Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion
of others
The role and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the
external things of the world in total exclusion of the right of any other
individual in the universe
The right to possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of a thing
The free use and enjoyment by a person of all his acquisitions, without any
control or diminution, save only by the law of the land
It means the thing possessed but it may include the right to use and enjoy it
It is a thing owned, that to which a person has or may have a legal title
It embraces every species of valuable right and interest, including real and
personal property, easements, franchises, and hereditaments; it includes
money, credits, a debt;
All things are not the subject of property; the sea, the air and the like cannot
be appropriated, every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in
them. When things are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from
meddling with them or from interfering about them, it is plain that no person
besides the proprietor, who has the exclusive right, can have any claim either
to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as he pleases: so that
property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right
to use those things, but a right to dispose of them, either by exchanging
them for other things, or by giving them away to any other person without
any consideration, or even throwing them away
Vena V. Verga
Property is also said to be, when it relates to goods and chattels, ABSOLUTE
or QUALIFIED. Absolute property is that which is our own without any
qualification whatever. Qualified property consists in the right which men
have over wild animals which they have reduced to their own possession, and
which are kept subject to their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like,
which are his own while he has possession of them, but as soon as his
possession is lost his property is gone, unless the animals go animo
revertendi. But property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified
without any relation to the nature of the subject-matter, but simply because
more persons than one have an interest in it, or because the right of property
is separated from the possession. A bailee of goods, though not the owner,
has a qualified property in them; while the owner has the absolute property
It is proper to observe that, in some cases, the moment that the owner loses
his possession, he also loses his property or right in the thing; animals ferae
naturae belong to the owner only while he retains the possession of
Art. 414. All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are
considered either:
(1) Immovable or real property; or
(2) Movable or personal property.
In this respect the relation of the inhabitants to their government is not changed.
The new government takes the place of that which has passed away.
STEVENS VS. STATE
35 Am. Dec. 72
Doctrine: Property is defined as consisting in the free use, enjoyment and
disposition by a person of all his acquisitions. Without control or diminution save
only by the laws of the land. The right of every person to acquire, possess and
protect property cannot be questioned.
Facts: Plaintiffs were taxed one thousand dollars for keeping two billiard tables
for a period of six months. They now question the validity of such enactment
stating that the billiard table should be viewed as a property which under the
law, every person has an indefeasible right of acquiring, possessing and
protecting. The billiard table should have been taxed only according to its value.
PUBLIC LAND
PATRIMONIAL LAND
Issue: W/N the enactment prohibiting a person from making or keeping a billiard
table without first paying tax for the privilege of keeping it is unconstitutional.
Decision: The owner is entitled to compensation for the injury to the value of his
whole lot as is occasioned by the appropriation of a part of it. One of the valuable
incidents of the ownership of land is the right and power of exclusion.
Compensation for the abridgement of this right should be included in the
damages.
However, incidental effects which are the natural and inevitable
consequences of the exercise of the legislative franchise which cannot be made a
ground for the recovery if damages as for a private injury.
EATON vs. BOSTON
12 Am. Rep. 147 (1871)
Facts: Boston Concord and Montreal Road built their road across plaintiffs farms.
They already paid damages that were assessed thus said corporations were
already released from all claim of damages on account of the construction of the
road across said farms. However, as the corporation constructed their project
road, they made a deep cut through a ridge of land which protected the meadow
farms from freshets or a sudden rise in the level of stream or a flooding which was
caused by heavy rains or the rapid melting of snow and ice. As a consequence,
waters if the barriers frequently overflowed and carried sand, debris etc to
plaintiffs land.
Issue: W/N plaintiffs can still recover damages considering one has already been
paid.
Decision: Yes. Land is not property but the subject of property. The term
property although commonly applied to a tract of land or chattel, may mean
only the rights of the owner in relation to it. It denotes a right over a determinate
thing. Property is the right of any person to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a
thing. So partial, but substantial restriction of the right of the user, although it
may not annihilate all of his rights, may as well be considered as taking of his
August 2005
To
To
To
To
To
OWNERSHIP
General limitations imposed by the State for its benefit such as the power
of eminent domain, the police power, and the power of taxation
Specific limitations imposed y law, such as legal servitudes
Limitations imposed by the party transmitting the property either by
contract or by will
Limitation imposed by the owner himself such as voluntary servitudes,
mortgages, lease rights and pledges
Inherent limitations arising from conflict with other rights, such as those
caused by contiguity of property.
the entirety of the powers of use and disposal allowed by law. It implies that
there is some power of disposal; but the owner of a thing is not necessarily
the person at a given time has the whole power of use and disposal.
Ownership is broader than possession
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without
other limitations than those established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of
the thing in order to recover it.
Traditional attributes or elements of ownership:
1. The right to enjoy, which includes:
a. jus utendi, or the right to use;
b. jus fruendi, or the right to enjoy the fruits;
c. jus abutendi, or the right to consume the thing by its use,
2. The right to dispose (jus disponendi), or the right to alienate or destroy
the property.
The right to vindicate (jus vindicandi) or the right of action available to the owner
to recover the property against the holder or possessor.
Remedies available to owners:
1.
2.
Article 429: the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonable necessary to repel
an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his
property.
August 2005
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall
protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his possession. (349a)
Art. 436. When any property is condemned or seized by competent
authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner thereof
shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such
condemnation or seizure is unjustified.
OWNER
Although there can be but one absolute owner of a thing, there may be a
qualified ownership of the same thing by many. Thus, a bailor has the general
ownership of the thing bailed, the bailee has the special ownership. The right
of the absolute owner is more extended than that of him who has only a
qualified ownership: as, for example, the use of the thing. Thus, the absolute
owner of an estate, that is, an owner in fee, may at the wood, demolish the
buildings, build new ones, and dig wherever he may deem proper for
minerals, stone, plaster and similar things, which would be considered waste
and would not be allowed in a qualified owner of the estate, as a lessee or a
tenant for life
The owner continues to have the same right although he performs no acts of
ownership or be disabled from performing them, and although another
performs such acts without the knowledge or against the will of the owner.
But the owner may lose his right in a thing if he permits it to remain in the
possession of a third person for a sufficient time to enable the latter to
acquire title to it by prescription or under the statute of limitations
Decision:
1. No, there was no public instrument executed between Yuseco and Lim,
thus the formalities of a donation was not complied with.
2. Yuseco should pay the rent from the time Lim sold the property to Tayag
because insofar as Lim was concerned, the lease was gratuitous.
3. Yes, Yuseco was a builder in good faith since he though that the land was
already his by donation.
4. Yes, for non-payment of rental, without prejudice to the determination of
the right of each, particularly regarding the building.
REPUBLIC VS. LARA
50 OG 5778 (1954)
Facts: Lara owned a parcel of land, which the Japanese took over during the
occupation and over which they built a concrete airstrip, runway and taxiway.
After the war, the government decided to expropriate the lands.
Issue: W/N the government should pay the improvements to the owner.
Decision: No, because said improvements really belong to the republic, which as
victor in the last war should be considered as the legitimate successor to the
properties, owned by the Japanese in the Philippines. It is wrong to say that the
Japanese army was a possessor in bad faith, and that therefore constructions by
them belong to the owner of the land by industrial accession. This is because in
the first place, the rule of Civil Code concerning industrial accession are not
designed to regulate relations between private persons and a sovereign
belligerent, nor intended to apply to construction made exclusively for prosecuting
a war, when military necessity is temporarily paramount. In the second place,
international law allows the temporary use by the enemy occupant of private land
and buildings for all kinds of purposes demanded by necessities of war.
The owner of the land expropriated by the government is entitled to recover legal
interest on the amount awarded from the time the state takes possession of the
land.
MIRANDA vs. FADULLON
51 OG 5778
Facts: In the year 1939, one Lucio Tio was the owner of a parcel of land at the
Banilad Estate in Cebu. Lucio executed a power of attorney in favor of Esteban
Fadullon. Such was annotated at the back of the transfer certificate title. On the
same date, the deed of mortgage in favor of the Cebu Mutual Building and Loan
Association was also annotated on the same certificate of title. In 1946, on the
strength of said power of attorney, Fadullon sold the property to spouses Dionisio
and Clemencia Segarra with right to repurchase within 30 days. Fadullon failed to
Vena V. Verga
repurchased. 10 days after the expiration of the period, Segarras filed a petition
for the consolidation of their ownership and registered said petition with the
register of deeds. Lucio filed a complaint with the CFI asking it to annul the sale.
It turned out that the Segarras introduced improvements in the property. They
are now contending that they were possessors in good faith of the lot in question
and that they introduced improvements also in good faith thus, if the plaintiff
would not pay the amount of the improvements which was pegged at Php
5,3000.00, they should be allowed to buy the land.
Issue: W/N the possessor were in good faith.
Decision: The spouses were in bad faith for they very well knew of the
encumbrance in the TCT. They should have at least inquired as to the authority of
Fadullon to sell the property. They did not even require Fadullon to show his
power of attorney. This together with the fact that there was a very short period
of time for repurchase are indications that there might be collusion between the
Segerras and Fadullon.
A builder in good faith my no be required to pay rentals. He has a right to retain
the land on which he has built in good faith until he is reimbursed the expenses
incurred by him. Possibly, he might be required to pay rental only when the
owner of the land choose not to appropriate the improvement and required the
builder in good faith to pay the land. But in case the builder is unwilling or unable
to buy the land, the landowner decides to leave things as they are and assumes
the relation of lessor and lessee, then they might go to court to fix the amount of
the rental if they cannot agree on it.
The very fact that the courts sentenced the defendants to pay rentals is an
indication, even proof that they were considered possessors and builders in bad
faith, or at least that they were not possessors and builders in good faith.
SAN DIEGO VS. MONTESA
G.R. L-177985 29 September 1962
Facts: Complainant Jose, Maria and Urbano de la Cruz filed a complaint to recover
their land plus damages against Gil and Rufina San Diego. The said land was sold
by the mother of the complainants to the San Diegos. The lower court held that
the parcel of land belonged to the plaintiffs through hereditary succession and that
the defendants built a house on said land in good faith. The court however voided
the sale on the ground that that the mother had no right to the land. However, it
upheld the defense of the defendants as builder in good faith. It ordered the San
Diegos vacate the land while the complainants were ordered to pay Php 3,500
within 30 days after the decision becomes final.
Issue: W/N the decision of the court that the San Diegos should vacate the land
is valid.
Decision: the right of retention granted to possessor in good faith by Article 546
of the civil code, which is applicable to builder in good faith (Article 448) is merely
a security for their right to be indemnified for the improvements made on the
land. Hence they are not bound to pay the rent during the period of retention.
Although normally the landowner has the option to either appropriate the
August 2005
1.
2.
3.
US CASES
4.
TURNER VS. CROSS
18 S.W. 578
Doctrine: The owner is said to be the one who has dominion of a thing, real or
personal, corporeal or incorporeal, which he has aright to enjoy and to do with as
he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it. so far as the law permits unless he be
prevented by some agreement or covenant which restrains his rights. Both words
convey the idea of property in the thing is right of the person who is said to be the
proprietor or owner.
FLEMMING vs. SHERWOOD
139 N.W. 101
Doctrine: The owner of the thing is said to be one who has a dominion over a
thing real or personal. Corporeal or incorporeal, which he has a right to enjoy and
to do as he pleases, even to spoil or destroy it as far as the law permit.
JHOHSON VS. CROOKSHANKS
29 Pac. 78
Doctrine: In an action to recover the possession of real property, the plaintiff
must have legal estate in the property, which it is sought to be recovered, and a
present right of possession thereof and this complaint must tender an issue as to
title. The word owner is a person who has dominion over a thing, which he may
use as he pleases except a restrained by aw or by an agreement.
5.
6.
that which assigns to the owner of a thing its products, as the fruit of
trees, the young of animals
that which makes a man the owner of a thing which is made of
anothers property, upon payment of the value of the material taken
that which gives the owner of law new land formed by gradual
deposit
that which gives the owner of a thing the property in what is added
to it by way of adoring or completing it
that which gives islands formed in a stream to the owner of the
adjacent lands on either side
that which gives a person the property in things added to his own so
that they cannot be separated without damage
the right to all which ones own property produces, whether that property be
movable or immovable, and the right to that which is united to it by
accessory, either naturally or artificially
ACCESSION
ACCESSIO
Modes of acquiring things:
Accession continua (original mode) the right pertaining to the
owner of a thing over everything which is incorporated or
attached thereto either naturally or artificially.
Accession discreta (derivative mode) right pertaining to the owner
of a thing over everything which is produced thereby
Vena V. Verga
If a man hath raised a building upon his own ground with the material of
another, or if a man shall have built with his own materials upon the ground
of another, in either case, the edifice becomes the property of him to whom
the ground belongs. And the owner of the ground, if liable at all is only liable
to the owner of the materials for the value of them
When the fruits of the property will not belong to the owner
(exception to the rule that the owner of thing the natural, industrial
and civil fruits provided in Article 441):
1. A possessor of a property in good faith may claim the fruits of
such property;
2. A usufructuary is entitled to the fruits of the property held in
usufruct;
August 2005
ADJUNCTION
Vena V. Verga
in these cases, as a general rule, the accessory follows the principal; hence
those things which are attached to the things of another become the property
of the latter. The only exception which the civilians made was in the case of a
picture, which, although an accession, drew to itself the canvas, on account of
the importance which was attached to it
APPURTENANCES
the word appurtenances in a deed will not usually pass any corporeal real
property, but only incorporeal easements or rights and privileges
RULES:
August 2005
1.
AB has no right
A need not pay (there is no unjust enrichment for such applies only
to quasi contractu)
4. The only by which B can get his materials for value is when A and B
are in bad faith
5. If both A and C are in good faith, only B in bad faith, Article 455 shall
apply
Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person who
has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily
for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them
has no property with which to pay.
This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted
by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has been
paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may demand from the
landowner the value of the materials and labor.
Vena V. Verga
RULE:
1.
2.
An action to quiet title of real property not in the possession of another does
not prescribe. If the real property is in the possession of another, it may be
acquired by acquisitive prescription
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of
another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.
Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted
or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the
planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former
condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he
may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the
sower the proper rent.
Rules:
1.
Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is
entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower.
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to
reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land.
August 2005
1.
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who
built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the
owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as
though both had acted in good faith.
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner
whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on
his part.
alluvion differs from avulsion in that the latter is sudden and perceptible
Issue: W/N the indemnity should be paid by a vendee who brought a land from
the owner who alienated said land after improvements were made.
Art. 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder, planter
or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of article 447 shall
apply. (n)
Doctrine: Although the obligation to pay the required indemnity may be directed
by the builder, planter, or sower against the transferee, ultimately, the obligation
must be borne by the party who has profited from the accession. The reason for
this is that in purchases of land and the improvements thereon, the purchaser
may have already paid the vendor the value of the improvements and it would be
unjust to make him pay again to the builder, planter and sower. Consequently, it
the purchaser had already paid to the vendor the value of the improvement, the
latter must pay the required indemnity, if not, the former must be the one who
shall pay.
that increase of the earth on a bank of a river, or on the shore of the sea, by
the force of the water, or by a current or by waves, or by its recession in a
navigable lake, which is so gradual that no one can judge how much is added
at each moment of time. Conversely, where land is submerged by the gradual
advance of the sea, the sovereign acquires the title to the part thereby
covered and it ceases to belong to the former owner
Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of
the waters.
Note: This being regarded as the equivalent for the loss he may sustain from the
encroachment of the waters upon his land
AVULSION
Accretion which takes place whenever the current of a river, creek, torrent or
lake segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and trans
it to another estate.
Vena V. Verga
improvements stands. The second option is more practical however, the parties
must come into agreement as to the condition of the lease and should they fail to
do so, the court shall fix the same (Article 448). Thus, the order for rental
payment is erroneous. A builder in good faith has a right to retain the land on
which he has built in good faith until he is reimbursed the expenses incurred by
him.
BAKER vs. MERSCH
45 NW 685
Doctrine: The doctrine of accession of property applies where one has willfully, as
a trespasser, taken the property of another, and altered it, in substance or form,
by his own labor. Where however, the appropriation was through a mistake of
fact, and labor has been expended upon it which converts it into something very
different from the original article, and greatly increases its value, and the value of
the original is very insignificant in comparison with the new product, the title of
the property in its converted form will pass to the person who has thus expended
labor; the original owner to recover the value of the original article.
Art. 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to different owners
are, without bad faith, united in such a way that they form a single
object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the accessory,
indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value.
MERRIT VS. JOHNSON
5 AM Dec (1811)
Doctrine: The principle of law when the materials of another are united to
material of mine, by my labor or by labor of another and mine are the principal
materials, and those of the other are only accessory, I acquire the right of
property in the whole by right of accession. The accessory follows the principal
and not the other way around.
FOSTER vs. WARNER
14 NW 673
Doctrine: Whatever he might have had against Farmer as a consequence of his
wrongful intermixture or confusion of the shingles, in case there was any, to seize
and hold the required quantity out of the common mass, he had no such right
against the plaintiffs, who according to this record were innocent purchasers from
Farmer because it was due to the defendants trust in farmer that he was enabled
to deal with them as he did and obtain money as through he was the sole and
absolute proprietor of the property.
Art. 470. Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made the
incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose the thing incorporated and shall
have the obligation to indemnify the owner of the principal thing for the
damages he may have suffered.
August 2005
WATERCODE
Underlying Principles of the Water Code
All waters belong to the state.
Such cannot be subject to acquisitive prescription
The state may allow the use or development of waters by administrative
concession
The utilization, exploitation, development, conversion and protection of water
resources shall be subject to the control and regulation of the
government through the National Water resource council
Preference in the use and development of waters shall consider current
usages and be responsive to the changing needs of the country (Article 3,
PD 1067, Watercode)
Definition of Water in the Watercode
Water refers to water under the ground, water above the ground, water in the
atmosphere, and the water of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction (Art 4, PD
1067, Watercode)
Vena V. Verga
Requisites of co-ownership:
1. plurality of subjects
2. unity of object (absence of division)
3. proportionate shares of such subjects
Kinds of co-ownership:
1. ordinary (where right of partition exists)
2. compulsory (no right of partition; e.g. party wall)
waters
of
fountains,
sewers
and
public
(1) The main and party walls, the roof and the other things used
in common, shall be preserved at the expense of all the owners in
proportion to the value of the story belonging to each;
(2) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor of his
story; the floor of the entrance, front door, common yard and
sanitary works common to all, shall be maintained at the expense
of all the owners pro rata;
Vena V. Verga
(3) The stairs from the entrance to the first story shall be
maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata, with the
exception of the owner of the ground floor; the stairs from the
first to the second story shall be preserved at the expense of all,
except the owner of the ground floor and the owner of the first
story; and so on successively.
Note: a party wall cannot be divided while two parties remain co-owners
of said wall. The only solution is to buy said party wall, and destroy it.
You may not destroy a party wall unless its yours.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Characteristics of co-ownership:
the co-owners share in the property, although definite in amount or size, is
not physically and actually identified, it being merely an ideal;
a co-owners share is absolutely owned by him and he may dispose of it as he
pleases
August 2005
Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided
he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in
such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent
the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The purpose
of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied.
The law does not specify the nature of consent to alternative in a property owned
in common. It may be made expressly or impliedly
If a co-owner makes an unauthorized alteration, the other co-owners may demand
that the alteration be removed at the expense of the guilty co-owner
In co-ownership, each co-owner is owner of the whole, and over the whole he
exercises rights of dominion, but at the same time he is owner of a part which
is truly abstract, because until division is effected such part is not physically
determined
Each co-owner has the right to sell, assign or dispose of hi share or part unless
personal rights are involved and, therefore, he may lose said rights to others,
as by prescription thereof by a co-owner
A co-owner may, irrevocably, dispose of his right to the undivided share he is
entitled to, subject only to the outcome of final partition, insofar as all the coowners are concerned. Each co-owner, or his successor, is entitled to his
lawful share only
It is elemental that until a partition is made, among the co-owners, no one of
them can claim any particular portion of an undivided property as exclusively
his own
The remedy of a co-owner who desires that his share be adjudicated to him in
severalty is by an action for partition (does not prescribe and may be passed
to the heir)
Benefits derived from property owned in common are divided in proportion to coowners interests; if it (property) suffers diminution, they shall have to share,
too, the charges in accordance with their interests
A co-owner cannot legally dispose of a specific portion of the property owned in
common without the consent and approval of the other co-owners, his right
being only to sell and convey his undivided share
Shares of co-owners are equal in the absence of stipulation
Generally, co-heir cannot acquire community property be prescription.
Vena V. Verga
Issue: W/N the co-owner sister A can demand rent from B and C.
(1) No rent for the upper floor can be demanded for the C is merely exercising her
right as co-owner without prejudicing A who, had she wanted, could have also
lived in another room of said floor, and who therefore could not have been
prejudiced.
Co-owners are not privies for if there is benefit t one, it does not necessarily
mean that it shall also redound to other co-owners.
Rule on privities: Under the rules on agency, when an agency does a thing,
the principal will necessarily be bound.
It is clear from the judgment in the case at car that the such judgment
rendered in a suit affecting the common property, brought by only one of the
co-owners is not binding upon the associates nor can be invoked by the,/
Thus, where a suit set a side a decedents deed conveying all his property to
a single son is brought only by one of the disinherited children, such
judgment declaring the deed to be void cannot be availed of in a subsequent
partition proceeding by any of the others.
Co-owner may redeem community property sold under pacto de retro by another
co-owner
See Oclarit vs. Oclarit (CA - G.R. No. 16066-R, 11-17-58), where adverse
possession of community property by co-owner was proven
Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership.
Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned
in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
One cannot be compelled to remain as co-owner
Co-owner with bigger share has preferential right of pre-emption (see Robel vs.
Robel, CA G.R. No. 20934-R, Sept. 27,1958)
Decision:
(2) Half rental may be demanded for the use of the lower floor. Rent could be
asked because others could have rented the same, but only half should be given
since B was a co-owner.
TREES
Part of the real estate while growing and before they are recovered from the
freehold; but as soon as they are cut down, they are personal property
trees belong to the owner of the land where they grow. When the roots grow into
the adjoining land, the owner of such land may lawfully claim a right to hold
the tree in common with the owner of the land where it was planted; but if
the branches only overshadow the adjoining land, and the roots do not enter
it, the tree wholly belongs to the owner of the estate where the roots grow.
When the tree grows directly on the boundary line, so that the line passes
through it, it is the property of both owners, whether it be marked as a
boundary or not
the owner of trees in a highway is held to have the right of action for the
necessary trimming of them for the installation of an electric lighting system
for the municipality
where the branches of a tree growing upon the land of one person overhang that
of his neighbor, one may, without notice, cut off so much of a tree as
overhangs his land, if he can do so without going upon the land of the owner,
and such owner cannot acquire, either by prescription or the statute of
limitations, the right to overhang his neighbors land; and where a tree stands
on the dividing line between adjoining lots, either owner may cut off branches
or roots extending over his own land.
the owner of land on which a partially decayed tree is permitted to stand in such
position that by falling it would damage the house of another, is liable for
damages caused by its falling after he has been notified that it was dangerous
WATERS
CASES and DOCTRINES
PARDELL VS. BARTOLOME
23 Phil 450
Facts: A house was co-owned by the sister (A) and the husband (B) of the other
sister (C). The upper floor was used as a dwelling and the lower was available for
rent by stores. B used one of the rooms in the upper floor and another room in
the lower flower as an office.
Vena V. Verga
water when reduced to possession is property, and it may be bought and sold and
have a market value; but it must be in actual possession, subject to control
and management. When stored in an artificial appliance or water-course, it is
personal property
the most essential element of an appropriation of water is application to a
beneficial use
August 2005
SIDEWALKS
that part of a public street or highway designed for the use of pedestrians
Vena V. Verga
generally the sidewalk is included with the gutters and roadway in the general
term street
it is the duty of a municipal corporation to keep the sidewalk, as well as the
roadbed of the street, in repair
a municipal corporation which permits a walk to be used for public travel is liable
for an injury wrongfully caused by an obstruction thereon, no matter how the
walk came into existence
a property owner who negligently maintains a pipe from the roof of a building so
as to discharge water upon the sidewalk, will be liable for injury to
pedestrians caused thereby
depressions in a sidewalk, into which water flows from adjoining property, may
constitute a defect, for injury by which the municipality may be liable
even if the city were negligent, a person injured by a defective sidewalk cannot
recover unless he show himself in the exercise of due care and if the accident
occurred by reason of the plaintiffs being intoxicated, he cannot recover
where the sidewalk is manifestly dangerous, it is the duty of the pedestrian to
walk on the roadway, and he cannot recover for an injury which his own
observation, prudently exercised, ought to have enabled him to avoid
the temporary obstruction of a street or sidewalk for the purpose of loading or
unloading vehicles may be justified on the ground of necessity
during building operations, materials may be placed in the street
one injured by defective conditions of the street who has no knowledge of the
defect, cannot be charged with contributory negligence
POSSESSION
1.
2.
3.
The possessor movant (one who asks for preliminary mandatory injunction)
should have been in prior, peaceful possession of the property
MASALLO VS. CESAR
39 Phil 134
Facts: defendant had been in possession of a piece of land for an indefinite period
of time. Plaintiffs acquired a deed to the land from a third person. Plaintiffs seek
to recover possession by action of forcible entry or detainer.
August 2005
a lessee, or employee, a pledgee, an antichretic creditor, a trustee and a coowner cannot claim title by acquisitive prescription because they possess the
property not in the concept of owner.
for the purpose of prescription, just title must be proved; it is never
presumed.
The general rule is that the possession and cultivation of a portion of land
under claim of ownership is a constructive possession of all if the remained is
not in the adverse possession of another.
Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his
feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in
possession. Good faith of the possessor consists in his belief that the person
from whom he received the thing was the owner of the same and could
convey his title.
In Article 539, the claimant is not in possession and for this reason, he should
resort to judicial remedies. In self held (Article 429), the owner or lawful
possessor is in possession so he had to defend his right with the use of
reasonable force.
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.
Art. 542. The possession of real property presumes that of the movables
therein, so long as it is not shown or proved that they should be excluded.
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. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but
only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been
reimbursed therefor.
Vena V. Verga
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.
Expenses for pure luxury (good faith): no refund; may be removed (no
injury); and if successor does not refund
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 that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the
lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they
may have at the time he enters into possession.
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.
good faith entitled to the expense incurred for the improvement for luxury
or pleasure
bad faith entitled to the value at the time the lawful possessor enters into
possession
August 2005
acquisition in good faith refers to the possession in the concept of owner and
not that of a lessee.
PGF shall be liable for expenses of cultivation and shall share in net harvest in
proportion to the time of their possession (Art. 545)
PGF/PBF shall share in proportion to the time of their possession (Art. 545)
EXPENSES
Necessary expenses
PGF has:
1. right of reimbursement (Art. 546)
2. right of retention (Article 546)
PBF has: right of reimbursement only
Useful expenses
PGF has:
1. Right of reimbursement
2. Right of retention (Art. 546)
3. limited right of removal (Art. 547)
PBF: none
Ornamental expenses
PGF: limited right of removal (Art. 548)
PBF: limited right of removal (Art. 549)
DETERIORATION OR LOSS
PGF: No liability, unless due to his fault or negligence after he had become
possessor in bad faith
PBF: Always liable, whether due to his fault or negligence or due to a fortuitous
event.
Note: Taxes, by virtue of Article 455 shall be divided between the possessor and
the owner in proportion to the time of their respective possession, irrespective of
good faith or bad faith of the former.
ADVERSE POSSESSION
August 2005
proceeding against whoever may be liable therefore being reserved by law. While
actual possession of personal property is equivalent to a title thereto so long as no
proof is offered that the same was acquired in bad faith, yet from the time that
the latter condition is proven, as well as the loss of the thing, or that the owner
was unlawfully deprived of it, the latter is entitled to the recovery thereof within
the limits fixed by law, because the holder lacks the good faith indispensable to
the protection of his possession.
CRUZ VS. PAHATI
52 OG 3253
Facts: A, owner of a Buick car delivered his car to B to be shown to prospective
buyers. A lost his certificate of registration thus he gave a letter addressed to the
LTO asking for issuance of a new certificate of registration. B however falsified
the letter by converting it into a deed of sale. Subsequently, he sold the car to C
and C sold it to D.
Issue: W/N A can recover the car.
Except in cases provided by law, a buyer who buys a thing must bear the risk
of defect of the goods or the title thereof
Requisites to make possession of movable property equivalent to title:
1. the possession is in good faith
2. The owner has voluntarily parted with the possession of the thing
3. The possessor is in concept of owner
Modes of recovery:
1. immovables: revindicatoria
2. movable: replevin
Public sale there is a public notice of the sale, anybody can bid and offer to buy
REBULLIDA VS. BUSTAMANTE
45 OG 17, Supp No. 5, May, 1949
Facts: The present case is an action for Replevin of a ladys platinum ring owned
by one Mrtha Theresa Dysaty which she deposited in the vault of estrella del
Norte after liberation, the said vaults were found open and the ring gone. Later,
plaintiff saw the ring being peddled by one Caridad Valle. Valle alleged that the
ring was owned by his brother Ariston Bustamante. Defendant now contends that
she got the ring in good faith, thus, she should not be ordered to return it without
being reimbursed.
Decision: The mere fact that the defendant, even in good faith, had purchased
the ring from another person would not bar the right of the owner to recover it
once the identity and the illegal deprivation has been established. Article 559
provides that reimbursement applied only in public sale. The ring being acquired
in a private sale should be returned without the plaintiff having to reimburse the
defendant. Except in cases provided by law, a buyer who buys a thing must bear
the defects.
Vena V. Verga
2.
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.
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.
Instance when the owner of a movable who has lost it or unduly deprived thereof
can no longer recover:
1. If recovery is no longer possible because of prescription (Article 1132
provides that ownership of things prescribe in four years)
2. If the possession had acquired the thing from a person whose authority
to sell the owner is by his conduct precluded from denying (Art. 1505).
3. if the possessor has acquire the thing from a merchant store, or in fairs,
or markets in accordance with the Code of Commerce and special law.
4. If the thing is a negotiable instrument or a negotiable document and the
possessor is a purchaser in good faith or for value (Section 57 of NIL).
5. If the possessor is now the owner of the thing in accordance with the
principle of finders keepers recognized in Art. 719 of the Civil Code.
USUFRUCT
Art. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the
obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title
constituting it or the law otherwise provides.
USUFRUCT
LEASE
REAL RIGHT
Always a real right
May or may not be
SOURCE
Law, will of the parties or
Generally created by contract
prescription give rise to
(see Art. 448)
SCOPE
Has a wider extent of
Limited scope
enjoyment
GRANTOR
Person giving the
Lessor need not be the owner
Usufructuary must be the
of the property
owner of the property
TAXES
and Usufructuary pays the
Lessee does not generally pay
REPAIRS
ordinary repairs and taxes or
for repairs and taxes
August 2005
August 2005
EASEMENT
By ordinary repairs are understood such as are required by the wear and
tear due to the natural use of the thing and are indispensable for its
preservation. Should the usufructuary fail to make them after demand by
the owner, the latter may make them at the expense of the usufructuary.
(500)
Art. 593. Extraordinary repairs shall be at the expense of the owner. The
usufructuary is obliged to notify the owner when the need for such
repairs is urgent.
Art. 596. The payment of annual charges and taxes and of those
considered as a lien on the fruits, shall be at the expense of the
usufructuary for all the time that the usufruct lasts. (504)
Art. 597. The taxes which, during the usufruct, may be imposed directly
on the capital, shall be at the expense of the owner.
when real estate tax is chargeable to the owner, and not to the usufructuary since
the general rule is: the usufructuary shall pay for the taxes (Bislig Bay
Lumber vs. Provincial Government of Surigao, 52 O.G. 7242)
A privilege which the owner of one adjacent tenement has of another, existing
in respect of their several tenements, by which that owner against whose
tenement the privilege exists is obliged to suffer or not to do something on or
in regard to his own land for the advantage of him in whose land the privilege
exists
the land against which the privilege exists is called the SERVIENT tenement;
its proprietor, the servient owner; he in whose favor it exists, the dominant
owner; his land, the DOMINANT tenement. And as these rights are not
personal and do not change with the persons who may own the respective
estates, it s very common to personify the estates as themselves owning or
enjoying the easements.
when usufructuary pays real estate taxes (Albar vs. Carandang, 57 O.G. 6418)
Art. 602. The expenses, costs and liabilities in suits brought with regard
to the usufruct shall be borne by the usufructuary.
August 2005
Discontinuous are those, the enjoyment of which can be had only by the
interference of man, as rights of way, or a right to draw water.
easements impose no duty on the servient owner, except not to change his
tenement to the prejudice or destruction of the privilege
easements are as various as the exigencies of domestic convenience or the
purposes to which buildings and lands may be applied
an easement of private way over land must have a particular, definite line. To
establish an easement of a private way b prescription, the use must be
continuous and uninterrupted under a bona fide claim of right adverse to
the owner of the land and with his knowledge and silence. If the use is by
his permission or if he devies(?) the right, the title does not accrue;
verbal protests against the use prevent its accruing.
Apparent easements are those which are made known and are continually
kept in view by external signs that reveal the use and enjoyment of the
same.
Nonapparent easements are those which show no external indication of
their existence. (532)
Art. 616. Easements are also positive or negative.
A positive easement is one which imposes upon the owner of the servient
estate the obligation of allowing something to be done or of doing it
himself, and a negative easement, that which prohibits the owner of the
servient estate from doing something which he could lawfully do if the
easement did not exist. (533)
Art. 617. Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they
actively or passively belong. (534)
Art. 618. Easements are indivisible. If the servient estate is divided
between two or more persons, the easement is not modified, and each of
them must bear it on the part which corresponds to him.
If it is the dominant estate that is divided between two or more persons,
each of them may use the easement in its entirety, without changing the
place of its use, or making it more burdensome in any other way
continuous easements are those of which the enjoyment is, or may be,
continual, without the necessity of any actual interference by man.
Vena V. Verga
prescription does not run against the exercise of a servitude in favor of one who
resisted and prevented its exercise (Sarpy vs. Hymel, 4 South 439)
easement of drainage is not dependent upon acts of man; the descent of rain
water from the higher to the lower estates is due to the force of gravity; this
easement should be classed among the continuous ones, and it is subject to
extinction by non-user to the period required by law (Ongsiaco vs. Ongsiaco,
L-17510, March 30, 1957)
a fishpond owner may build a canal through another fishpond in order to draw
water from the river adjoining the latters fishpond, provided that the
construction thereof is the most convenient and the least onerous (see 88 Phil
770)
the only manner in which a barrio road or easement can be recognized over
property of private ownership, in the absence of a notation in the title thereof
or a written document accrediting such recognition, is by prescription.
Therefore, to justify an oppositors claim of title to the road or to the
easement by prescription it is necessary that the fact that there was merely
tolerance or permission on the part of the owner, which is presumed, be
overcome by positive acts on the part of the municipality enjoying it or
asserting its existence (Archbishop of Manila vs. Roxas, 22 Phil 450; Vda. de
Reyes vs. Municipality of Calumpit, CA-GR Nos. 3161-3163-R, November 26,
1949)
easement of waters does not require that higher and lower estates be
contiguous (Pennela vs. Hornada, CA-GR No. 15871-R, December 20, 1957)
mere non-user must be accompanied by adverse use of the servient estate (Welsh
vs. Taylor, 31 N.E. 896)
an easement in favor of land held in common will be extinguished by a partition, if
nothing is said about it
the remedy at common law for interference with a right of easement is an action
of trespass, or for consequential damages, or for the infringement of an
easement and an injunction will be granted to prevent the same (Vossen vs.
Dautel, 22 S.W. 734, Brenton vs. Davis, 44 Am. Dec. 769)
SERVITUDE
Art. 614. Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a
community, or of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate
does not belong
a right which subjects a land or tenement to some service for the use of
another land or tenement which belongs to another master
all servitudes are stereotyped and cannot be varied at the pleasure of parties
(Mersleon vs. Safe Deposit Co., 57 Atl. 569)
a real or praedial servitude is a charge laid on an estate for the use and utility
of another estate belonging to another proprietor; when used without any
adjunct, the word servitude means a real or praedial servitude
Vena V. Verga
August 2005
see Gargantos vs. Tan Yanon, L-14652, January 30, 1960 (light and view,
etc.)
dam impeding flow of water from higher and lower estates may be
demolished
read: Cortes vs. Yu Tibo, 2 Phil 24, Fabie vs. Lichauco, 11 Phil 14, Cid vs.
Javier, L-14116, June 30, 1960
apparent sign of easement (under Art. 624) is equivalent to title when estate
is alienated; the visible and permanent sign of an easement is the title that
characterizes its existence (Amor vs. Florentino, 74 Phil 403)
NUISANCE
Art. 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business,
condition of property, or anything else which:
(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or
Vena V. Verga
August 2005
remedies:
action for the damage done, by the owner, in the case of a private
nuisance; or by any party suffering special damage, in the case of a
public nuisance
by abatement by the owner, when the nuisance is private
by injunction
by indictment for a public nuisance
he may abate a public nuisance only when it is also a private nuisance to him,
or incommodes him more than the general public
equity will consider the comparative injury which will result from the granting
or refusing of an injunction, and it will not be granted where it will be
inequitable and oppressive, as where it would cause a large loss to defendant
and others, while the injury if it is refused, would be comparatively slight and
can be compensated by damages (read 142 Fed. 625)
the principles of negligence ordinarily apply where the cause of action is for
harm resulting from one act which created an unreasonable risk of injury;
whereas the principles of nuisance ordinarily apply where the cause of action
is for continuing harm caused by continuing or recurrent acts which cause
discomfort or annoyance to plaintiff in the use of his property
in respect to those things which are a nuisance because of the annoyance and
discomfort they produce, they are to be judged by the effect they are
calculated to produce upon ordinary people under normal circumstances, not
by their effect upon the oversensitive, the fastidious or the sick, nor, on the
other hand, by their effect upon those who are abnormally indifferent to such
things, or who by long experience have learned to endure them without
inconvenience. The inconvenience must be something more than mere fancy,
mere delicacy or fastidiousness; it must be an inconvenience materially
interfering with the ordinary comfort, physically, of human experience; not
Art. 682. Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement which
prohibits the proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance through
noise, jarring, offensive odor, smoke, heat, dust, water, glare and other
causes.
Art. 683. Subject to zoning, health, police and other laws and regulations,
factories and shops may be maintained provided the least possible
annoyance is caused to the neighborhood.
Vena V. Verga
August 2005
Vena V. Verga
August 2005