but
not those of the other co-owners’ who did not
As to minority or legal disability consent to the sale.

In case of a minor The legal disability A sale of the entire property by one co-owner
who is a co-owner, of one joint owner
this does not benefit benefits the others.

219

Property

without the consent of the other co-owners is be void. (NCC, Art. 485, par. 1) Consequently, in
not null and void but affects only his undivided order to determine the share of the co-owners in
share and the transferee gets only what would the benefits and charges, we must first
correspond to his grantor in the partition of the determine their respective interests in the co-
thing owned in common. (Paulmitan v. CA, G.R. ownership.
No. 51584, November 25, 1992)
Interests are presumed equal, unless the
Q: Is there such a thing as perpetual co- contrary is proved. (NCC, Art. 485, par. 2)
ownership?
SOURCES OF CO-OWNERSHIP (LOST-C²)
A: NO. Any of the co-owners may demand
partition any time. 1. Law – e.g. Easement of party walls (NCC, Art.
658); co-ownership between a man and a
No co-owner ought to be compelled to stay in a woman capacitated to marry each other (Art.
co- ownership indefinitely. He may insist the 147, FC); between a man and a woman not
partition of the property any time. Such action to capacitated to marry each other (Art. 148,
demand for partition does not prescribe. FC);
(Patricio v. Dario, G.R. No. 170829, November 20,
2006) 2. Occupancy – e.g. When two persons gather
forest products or catch a wild animal;
A co-owner has a right to freely sell or dispose
his undivided share of interest but has no right 3. Succession – e.g. Heirs of undivided property
to sell a divided or definite part of a real estate before partition;
owned in common. (Lopez v. Illustre,G.R. No.
2426, January 24, 1906; Torres vs. Lapinid, G.R. 4. Testamentary (or mortis causa) / Donation
No. 187987, November 26, 2014) inter vivos – e.g. Where the donor prohibits
partition of the property for a certain period
In a property co-owned by the compulsory heirs, of time;
any act tantamount to partition such as
identifying their shares and constructing their 5. Contract; or
respective houses automatically terminates co- 6. By Chance or fortuitous event – e.g. Hidden
ownership. (Avila v. Sps. Arabat, G.R. No.141993,
March 17, 2006) treasure

Duration of the co-ownership (2000, 2002, NOTE: One who is merely related by affinity to
2008 BAR) the decedent does not become a co-owner of the
latter’s property
An agreement to keep the thing undivided for a
certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, Q: Hilaria Bagayas, an adoptive child, filed a
shall be valid. This term may be extended by a complaint against her siblings who excluded
new agreement. her from inheriting from the estate of their
parents. She asked to include her as a
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a registered owner to the extent of one-third of
period which shall not exceed twenty years (in the lands covered therein; citing Section 108
relation to NCC, Art. 1083). of PD No. 1529 or the “Property Registration
Decree”. In an earlier complaint, she asked
Neither shall there be any partition when it is for the annulment of a Deed of Absolute Sale
prohibited by law. (NCC, Art. 494) in favor of her brothers wherein the RTC
found otherwise. They found that the lands
Share of the co-owners in the benefits and where transferred to the brothers by the
charges arising from the co-ownership father’s execution of the deed of sale before
he died. Is the dismissal of the earlier
The share of the co-owners in the benefits and complaint on the ground that it is in the
charges arising from the co-ownership shall be nature of a collateral attack on the
proportional to their respective interests and certificates of title constitutes a bar to a
any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall subsequent petition under Section 108 of PD
No 1529?

A: It does not. Section 108 of PD No. 1529 is
used only for contemplating corrections or

UNIVERSITY OF SANTO TOMAS 220
2021 GOLDEN NOTES