Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art.
561) 1
Title V. - POSSESSION
CHAPTER 1
POSSESSION AND THE KINDS
THEREOF
Possession is NOT ownership.
Art. 523. Possession is the holding of a
thing or the enjoyment of a right. (430a)
Both Fact (because it exists) and
Right (From the moment it exists, it
becomes a right.)
RIGHT TO POSSESSION (Jus Possidendi)
– incident to ownership. (I own a house, I
have the right to possess it.
RIGHT OF POSSESSION (Jus
possessionis) – Independent from
ownership (ex: possession by virtue of
lease agreement
Degrees of Possession:
1. MERE HOLDING W/O ANY
RIGHT (Ex: possession by a
thief)
2. possession WITH JURIDICAL
TITLE or juridical possession (Ex
Possession that of a lessee)
3. POSSESSION WITH JUST
TITLE or real possessory right
(Ex: A (in GF) bought from
B(Thief) a bag owned by C)
4. POSSESSION WITH A TITLE
OF DOMINIUM or ownership (Ex:
A bought from B(true owner) a
car)
Requisites of possession:
1. Holding or control of the thing,
which may be actual (He is in
control of the car) or constructive
(he actually possess only ¼ of
the land but considered as
constructively possessing the
whole 5has land).
2015
2. Deliberate intent to possess
(animus possidendi)
3. Possession by virtue of one’s
own right (because he is the
owner, or a right derived from the
owner, i.e. lessee)
Classes of Possession:
1. NAME (Art 524)
a. In one’s own name;
b. In that of another.
2. CONCEPT [Art 525]
a. Owner (En Concepto de
dueno)
b. Holder
3. How
a. Good Faith
b. Bad Faith
Art. 524. Possession may be exercised
in one's own name or in that of another.
(413a)
I possess my land. .: I am in
possession in one’s own name.
How about an AGENT? The agent
(name in that of another) is not truly in
possession. It is the owner who possesses
through the agent.
Possession in another’s name:
1. Voluntary – Possession by agent
by virtue of an agreement
2. Necessary – Mother possesses a
thing for his unborn child.
3. Unauthorized – like in
Negotiorum Gestio
If a tenant is ousted by an intruder, who can
bring an action? Both Owner and tenant.
In ejectment cases that the
only issue to be resolved therein is
who is entitled to the physical or
material possession of the premises,
or possession de facto, independent
of any claim of ownership that either

party may set forth in their pleadings.
If petitioner can prove prior
possession in himself, he may
recover such possession from even
the owner himself . Whatever may
be the character of his prior
possession, if he has in is favor
priority of time, he has the security
that entitles him to stay on the
property until he is lawfully ejected
by a person having a better right by
either accion publiciana or accion
reindivicatoria.
De Luna was able to prove
prior possession over the property.
(De Luna vs CA, 1992)
Art. 525. The possession of things or
rights may be had in one of two
concepts: either in the concept of
owner, or in that of the holder of the
thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the
ownership pertaining to another
person. (432)
In the concept of an owner is the
possession that may ripen into ownership.
One who claims to be and acts as if he is
the owner, whether in GF or BF.
In the concept of a holder is the
possession that will NEVER RIPEN INTO
OWNERSHIP.
Ex:
1. Tenant
2. Usufructuary
3. Depositary
4. Bailee in commodatum
BUT: with regard to the thing itself,
they are in the possession in the
concept of a holder. With regard to
the respective rights, they are in
the concept of owner.
Ex: U (usufructuary) possesses the
land of O (owner) by virtue of a
usufruct agreement. The land is
possessed by U in the concept of a
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 2
2015
holder, but with regard to the right
to use and right to the fruits, U is in
the concept of an owner.
Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in
good faith who is not aware that there
exists in his title or mode of acquisition
any flaw which invalidates it.
He is deemed a possessor in bad
faith who possesses in any case
contrary to the foregoing.
Mistake upon a doubtful or
difficult question of law may be the
basis of good faith. (433a)
This article can only be applied if there is a
flaw.
Bad Faith is Personal. Just because
a person is in bad faith does not necessarily
mean that his successors-in-interest are
also in bad faith. As a matter of fact, a child
or heir may even be presumed in good
faith, notwithstanding the father’s bad faith.
(Sotto v. Enage, [CA] 43 O.G. 5057)
Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question
of law (provided that such ignorance is not
gross and therefore inexcusable) may be
the basis of good faith. (Kasilag v.
Rodriguez, 69 Phil. 217)
Art. 527. Good faith is always presumed,
and upon him who alleges bad faith on
the part of a possessor rests the burden
of proof. (434)
If no evidence is presented proving bad
faith, the presumption of good faith
remains. (Sideco v. Pascua, 13 Phil. 342).
Art. 528. Possession acquired in good
faith does not lose this character except
in the case and from the moment facts
exist which show that the possessor is
not unaware that he possesses the thing
improperly or wrongfully. (435a)

Possession in Good Faith is Converted to
Possession in Bad Faith
(a.) From the moment facts exist
showing the possessor’s knowledge
of the fl aw, from that time should he
be considered a possessor in bad
faith. (Art. 528).
(b.) It does not matter whether the
“facts” were caused by him or by
some other person.
When a contract of sale is void, the
possessor is entitled to keep the fruits
during the period for which it held the
property in good faith, which good faith of
the possessor ceases when an action to
recover possession of the property is filed
against him and he is served summons
therefor. (Development Bank of the Phils. v.
Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 650 (1999))
Art. 529. It is presumed that possession
continues to be enjoyed in the same
character in which it was acquired, until
the contrary is proved. (436)
Presumption on the CONTINUITY
OF CHARACTER OF POSSESSION
whether in good faith or bad faith — “It is
presumed that possession continues to be
enjoyed in the same character in which it
was acquired, until the contrary is proved.’’
Other presumptions:
Art. 527 Good Faith
Art. 529 Continuity of Character of
Possession
Art. 533 Non Interruption of possession
Art. 541 Just title
Art. 561 Non interruption of possession of
property unjustly lost but legally
recovered
Art. POSSESSION DURING
1138[2] INTERVENING PERIOD — “It is
presumed, that the present
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 3
2015
possessor who was also the
possessor at previous time, has
continued to be in possession
during the intervening time,
unless there is proof to the
contrary.”
Art. 542 Possession of movables with real
property
Art. 543 Exclusive possession of common
property
Art. 530. Only things and rights which
are susceptible of being appropriated
may be the object of possession. (437)
Only those things and rights which
are susceptible of being appropriated
(PROPERTY).
The following cannot be appropriated
and hence cannot be possessed: property
of public dominion, res communes,
easements (if discontinuous or non-
apparent), things specifically prohibited by
law.
CHAPTER 2
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION
HOW POSSESSION IS ACQUIRED
Art. 531. Possession is acquired by the
material occupation of a thing or the
exercise of a right, or by the fact that it
is subject to the action of our will, or by
the proper acts and legal formalities
established for acquiring such right.
(438a)
Ways of acquiring possession
 To be considered in possession, one
need not have actual or physical
occupation of a thing all times. There
are three ways of acquiring possession,
namely:

1. By the material occupation
(detention) or exercise of a right
(quasi-possession);
2. By the subjection of the thing or
right to our will (does not require
physical detention); and
3. By proper acts and legal
formalities established for
acquiring such right of
possession or CONSTRUCTIVE
POSSESSION (ex: donation,
succession, execution of public
instruments, possession by a sheriff
by virtue of court order).
 The modes of acquiring ownership can
be seen in Article 712.
Material occupation or exercise of right
1. With respect to things – the law requires
material occupation as one of the
modes of acquiring possession.
2. With respect to rights – since rights are
intangible and cannot logically be
occupied, what is acquired is the
exercise of a right. For example,
possession of a servitude of way, which
is a right, is acquired by the exercise of
the right (by passing over the servient
land)
Material occupation by delivery
 The material occupation of a thing as a
means of acquiring possession may
take place by actual or constructive
delivery. Constructive delivery includes:
1. Tradicion brevi manu which takes
place when one already in
possession of a thing by a title other
than ownership continues to possess
the same under a new title, that of
ownership.
2. Tradicion constitutum possessorium
which happens when the owner
continues in possession of the
property alienated not as owner but
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 4
2015
in some other capacity, such as that
of lessee, pledgee, or depositary.
Subject of the action of will
 The second method of acquisition is so
broad in scope that it practically covers
all means of acquiring possession.
 What the law contemplates is a distinct
cause of acquiring possession and not
merely an effect.
 It refers more to the right of possession
than to possession as a fact.
 Examples of which are these kinds of
constructive delivery:
1. Tradicion longa manu, which is
effected by the mere consent or
agreement of the parties, as when
the vendor merely points to the thing
sold
2. Tradicion simbolica, which is
effected by delivering an object such
as a key where the thing sold is
stored or kept
Proper acts and legal formalities
 This last method of acquiring
possession refers to acquisition by
virtue of a just title such as when
property is transmitted by succession,
donation, contract, or execution of a
public instrument, or when possession is
given by the sheriff to the highest bidder
at a public auction, or pursuant to a writ
of execution.
 Unless there is a stipulation to the
contrary, the execution of a sale thru a
public instrument shall be equivalent to
the delivery of the thing. But there is no
delivery notwithstanding the execution
of the instrument, where the purchaser
cannot have the enjoyment and make
use of the thing sold because such
enjoyment and use are opposed or
prevented by another.
 Under Article 538, possession as a fact
cannot be recognized at the same time
 Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 5
2015

in two different personalities except in Pajuyos absence did not affect his
the cases of co-possession actual possession of the disputed
 A sale with pacto de retro transfers the property. Possession in the eyes of the
legal title to the vendee, and in the law does not mean that a man has to
absence of an agreement to the have his feet on every square meter of
contrary, carries with it the right to the the ground before he is deemed in
possession of the property sold. possession. One may acquire
possession not only by physical
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR occupation, but also by the fact that a
POSSESSION thing is subject to the action of ones will.
1. The corpus or the thing physically Actual or physical occupation is not
detained; always necessary. (Pajuyo vs CA)
2. The animus or intent to posses
whether evidences expressly or 1. Rizal - Registration
impliedly Cement - Applicant presented
Co. v. witnesses
Case doctrines Villareal - Opposition presented tax
Possession alone is not sufficient to declaration
acquire title to alienable lands of the - Whether applicant in
public domain because the law requires actual possession? YES
possession AND occupation. - Credence to the
Possession is broader than testimony of the
occupation because it includes witnesses
constructive possession. When the law - Right to possess flows
adds the word occupation, it seeks to from ownership
delimit the all encompassing effect of - Possession acquired by
constructive possession. One’s material occupation of
possession must not be a mere fiction. the thing
Acutla possession of a land consists in - Tax dec, survey plan are
the manifestation of acts of dominion not enough to prove
over it of such a nature as a party would possession
naturally exercise over his own property. 2. Wong - Deed of sale
(Ong v Republic) v. Carpio - Planted
- Did not constituted house
Possession cannot be acquired thereon
through force or violence. To all intents - Knew there where
and purposes, a possessor, even if laborers there, happy
physically ousted, is still deemed the there were people
legal possessor. (Cequena v Bolante) - Wong went to the land
Pajuyo and Guevarra were and tried to register it
squatters, hence in pari delicto. (also built a house and
However the application of the pari fenced)
delicto rule is not available in cases of - Mercado went to the land
forcible entry and unlawful detainer as it to make copras, brought
will violate the established rule on public attention of the police
policy. - Filed forcible entry

- Whether Mercado
established prior
possession? YES
Wong liable to pay rent?
YES; summons
extinguishes GF
- Possession acquired by
material occupation
- Clear that seller passed
title to buyer
- Actual, longer, with title,
judicial determination
3. - After partition, they
Somodio immediately took
v. CA possession
- Somodio planted ipil-ipil,
coconut
- Allowed Ayco to enter
premises and
constructed nipa hut
- Time came, he wanted to
remove Ayco
- Forcible entry was filed
- Whether Somodio had
prior possession? YES
- Ejectment cases, only
issue is who is entitled to
possession
- True regardless of
character of possession
- Constructive possession
(not every square meter)
Art. 532. Possession may be acquired by
the same person who is to enjoy it, by
his legal representative, by his agent, or
by any person without any power
whatever: but in the last case, the
possession shall not be considered as
acquired until the person in whose name
the act of possession was executed has
ratified the same, without prejudice to
the juridical consequences of
negotiorum gestio in a proper case.
(439a)
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 6
2015
By whom possession acquired
 Possession may be acquired:
1. Personally or by the same person
who is to enjoy it; There must be:
a. Intent to possess
b. Capacity to possess
c. Object must be capable of being
possessed
2. Thru an authorized person or by his
legal representative or by his agent,
and
a. intent to possess for principal (not
for agent)
b. authority or capacity to possess
(for another)
c. principal has intent and capacity
to possess
3. Thru an unauthorized person or by
any person without any power or
authority whatever.
a. intent to possess for another (the
“principal)
b. capacity of “principal” to possess
c. ratification by “principal” (The
possession although cured only
by the express or implied
ratification should be regarded as
having a RETROACTIVE effect.)
Acquisition of possession through another
 Possession acquired by a person
personally or thru another may be
exercised by him in his own name or in
that of another. But minors and other
incapacitated persons need the
assistance of their legal representatives
to exercise the rights arising from
possession.
 If a person authorized to acquired
possession for another acted beyond his
powers, the principal is not bound
unless the latter ratifies the act of
acquisition.
 The exception is when a person
voluntarily manages the property or
business of another. In such case, the

stranger’s (gestor’s) possession takes
effect even without ratification by the
owner of the property or business.
Art. 533. The possession of hereditary
property is deemed transmitted to the
heir* without interruption and from the
moment of the death of the decedent, in
case the inheritance is accepted.
One who validly renounces an
inheritance is deemed never to have
possessed the same. (440)
*of possessor
Acquisition of possession through
succession
 The rights to the succession are
transmitted from the moment of the
death of the decedent.
 From that moment, each of his heirs
becomes the undivided owner of the
whole estate left with respect to that
portion which might be adjudicated to
him.
 The inheritance may be accepted or
repudiated.
- In case the inheritance is
accepted, the possession of the
hereditary property is deemed
transmitted by operation of law to the
heir without interruption and from the
moment of death of the decedent.
- In case inheritance is validly
renounced, the heir is deemed
never to have possessed the same.
 There is no doubt that an heir can sell
whatever right, interest or participation
he may have in the property under
administration, subject to the result of
said administration.
Art. 534. On who succeeds by hereditary
title shall not suffer the consequences of
the wrongful possession of the
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 7
2015
decedent, if it is not shown that he was
aware of the flaws affecting it; but the
effects of possession in good faith shall
not benefit him except from the date of
the death of the decedent. (442)
Applicable only when decedent is in bad
faith.
Effects of bad faith of decedent on heir
 If the decedent was in bad faith, the heir
shall not suffer the consequences of the
wrongful possession of the latter
because bad faith is personal to the
decedent and is not deemed transmitted
to the heirs.
 The heir suffers the consequences of
such possession only from the moment
he becomes aware of the flaws affecting
the decedent’s title.
 Successor cannot acquire by
succession, but may acquire it through
acquisitive prescription.
Case doctrine
A possessor in bad faith should not
prejudice his successors-in-interest. Bad
faith is personal and intransmissible.
(Escritor vs IAC)
Art. 535. Minors and incapacitated
persons may acquire the possession of
things; but they need the assistance of
their legal representatives in order to
exercise the rights which from the
possession arise in their favor. (443)
Acquisition and exercise of rights of
possession by minors and incapacitated
persons
 The persons referred to in the provision
are unemancipated minors and other
persons who have no capacity to act like
spendthrifts, deaf-mutes who cannot
read and write, those under civil
interdiction, etc.

 Things here are limited to corporeal
things only.
 This article refers principally but not
exclusively to material occupation.
 Incapacitated persons may acquire
property or rights by prescription either
personally or through their parents,
guardians or legal reps. Once
possession of a thing is acquired by
such persons, there is born the right of
possession. In the exercise of this right,
they need the assistance of their legal
reps.
Juridical Capacity Capacity to Act
Fitness to be the Power to do acts
subject of legal with legal effects
relation
Minors have juridical Minors do not have
Capacity capacity to act (Ex:
Court action)
Art. 536. In no case may possession be
acquired through force or intimidation
as long as there is a possessor who
objects thereto. He who believes that he
has an action or a right to deprive
another of the holding of a thing, must
invoke the aid of the competent court, if
the holder should refuse to deliver the
thing. (441a)
Objection is manifested through filing
of a forcible entry case.
Example:
P was in the possession of a land. F
removed P through FISTS. Did F possess
the land?
a. If P objected by filing of a
Forcible entry case, then F did
not acquire possession.
b. If P did not file a F/E case within
1 year, Y possesses it in fact.
Recourse to the courts
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 8
2015
 Every possessor has a right to be
respected in his possession. The lawful
possessor may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or
prevent invasion or usurpation of his
property.
 This article applies to one who believes
himself the owner of real property. If he
takes justice into his own hands, he is a
mere intruder; and he can be compelled
to return the property in an action for
forcible entry and must suffer the
necessary and natural consequences of
his lawlessness.
 A party who can prove prior possession,
whatever may be the character of the
possession, has the security that entitles
him to recover such possession or to
remain on the property even against the
owner himself until he is lawfully ejected
by accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria.
Art. 537. Acts merely tolerated, and
those executed clandestinely and
without the knowledge of the possessor
of a thing, or by violence, do not affect
possession. (444)
Acts which DO NOT give rise to possession
 The acts mentioned do not affect
possession, i.e. the person in
possession does not lose the same nor
does the person who results to them
acquire it. In other words, the true
possessor is deemed to have enjoyed
uninterrupted possession.
o Force or intimidation (FISTS) –
as long as there is a possessor
who objects thereto, such as by
suit of forcible entry. The rule
does not apply if the possessor
makes no objection, withdraws
his objection or takes no action
whatsoever after initially objecting
to the deprivation.

o Acts executed clandestinely
and without the knowledge of
the possessor –Clandestine
possession is secret possession,
or possession by stealth. For
clandestine possession to affect
the owner’s possession, the
possession must also be
unknown to the owner. If it is
secret to many, but known to the
owner, his possession is affected.
o Acts merely tolerated – which
do not refer to all kinds of
tolerance on the part of the owner
or possessor in view of the use of
the word ‘merely’; it means
permission, express or tacit, by
virtue of which the acts of
possession are performed.
Hence, it is simply a question of
whether permission was given or
not.
 Possession of another by mere
tolerance is not adverse and no matter
how long continued, cannot ripen to
ownership by prescription (Heirs of
Gamos vs Heirs of Frando)
 The mere silence or failure to take any
action will not be construed as
abandonment of rights on the part of the
real possessor. It is, of course, for the
courts to decide whether there has been
an abandonment or not.
 Possession by tolerance is lawful but
becomes illegal when, upon demand to
vacate by the legal owner, the
possessor refuses to comply with such
demand.
“Acts ... do not affect possession”
means
(a) The intruder does not acquire any
right to possession (NO LEGAL
POSSESSION).
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 9
2015
(b) The legal possessor, even if
physically ousted, is still the possessor
and therefore —
1) still entitled to the benefits of
prescription;
2) still entitled to the fruits;
3) still entitled as possessor for all
purposes favorable to his possession.
(Ayala de Roxas v. Maglonso, 8 Phil.
745).
(c) The intruder cannot acquire the
property by prescription. (Ayala de
Roxas v. Maglonso; Cuaycong v.
Benedicto, 37 Phil. 781).
POSSESSION IN FACT
Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be
recognized at the same time in two
different personalities except in the
cases of co-possession. Should a
question arise regarding the fact of
possession, the present possessor shall
be preferred; if there are two
possessors, the one longer in
possession; if the dates of the
possession are the same, the one who
presents a title; and if all these
conditions are equal, the thing shall be
placed in judicial deposit pending
determination of its possession or
ownership through proper proceedings.
(445)
Possession as a fact at the same time in
two different personsalities
 The word “personalities” is not
synonymous to “persons.” For example,
in co-ownership, there are two or more
persons, but there is only one
personality.
 Possession as a fact may exist at the
same time in two or more distinct
personalities, but as a general rule, the
law will recognize only one as the actual
or real possessor.

 The exception is provided in the cases
of co-possession, such as co-
ownership, where the property is
possessed at the same time in common
by the co-owners also; and possession
where the property is possessed at the
same time by two persons, one in the
concept of owner and the other, in the
concept of holder.
 In co-possession, there is no conflict of
interests of claims among the parties.
Preference of possession
 Article 538 applies whether the property
is real or personal. In case a dispute
arises regarding the fact of possession,
the order of preference is as follows:
1. The present or actual possessor
shall be preferred
2. If there are two possessors, the
longer in possession;
3. If the dates of possession are the
same, the possessor with a title; i.e.
right or document evidencing his
right to support his possession; and
4. If all the above are equal, the fact of
possession shall be judicially
determined, and in the meantime,
the thing shall be placed in judicial
deposit.
Rules or Criteria to be Used in Case of
Conflict or Dispute Regarding Possession
(BAR)
(a) present possessor shall be
preferred
(b) if both are present, the one
longer in possession
(c) if both began to possess at the
same time, the one who present (or
has) a title
(d) if both present a title, the Court
will determine. (Meantime, the thing
shall be judicially deposited.)
CHAPTER 3
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 10
2015
EFFECTS OF POSSESSION
Art 539 Every possessor has a right to
be respected in his possession and
should he be disturbed therein he shall
be protected in or restored to said
possession by the means established by
the laws and the Rules of Court.
A possessor deprived of his
possession through forcible entry may
within ten days from the filing of the
complaint present a motion to secure
from the competent court, in the action
for forcible entry, a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore him in
his possession. The court shall decide
the motion within thirty days from the
filing thereof.
Rights of every possessor
Every possessor, whether in the concept of
owner of in the concept of holder, is given
the following rights:
1. Right to be respected in his possession;
2. Right to be protected in or restored to
said possession by legal means should
he be disturbed therein; and
3. Right to secure from a competent court
in an action for forcible entry the proper
writ to restore him in his possession (Art
428)
 The mere possession of a thing is
sufficient to insure respect to the
possessor while no other person
appears to show and prove a better
right.
 To all intents and purposes, a possessor
even if physically ousted as through
force and violence, is still deemed the
legal possessor.
The fact, however, that a person was never
in prior physical possession of a land is of
no moment where he has a Torrens Title
over the property as prior physical

possession is necessary only in forcible
entry cases.
Reasons for protection
1. To aid criminal law (by preserving the
peace. Order is best secured by
protecting a possessor and leaving the
true owner to seek his remedy in a court
of law)
2. As part of the law of tort (these rights of
action are given in respect of the
immediate and present violation of the
rights of the possessor independently of
his rights of property)
3. As part of the law of property (law does
not always known that the possession in
question is unlawful. It would be unjust
to cast on every man whose possession
is disturbed the burden of proving a
flawless title)
Remedies of persons deprived of
possession (see discussions in Art 428)
1. forcible entry or unlawful detainer
2. accion publiciana
3. accion reivindicatoria
4. replevin or manual delivery of personal
property
 In forcible entry and unlawful detainer
cases, subject to some exceptions, the
immediate execution of the judgment in
favor of the plaintiff is a matter of right
and mandatory.
 Considering that the only issue in
ejectment is that of rightful possession,
damages that could be recovered are
those which the plaintiff could have
sustained as a mere possessor, or
those caused by the loss of the use and
occupation of the property, and not the
damages which he may have suffered
but which have no direct relation to his
loss of material possession.
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 11
2015
Issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction
 In forcible entry actions, the plaintiff
must present within ten days from the
filing of the complaint a motion to secure
from the competent court, a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction to
restore him in his possession
 In unlawful detainer cases where an
appeal is taken, the motion shall be filed
within ten days from the time the appeal
is perfected, if the high court is satisfied
that the lessee’s appeal is frivolous or
dilatory, or the lessor’s appeal is prima
facie meritorious.
 In an appeal from a lower court in an
ejectment case, the issue of ownership
should not be delved into, for an
ejectment action lies even against the
owner of a property.
Prior peaceful possession of plaintiff
required in forcible entry action
 Where a dispute over possession arises
between two persons, the person first
having actual possession, as between
them, is the one who is entitled to
maintain the action for forcible entry.
 The main issue is possession de facto,
independently of any claim of ownership
or possession de jure that either party
may set forth in his pleadings, and an
appeal does not operate to change the
nature of the original action
 Even a mere applicant of public land
who is in occupation and in peaceful
possession thereof can file an action for
forcible entry
 Question of ownership is unessential
and should be raised by the defendant
in an appropriate action
o Judgment rendered in an action
for forcible entry shall not bar an
action between the same parties
respecting the title to the land or
building

o The court has competence to
resolve the issue of ownership
but only to determine the issue of
priority of possession, as its
decision does not bind the title or
affect the ownership of the
property involved (any
pronouncement on ownership is
provisional)
 The purpose of the law is to protect the
person who has actual possession
 The plaintiff in an action for forcible
entry and detainer cannot succeed
when it appears that, as between
himself and the defendant, the latter had
possession antedating his own; and to
ascertain this, it is proper to look on to
the situation as it existed before the first
act of spoliation occurred
 Legal right of prior possessor is not an
issue
o If the plaintiff can prove prior
possession, he may recover
possession even against the
owner himself.
o If he can’t prove prior
possession, he has no right of
action even if he should be the
owner himself.
 In case of controverted right, the law
requires the parties to preserve the
status quo until one or the other of them
sees fit to invoke the decision of a court
upon the question of possession and/or
possession
 A forcible entry or unlawful detainer is
not suspended, abated, barred or
affected by actions filed in the RTC
which do not involve physical or de facto
possession
Conditions under which action for forcible
entry will lie
 Wrongful entrance by one not in
possession
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 12
2015
o The trespasser does not have to
institute a state of war. The act of
going on the property and
excluding the lawful possessor
therefrom necessarily implies the
exertion of force over the
property, and this is all that is
necessary. Under the law,
entering upon the premises by
strategy or stealth is equally as
obnoxious as entering by force.
o The words “by force, intimidation,
threat, etc” include every situation
or condition under which one
person can wrongfully enter upon
real property to exclude another,
who has prior possession
therefrom. (Banes case)
 Wrongful exclusion of prior possessor
o The foundation of the action is
really the forcible exclusion of the
original possessor by a person
who has entered without right.
Possession that ripens to ownership
Art 540 Only the possession acquired
and enjoyed in the concept of owner can
serve as a title for acquiring dominion.
Possession as basis for acquiring
ownership
Possession acquired and enjoyed in the
concept of owner may ripen into ownership
by means of prescription.
1. As holder
 Cannot be the basis of prescription
 So with possession acquired through
force or intimidation (Art 536), merely
tolerated or which is not public and is
unknown to the present possessor
(Art 537)
2. As equitable mortgage
 Constructive possession over the
land cannot ripen into ownership as
it cannot be said to have been

acquired and enjoyed in the concept
of owner
3. As claimant under a possessory
information title (meh)
4. As claimant under a certificate of title
 Mere possession cannot defeat the
title of a holder of a registered
Torrens title to real property
 But the true owner of the property
may be defeated by an innocent
purchaser for value notwithstanding
the fraud employed by the seller
(forger) in securing his title
 Generally, a forged deed is a nullity
and conveys no title. However, there
are instances when such a
document may become the root of a
valid title. As when the certificate of
title was already transferred from the
name of the true owner to the forger,
and while it remained that way, the
land was subsequently sold to an
innocent purchaser for value (land
titles!)
5. As possessor of forest land (not
possible!)
 Mere tax declarations of ownership do
not vest or prove ownership of the
property in the declarant nor are even
sufficient to sustain a claim for
possession over a land, in the absence
of actual possession of the same.
 They are merely an indicum of a claim
of ownership
 Nevertheless, they are good indicia of
possession in the concept of owner
 Payment of realty tax coupled with
actual possession in the concept of
owner is one of the most persuasive and
positive indicia, which shows the will or
desire of a person to possess with claim
of ownership or to obtain title to the land
or property
Case doctrines
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 13
2015
In order than an action for recovery
of possession may prosper, it is
indispensable that he who brings the
action fully proves not only his
ownership but also the identity of the
property claimed, by describing the
location, area and boundaries thereof.
Insufficient identification of the portion of
land claimed in absolute ownership
cannot ripen into ownership. (Serina v
Caballero)
The notice of adverse claim did not
interrupt the running of prescriptive
period. A notice of adverse claim is
merely a notice. There must be a civil
interruption, that is receipt of judicial
summon. The open, continuous,
exclusive and notorious possession by
respondents of the subject property for a
period of more than 30 years in
repudiation of petitioners’ ownership had
been established. During such length of
time, respondents had exercised acts of
dominion over the subject property, and
paid taxes in their name. Jurisprudence
is clear that although tax declarations or
realty tax payments of property are not
conclusive evidence of ownership,
nevertheless, they are good indicia of
possession in the concept of owner for
no one in his right mind would be paying
taxes for a property that is not in his
actual or at least constructive
possession. They constitute at least
proof that the holder has a claim of title
over the property. As is well known, the
payment of taxes coupled with actual
possession of the land covered by the
tax declaration strongly supports a claim
of ownership. (Heirs of Crisologo vs
Ranon)
Juliana Frando is deemed to have
acquired equitable title to the property,
because her heirs have adequately

proved her open, continuous, exclusive
and notorious possession and
occupation of alienable and disposable
land of the public domain. Her heirs
were in the concept of an owner as
shown by the fact that they have been
receiving the proceeds of the land and
other evidences. Juliana Frando’s
possession thus ripened into ownership,
even if the sales patent was said to be
denied, because she has been in
OCEAN possession of an alienable and
disposable agricultural public land for a
period of 30 years, the prescribed period
under CA 141.
The heirs of Gamos’s possession
was by mere tolerance, hence cannot
ripen into ownership. (Heirs of Gamos
vs Heirs of Frando)
Art 541 A possessor in the concept of
owner has in his favor the legal
presumption that he possesses with a
just title and he cannot be obliged to
show or prove it.
Possessor in concept of owner presumed
with just title
 Just title does not always mean a
document or a written instrument
 Title is that upon which ownership is
based
 Actual or constructive possession under
claim of ownership raises the disputable
presumption of ownership. In other
words, a possession is presumed
ownership until the contrary is shown.
 A possessor is presumed to have a just
title, and he cannot be obliged to show
or prove it.
o Reason? To protect the owner
from inconvenience, otherwise,
he will always have to carry his
titles under his arms to show
them to whoever who wants to
see it
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 14
2015
 NB: Presumption of just title does not
apply in acquisitive prescription.
Adverse possessor must prove his just
title.
Burden of proving just title
 The onus probandi is on the plaintiff who
seeks the recovery of property
 A person who is not, in fact, in
possession cannot acquire a
prescriptive right to a land by the mere
assertion of a right therein. Where the
possessor is really the owner, the fact
that a third person questions his right
does not impair said right.
 An owner and possessor whose title is
true and valid cannot be required to
show that his possession is or has been
adverse as against a new claimant who
has neither title nor possession.
What are the different kinds of title?
1. Titulo verdadero y valido or true and
valid
 This is the title presumed in this
provision
 Sufficient to transfer ownership
without need of possessing the
property for the period necessary for
acquiring title by prescription
2. Titulo justo or just title
 For the purposes of prescription,
there is just title…
o When the adverse claimant came
into possession of the property
through one of the modes
recognized by law for the
acquisition of ownership or other
real rights,
o but the grantor was not the owner
or could not transmit any right
 For prescription, just title must be
proved, it is never presumed.
 It must be remembered that the
burden of proving the status of a
purchaser in good faith lies upon him

who asserts that status. It is not
sufficient to invoke the ordinary
presumption of good faith, that is,
that everyone is presumed to have
acted in good faith, since the good
faith that is here essential is integral
with the very status that must be
established. (Aguirre v CA)
3. Titulo colorado or colorable title
 One which a person has when he
buys a thing in good faith, from one
who is not the owner but whom he
believes to be the owner
 The just title required for acquisitive
prescription is titulo Colorado
4. Titulo putativo or putative title
 One which a person believes he has
title but in fact he has not because
there was no mode of acquiring
ownership
 As when one is in possession of a
thing in the mistaken belief that it
had been bequeathed to him
What’s the difference between titulo
Colorado and titulo verdadero y valido? In
Colorado, there is a need for prescription to
transfer ownership. In true and valid title,
there is no need for prescription, ownership
is transferred once the mode of transfer has
been perfected. (Be it by sale, donation,
succession, etc).
Case doctrine
 In order that a co-owner’s possession
may be deemed adverse to the cestui
que trusti or the other co-owners, the
following elements must concur:
1. That he has perfomrmed
unequivocal acts of repudiation
amounting to an ouster of the
beneficiary or the other co-owners
2. That such positive acts of
repudiation have been made known
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 15
2015
to the beneficiary or the other co-
owners
3. That the evidence thereon must be
clear and convincing (Aguirre v CA)
The mere possession of a strip of
land for a period of 20 years is not
sufficient to acquire ownership by
acquisitive prescription. It must be
acquired in good faith and with just
title(Color of title), or for a period of 30
years without just title and whether or
not in good faith [Art. 1117]. Further, the
strip of land is acquired without just title
because there is no mode of transferring
title. (Titong vs CA)
Art 542 The possession of real property
presumes that of movables therein, so
long as it is not shown or proved that
they should be excluded.
Possession of real property presumed to
include movables
 Article 542 refers to material possession
only of real or personal things, not
rights
 It is normal that movables which are
found in an immovable belong to the
possessor of the latter
 If the building is occupied by the lessee,
we can suppose the same with respect
to him because in this case, the
possessor is the lessee
 Again, this is a mere presumption.
Art. 542 is applicable even if Possession is:
a. in the concept of owner or of
holder
b. in one’s own name or in another’s
c. in good faith or in bad faith
Art 543 Each one of the participants of a
thing possessed in common shall be
deemed to have exclusively possessed
 Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 16
2015

the part which may be allotted to him years, for he is deemed to have possessed
upon the division thereof, for the entire his portion exclusively and continuously for
period during which the co-possession a period of 12 years.
lasted. Interruption in the possession of
the whole or a part of a thing possessed Interruption in possession of the thing
in common shall be to the prejudice of  Both the benefits and the prejudices that
all the possessors. However, in case of might have taken place during the co-
civil interruption, the Rules of Court possession shall attach to each of the
shall apply. co-participants
 Prescription obtained by a co-possessor
Effect of interruption: The possession can shall benefit the others
no longer be considered continuous; hence  Interruption in the possession of the
the running of the prescriptive period for whole or part of a thing shall be to the
acquisition is interrupted. prejudice of all the possessors.
Exclusive possession of previous co-owner  Possession is interrupted for purposes
deemed continuous of prescription either
 Article 543 speaks of co-possession of a o Naturally (when through any
thing, not of co-ownership cause it should cease for more
 Nevertheless, its principle is applicable than 1 year)
to co-possession of a real right o Civilly (when the interruption is
 Co-possession can be over a thing or a produced by judicial summons to
right the possessor)
 All participants of a thing possessed in  In civil interruption, only
common constitute only one personality those possessors served
and the personality ceases when there with judicial summons are
is a partition. affected.
 From that moment of cessation, the  For civil interruption to
personality of each participant begins. take place, the possessor
 Each co-possessor is deemed (not must have received
merely presumed!) to have possessed judicial summons.
exclusively and continuously during the  When will summons not be
period of co-possession the part deemed to have been
assigned to him in the division. issued and shall not give
 The effects of the division retroact to the rise to interruption?
commencement of the co-possession. 1. If it should be void for
 But the division shall be without lack of legal
prejudice to the rights of creditors. solemnities, or
2. If the plaintiff should
Harry, Ron, and Hermione have been co- desist from the
possessors in the concept of owners of a complaint or should all
15 hectare parcel of land until they divided the proceedings to
the property equally on the 8th year. If on lapse, or
the 4th year after the division, Draco claims 3. If the possessor should
ownership of the portion allotted to Harry, be absolved from the
Harry can assert title by acquisitive complaint.
prescription through possession for 10

 A notice for adverse claim
does NOT interrupt
prescription (Heirs of
Arzadon-Crisologo v received until good faith ceases and bad
Ranon)
 Interruption must refer to the whole thing
itself or part of it and not to a part or
right of a co-possessor.
 In a co-possession, there is only one
thing and many possessors. If the right
of a co-possessor is contested, he alone
shall be prejudiced.
 With respect to the thing, the prejudice
shall be against all.
Art 544 A possessor in good faith is
entitled to the fruits received before the
possession is legally interrupted.
Natural and industrial fruits are
considered received from the time they
are gathered or severed.
Civil fruits are deemed to accrue
daily and belong to the possessor in
good faith in that proportion.
Art 545 If at the time the good faith
ceases, there should be any natural or
industrial fruits, the possessor shall
have a right to a part of the expenses of
cultivation, and to a part of the net
harvest, both in proportion to the time of
possession.
The charges shall be divided on
the same basis by the two possessors.
The owner of the thing may,
should he so desire, give the possessor
in good faith the right to finish the
cultivation and gathering of the growing
fruits, as an indemnity for his part of the
expenses of cultivation and the net
proceeds; the possessor in good faith
who for any reason whatever should
refuse to accept this concession, shall
lose the right to be indemnified in any
other manner.
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 17
2015
 The fruits of a thing generally belong to
the owner (Art 441) but a possessor in
good faith is entitled to the fruits
faith begins.
 Legal interruption of possession in good
faith takes place upon service of judicial
summons to the possessor.
o All fruits that the possessor may
receive from the time that he is
summoned, or when he answers
the complaint, must be delivered
or paid by him to the owner or
lawful possessor.
 Whenever there is cessation of good
faith in the eyes of the law, whether by
reason of the filing of a complaint or not,
possession in good faith should be
deemed legally interrupted from such
cessation and not merely from the
service of judicial summons.
 When the owner or possessor with a
better right comes along, when he
becomes aware that what he had taken
for granted is at least doubtful, and
when he learns the grounds in support
of the adverse claim, good faith ceases.
 Possessor in bad faith is not entitled to
the fruits. He has the duty to reimburse
the fruits received including that which
the legitimate possessor could have
received.
 The right of the possessor in good faith
is limited to the fruits, referring to
natural, industrial and civil fruits (Art
441). Other things (building) belong to
the owner of the land.
When fruits considered received
1. For natural and industrial fruits – from
the time they are gathered or severed.
Fruits gathered before legal interruption
belong to the possessor in good faith.
2. For civil fruits – their accrual, not their
actual receipt, shall determine when
they are considered received at the time
 Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 18
2015

the good faith is legally interrupted. options: term of

They are deemed to accrue daily and possession.
belong to the possessor in good faith in First: Pro-
that proportion. rating But entitled
(based on to
Kinds of Fruits Possess Possessor period of necessary
or in in Bad possessio expenses
Good Faith n) for
Faith between preservation
1. Civil fruits Entitled to Not entitled possesso , cultivation,
fruits from to fruits. r and and
start of owner of: gathering of
possessio Must pay expenses fruits.
n until damages as , net
legal rental from harvest
interruptio time and No rights,
n possession charges not even
started until reimbursem
possession ent of
is finally Second: expenses
defeated To allow for
2. Natural/Indus possesso cultivation
trial Fruits r to stay (because by
in right of
a. Gathered Right to Must possessio accession,
retain account for n until all fruits
fruits fruits and after all belong to
return value fruits are owner
of: gathered without
fruits (which need to pay
actually shall indemnity)
received, serve as
and fruits the Must pay
which the indemnity damages as
legal for reasonable
possessor expenses rent for the
could have ) term of
received possession
with due
care and
diligence. Proportionate division of fruits and
expenses
b. Pending Must pay  Art 545 does not apply when the
damages as possessor is in bad faith, the fruits are
Owner reasonable civil, or the fruits are natural or industrial
has 2 rent for the

but they have been gathered or severed
when good faith ceases
 A possessor in bad faith has no right
whatsoever to the fruits, gathered or
pending, except only necessary
expenses for gathered fruit (Art 443,
449). Since civil fruits are produced day
by day, Art 545 does not apply to them.
 In the case of fruits already gathered at
the time good faith ceases, it is Art 544
that is applicable.
 If there are pending natural and
industrial fruits at the time good faith
ceases, the two possessors shall share
in the expense of cultivation and the
charges (expenses made not on the
property itself but on account of it, such
as taxes, interest on mortgages) in
proportion to the time of possession.
 They will also share on the fruits in
proportion to the time of possession as
well.
 What if there are no fruits or the fruits
are less than expenses?
o If there is no net harvest because
there are no fruits or the fruits are
less than the expenses, art 545
won’t apply. If the fruits are
merely insufficient, the same
should be divided in proportion to
their respective expenses.
o No fruits? Each should bear his
own expenses subject to the right
of the possessor in good faith to
be refunded for necessary
expenses under Art 546, unless
the owner of new possessor
exercises his option referred to
above.
Art 546 Necessary expenses shall be
refunded to every possessor; but only
the possessor in good faith may retain
the thing until he has reimbursed
therefore.
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 19
2015
Useful expenses shall be refunded
only to the possessor in good faith with
the same retention, the person who has
defeated him in the possession having
the option of refunding the amount of
the expenses or of paying the increase
in value which the thing may have
acquired by reason thereof.
Art 547 If the useful improvements can
be removed without damage to the
principal thing, the possessor in good
faith may remove them, unless the
person who recovers the possession
exercises the option under paragraph 2
of the preceding article.
Option granted to possessor in GF
only if the owner does not choose to
exercise the rights granted to him under Art.
546.
Art 548 Expenses for pure luxury or
mere pleasure shall not be refunded to
the possessor in good faith; but he may
remove the ornaments with which he
has embellished the principal thing if it
suffers no injury thereby, and if his
successor in the possession does not
prefer to refund the amount expended.
Right of removal is given to both
possessors in GF and BF.
Art 549 The possessor in bad faith shall
reimburse the fruits received and those
which the legitimate possessor could
have received, and shall have a right
only to the expenses mentioned in
paragraph 1 of Article 546 and in Article
443. The expenses incurred in
improvements for pure luxury or mere
pleasure shall not be refunded to the
possessor in bad faith, but he may
remove the objects for which such
expenses have been incurred, provided
 Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 20
2015

that the thing suffers no injury thereby, provided no

and that the lawful possessor does not substantial
prefer to retain them by paying the value damage or
they may have at the time he enters into injury is
possession. caused
Luxurious Owner has 2 Owner has
expenses options: 2 options:
Expenses Possessor Possessor
in Good in Bad Option 1: to Option 1: to
Faith Faith allow allow
Necessary Entitled to Entitled to possessor to possessor
Expenses reimburseme reimbursem remove to remove
nt ent ornaments if ornaments
Right of No right of the principal if the
retention retention; suffers no principal
pending full must vacate injury suffers no
reimburseme property injury
nts (recourse is Option 2: to
to file retain the Option 2: to
collection ornament by retain the
case) refunding the ornament
Liable for amount by
damages as spent for the refunding
reasonable ornament the value of
rent for the
period of ornament at
possession the time
Useful Owner has 2 No rights owner
expenses options: enters into
possession
Option 1: (which
reimburseme means
nt of either depreciated
(a) amount value)
spent or (b) Deterioration/l No liability Always
increase in oss unless due liable
value with to fraudulent whether
right of intent or before or
retention negligence after service
with full after service of judicial
payment. of judicial summons,
summons for any
Option 2: To cause, even
allow fortuitous
possessor to event.
remove
 Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 21
2015

Right of possessors  Useful expenses are expenses which

Exp add value to a thing, or augment its
ens GF BF
Refu Ret Rem Ref Ret Rem income.
es
nd ain ove und ain ove  Luxurious expenses are expenses not
Ye necessary for the preservation of a thing
s Yes nor do they increase its productivity
Nec Yes although they add value to the thing, but
(Ar (Art N/
ess (Art N/A N/A are incurred merely to embellish the
t 542 A
ary 546) thing and for the convenience or
54 )
6) enjoyment of particular possessors.
Yes
Yes Case doctrine
(Art
- A possessor in bad faith is entitled to
546)
Exc be reimbursed for her expenses in
The
Ye ept restoring a house to its original condition
amou
s whe after it had been partly damaged by fire,
nt of
Use (Ar n N/ because such expenses are necessary,
expe N/A N/A
ful t own A and under 546, are to be refunded even
nse
54 er to possessors in bad faith.
or the
6) opts A builder in bad faith, under 449, is
incre
to not entitled to reimbursement. But 449 is
ase
refu a rule of accession, which is not
in
nd applicable where a new house was not
value
Yes built on the land of another but only
Yes - repairs were made on a house that had
- Exc been partly destroyed by fire. This latter
Exc ept case comes under 546 which provides
ept N/ whe for the refund of necessary expenses to
whe N/A A n every possessor. (Cosio v Palileo)
Lux
N/ n (Art (Ar own
urio N/A
A own 549 t er
us Florentino is NOT entitled to
er ) 54 opts
opts 9) pay reimbursement of the property. Art 546
to for is applicable only to possessors in good
refu its faith (or bad faith in case of necessary
nd valu expenses). Florentino, being a LESSEE
e of supervalue, is not entitled to the rights
under Art. 546. (Florentino vs
 Necessary expenses are made for the Supervalue)
preservation of the thing of those which
seek to prevent the waste, deterioration, Art. 550. The costs of litigation over the
or loss of the thing; or those without property shall be borne by every
which the thing would deteriorate or be possessor. (n)
lost.
Art. 551. Improvements caused by
nature or time shall always insure to the

benefit of the person who has
succeeded in recovering possession.
(456)
“The person who has succeeded” refers
to the OWNER.
Improvements caused by nature or time
 Article 551 covers all the natural
accessions mentioned in Articles 457 to
465 which must follow the ownership of
the principal thing, and generally, all
improvements that are not due to the
will of the possessor.
 The former possessor got the benefits
from the property during his possession.
It is but just that the improvements
mentioned which take place after the
possession is recovered inure to the
owner or lawful possessor. Hence, he
should not pay for them.
Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall
not be liable for the deterioration or loss
of the thing possessed, except in cases
in which it is proved that he has acted
with fraudulent intent or negligence,
after the judicial summons.
A possessor in bad faith shall be
liable for deterioration or loss in every
case, even if caused by a fortuitous
event. (457a)
Art. 553. One who recovers possession
shall not be obliged to pay for
improvements which have ceased to
exist at the time he takes possession of
the thing. (458)
Improvements which have ceased to exist
 The improvements referred to were
enjoyed by the possessor alone.
 Having ceased to exist, the owner or
lawful possessor who came too late
cannot benefit from them. But he is
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 22
2015
liable for necessary expenses even if
the thing for which they were incurred
no longer exists.
 Necessary expenses are not considered
improvements.
Art. 554. A present possessor who
shows his possession at some previous
time, is presumed to have held
possession also during the intermediate
period, in the absence of proof to the
contrary. (459)
Presumption of possession during
intervening period
 This article contemplates a situation
where a present possessor is able to
prove his possession of a property at a
prior period but not his possession
during the intervening period.
 He is presumed to have possessed the
property continuously without
interruption, unless the contrary is
proved.
 The presumption is useful for purposes
of prescription.
Art. 555. A possessor may lose his
possession:
1. By the abandonment of the
thing;
2. By an assignment made to
another either by onerous or
gratuitous title;
3. By the destruction or total loss
of the thing, or because it goes
out of commerce;
4. By the possession of another,
subject to the provisions of Article
537, if the new possession has
lasted longer than one year. But
the real right of possession is not
lost till after the lapse of ten years.
(460a)

Modes of losing possession
 This provision applies to both real and
personal property except no. 4 which
obviously refers only to personal
property (obvious raw eh, sabi ni de
Leon. Yabang naman niya). The next
article is expressly made applicable only
to movables.
What is abandonment?
 Abandonment must be TOTAL
 Abandonment is the voluntary
renunciation of all rights which a person
has over a thing thereby allowing a third
person to acquire ownership or
possession thereof by means of
occupancy.
Requisites:
1. the abandoner must have been a
possessor in the concept of
owner (either an owner or mere
possessor may respectively
abandon either ownership or
possession).
2. the abandoner must have the
capacity to renounce or to
alienate (for abandonment is the
repudiation of a property right).
3. there must be a physical
relinquishment of the thing or
object. (Yu v. De Lara, L-16084,
Nov. 30, 1962).
4. there must be no more spes
recuperandi (expectation to
recover) and no more animus
revertendi (intent to return or get
back). (U.S. v. Rey, 8 Phil. 500;
Yu v. De Lara, L-16084, Nov. 30,
1962).
 The abandoner may be the owner or a
mere possessor but the latter obviously
cannot abandon ownership which
belongs to another. (obviously raw!)
 Since abandonment involves the
renunciation of a property right, the
abandoner must have a right to the thing
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 23
2015
possessed and the legal capacity to
renounce it.
 An owner of property cannot be held to
have abandoned the same until at least
he has some knowledge of the loss of
its possession or of the thing, and a
thing cannot be considered abandoned
under the law until the spes recuperandi
(hope of recovery) is gone and the
animus revertendi (intention to return) is
finally given up.
 By voluntary abandonment, a thing
becomes without an owner or possessor
and is converted into res nullius and
may thus be acquired by a third person
by occupation.
 Abandonment which converts the thing
into res nullius can hardly apply to land.
 Castellano v Francisco stated that
abandonment requires:
1. A clear and absolute intention to
renounce a right or a claim or to
abandon a right or property, and
2. An external act by which that
intention is expressed or carried into
effect.
 The intention to abandon implies a
departure, with the avowed intent of
never returning, resuming or claiming
the right and the interest that have been
abandoned. (Castellano v Francisco)
 Abandonment is always gratuitous.
Assignment?
 Assignment is understood to mean the
complete transmission of the thing or
right to another by any lawful manner.
 It may be onerous or by gratuitous title.
 The effect is that he who was the owner
or possessor is no longer so.
Abandonment Assignment
Always gratuitous
May be onerous or
gratuitous
There is a time There is not a time
 Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 24
2015

when the thing has that the thing has Catholic - RESPONDENTS
no owner no owner Vicar PROVED: predecessor’s
Apostolic house was borrowed by
v. CA VICAR
Destruction, total loss, or withdrawal from - after the church
commerce 
allowed it free use, they
 Destruction or total loss covers not only became bailors and
that which is caused voluntarily or petitioner bailee
intentionally but also that which is - Bailee’s failure to return
caused by accident. the subject matter to the
 A thing is lost when it perishes, or goes bailor DID NOT MEAN
out of commerce, or disappears, etc. ADVERSE
(Art 1189) 
POSSESSION ON
THE PART OF THE
Possession of another for more than one BORROWER
year - Adverse claim of VICAR
 This refers to possession de facto (as a did not ripen into
fact or material possession) and not de ownership
jure (legal right or real right of - REPSONDENTS IN
possession) POSSESSION IN GF
 After one year, the former possessor SINCE 1906
can no longer bring any action for - VICAR 1951 - Bailee
forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
 Possession by mere tolerance even for
over a year does not affect possession U.S. v. Rey
de facto. 8 Phil. 500
 After 10 years, the possessor or owner FACTS: A vessel Cantabria while on its
may bring an accion publiciana or way to Albay was shipwrecked, resulting
reivindicatoria to recover possession de among other things in the loss of P25,000;
jure unless he is barred by prescription. P15,000 of which were later salvaged by a
group of men who distributed the amount
Recovery by lawful owner or possessor among themselves. The real owner,
 Possession may also be lost when it is however, had no knowledge of the loss till
recovered from the person in after six weeks, shortly after which period,
possession by the lawful owner in a searchers were sent. But by that time, the
reivindicatory action or by the lawful money was nowhere to be found.
possessor in an action to recover the
better right of possession. ISSUE: Was there abandonment, and can
the money still be recovered from the
Case Doctrine finders?
Abandonment for a long period of
time converts the thing to a res nullius. HELD: There was no abandonment for the
However, abandonment does not apply to spes recuperandi had not yet gone, nor the
land, much more a registered land. (Yu vs animus revertendi finally given up. This is
de Lara) evident from the fact that a search party
had looked for the money. Hence, the

owner can still recover, less the necessary
expenses for salvaging the same.
A property owner cannot be held to
have abandoned the same until at least he
has some knowledge of the loss of its
possession or the thing.
There is no real intention to abandon
property when as in the case of a shipwreck
or a fire, things are thrown into the sea or
upon the highway.
Art. 556. The possession of movables is
not deemed lost so long as they remain
under the control of the possessor, even
though for the time being he may not
know their whereabouts. (461)
Loss of possession of movables
 The possession of movables shall be
deemed lost when they cease to be
under the control of the possessor either
because:
o They have come into the
possession of a third person; or
o Although, they have not been
taken by another,
 The possessor has
completely no idea of their
whereabouts or location
(the pet rat has been
missing for sometime; or
 Even if known, they cannot
be recovered, whether as
a matter of fact (an
unopened box of pastillas
has been dropped in a
deep lake) or of law (a
movable lost by
prescription).
 Possession is not lost by the mere fact
that the possessor does not know for
the time being the precise whereabout
of a specific movable when he has not
given up all hope of finding it (like a ring
misplaced or lost in particular vicinity). In
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 25
2015
this case, the possessor has not lost his
legal right to the object.
o He retains his juridical control of
the thing which remains in his
patrimony.
Art. 557. The possession of immovables
and of real rights is not deemed lost, or
transferred for purposes of prescription
to the prejudice of third persons, except
in accordance with the provisions of the
Mortgage Law and the Land Registration
laws. (462a)
Loss of possession of immovables and real
rights with respect to third persons
 Third persons are not prejudiced except
in accordance with the provisions of the
mortgage law and the registration law.
 Against a recorded title, ordinary
prescription of ownership or real rights
shall not take place to the prejudice of a
third person, except in virtue of another
title also recorded and the time shall
begin to run from the recording of the
latter.
Example:
O bought an unregistered land from
A. O registered the deed of sale in the
Registry of Property. O went abroad and
left his land. P possesses the same for 30
years. O has lost his possession and
ownership over the same, insofar as the P
is concerned, but not insofar as G, H, and I
(strangers) are concerned. For said
strangers, relying on the Registry, are still
privileged to consider O possessor and
owner.
Art. 558. Acts relating to possession,
executed or agreed to by one who
possesses a thing belonging to another
as a mere holder to enjoy or keep it, in
any character, do not bind or prejudice
the owner, unless he gave said holder

express authority to do such acts, or
ratifies them subsequently. (463)
Possessory acts of a mere holder
 The possessor referred to in this article
is the same possessor mentioned in
Article 525.
 Acts relating to possession of a mere
holder do not bind or prejudice the
possessor in the concept of owner
unless said acts were previously
authorized or subsequently ratified by
the latter.
 Possession may be acquired for another
by a stranger provided there be
subsequent ratification. (Art 532)
Example:
O owns a dormitory. T, R and D
presented themselves as students, but
turned out to be criminals. This fact was
unknown to O. One room is leased to R, a
rapist; another to T, a thief; and one to D, a
drug pusher. Crimes were committed in
their respective rooms. Is O liable (or does
T, R, and D’s acts bind O?) NO, unless O
allowed it or ratifies their acts subsequently.
Art. 559. The possession of movable
property acquired in good faith is
equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one
who has lost any movable or has been
unlawfully deprived thereof may recover
it from the person in possession of the
same.
If the possessor of a movable lost
or which the owner has been unlawfully
deprived, has acquired it in good faith at
a public sale, the owner cannot obtain
its return without reimbursing the price
paid therefor. (464a)
Right of possessor who acquires movable
claimed by another
 If the possession of a movable property
who acquired in bad faith, no right
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 26
2015
thereto is acquired by the possessor.
The property may be recovered by the
true owner or possessor without
reimbursement.
 If the acquisition was in good faith, here
are the rules:
o Possession in good faith of a
movable is presumed ownership. It is
equivalent to title. This is known as
the doctrine of irrrevindicability. No
further proof is necessary.
o The possessor’s title, however, is not
absolute. It is equivalent to title but is
not title itself. It is merely
presumptive because it can be
defeated by the true owner.
 These are the two exceptions to the
general rule of irrevindicability. An
owner can recover in these two
instances:
1. When one has lost the movable,
or
2. When one has been unlawfully
deprived.
 He may recover without
reimbursement. But if the thing
was sold at a public sale, the
owner must reimburse the buyer.
 These are the exceptions to the
exceptions. Even when an owner has
lost or has been unlawfully deprived, he
still cannot recover in these instances:
1. When the sale is made at
merchant’s stores, fairs or
markets.
2. When the owner of the movable
is, by his conduct, precluded from
denying the seller’s authority to
sell;
3. Where the law enables the
apparent owner to dispose of the
movables as if he were the true
owner thereof
4. Where the sale is sanctioned by
statutory or judicial authority

5. Where the seller has a voidable
title which has not been avoided
at the time of the sale to the
buyer in good faith for value and
without notice of the seller’s
defect of title (remember CLV!)
(Tagatac vs Jimenez, cited in
EDCA vs Santos)
6. Where recovery is no longer
possible because of prescription
7. Where the possessor becomes
the owner of the thing in
accordance with the principle of
finder’s keepers
Case doctrines
EDCA can no longer recover the
books from Santos because he was not
unlawfully deprived thereof by Cruz.
EDCA delivered the books to Cruz, who
in turn sold it to Santos. Santos is not
merely a possessor, but an OWNER.
Non-payment does not void a sale. It is
perfected upon the meeting of the
minds. Hence, ownership shall pass
from the vendor to the vendee upon the
actual or constructive delivery of the
thing sold. It does not constitute
unlawful deprivation of personal
property. It is a mere voidable sale, and
unless it is avoided before the execution
of the second sale, then the second sale
is valid. (EDCA v Santos)
Purchaser in good faith of a chattel or
movable property is entitled to be
respected and protected in his
possession as if he were the true owner
thereof until a competent court rules
otherwise. In the meantime, as the true
owner, the possessor in good faith
cannot be compelled to surrender
possession nor to be required to
institute an action for the recovery of the
chattel. (Edu v Gomez)
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 27
2015
A third party who acquired in good
faith a stolen vehicle and registered it in
his own name cannot lawfully refuse to
return it to the true owner and insist
upon reimbursement before delivery.
Art. 559 is applicable since Santos was
unlawfully deprived of the car, and there
was no mode of transfer from Santos to
Marella as the car was stolen. Marella,
from whom Aznar bought the car, has
no title to the same. Hence, Santos is
entitled to recover it without reimbursing
Aznar. Art. 1506 does not apply
because it presupposes at least a title.
(Aznar v Yapdiangco – stealing equals
unlawful deprivation)
The owner of a ring pledged to a
pawnshop by one to whom he has
entrusted it to be sold on commission
can recover it from the pawnshop.
(Dizon v Suntay)
POSSESSION; REQUISITES TO
MAKE POSSESSION OF MOVABLE
PROPERTY EQUIVALENT TO TITLE.
— It is quite clear that a party who (a)
has lost any movable or (b) has been
unlawfully deprived thereof can recover
the same from the present possessor
even if the latter acquired it in good faith
and has, therefore, title thereto for under
the first sentence of Article 559, such
manner of acquisition is equivalent to a
title.
There are three (3) requisites to
make possession of movable property
equivalent to title, namely:
(a) the possession should be in
good faith;
(b) the owner voluntarily parted
with the possession of the thing;
and
(c) the possession is in the concept
of owner.

Undoubtedly, one who has lost a
movable or who has been unlawfully
deprived of it cannot be said to have
voluntarily parted with the possession
thereof. This is the justification for the
exceptions found under the second
sentence of Article 559 of the Civil
Code. (Ledesma vs CA)
BPI-FB contends that its position is
not unlike that of an owner of personal
property who regains possession after it
is stolen, and to illustrate this point, BPI-
FB gives the following example: where
Xs television set is stolen by Y who
thereafter sells it to Z, and where Z
unwittingly entrusts possession of the
TV set to X, the latter would have the
right to keep possession of the property
and preclude Z from recovering
possession thereof citing Art. 559.
BPI-FBs argument is unsound. To
begin with, the movable property
mentioned in Article 559 of the Civil
Code pertains to a specific or
determinate thing. A determinate or
specific thing is one that is
individualized and can be identified
or distinguished from others of the
same kind.
In this case, the deposit in Franco’s
accounts consists of money which,
albeit characterized as a movable, is
generic and fungible. The quality of
being fungible depends upon the
possibility of the property, because of its
nature or the will of the parties, being
substituted by others of the same kind,
not having a distinct individuality.
Significantly, while Article 559
permits an owner who has lost or has
been unlawfully deprived of a movable
to recover the exact same thing from the
current possessor, BPI-FB simply claims
ownership of the equivalent amount of
money, i.e., the value thereof, which it
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 28
2015
had mistakenly debited from FMICs
account and credited to Tevestecos,
and subsequently traced to Francos
account. In fact, this is what BPI-FB did
in filing the Makati Case against
Franco, et al. It staked its claim on the
money itself which passed from one
account to another, commencing with
the forged Authority to Debit.
It bears emphasizing that money
bears no earmarks of peculiar
ownership, and this characteristic is all
the more manifest in the instant case
which involves money in a banking
transaction gone awry. Its primary
function is to pass from hand to hand as
a medium of exchange, without other
evidence of its title. Money, which had
passed through various transactions in
the general course of banking business,
even if of traceable origin, is no
exception.
Thus, inasmuch as what is
involved is not a specific or determinate
personal property, BPI-FBs illustrative
example, ostensibly based on Article
559, is inapplicable to the instant case.
Article 559 does not apply to
money. (BPI Family Savings vs Franco)
Art. 560. Wild animals are possessed
only while they are under one's control;
domesticated or tamed animals are
considered domestic or tame if they
retain the habit of returning to the
premises of the possessor. (465)
Possession of animals
 Animals may be:
1. Wild or animals living in a state of
nature independently of and without
the aid and care of man (great white
shark, ornate wobbegong, brazilian
slug)
 Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 29
2015

2. Domesticated or tamed, or animals

which are wild or savage by nature
but have been subdued and made
use of by man and become
accustomed to live in a tamed
condition (tiger ni Chavit)
3. Domestic or tame, or any of the
various animals which live and are
born and reared, under the control
and care of man, lacking the instinct
to roam freely (dog, cat, carabao,
cow)
 Wild animals may be the object of
hunting. They are possessed only if they
are under one’s control. Possession of
wild animals are lost when they regain
their freedom or come under another’s
control.
 Domesticated animals are possessed if
they habitually return to the premises of
the possessor.

Art. 561. One who recovers, according to

law, possession unjustly lost, shall be
deemed for all purposes which may
redound to his benefit, to have enjoyed
it without interruption. (466)

 This article applies to both possession in

good faith as well as to possession in
bad faith, but only if beneficial to the
possessor (like for purposes of
prescription)
 The recovery of possession must be
according to law – through legal means;
otherwise, the benefit of continuous and
uninterrupted possession during the
intervening period cannot be invoked.

Example:
P possessed a parcel of land on Jan.
1, 2000. In 2005, P was ousted by O. P was
able to recover the possession in 2010. P is
considered to have possessed the land
from 1995.