Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $

PROPERTY'MIDTERM'TRANSCRIPT'2013' It$is$only$in$property$that$thing$that$do$not$move$are$movable$
and$things$that$move$are$immovable.$$
'
$ ;$THIS$COMPLICATE$MATTERS$
Can'you'give'an'actual'situation'where'property'law'maybe'involve'
JUST' KNOW' THAT' YOUR' HANDS' HAS' THE' POWER' TO' CONVERT' A'
or'applicable?'
THING'FROM'IMMOVABLE'TO'MOVABLE'AND'VICEJVERSA'
In$registering$a$title'
EX:' Fertilizer$as$long$as$it$is$in$your$hands,$it$is$movable.$You$use$that$
Why' did' you' say' that' in' registering' a' title,' property' is'
in$the$soil,$it$becomes$immovable.'You$change$your$mind,$gikuha$nmu$
involved?'When$you$and$your$sister$inherit$a$property$from$
balik$$it$becomes$movable.'
your$parents$$co;ownership$;$your$sister$possesses$the$land.$
'
Do$you$know$your$right$over$that$property?$
Seriously,'why'the'hell'are'we'discussing'Movable'and'Immovable?'
' J$you$have$the$right$to$its$fruits$
Whats'the'point?'
;$Natural'Fruits$$spontaneous$product$
'
of$soil$or$the$young$of$animals$
' Because$this$maybe$a$PRELIMINARY' ISSUE$to$determine$an$
;$ Industrial' Fruits$ $ planted$ (mango$
ultimate$issue.$In$a$case$of$real$estate$tax$liability,$there$is$no$problem$
tree)$
when$ a$ house$ or$ land$ maybe$ held$ by$ real$ property$ tax$ because$ that$ it$
If$ you$ are$ your$ sister,$ do$ you$ think$ it$ is$ proper$ to$ share$ the$
real$property$(WA$NAY$MAKIGLALAIS$ANA).$
products$of$that$land$to$you?$Yes$
$ But' the' problem' is' in' regards' to' MACHINERIES' WHICH'
*Now$ here$ is$ where$ property$ come$ in.$ Theres$ no$ problem$ when$ way$
ARE'USED'IN'AN'INDUSTRY'PLACED'THERE'IN'BY'THE'OWNER'TO'
libog$ ang$ inyo$ pamilya,$ but$ how$ about$ those$ properties$ such$ as$
MEET' THE' NEEDS' OF' THE' INDUSTRY.' In$ here$ you$ will$ have$ a$ city$
buildings$co;owned$being$rented$but' ONLY' ONE' is$enjoying$the$fruits?$
assessor$ (hes$ role$ is$ to$ assist$ the$ liability$ of$ your$ real' property$ for$
Property$law$is$used$to$answer$this$dispute.''
taxation$ purposes)$ who$ will$ tax$ machineries$ or$ equipment.$ $ NGANU$
What'will'be'involved'here?'
GIAPIL$MAN$UG$TAX?$$
J'the$rights$of$co;owner$
;$It'is'because'of'Art.'415'(5)''machineries$which$are$used$
J'the$rights$as$an$owner,$$
in$an$industry$are$deemed$immovable,$therefore$they$are$subject$to$real$
J$the$right$to$partition$at'any'time'
property$tax.$
'
$
Movable'vs'Immovable'Property'
VENUE''the$court$where$the$action$to$be$filed.$
Movable'Property''properties$that$move$
;$ it$ would$ depend$ on$ the$ matter$ whether$ its$ is$ a$ real$ property$ or$ a$
Immovable'Property'$properties$that$do$not$move$ personal$property$
$ If'Real'Property''Real'Action'J'filed$where$the$property$is$
Article( 414." All" things" which" are" or" may" be" the" object" of" appropriation" situated$
are"considered"either:"
If' Personal' Property' ' Personal' Action' filed$to$where$the$
(1)"Immovable"or"real"property;"or"
plaintiff$ or$ the$ defendant$ resides,$ at$ the$ election$ of$ the$
(2)"Movable"or"personal"property."
plaintiff.$$
"
*if$the$venue$is$wrong,$the$case$will$be$dismissed$
Art.(415."The"following"are"immovable"property:"
$ ;$ if$ you$ are$ a$ defendant$ and$ you$ know$ that$ the$ venue$ is$
(1)" Land," buildings," roads" and" constructions" of" all" kinds" adhered" to" the"
wrong,$then$you$can$file$an$action$to$dismiss$the$case.$
soil;"
$ ;$in$order$for$the$court$to$rule$on$your$motion,$it$must$know$
(2)"Trees,"plants,"and"growing"fruits,"while"they"are"attached"to"the"land"
what$ are$ real$ properties$ and$ movable$ properties.$ This' is' a'
or"form"an"integral"part"of"an"immovF"able;"
preliminary' issue,' you' cannot' directly' resolve' the' issue' on' venue'
(3)"Everything"attached"to"an"immovable"in"a"fixed"manner,"in"such"a"way"
without' resolving' whether' the' property' is' a' real' property' or'
that"it"cannot"be"separated"thereF"from"without"breaking"the"material"or"
movable'property.'
deterioration"of"the"object;"
'
(4)" Statues," reliefs," paintings," or" other" objects" for" use" or" ornamentation,"
DOUBLE'SALE'
placed"in"buildings"or"on"lands"by"the"owner"of"the"immovable"in"such"a"
EX:' Property$ sold$ to$ two$ different$ person,$ both$ are$ in$ good$ faith.$ Our$
manner" that" it" reveals" the" intention" to" attach" them" permanently" to" the"
law$ provides$ for$ a$ solution$ on$ the$ issue$ of$ ownership.$ For$ real'
tenements;"
property,'it$is$that$person$who'first'register'the'property.'$
(5)" Machinery," receptacles," instruments" or" implements" intended" by" the"
$ The$ rule$ in$ movable' property' is' different.' If$ you$ are$ a$
owner"of"the"tenement"for"an"industry"or"works"which"may"be"carried"on"
judge,$before$you$can$decide$who$is$the$owner,$determine$first$what$is$
in" a" building" or" on" a" piece" of" land," and" which" tend" directly" to" meet" the"
that$property.$
needs"of"the"said"industry"or"works;"
$
(6)"Animal"houses,"pigeonFhouses,"beehives,"fish"ponds"or"breeding"places"
PRESCRIPTION'
of"similar"nature,"in"case"their"owner"has"placed"them"or"preserves"them"
There$ are$ different$ periods$ of$ prescription$ depending$ on$ what$ is$ the$
with" the" intention" to" have" them" permanently" attached" to" the" land," and"
object$of$ownership$to$be$acquired$through$prescription.$
forming"a"permanent"part"of"it;"the"animals"in"these"places"are"included;"
Movable''4$years$and$8$years$
(7)"Fertilizer"actually"used"on"a"piece"of"land;"
Immovable'$10$years$and$30$years$
(8)"Mines,"quarries,"and"slag"dumps,"while"the"matter"thereof"forms"part"
$
of"the"bed,"and"waters"either"running"or"stagnant;"
CLASSIFICATION'OF'PROPERTY'
(9)" Docks" and" structures" which," though" floating," are" intended" by" their"
Property'in'Relation'to'the'person'to'whom'it'belongs''PROPERTY'
nature"and"object"to"remain"at"a"fixed"place"on"a"river,"lake,"or"coast;"
ACCORDING'TO'OWNERSHIP'
(10)"Contracts"for"public"works,"and"servitudes"and"other"real"rights"over"
immovable"property." Property' of' Public' Dominion' J' city$ halls,$ parks,$ bridges$
" constructed$by$the$state,$public$roads,$highways'
Art.'414'and'415''implies$that$there$are$things$here$that$are$movable$ Property'of'Private'Ownership'
in$nature$and$yet$they$are$considered$as$immovable$ '
$ ;$in$here$some$provisions$are$ridiculous$$ Why' do' we' have' to' know' if' it' is' property' of' public' dominion' or'
EX:$Fishpond,$Animal$Houses$$are$considered$immovable,$ok$ra$unta$ni$ property'of'private'ownership?''Because$we$have$certain$rules$that$
pero$ ang$ problema$ dha$ because$ it$ is$ stated$ there$ including' the' specifically$applies$only$to$property$of$public$dominion$
animals$ EX:$We$have$this$rule$that$if$it$is$a$property$of$public$dominion,$that$it$is$
$ So$ang$isda$nga$nag$salum2$are$considered$immovable$ not$a$public$agricultural$land$$it$cannot$be$sold$or$become$an$object$of$
$ commerce.$
Things$ that$ are$ moving$ are$ movables,$ so$ you$ harvest$ that$ fish$ in$ the$ $ ;$ One$ of$ the$ things$ which$ cannot$ be$ a$ proper$ object$ of$ a$
fishpond.$ You$ sell$ it$ in$ the$ public$ market,$ its$ no$ longer$ moving.$ BUT$ contract$ are$ objects$ that$ are$ outside' the' commerce' of' man.$ $ best$
MOVABLE$SYA.$$ example$are$properties$of$public$dominion.$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
$ LIMITATIONS'OF'OWNERSHIP'
City$hall$or$public$road$to$be$sold$to$private$individuals$are$not$allowed.$ *If$ you$ are$ the$ owner$ you$ dont$ have$ the$ absolute$ right$ to$ enjoy$ your$
$ We$ may$ notice$ for$ the$ fact$ that$ some$ of$ our$ sidewalks$ are$ property.$
being$made$as$vending$areas.$There$contention$that$those$vendors$pay$ ;$Enjoy$your$property$in$a$manner$that$you$will$not$injure$the$rights$of$
taxes$to$the$City?$Is$that$ok?$How$will$you$reconcile$that?$ others.$
$ The$ law$ says' property' of' public' dominion' cannot' be' an' $
object'of'commerce.'In$other$words,$strictly$speaking$it$is$not$allowed$ Inherent'Limitations'
nga$ baligyaan$ ang$ sidewalk.$ (Ayaw$ lang$ mo$ suway$ syagit2$ dha,$ Easements''common$example$is$right$of$way'
property$of$public$dominion$ni!$Dungabon$jd$mo!)$ Right' of' way' $EX:' You$happen$to$be$the$owner$of$a$lot$but$
$ you$dont$have$access$to$the$public$highway$because$of$a$land$
How$ about$ lease$ contracts$ of$ ukay2$ vendors$ in$ a$ property$ of$ public$ owned$by$your$neighbor.$
dominion?$ ' You$can$ask$for$the$declaration$for$the$right$of$way$
We$ have$ a$ case$ here$ wherein$ the$ Supreme$ Court$ said$ that$ because$ you$ have$ no$ adequate$ access$ to$ a$ public$ highway.$
leasing$ a$ portion$ of$ a$ public$ plaza$ even$ with$ a$ premator$ of$ And$you$can$compel$your$neighbor.$
the$local$legislative$body$and$a$mayor$does$not$validate$that$ $
contract.$ EX2:' You$own$a$room$and$you$have$a$neighbor$constructing$
o That$is$an$Ultra'Vires''Contract''VOID$ a$ wall$ on$ the$ boundary,$ that$ has$ an$ opening$ directly$ by$ the$
$ window$ of$ your$ room.$ Makapamuso$ sya$ nmu,$ kaon2$
How$about$beaches?$You$cannot$just$enter$those$establishments$pariha$ popcorn.$
anang$ sa$ Lapu2$ without$ paying$ fees.$ Those$ individuals$ collecting$ fees,$ ' You$can$ask$the$court$to$close$that$opening.$Whats$
are$they$considered$owners$of$those$foreshore$lands?$ your$cause$of$action?$Easement'of'light'and'view.$
They$ are$ NOT.$ Foreshore$ lands$ are$ properties$ of$ public$ ' That' your' ownership' is' only' up' to' the'
dominion.$ boundary' line.' If' you' decide' to' have' an' opening,'
Just$ like$ those$ beach$ houses$ in$ Bantayan$ which$ were$ demolished$ backtrack'for'about'2'meters'from'the'boundary'line.'
pursuant$ to$ a$ writ$ of$ kalikasan.$ Even$ the$ structures$ in$ Kawasan$ Falls.$ '
This$is$because$those$areas$are$properties$of$public$dominion.$ NUISANCE''anything$that$disturbs$or$annoys$the$senses$
$ EX:$ Your$ neighbor$ in$ the$ business$ of$ providing$ sound$
But$why$is$it$that$we$have$SRP$that$is$owned$by$the$City$Government?$ systems$testing$his$speakers.$Or$a$gasoline$station$situated$in$
Why$ is$ it$ leased$ by$ the$ City$ in$ favor$ of$ PhilInvest?$ How$ would$ you$ a$heavily$resided$area.$
reconcile$that?$Why$is$it$no$case$and$pronouncement$that$arrangement$ ' J$these$can$be$aviated$$
of$that$nature$is$void?$ $
;$ ILL$ ANSWER$ THAT$ LATER,$ BIRDS$ EYE$ VIEW$ SA$ TA$ FOR$ WHAT'ARE'THE'BASIS'OF'PROPERTY?'
NOW$ Substantive'Law'as'Basis'of'property'
$ Civil$Code$Book$2$and$Part$of$Book$3'
POSSESSION''actual'holding'of'a'thing$and$enjoyment'of'the'right' Some$provisions$of$some$special$laws'
$ o Condominium$Act'
Possession'vs'Ownership' o Water$ Code$ $ d$ na$ pwede$ pataka$ lang$ mo$ kuyag$
Possession''ACTUAL$HOLDING$ tubig$sa$sapa$$Diversion$of$Water$(Dams)'
Ownership''not$necessarily$implies$actual$holding$ o Public$Land$Act$$disposition$of$Public$Agricultural$
$ Act'
You$ are$ leasing$ a$ property,$ leasor$ as$ the$ owner$ is$ also$ entitled$ to$ the$ o Property$Registration$Decree'
possession$of$the$thing.$The$former$wants$to$possess$the$property$and$ '
do$ as$ he$ please$ even$ entering$ to$ your$ house$ without$ permission$ just$ June'14,'2013'
because$he$is$the$owner.$Is$he$correct?$ Art.( 414.( All"things"which"are"or"may"be"the"object"of"appropriation"are"
How$ would$ you$ rebut?$ He$ maybe$ the$ owner$ but$ take$ note$ considered"either:"
that$ in$ regard$ to$ the$ right$ of$ possession$ he$ has$ already$ 1."Immovable"or"Real"Property;"or""
transferred$ it$ you$ in$ the$ mean$ time$ that$ you$ have$ lease$ 2."Movable"or"personal"Property"
contract.$$ $
Therefore,$ an$ owner$ himself$ can$ be$ a$ defendant$ in$ an$ How'do'you'characterize'Property?'
ejectment$suit.$ These$are$the$things$or$object$that$are$capable$of$being$appropriated.$
EX:$ Lessee$ is$ Tamayo.$ The$ owner$ without$ her$ consent$ $ Obviously,$we$cannot$be$studying$merely$the$things$that$we$
entered$ her$ premise.$ What$ are$ her$ rights?$ She$ cannot$ file$ can$see$because$there$are$a$lot$of$things$which$is$beyond$the$control$of$
action$ that$ she$ be$ declared$ an$ owner.$ But$ she$ can$ file$ for$ man,$they$are$non$governable.$$
forcible$ entry.$ BECAUSE$ THE$ ISSUE$ IN$ FORCIBLE$ ENTRY$ IS$ $
ONLY$POSSESSION.$ Basic'characteristic'of'thing'before'it'can'be'considered'property:'
' ;$ in$ here$ pilde$ jd$ and$ owner.$ He$ has$ not$ right$ to$ The$thing$must$be$capable'of'appropriation'
possess$pa$man.$What$he$has$is$ownership,$not$possession.$ o Capable$of$being$owned'
$ Capable'of'being'controlled$by$a$human$being'
Possession'in'Criminal'Law' It$could$be$corporeal'in'nature'or'incorporeal'in'nature'
In$ special$ law,$ possession$ of$ drugs,$ firearms,$ etc.$ You$ are$ o Corporeal' Thing' ' tangible$ $ material$ objects$ ;$
caught,$ defense$ is$ hard$ because$ in$ special$ law,$ mere$ something$ than$ can$ be$ preserved$ by$ the$ senses$ $
possession$is$enough.$ object$that$can$be$held$in$actual$possession'
o Your$proper$defense$is$in$the$Civil$Code.$When$can$ EX:'ballpen,$cellphone$
there$be$possession?$Possession'can'be'had'only' o Incorporeal' Thing' $ non$ tangible$ $ no$ material$
when' there' is' intent' to' possess.' If$ it$ is$ just$ existence$ $ cannot$ be$ preserved$ by$ the$ senses$ $
material$ possession$ then$ there$ can$ be$ NO$ Rights'
POSSESSION$TO$SPEAK$OF.$' EX:$your$rights$of$over$a$parcel$of$land$
o DEFENSE:$ NO$ Intent$ to$ possess.$ It$ is$ different$ to$ Why'do'you'consider'Rights'as'property?'
Intent$to$commit$a$crime.' Because$it$is$capable$of$being$owned,$it$is$susceptible$of$ownership.$
o Just$ pray$ that$ the$ judge$ will$ belief$ your$ ;$necessarily$that$those$that$cannot$be$owned$are$not$properties.$
explanation$ that$ you$ do$ not$ have$ the$ intent$ to$ $
possess.' '
' '
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
Who'will'exercise'this'right'to'appropriate?' Personal'Right''over$movable$things'
The$ owner$ of$ the$ thing$ can$ exercise$ the$ right$ to$ appropriate.$ Owner$ '
could$be$private$or$public$individual.$ GR:' In$ Classification$ of$ Rights,$ it$ would$ depend$ on$ the$ object$ of$ the$
EX:' The$SEA$$although$it$cannot$be$owned$by$an$individual,$it$can$be$ right.$$
owned$by$the$State.$ $
$ ;$ So$ property$ is$ not$ necessarily$ be$ a$ thing$ susceptible$ of$ June'22,'2013'
being$owned$by$a$private$individual$but$also$things$that$can$be$owned$ $Why' do' we' have' to' identify' if' it' involves' Real' thing' or' Personal'
by$the$State.$ thing?'$For$tax$purposes$$
$ $
Do' you' concur' to' the' statement' All' objects' that' are' beyond' the' Tax$Laws$$framers$got$their$idea$on$Art.'415'
commerce'of'man'are'not'properties' (5)" Machinery," receptacles," instruments" or" implements" intended" by" the"
' NO,' because$ objects$ outside$ the$ commerce$ of$ man$ only$ owner"of"the"tenement"for"an"industry"or"works"which"may"be"carried"on"
pertain$to$things$that$cannot$be$an$object$of$a$contract.$There$are$things$ in" a" building" or" on" a" piece" of" land," and" which" tend" directly" to" meet" the"
that$are$not$object$of$a$contract$but$are$owned$by$the$State.$ needs"of"the"said"industry"or"works;"
EX:'public$roads$and$highways,$national$parks$ "
$ ' 415' enumerate$ immovable$ properties$ which$ includes$
They'are'things'that'are'owned'by'the'government.' machines$that$are$used$in$an$industry$placed$there$by$the$owner,$thus$it$
What'are'the'specific'rights'of'an'owner?' is$liable$for$Real$Property$Tax.$
Right$ to$ Enjoy,$ Right$ to$ Consume,$ Right$ to$ Destroy,$ Right$ to$ $ There$ were$ cases$ where$ the$ SC$ confronted$ this$ issue$ on$ tax$
Encumber.$ETC.' liability,$ it$ relied$ on$ ART$ 415$ in$ determining$ whether$ the$ property$ is$
' movable$or$immovable.$
Right'to'Enjoy'is'very'GENERAL$ $
Do' you' concur' to' the' statement' ' Right' to' enjoy' also' includes' the' Mindanao'Bus'Company'vs'City'Assessor'
right'to'sell?''YES$ ' This$ is$ a$ tax$ assessment$ neither$ on$ the$ building$ nor$ a$ tax$
$ over$ a$ land,$ in$ here$ the$ company$ was$ imposed$ with$ real$ property$ tax$
Now$ lets$ go$ back$ to$ the$ statement$ that$ the$ owner$ is$ the$ government.$ over$ their$ maintenance$ and$ repair$ equipment$ (welding$ machines,$
Does' the' owner' has' the' absolute' discretion' of' right' to' sell' public' grinding$machines,$etc).$
roads,'etc?''NO$ $ We$ need$ to$ know$ here$ what$ are$ these$ equipment$ because$
So'what'is'this'ownership'by'the'government'over'these' there$are$circumstances$where$an$equipment$is$liable$for$real$property$
a'city'hall?'Because'if'thats'the'case'then'it'is'not'really' tax,$ but$ if$ the$ equipment$ is$ only$ incidental$ it$ is$ not$ liable.$ But$ if$ the$
the'owner'there'is'no'controlJ?'And'what'if'the'city'hall' equipment$is$necessary,$then$it$is$liable.$
is'already'abandoned?' $ Assessor$ was$ siting$ ART$ 415$ as$ his$ legal$ basis$ for$ imposing$
' the$ tax.$ But$ the$ company$ relied$ on$ the$ same$ law$ but$ with$ different$
*Just'because'the'thing'is'outside'the'commerce'of'man,'that'does' interpretation.$
not' mean' that' it' is' not' property.' And' it' does' not' mean' that' the' $ Assessor$said$it$is$liable$because$equipment$were$used$in$an$
property'is'used'for'public'service'by'the'state,'it'is'already''owned' industry.$The$company$said$that$such$machines' were' NOT' essentials'
by'the'State.'' and'principals$of$their$business$which'tend'to'meet'the'needs'of'the'
' J$When$you$say$ownership,$it$is$too$broad.$There$are$certain$ industry'or'work.'
rights$ pertaining$ to$ an$ owner.$ One$ of$ which$ is$ the$ power$ to$ sell$ thats$ ' SC$ upheld$ Mindanao$ bus$ that$ the$ machineries$ were$ mere$
why$it$must$be$pointed$out$that$if$we$will$say$that$the$state$is$the$owner$ incidentals.$
then$that$would$mean$that$the$State$can$sell$all$the$public$properties.$ $
$ ;$ They$ cannot$ sell$ those$ properties$ EXCEPT$ if$ those$ But' can' we' tax' the' buses' for' real' property' because' they' are'
properties$are$converted$into$PATRIMONIAL$PROPERTIES.$ principals' of' the' company?' On' the' ground' that' the' company'
$ cannot' function' as' such' because' their' business' is' about'
Property'Relations' transportation.'
This$ is$ not$ limited$ to$ property$ relation$ between$ individuals$ because$ ' ;$ NO,$ because$ also$ under$ the$ law,$ the$ business$ must$ be$
corporation$can$own$property.$$ carried' on' the' building' or' on' a' piece' of' land,$ unless$ kanang$ bus$
The$State$can$even$own$property$both$in$its$Public$Character$ dinha$mag$libot2$ra$sa$dako$nga$piece$of$land$sa$iya$building,$ridiculous$
or$in$its$Private$Character.$ situation!$
$ $
Human'Body';$it$is$not$property' Board'of'Assessment'Appeals'vs'Manila'Electric'
Can' it' be' object' of' commercial' transaction/' Contracts?' Human$ $ Involves$steel$towers$by$Meralco$imposed$with$real$property$
Organ$Donation$Act,$no$mention$of$the$prices$of$the$parts$of$the$body.$ tax.$MERALCOs$business$is$electric$distribution.$$
But$in$certain$instances,$human$body$can$be$an$object$of$a$transaction.$ $ Steel$ towers$ are$ not$ real$ properties$ because$ they' are' not'
$ attached'to'the'ground'in'such'a'manner'of'permanency.$It$is$made$
Res'Nullius''J'things'belonging$to$no$one$$ up$of$metal,$screwed$in$a$square$platform$with$bolt$that$can$be$removed$
;$this$is$property$because$it$is$susceptible$of$being$appropriated.$$ easily$ by$ unscrewing$ the$ bolts.$ It$ does$ not$ have$ the$ degree$ of$
EX:' fishes$in$the$sea$that$are$still$swimming,$birds$that$are$still$flying$$ permanency.$$
WILD$ANIMALS$(subject$to$special$laws)$ BASIS:'
$ (3)"Everything"attached"to"an"immovable"in"a"fixed"manner,"in"such"a"way"
*Property'does'not'only'refer'to'things'that'have'present'owner,'it' that"it"cannot"be"separated"thereF"from"without"breaking"the"material"or"
also'refer'to'things'that'may'be'owned.' deterioration"of"the"object;"
$ $
Rights'as'Property' Would'it'be'safe'therefore'to'say'that'if'the'issue'is''real'property,'
Rights$can$be$property$but$not$all$rights.$There$are$rights$that$are$not$ the'liability'to'real'property'tax,'what'is'controlling'is'ART'415'of'
considered$property.$ the' civil' code?' NO,' another$ basis$ is$ the$ Tax$ Code/$ Assessment$ Law.$
EX:' Rights$ and$ obligations$ of$ spouses,$ right$ to$ live$ together,$ right$ to$ You$ can$ also$ find$ real$ property$ taxation$ in$ the$ Local' Government'
support,$right$for$your$partner$to$be$loyal$to$you$ Code.'$
$ ;$ These$ are$ rights$ that$ cannot$ be$ assigned.$ Pwede$ ba$ gd$ na$ $
nmu$e$assign$imong$right$to$live$together$with$another$man?$ '
$ '
Rights'as'object'of'commercial'transaction:'
Real'Right'J'over$immovable$things'
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
Why' did' the' Supreme' Court' in' one' case' did' not' just' site' ART' 415' 1."Those"movables"susceptible"of"appropriation"which"are"not"included"in"
(5)'to'support'its'ruling'that'indeed'its'equipment'is'liable'for'real' the"preceding"article;"
property'tax?'' 2." Real" property" which" by" any" special" provision" of" law" is" considered" as"
One$reason$is$that$the$LGC$is$more$specific$law/$A' SPECIAL' personalty;"
LAW$ 3."Forces"of"nature"which"are"brought"under"control"by"science"
The$ other$ reason$ is$ first$ knowing$ what' are' the$ 4." In" general," all" things" which" can" be" transported" from" place" to" place"
requirements' before' we' can' consider' a' machine' as' without"impairment"of"the"real"property"to"which"they"are"fixed"
immovable'property' "
o that$it$must$be$inside$a$building/$piece$of$land' 416(3)'brought$under$control$by$science$
o that$it'must'be'placed'there'BY'THE'OWNER'OF' If$it$is$a$force$of$nature$in$it$natural$state,$it$is$not$property$
THE' PROPERTY,' not' by' the' person' who' has' o $It$ cannot$ be$ subject$ to$ appropriation$ or$
merely'temporary'right'over'those'equipment' ownership$rights$
' 416'(4)$
Caltex'vs'Central'Board'of'Assessment' EX:'Machines$which$would$not$qualify$in$ART.$415$
$ The$owner$of$the$equipment$is$Caltex.$But$it$was$not$the$one$ those$machine$which$are$placed$therein$BY$MERE$TENANT$$
who$is$asked$to$pay$the$real$property$tax.$Thus,$those$equipment$were$ they$are$movable$
not$placed$there$by$the$owner.$We$cannot$use$ART$415.$ $
$ But$the$issue$here$is$liability$to$real$property$tax,$so$it$is$very$ What' is' important' here' is' 416' (2):' things$ that$ are$ considered$
convenient$ for$ the$ SC$ to$ say$ that$ they$ are$ still$ liable$ for$ real$ property$ personal$by$special$provisions$of$law$
tax,$BUT$NOT$IN$415.$THEY$USED$THE$ASSESSMENT$LAW$that$taxes$the$ Chattel' Mortgage' Law' (contrary$to$415$(2))' ' it$recognizes$
property$by'mere'fact'that'it'is'classified'as'real'property.'' that$ growing$ crops$ are$ personal$ property$ for$ purposes$ of$
' chattel$mortgage.'
*If'maigo'sya'sa'415,'mao'na'ato'gamiton.'Kung'nay'lain'kaso'nga' o so$if$a$growing$crop$is$treated$as$chattel$mortgage,$
dli'maigo'415,'Assessment'law'ato'gamiton'para'ma'taxan.'*' when$ it$ is$ foreclosed,$ there$ is$ no$ right$ of$
' redemption.'
What'is'the'rule'that'we'can'formulate'in'the'light'of'these'3'cases?' o GR:$ if$ it$ is$ a$ REAL$ ESTATE$ MORTGAGE,$ after$
WALA$TUBAGA$NI$SIR!$Pero$murag$kanang$nay$*$;$mao$guro$ foreclosure$the$highest$bidder$is$issued$certificate$
na$sya' of$sale$(not$absolute$sale)$because$your$right$here$
' is$ still$ inquate.$ It$ is$ not$ yet$ perfect.$ It$ is$ inquate$
ATTY' G.' Opinion' on' the' Caltex' Case' ' one' of' the' cases' that' needs' because$the$owner$mortgagor$is$still$given$1' year'
reJexamination' to' redeem' the' property' from' THE' TIME' YOU'
' In$ this$ case,$ Caltex$ mentioned$ of$ Davao$ Sawmill$ case.$ That$ REGISTER' THE' DEED' OF' SALE' WITH' THE'
the$equipment$/$personal$property$can$be$immobilized$if$it$is$attach$to$ REGISTER'OF'DEEDS.$'
the$ building$ with$ a$ degree$ of$ permanency$ BY$ THE$ OWNER.$ It$ seems$ ! This$ will$ only$ apply$ if$ real$ property$
Caltex$has$been$mislead.$ mortgage,$ if$ chattel$ then$ there$ is$ no$
$ In$ the$ Davao$ Sawmill$ case,$ it$ is$ just$ for$ the$ execution$ of$ a$ right$to$redemption.'
foreclosure$based$on$the$judgment$rendered$by$the$court.$While$in$this$ Revised'Penal'Code'
case,$there$is$no$execution.$The$board$of$assessment$just$directly$taxed$ $
Caltex$on$its$property.$$ June'28,'2013'
$ Ang$ kapait$ sa$ SC$ dri$ kay$ ni$ mention$ sya$ sa$ mga$ cases$ ART.(416.(The"following"things"are"deemed"to"be"personal"property:"
previously$ decided$ that$ they$ are$ not$ liable$ for$ real$ property$ tax.$ They$ 1."Those"movables"susceptible"of"appropriation"which"are"not"included"in"
did$ not$ realize$ that$ the$ common$ threat$ if$ you$ site$ those$ reasons,$ the$ the"preceding"article;"
common$denominator$is$ART.$415,$it$is$not$assessment$law.$ 2." Real" property" which" by" any" special" provision" of" law" is" considered" as"
$ personalty;"
SIMPLIFICATION:' 3."Forces"of"nature"which"are"brought"under"control"by"science"
By'virtue'of'foreclosure'$personal$property$must$be$placed$there$BY$ 4." In" general," all" things" which" can" be" transported" from" place" to" place"
THE$ OWNER$ OF$ THE$ PROPERTY,$ not$ by$ the$ person$ who$ has$ merely$ without"impairment"of"the"real"property"to"which"they"are"fixed"
temporary$ right$ over$ those$ equipment$ $ for$ it$ to$ be$ immobilized$ or$ '
considered$real$property$liable$for$real$property$tax$$ART$415$ Movable'Property''What'makes'it'different'from'immovable?'
If' mere' taxing' of' the' equipment' ' Caltex$ case$ $ as$ long$ as$ it$ is$ an$ 1. capable$of$being$transferred$from$one$place$to$another$
equipment$attached$to$the$land/building$(even$if$it$is$not$placed$by$the$ 2. GR:$ things$ that$ are$ not$ included$ in$ the$ enumeration$ of$ Art.$
owner$of$the$property)$$liable$for$real$property$$ASSESSMENT$LAW$ 415$
$ a. But$ there$ are$ those$ actually$ included$ but,$ by'
SIR' WHICH' ONE' DO' YOU' PREFER' FOR' PURPOSES' OF' reason' of' special' provision' of' law,' are$
EXAMINATION?$ considered$movable$properties$
*Personally,' the' resolution' of' this' issue' is' whether' which' is' EX:'growing$fruits$$for$loan$purposes$
applicable,' the' general' law' or' special' law?' We' would' have' no' Chattel' Mortgage' Law' ' theres$ are$ provision$ in$ this$ law$ that$ allows$
problem' with' that.' Himuon' nlang' untang' basis' ang' 415,' but' DO' growing$fruits$to$be$an$object$to$a$chattel$mortgage$
NOT' MISLEAD' THE' PEOPLE' BY' SAYING' THAT' IT' IS' 415' THAT' IS' GROWING' FRUITS' ' those$ fruits$ are$ still$ attached$ to$ an$
APPLICABLE'BECAUSE'THIS'IS'A'REAL'PROPERTY'TAX'ISSUE.'$ immovable$because$it$is$already$harvested$when$there$appears$to$be$no$
It$ would$ seem$ to$ me$ that$ if$ you$ read$ the$ Local$ Government$ dispute$whether$it$is$immovable$or$movable$
Code,$ there$ appears$ no$ doubt$ that$ for$ the$ purposes' of' $
taxation:' if' the' machine' is' necessary' in' the' industry' 3.$ Things$which$are$intangible' (those' which' are' referred' to'
whether' placed' there' by' the' owner' or' by' mere' tenant,' Art.'417)'
there'is'liability'to'real'property'taxes.$$IMPORTANT$ (
$ Art.(417."The"following"are"also"considered"as"personal"property:"
MOVABLE'PROPERTIES''if$it$is$not$mentioned$in$415,$it$is$safe$to$say$ 1." Obligations" and" actions" which" have" for" their" object" movables" or"
that$it$is$a$movable$property.$But$this$is$not$conclusive.$There$are$some$ demandable"sums;"and"
things$ in$ 415$ that$ by$ special$ provisions$ of$ law,$ it$ became$ movable$ EX:$ ;$ claims' for' actual' damages$ (lost$ profits,$ damages$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
property$just$like$416'(2).$ cause$by$deceits);$$
" ;$accounts' receivable$(things$you$are$about$to$collect$from$
ART.(416."The"following"things"are"deemed"to"be"personal"property:" your$debtor)$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
2." Shares" of" stock" of" agricultural," commercial" and" industrial" entities," Property'in'relation'to'the'person'to'whom'it'belongs.'
although"they"may"have"real"estate." Classification'of'property'based'on'OWNERSHIP:'
" Public'Dominion'
4.$$ Things$which$we$cannot$see$but$we$can$probably$feel$ Private'Ownership''
$ EX:$electricity,$$ Dominion'vs'Ownership''
$ $ It$ uses$ Dominion$ because$ the$ owners$ are$ technically$ the$
US'vs'Carlos' general$ public$ but$ the$ public$ cannot$ just$ sell$ these$ properties.$ The$
$ A$case$involving$alleged$theft$of$electricity.$He$filed$motion$to$ administration$of$these$properties$is$vested$to$the$State.$It$is$the$duty$of$
quash$ questioning$ the$ existence$ of$ a$ crime,$ that$ there$ is$ not$ crime$ of$ the$State$to$use$these$properties$to$cater$the$needs$of$the$general$public.$
theft$committed$here$because$one$element$of$theft$is$unlawful$taking$of$ $ Ownership$is$because$if$you$are$the$owner,$you$can$enjoy$all$
personal$ property.$ Claiming,$ How$ can$ there$ be$ theft$ if$ there$ is$ not$ the$attributes$of$ownership$such$as$right$to$enjoy$(to$sell).$
personal$property?$$that$electricity$is$beyond$the$commerce$of$man$$ $ The$state$cannot$just$sell$or$even$lease$the$property,$unless$it$
it$is$invisible$(incorporeal).$ is$converted$into$patrimonial$property.$$
$ SC$ held$ that$ personal$ properties$ are$ not$ limited$ to$ things$ $
which$ are$ incorporeal.$ Electricity$ is$ brought$ into$ control$ by$ science.$ Where'shall'we'place'the'properties'of'the'church?'
Thus$a$thing,$corporeal$or$incorporeal,$can$be$movable$property$for$as$ ;$neither$private$ownership$nor$public$dominion$
long$as$it$can$be$appropriated.$ ;$it$is$said$that$the$court$shall$not$dwell$in$such$manner$$Separation$of$
$ Church$and$State$
Luise'Marcos'Case' ;$ but$ church$ can$ sell$ their$ properties$ just$ like$ a$ private$ person$ $
' PLDT$ alleged$ that$ they$ own$ the$ international$ long$ distance$ Governed$by$Cannon$Laws$
calls.$'SC$held$that$there$is$a$mistake$in$the$allegation$in$the$information$ $
because$ the$ one$ who$ owns$ the$ international$ long$ distance$ calls$ is$ the$ Principles' regarding' to' the' use' or' utilization' of' Properties' of'
one$calling.$' Public'Dominion'
But'does'it'follow'that'the'if'there'is'something'wrong'in' Properties'of'Public'Dominion'cannot'be'alienated.'
the'allegation'there'is'already'no'crime?'NO.' It' cannot' be' an' object' of' commercial' transactions'
The$issue$in$this$case$boils$down$to:$What'is'the'object'that' (cannot'be'sold,'lease,'etc).'
is' taken?$ SC$ said$ that$ the$ objects$ taken$ were$ the$ corporeal$ things$ They' cannot' be' acquired' by' prescription' against' the'
(computers,$ equipment)$ and$ the$ incorporeal$ things$ taken$ were$ the$ State.'
business$itself$and$the$use$of$the$facilities$=$equivalent$to$deprivation$to$ o If$ it$ is$ part$ of$ the$ public$ domain$ (national$ park,$
engage$in$business.$ mineral,$ forest),$ a$ private$ person$ cannot$ acquire$
Things,$ corporeal$ or$ incorporeal,$ can$ be$ movable$ property$ the$property$even$if$the$has$possessed$the$land$in$
for$as$long$as$it$can$be$appropriated.$ reasonable$time.$
$ o Except$ for$ public$ agricultural$ land$ which$ can$ be$
Therefore,$BUSINESS' in$itself$is$movable$property.$You$may$ subject$for$prescription.$
perceive$the$business$through$its$building,$chairs$and$tables,$but$when$ EX1:$A$Kainginized$land$$even$if$you$are$living$on$
you$ sell$ those$ equipments,$ it$ is$ not$ a$ sale$ of$ your$ business.$ THAT$ IS$ the$land$for$several$years,$you$cannot$say$that$you$
SALE$ OF$ TANGILBE$ MOVABLE$ PROPERTIES$ BUT$ THE$ BUSINESS$ acquire$ownership$over$it$through$prescription.$
REMAINS$UNLESS'YOU'WILL'SELL'THE'ENTIRE'INTEREST.'' They'are'not'subject'to'attachment'and'execution.'
Interest$ is$ something$ that$ is$ intangible.$ KITA$ NA$ MO$ SA$ o When$ the$ state$ consents$ to$ be$ sued,$ it$ only$
DISTINCTION?$YES!$ consents$to$proceedings$anterior$to$execution.$
$ o If$we$talk$about$enforcement$of$the$execution,$it$is$
To'prove'that'business'in'itself''is'movable,'SC'cited'a'law'known' already$ another$ story.$ AND$ THOSE$ PROPERTIES$
as'the'BULK'SALES'LAW$ OF$PUBLIC$DOMINIONS$CANNOT$BE$ATTACHED$
If$ I$ am$ selling$ the$ physical$ things$ in$ the$ business$ just$ to$ They'cannot'be'burdened'by'voluntary'easement.'
change$ the$ physical$ set$ up,$ I$ am$ not$ actually$ selling$ the$ o EX1:' Right$ of$ Way$ $ when$ something$ is$ granted$
business.$ I$ am$ only$ selling$ the$ tangible$ things$ used$ in$ that$ only$to$a$specific$person,$it$could$not$be$that$only$
business.$ this$ person$ is$ authorized$ to$ use$ the$ property$ of$
But$if$Im$going$to$enter$into$agreement$selling$my$business$ public$dominion'
interest$ that$ I$ will$ not$ engage$ in$ that$ business$ after$ signing$ '
that$$GOVERNED$BY$BULK$SALES$LAW$ 2'lands'involve'in'Right'of'Way:'
$ Dominant'Estate''the$one$enjoying$the$easement'
Classifications'of'Movable'Property' Servient' Estate' ' the$ property$ that$ provides$ access$ to$
Consumable'J'something$that$can$be$consumed' another$property$to$gain$access$to$a$public$highway'
o Loses$its$existence' '
o Things$that$when$used,$it$cannot$be$used$again' Villa'Rico'vs'Sarmiento'
o EX:$MONEY$$pero$ayaw$lang$kan.a!' $ Generally,$ if$ you$ are$ a$ grantee$ of$ right$ of$ way,$ you$ are$ the$
NonJConsumable' J' can$be$used$in$a$manner$appropriate$to$ owner$of$that$dominant'estate,'only$you$can$use$the$right$of$way.$BUT'
its$nature$without$itself$being$consumed$ This$ cannot$ be$ had$ in$ a$ property$ of$ public$ dominion$ because$ this$ is$
' supposed$to$be$open$to$the$general$public.$
Why' make' distinction?' Nominate$ (with$ definite$ thing)$ and$ $ You$cannot$say$that$because$you$are$a$grantee$of$the$right$of$
Innominate'Contracts$(without$specific$thing)$ way$ given$ by$ the$ government,$ you$ can$ prohibit$ the$ others$ from$ using$
There$ are$ contracts$ which$ are$ treated$ as$ such$ because$ the$ that$ right$ of$ way$ because' property' of' public' dominion' cannot' be'
object$ is$ a$ non;consumable;$ conversely$ it$ is$ name$ like$ this$ burdened'with'easement.''
because$the$object$is$consumable$ '
EX1:' Como' datum' ' a$ gratuitous$ use$ of$ a$ thing$ with$ the$ ART'420.'The"following"things"are"property"of"public"dominion:"
obligation$ on$ the$ part$ of$ the$ borrower$ to$ return$ the$ very$ 1." Those" intended" for" public" use," such" as" roads," canals," rivers," torrents,"
same$thing.$ ports" and" bridges" constructed" by" the" State," banks," shores," roadFsteads,"
' J$ it$ can$ only$ be$ como$ datum$ when$ the$ object$ is$ and"others"of"similar"character"
nonJConsumable$ because$ you$ will$ be$ returning$ the$ every$ 2."Those"which"belongs"to"the"State,"without"being"for"public"use,"and"are"
same$thing$ intended" for" some" public" service" or" for" the" development" of" the" national"
EX2:' Mutuum' ' loan$ $ this$ involves$ consumable$ because$ it$ wealth."
involves$money.$$ '
$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Property' of' Public' Dominion' may' refer' to' Properties' of' the' State'
itself'and'Properties'of'LGUs'(Province,'City,'Municipality'EXCEPT'
the'Barangays)'
Property'of'the'State'
o Property' for' public' use$ ;$ use$ which$ is$ not$
confined$ to$ privileged$ individuals,$ but$ is$ open$ to$
the$indefinite$public'
J'maybe$used$by$the$public$indiscriminately$
EX:'Art.$420$(1)$
Toll'Ways'$when$you$do$not$pay,$you$cannot$use$
the$ road.$ Isnt' it' properties' for' public' use' are'
used'INDISCRIMINATELY?'
;$Collecting$a$toll$does$not$negate$the$public$use$of$
the$road.$It$is$for$the$maintenance.$
*DISCRIMINATION' WILL' ONLY' HAPPEN' IF'
IKAW' NGA' PWEDE' MAKABAYAD,' DLI' KA'
PAAGION.$$
o Property' for' public' service$ ;$ although$ used$ for$
the$ benefit$ of$ the$ public,$ cannot$ be$ used$
indiscriminately$by$anyone$but$only$by$those$that$
are$authorized$by$proper$authority'
EX:'police$cars,$fire$truck,$ambulance$
o Property'for'development'of'national'wealth$'
EX:'Natural$Resources$
$ of' title' only' confirms' ownership,' it' does' not' vest' ownership.' So$if$
Cavite'vs'Roxas'
$ Property$ involve$ here$ is$ a$ public$ plaza.$ A$ portion$ of$ which$
was$ leased$ to$ Roxas$ granted$ by$ the$ Municipality$ through$ the$ mayor.$
The$mayor$was$authorized$by$the$council.$
$ A$plaza$is$a$property$for$public$use,$it$cannot$be$a$subject$to$a$
contract.$The$contract$entered$into$by$the$parties$is$void.$$
$ IF$ THE$ CLASSIFICATION$ OF$ THE$ LAND$ IS$ TIMBER$ LAND,$
Maniclang'vs'IAC'
' Involved$her$is$a$fishpond$held$in$a$creek,$which$is$within$the$
land$ of$ Maniclang.$ Parties$ herein$ entered$ into$ compromise$ agreement$
involving$the$used$of$the$utilization$of$water$coming$from$the$creek.$
$ Parties$ cannot$ enter$ into$ agreement$ utilizing$ the$ use$ of$
property$ of$ public$ dominion$ (the$ creek).$ They$ dont$ have$ legal$
personality$to$do$that.$
Ignacio'vs'Director'of'Lands'
' Involved$here$is$mangrove,$an$application$for$registration$of$
that$parcel$of$land$from$by$alluvial$deposits.$$
Accression$formed$by$the$River$$can$be$owned$privately$
Accression$ formed$ by$ the$ Sea$ $ cannot$ be$ owned$ privately,$
property$of$public$dominion$
In$this$case,$the' property' is' formed' by' seawater,' thus' it' cannot' be'
registered.''
' agricultural$ land$ $ alienable$ and$ disposable$ $ then$ have$ it$ title$ in$ his$
Property'in'420'is'divided'into'Three:'
Public$Use'
Public$Service'
Development$of$National$Wealth'
*Public$Use$and$Public$Service$is$usually$devoted$to$cater$the$needs$of$
general$public.$Here$we$strictly$apply$the$rule$that$they'are'beyond'or'
outside'the'commerce'of'man'
Prior$to$this$Bill' Operate' Transfer' Law,$it$is$absolutely$prohibited$to$
make$ as$ an$ object$ of$ the$ contract$ these$ properties$ for$ public$ use$ and$
public$service.$
$ agent.' EX:$ DENR$ approved$ your$ survey$ plan$ because$ the$ land$ is$
In$ BOT' Law' ' there$ is$ a$ premise$ that$ the$ government$ has$ insufficient$
resources$ to$ build$ infrastructure$ to$ serve$ the$ general$ public$ just$ like$
Capital$Intensive$Projects$
$ Here$ private$ investors$ will$ build$ infrastructures$ and$ then$
they$ will$ be$ given$ time$ to$ recover$ their$ investments.$ One$ way$ of$
recovering$their$investments$is$by$way$of$collecting$tolls$for$the$use$of$
these$facilities.$
$ Thats$ why$ we$ have$ properties$ like$ North$ Luzon$ Express$
Way,$where$a$company$was$given$the$right$to$collect$tolls.$Here$you$will$
ask$ yourself$ why$ is$ it$ that$ road,$ supposed$ to$ be$ beyond$ commerce$ of$
man,$being$subject$to$a$contract?$Its'because'of'this'BOT'Law,'this'is'
a' statutory' law' passed' by' congress,' which' is' of' the' same' footing'
with'the'Civil'Code.$Do$not$think$that$CC$is$superior$to$this$law.$
$
$ *This'law'somehow'modify'the'very'strict'application'of'
the' rule' that' properties' of' public' dominion' are' beyond' the'
commerce'of'man.'
$
Projects'covered'by'BOT'Law:'
Reclamation'
Ports'
Airports'
$
Property'for'the'development'of'National'Wealth'
$ The$ constitution$ itself$ allows$ joint$ venture,$ co;production$
agreement$for$national$patrimony$and$economy.$Again,$this$is$because$
of$a$technical$insufficiency$that$we$have.$
$
Municipality'of'Cavite'vs'Roxas'
$ A$ portion$ of$ a$ public$ plaza,$ public$ road$ or$ public$ highway$
could$ not$ be$ leased$ even$ if$ the$ lease$ is$ entered$ into$ by$ the$ mayor$
pursuant$ to$ the$ authorization$ of$ the$ local$ administrative$ body.$ That$
would$not$validate$the$arrangement$because$that$is$illegal.$
$
Land'Bank'of'the'Philippines'Case'
A$ forest$ land,$ kainginized,$ where$ an$ individual$ obtained$ a$
title$ thereof.$ Can$ this$ be$ privately$ owned?$ NO,$ just$ because$ you$ have$
certificate$of$title,$it$does$not$mean$that$you$are$the$owner.$Certificate'
you$dont$have$ownership$in$the$first$place,$there$is$nothing$to$confirm.$
*In$practice,$here$the$Deed$of$Sale$is$more$important$because$
it$is$the$mode$of$acquiring$the$ownership.$If$you$only$present$the$title,$
that$ is$ not$ valid.$ Because$ for$ sure$ you$ will$ be$ asked,$ How$ did$ you$
become$the$owner$of$that$land?$After$that,$questions$of$classification$of$
the$land$begin.$$
EVEN$ IF$ YOU$ HAVE$ A$ TITLE,$ YOUR' TITLE' IS' VOID.' The$ same$ if$ the$
land$is$classified$as$mangrove,'forshore'land.$
Worst$ if$ someone$ sells$ you$ a$ lot$ worth$ P100$ per$ square$
meter$(barato$ra$kaau)$and$the$adjacent$land$is$subdivision.$Be$careful$
with$ offers$ that$ are$ good$ to$ be$ true$ because$ that$ lot$ may$ not$ be$
alienable$and$disposable.$$
$
Mayor'Yap'Case'
' Boracay$ lands$ are$ unclassified.$ Mayor$ contend$ that$ if$ it$ is$
unclassified,$automatic$that$it$is$agricultural$$alienable$and$disposable.$
$ SC$held$that$if$the$land'is'unclassified,'under'the'Forestry'
Code,' classification' is' FOREST.' Therefore,$ it$ is$ not$ alienable$ and$
disposable.$
$ But$ it$ is$ not$ yet$ the$ end$ of$ the$ world$ for$ Yap.' The$ remedy$
here$ is$ to$ go$ to$ Congress$ then$ lobby$ that$ the$ land$ be$ reclassified$ as$
name.$$
$
What' if' you' are' occupying' a' land' in' good' faith' for' several' years,'
you' have' checked' the' title,' you' inspected' the' lot.' Gidaginut' ka' sa'
DENR'that'the'lot'is'classified'as'forest'land.'What'is'your'remedy?'
Ayaw$ko$tagae$anang$good;faith2$nga$defense.'
The$ remedy$ should$ be$ relied$ on$ the$ facts$ of$ the$ case$ $
DOCTRINE' OF' EQUITABLE' ESTOPPEL' ' IN' THE' CASE' OF'
LAND'BANK'(we'will'discuss'this'later)'
*Theres$ a$ doctrine$ that$ the$ State$ is$ not$ estopped$ by$ the$ acts$ of$ its$
allegedly$ alienable.$ But$ later,$ after$ you$ have$ planted$ the$ lot,$ it$ was$
established$that$the$lot$is$not$alienable$and$disposable.$Can$you$put$up$a$
defense$that$the$state$is$estopped$from$the$acts$of$its$agents?$NO.'THAT'
MIGHT' SOUND' UNFAIR' BUT' THERE' ARE' OTHER' POLICIES' GIVING'
REASON'WHY'THAT'IS'THE'RULE.''
'
Public' Properties' could' not' be' subject' to' attachment' and'
execution'
'
MIAA'Case'
Properties' in' question' are' in' the' name' of' MIAA,' and' not' in' the'
name'of'Republic.$Why'is'it'the'SC'held'that'the'properties'are'still'
property'of'the'Republic?'
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
MIAA$here$is$just$a$mere' trustee' of' the' Republic.$It$is$not$
really$the$real$owner$although$the$property$is$in$its$name.'
' $
$ *MIAA$is$created$by$a$charter,$there$is$a$provision$then$that$
they$ are$ exempted$ from$ taxes.$ Later,$ LGC$ was$ promulgated$
withdrawing$tax$exemptions$then$nagbalik2$na$sd$nga$exempted$na$pd$
daw.$
$ Issue$ karun$ is$ whether$ this$ is$ a$ corporation$ or$ not.$ If$ it$ is$ a$
corporation,$ then$ it$ is$ liable$ for$ real$ property$ tax$ because$ they$ have$
personality$ distinct$ from$ Republic.$ If$ no,$ then$ it$ is$ just$ a$ mere$
instrumentality$of$government$and$therefore$no$liability.$
$ SC$ relied$ on$ the$ Corporations' Code,$ that$ for$ there$ to$ be$
GOCC,$it$must$be$created$in$the$same$manner$the$private$corporation$is$
created.$If$its$is$a$Stock' Corporation,$then$there$must$be$a$capital$and$
capital$must$be$divided$into$shares.$NonJstock$on$the$other$hand,$there$
must$ members$ and$ strict$ requirement$ that$ any$ income$ should$ not$ be$
distributed$to$its$member.$$
$ In$ this$ case,$ it$ was$ found$ out$ that$ in$ its$ charter,$ it$ says$ that$
any$ income$ of$ MIAAs$ operation$ should$ be$ remitted$ to$ the$ National$
Government,$not$distributed$to$its$members.$Therefore$MIAA' is' not' a'
GOCC'but'an'instrumentality'of'the'national'government.'They'are'
just'trustee.''
' If$the$owner$is$the$Republic$then$Paranaque$could$not$tax$the$
Republic.$ It' violates' the' principle' that' properties' of' the' state' are'
not'subject'to'attachment'and'execution.'And'that'taxing'power'of'
the' LGU' is' a' power' granted' by' the' State,' gitagaan' kag' taxing'
authority'imo'na'hinuon'taxan'ang'source'of'your'authority?'OK?'
' $
STANDARD' IN' DETERMINING' WHAT' A' GOVERNMENT'
CORPORATION'IS:'
Whether$there$is$a$charter$
But$this$is$not$enough$
o Whether$ it$ is$ created$ in$ accordance$ with$
corporation$code$
! No$capital$stocks$$not$a$corporation$
It$is$just$instrumentality$
$ constitutional$prohibition$still$applies$
July'5,'2013'
There$are$properties$of$public$dominion$in$Art.$420$that$belong$to$other$
character:$
Alluvial$deposits$that$is$formed$by$movements$of$the$sea$
Creek$in$Maniclang$Case$
Foreshore$lot$
Public$Plaza$in$Roxas$Case$
RECLAMATIONS''there'are'two'cases'here$
' CONSTITUTION'J'IMPORTANT$
Chavez' vs' PEA' Case' J' The$ transfer$ of$ a$ portion$ of$ reclaimed$ land$ in$
favor$of$corporation$is$unconstitutional.'
$ In$this$case,$it$is$a$transfer$in$favor$of$a$corporation,$a$private$
entity,$ which$ was$ the$ one$ who$ did$ the$ reclamation$ work.$ There$ was$ a$
joint$ venture$ agreement$ that$ as$ payment$ of$ the$ investments$ involving$
the$project,$it$will$be$given$a$portion$of$that$reclaimed$lands$
What'was'the'substance'of'the'agreement?'The$consideration$of$the$
joint$ venture$ agreement$ is$ that$ AMARI$ will$ be$ given$ a$ portion$ of$ the$
reclaimed$land$as$payment.$$
$ SC$ held$ that$ this$ agreement$ is$ unconstitutional.$ The$
foreshore$ lands$ reclaimed$ are$ properties$ of$ public$ domain$ and$
therefore$they$are$not$alienable$and$disposable.$
$ EX:' When$ the$ government$ enters$ into$ a$ contract$ with$ a$ private$ party.$
Assuming'that'AMARI'be'a'private'individual,'is'it'possible'that'the'
land' be' transferred' to' its' name?' YES,' provided$ there$ is$ a$ prior$
positive$ act$ from$ the$ government,$ SPECIFICALLY$ BY$ THE$ EXECUTIVE$
(Commonwealth$ Act$ 141)$ reclassifying$ the$ land$ to$ alienable' and'
disposable.'$
;$It$can$only$be$transferred$to$an$individual$only,$not$to$a$corporation.$
Otherwise,$it$would$violate$the$Constitution.$
$ $
Chavez'vs'NHA'Case'
' The$ facts$ are$ substantially$ similar.$ It$ involves$ another$ joint$
venture$ agreement.$ But$ this$ time$ the$ SC$ held$ that$ the$ transfer$ of$ a$
portion$of$reclaimed$land$in$favor$of$corporation$is$valid.$
$ NHA$ is$ different$ from$ the$ AMARI.$ When$ the$ land$ was$
transferred$to$NHA,$it$became$patrimonial.'It$was$no$longer$considered$
$
as$of$public$use$or$of$public$service.$Thus,'Constitutional'Prohibition'
will'not'apply'here.''
So'whats'the'difference'between'the'transfer'to'PEA'and'transfer'
to'NHA?$$
Transfer' to' PEA' ' PEA$ is$ tasked$ to$ hold$ lands$ of$ public$
domain.$ The$ transfer$ of$ the$ reclaimed$ lands$ in$ its$ name$
would$not$convert$the$land$into$patrimonial.$It$would$remain$
as$lands$of$public$domain,$alienable'and'disposable.'
Transfer' to' NHA' ' NHA$ is$ an$ endJuser' agency.' Transfer$
thereof$converts$the$land$into$patrimonial.$
$
Alienable'and'disposable'vs'Patrimonial'
AandD' ' cannot$be$transferred$to$a$corporation,$it$can$only$
be$transferred$to$an$individual.'
Patrimonial' $ there$ is$ no$ prohibition$ to$ whom$ it$ would$ be$
transferred'
$
EndJUser'Agency''they$are$the$main$beneficiaries,$sila$ang$mu$gamit.$
If$we$say$Reclaimed$Lands$$dli$man$ang$PEA$ang$mugamit$
SILA$ ANG$ MUGAMIT$ $ why$ is$ it$ said$ that$ they$ will$ be$ the$
one$to$use$the$land$when$in$fact,$it$will$be$distributed$to$the$
landless?$
o View' this' in' the' mandate' of' the' agency'
concerned.'$
o Mandate$of$the$agency$is$to$distribute$lands$to$the$
qualified$beneficiaries.$
*Relating'this'to'SRP'in'Cebu'='Cebu'City'is'an'endJuser'agency.'
'
Reclaimed'Land''a$land$formerly$covered$by$water$filled$up$with$soil$
Before$ it$ can$ be$ transferred,$ it$ must$ be$ reclassified$ by$ the$
President$pursuant$to$his$authority$under$CA$141$
When$reclassified,$itll$be$alienable$and$disposable.$
o But$ even$ if$ it$ is$ alienable$ and$ disposable,$ that$ is$
not$ equivalent$ that$ the$ land$ is$ patrimonial$ $
*How'to'make'constitutional'prohibition'not'applicable?'
Legislative$may$declare$it$no$longer$needed$for$public$use$or$
public$service'
Implied'Conversion'into'Patrimonial''issuing$of$patent$in$
favor$of$an$end;user$agency'
o in$the$basis$of$the$patent,$certificate$of$title$will$be$
issued$to$this$end'user'agency'
*if'it'will'be'patrimonial'already,'FORGET'THE'
*it'would'appear'that'in'the'cases'assigned,'the'only'way'to'convert'
the' property' into' patrimonial' is' to' have' an' explicit' declaration'
(through' proclamation,' or' through' a' law,' or' ordinance,' or'
resolution).' But' in' this' case' of' Chaves,' it' would' seem' that' SC'
recognize'implicite'convertion.'
'
Public'Property'cannot'be'subject'to'attachment'and'execution'
Attachment' and' Execution' ' Civil$ Case$ involving$ Damages$ $ Writ$ of$
Execution$is$issued$after$the$final$judgment$
$ ;$ to$ be$ able$ to$ enforce$ whatever$ monetary$ judgment$ that$
maybe$rendered$in$favor$of$the$plaintiff.$
$
The$ government$ will$ not$ pay$ the$ private$ party,$ the$ latter$ can$ sue$ the$
government.$ It$ is$ possible$ that$ the$ private$ party$ can$ win$ the$ case$
against$ the$ former.$ But$ the$ problem$ is$ the$ enforceability$ of$ the$
execution$or$the$judgment.$$
$ You$ cannot$ just$ go$ to$ the$ sheriff$ and$ make$ him$ levi$ the$ city$
hall,$ city$ ambulance,$ or$ all$ cash$ deposits$ in$ banks$ of$ the$ government,$
etc.$It$cannot$be$done$because$they$are$property$of$public$dominion.$$
What'will'you'do'to'satisfy'the'execution'or'judgment?'You$can$go$
the$local$council$to$enact$an$ordinance$to$appropriate$funds$for$you.$
$
How'about'SRP?'Can'it'be'executed?'YES,$SRP$is$already$patrimonial.$$
$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
RATIONALE:'Property$of$public$dominion$could$not$be$attached$and$be$
executed$because$they$are$for$public$service$and$public$use.$
$ government'will'just'say,'THAT'TITLE'IS'VOID?'
Government'Entities'and'Government'Corporations'
What' makes' and' entity' a' Government' Corporation?' ' it$ must$ be$
organized$whether$it$is$a$stock$or$non;stock$$$
It$is$not$enough$that$it$has$a$charter$
If$it$is$a$stock$corporation,$it$has$stocks$
o Divided$into$shares$
If$it$s$a$non;stock$corporation,$it$has$members$
*If'a'property'is'registered'to'the'Government'Corporation'but'it'is'
not' organized' as' stock' or' nonJstock,' it' is' just' a' mere' government'
instrumentality,'WHAT'IS'THE'EFFECT?'
the$ property$ still$ belongs$ to$ the$ state,$ IT$ CANNOT$ BE$
DISPOSED$OF'
o If$there$is$this$real$tax$assessment,$it$is$exempted.'
*What'if'this'entity'is'engaged'in'business?'Just'like'the'case'of'VPA'
where' it' owned' warehouses' that' were' rented' out' by' private'
businessmen.'Is'it'correct'for'the'assessor'to'tax'those'warehouses'
which'are'devoted'to'business?'YES'
' Now$if$the$VPA$cannot$pay$those$taxes,$what$shall$be$done$to$
those$warehouses?''Can'they'be'levied?'NO'
' $in$effect$$they'have'waived'their'right'to'the'doctrine'of'
Philippine'Fisheries'Development'Authority'Case'
' As$ a$ general$ rule,$ instrumentalities$ of$ the$ government$ are$
exempted$from$tax,$but$when$it$grants$beneficial$use$of$its$property$to$
taxable$people$then$its$no$longer$exempted$from$tax.$
BUUUUUT!!!'
*That'is'only'about'the'liability.'In'regards'to'Enforceability,'thats'
another' matter.' Just' like' the' states' immunity' from' suit.'
Government'Entity'may'have'waived'its'immunity'from'suit'but'it'
does'not'mean'it'is'liable'of'enforceability'
' SC$ held$ that$ PFDA,$ although$ created$ by$ a$ charter,$ it$ is$ not$ a$
corporation$ because$ this$ is$ not$ organized$ as$ a$ stock$ or$ non;stock$
corporation.$Therefore$it$is$just$instrumentality.$Warehouse'cannot'be'
levied.'
$ '
*Heres' the' logic' behind' this' ha?' kay' murag' mugawas' jd' ni' sa'
exam'' '
If$instrumentality$of$government$$even$if$this$properties$are$
registered$ in$ the$ name$ of$ its$ entities,$ the$ real$ owner$ is$ the$
state.$$NOT'A'SUBJECT'TO'LEVY'AND'EXECUTION'
*So'where'shall'we'enforce'the'liabilities?'TO'ITS'INCOME!'
*Ang'problema'ani'kung'sa'charter,'its'not'an'income'of'VPA'but'to'
be'remitted'to'the'National'Government.'
' J' IN' THE' APPROPRIATION' ACT' OF' VPA' ' attach$ the$
execution$here$
' revolutionary$doctrine$that$would$upset$almost$all$
Pasay'City'Government'vs'CFI'
' That$ as$ long$ as$ there$ is$ appropriation,$ it$ can$ be$ levied$ for$
execution$because$government$funds$has$already$been$set$aside.$
$ invoked' because' the' land' is' not' truly' part' of' Manila' bay.' It' is' a'
July'12,'2013'
ESTOPPEL'
Can'we'invoke'estoppel'against'the'government?'NO'
$ rule'is'still'the'Land'Bank'of'the'Philippines.''IMPORTANT'
EX:'Land'Bank'vs'Republic'
' There$ was$ a$ title$ issued$ to$ the$ mortgagor.$ Land$ was$
mortgaged$ to$ the$ Land$ Bank$ and$ offered$ as$ a$ collateral.$ Debt$ was$ not$
paid$and$it$was$foreclosed.$Then$the$Bureau$of$Land$questioned$the$title$
of$the$land$because$it$is$a$marshy$land$(a$FOREST$LAND)$$inalienable$;$
Any$title$issued$is$void.$$
*What'will'you'do'before'you'can'be'issued'a'title?'
You$be$ready$with$your$monuments$of$title'
Prepare$petition$(attach$with$several$documents)'
Survey$Plan$approved$by$DENR$$Land$Management$Services'
Then$ there$ is$ a$ hearing$ where$ the$ court$ will$ cause$ the$
issuance$of$a$Decree$of$Registration'
Decree$ of$ Registration$ will$ be$ issued$ by$ the$ Land$
Registration$Authority'
Then$LRA$will$transmit$the$decree$to$Local$Registry$of$Deeds'
LRD$will$then$issued$the$certificate$of$title'
$
With' the' involvement' of' 4' agencies' in' the' issuance' of' a'
title'and'legal'expenses,'isnt'it'a'height'of'injustice'if'later'on'the'
' This$is$exactly$what$happened$in$land$bank.$But'is'it'a'valid'
argument'that'because'of'the'involvement'of'4'agencies,'therefore'
estoppel' shall' be' invoked' against' the' government?' ' NO,$ because$
estoppel$cannot$be$invoked$against$the$government.$
WHY?' Because$ of$ the$ principle$ of$ GREATEST' GOOD' FOR'
THE'GREATEST'NUMBER.$Ikaw$ra$man$ang$mu.suffer,$whereas$if$your$
title$will$be$uphold$the$general$public$will$suffer.$(Thats$the$beauty$of$
democracy!)$$
$ There'cannot'be'estoppel'even'against'the'agents'of'the'
government.''
$
BUT' THERE' ARE' INSTANCES' WHERE' ESTOPPEL' CAN' BE' INVOKED'
AGAINST'THE'GOVERNMENT$
'
Estate'of'Yujuico'vs'Republic'of'the'Philippines'
$ In$ this$ case,$ there$ are$ several$ opportunities$ for$ the$
government$to$have$the$title$cancelled:$
Lapse$of$27$years$
Most'significant:'PEA$entered$into$a$compromise$agreement$
estoppel$
o You$ have$ represented$ that$ it$ is$ ok$ for$ the$ other$
party$ to$ enter$ into$ compromise$ agreement$ with$
you$involving$a$land$which'later'on,'according'to'
you,'is'questionable$
*What'are'the'opportunities'for'you'to'question'the'validity'of'the'
title?'
To$ question$ in$ court$ within$ 1$ year$ after$ the$ issuance$ of$ the$
decree$$to$file$petition$for$review'
Reconveyance'
Petition$to$have$the$title$declared$void'
According'to'Justice'Velasco,'the'government'took'its'sweet'time,'it'
did'not'question'the'title'accordingly.''
*But' there' is' this' factual' element' in' this' case' which' (Atty.' Gs'
Opinion)'is'the'most'decisive.''
THE'LAND'IN'QUESTION'IS'NOT'A'PART'OF'THE'MANILA'
BAY'
In$other$words,$padugang$ra$ni$palami$sa$decision'
Had$ it$ been$ that$ this$ land$ is$ part$ of$ the$ Manila$ Bay,$ do$ you$
think$the$SC$would$reach$into$conclusion$that$estoppel$can$be$
had$against$the$government?'
o I$ dont$ think$ so,$ because$ when$ you$ hold$ estoppel$
against$ the$ government$ that$ is$ a$ very$
well$ settled$ rules$ on$ estoppel$ that$ There' can' be'
no'Estoppel'against'the'government.'
The' DOCTRINE' OF' EQUITABLE' ESTOPPEL' in' this' case' is' easily'
private'land''determine'through'an'ocular'inspection.''
'
Equitable' Estoppel' is' a' very' exceptional' case' only.' The' general'
'
PRESCRIPTION' ' a$mode$of$acquiring$ownership$through$the$lapse$of$
time$
It$cannot$be$invoked$against$the$government$
'
Public'Agricultural'Lands''Can$it$be$acquired$through$prescription?$$
NO$
'
But' why' is' it' that' the' Constitution' said' that' Public' Agricultural'
land'maybe'alienated'and'disposed'of?'In'fact'there'is'this'judicial'
affirmation' of' title' if' you' can' prove' possession' and' occupation'
since' June' 12,' 1945.' ' HOW' TO' RECONCILE' WITH' THE' GENERAL'
RULE' THAT' PRESCRIPTION' CANNOT' BE' INVOKED' AGAISNT'
GOVERNMENT?''
When'you'invoke'June'12,'1945,'is'that'prescription?'
'
'
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
Case'of'Malabanan' Civil$Code.$Because'the'Civil'Code'itself'says'SUBJECT'TO'SPECIAL'
' SC$made$a$distinction$between' prescription' as' a' mode' of' LAWS''Civil'Code'here'is'just'being'consistent.'
acquiring' ownership' and$ that' possession' and' occupation' since' ' LGC'is'a'special'law.'Nothing'in'the'code'says'that'if'it'is'
June'12,'1945.$ not'classified'as'a'property'for'public'use,'it'is'already'patrimonial.''
$ '
The$ Property' Registration' Decree$ has$ 2$ modes$ of$ acquiring$ *In$this$case,$there$was$a$protest$from$the$province$when$the$city$was$
ownership$over$a$property:$ created.$ There$ were$ properties$ formerly$ belong$ to$ province$ that$ were$
' transferred$to$the$city.$
1.' Sec' 14' (1)' Those"who"by"themselves"or"through"their"predecessorsFinF $ Province$relied$on$the$Civil$Code$$that$if$it$is$not$a$property$
interest"have"been"in"open,"continuous,"exclusive"and"notorious"possession" for$ public$ use,$ it$ is$ patrimonial.$ Out$ of$ 50$ properties$ there,$ only$ 2$ are$
and" occupation" of" alienable" and" disposable" lands" of" the" public" domain" intended$for$public$use,$others$are$property$for$public$service.$Province$
under"a"bona"fide"claim"of"ownership"since"June"12,"1945,"or"earlier" alleged$that$they$are$deprived$of$just$compensation.$
Acquisition'through'Possession" $ Kay' patrimonial' man' kuno' so' it' is' a' property' which' is'
Possession'since'June'12,'1945" held'by'the'Local'Government'in'its'proprietary'capacity.'Mura'ra'
$ kag' gikuhaan' ug' property' niana.' If' you' will' just' transfer' the'
2.' Sec.' 14' (2)' Those" who" have" acquired" ownership" of" private" lands" by" property,' it' would' amount' to' deprivation' without' due' process' of'
prescription"under"the"provisions"of"existing"laws." law.'It'must'be'compensated.'
Similar$ with$ Sec' 48' (b)' of' CA' 141' ' Acquisition' through' ' BUT' SC' RULED' OTHERWISE' because$ the$ congress$ had$
Acquisitive'Prescription$ direct$ control$ over$ the$ properties$ since$ these$ properties$ are$ intended$
Prescription$of$30'years$ for$ public$ use.$ Because$ of$ Municipal$ corporations,$ it$ is$ property$ for$
$ public$use.$That$is$what$the$Special$Law$states.$
Now'lets'go'back'to'Agricultural'Lands''that$it$can$be$alienated$and$ $
disposed$of$if$there$is$a$certification$that$it$is$disposable$and$alienable.$ Local'Government'Unit'is'created'through'a'law.'
Is$it$the$same$as$making$the$land$patrimonial?'NO$ In$ the$ law,$ there$ is$ this$ delineation$ of$ the$ territory$
o To$make$the$land$patrimonial,$there$must,$again,$a$ comprising$the$Local$Government$Unit$Concerned'
dispositive$ act$ in$ the$ part$ of$ the$ government$ The$grantor$of$the$territory$is$the$State$through$its$Congress$
declaring$ that$ the$ particular$ land$ $ alienable$ and$ while$the$grantee$is$the$LGU'
disposable$ $ is$ not$ longer$ intended$ for$ public$ use$ '
or$ public$ service$ or$ for$ the$ development$ of$ the$ If'the'law'grants'the'specific'territory,'the'LGU'becomes'the'owner'
national$wealth$ of' that' territory.' Now' what' is' the' extent' of' the' ownership' of' the'
! Here$ you$ can$ acquire' through' LGU'of'that'territory?'Is'it'an'absolute'ownership?'
prescription' if$you$can$prove' that' the' NO,$ because$ for$ properties$ for$ public$ use,$ the' congress'
lot'is'already'patrimonial'property$ retains' absolute' control' over' these' properties$ even$
' though$they$are$used$by$the$LGU.'
In' the' Malabanan' case,' they$ were$ not$ able$ to$ prove$ the$ Possession$ However,$if$the$properties$are$patrimonial$in$character,$LGU$
since$ they$ only$ have$ tax$ declaration$ dated$ 1948.$ They$ were$ also$ not$ has$full$control.'
able$ to$ prove$ Prescription$ because$ they$ were$ not$ able$ to$ present$ '
evidence$ that$ the$ land$ is$ declared$ as$ not$ intended$ for$ public$ use$ or$ *What'if'the'public'purpose'is'abandoned?'In'the'Charter,'it'gives'
public$service$or$for$the$development$of$national$wealth.$ specific'territory'to'local'government'unit'so'that'it'can'be'used'as'
$ The$state$remains$the$owner.$ a' site' of' its' town' hall.' But' the' mayor' and' his' council' decided' to'
There'is'a'remedy'here,'however$it$is$not$in$the$province$of$the$court.$ transfer' to' a' bigger' area.' So' the' former' site' is' not' abandoned.' In'
It$is$more$of$political.$It$is$better$address$to$the$legislator$or$executive.$ the' basis' of' its' Charter,' the' LGU' is' the' owner,' DOES' CONGRESS'
$ STILL' HAS' CONTROL' ON' THE' MANNER' OF' DISPOSING' THE'
How'about'those'lands'which'do'not'have'any'classification?'Can'it' PROPERTY?'
be'titled?'NO$ YES,' the$ intention$ that$ it$ is$ intended$ for$ public$ use$ is$ the$
DENR'vs'Yap' controlling$factor.$So$even$if$for$a$certain$time$the$property$is$
' There$ should$ be$ a$ prior$ classification$ and$ if' it' is' not' not$used,$without$an$express$declaration$from$the$Congress,$
classified' then' it' forms' automatically' to' forestlands' $ inalienable$ still$Congress$retains$control$over$the$property.'
and$disposable$$hence$cannot$be$acquired.$ $
BASIS:'PD'705$$Forest'Code' But'this'is'not'the'case'in'Cebu'Oxygen'&'Acetylene'vs'Bercilles'
' ' This$ is$ a$ road$ near$ Mabolo$ that$ was$ declared,$ through$ a$
PROPERTY'OF'THE'PROVINCE'AND'CITIES' resolution$ of$ the$ council$ of$ Cebu$ City,$ as$ an$ abandoned$ road.$ As$ a$
How' are' they' classified?' Under$ the$ Civil$ Code,$ they$ are$ classified$ as$ consequence,$it$converted$the$property$into$a$patrimonial$property$thus$
for' public' use' or' patrimonial.' (NO' MORE' FOR' PUBLIC' SERVICE)' ' allowing$the$mayor$to$sell$the$property.$
There'is'a'different'way'of'classifying.' *Wheres'the'act'of'Congress'here?''that'would'support'our'claim'
' BASIS:'Local'Government'Code' that'the'State'still'retains'control'over'the'property'even'if'it'is'not'
' devoted'for'public'use'anymore'
*So$if$the$property$is$not$for$public$use,$then$it$is$patrimonial$property.$ ' IN' THE' CHARTER' CREATING' THE' CITY' OF' CEBU,' it' has'
There$ is$ not$ property$ for$ public$ service.$ Would' it' be' correct' to' say' the' power' to' turn' the' property' into' patrimonial' property' and'
that'property'for'public'service'is'patrimonial'property?'NO' allow'the'mayor'to'enter'into'contract'to'sell'the'property.'
Because$ it$ is$ still$ considered$ as$ public$ property$ if$ it$ is$ '
intended$for$some$public$purposes.' *Now' who' enacts' the' Charter?' The$ Congress,$ so$ the$ state$ through$
So$if$it$is$for$public$service,$it$is$not$patrimonial' congress$still$it$retains$control.$$
' $
Tan'Toco'vs'Iloilo' The$INTENTION' is$what$is$controlling$$if$it$is$intended$for$public$use,$
' Properties$ involved$ here,$ levied$ for$ execution,$ are$ auto$ even$ if$ for$ a$ time$ it$ is$ maybe$ devoted$ for$ private$ purposes,$ so$ long$ as$
trucks$of$police$car,$police$stations,$etc$$FOR$PUBLIC$SERVICE.$SC$held$ the$original$intention$was$really$for$public$use.$
that$it$is$not$subject$for$execution$and$attachment.$ $
$ The$properties$are$still$intended$for$public$purposes.$$ Manila'Lodge'vs'CA'
$ ' This$ involved$ a$ reclaimed$ land$ which$ was$ intended$ to$ be$
Province'of'Zamboanga'vs'City'of'Zamboanga''addresses$the$issue$ used$as$a$public$plaza.$But$it$was$not$actually$used$for$such$purpose,$so$
that$ just$ because$ the$ property$ is$ not$ classified$ as$ property$ for$ public$ the$ city$ government$ of$ Manila$ wanted$ to$ sell$ it.$ They$ alleged$ that$ it$ is$
use,$it$is$not$correct$to$say$that$it$is$patrimonial$in$the$light$of$Art.$420$of$ not$actually$used$as$public$plaza.$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
$ SC$ held$ that$ it$ does$ not$ matter.$ When$ the$ state$ granted$ ' NO,$public$funds$can$only$be$spent$if$there$is$corresponding$
reclamation$ authority$ to$ the$ City$ of$ Manila$ for$ public$ plaza$ purposes,$ appropriation.$$
then$whatever$reclaimed$as$a$result$of$the$grant$of$authority,$that$land$ $
is$property$of$public$dominion.$Not$to$be$sold.$ GR:'No'appropriation,'there'is'no'legal'basis'to'spend.$
$ $
What'if'a'public'road'is'used'momentarily'for'market'vendors,'can' Commission'of'Public'Highways'vs'Lourdes'San'Diego$
it'be'allowed?'NO,'it$cannot$be$subject$to$commerce$of$man.$ $ This$ case$ is$ about$ garnishing$ funds$ pertaining$ to$ Bureau$ of$
$ ;$not$even$a$temporary$period$is$allowed$ Public$ Highways$ (DPWH).$ It$ involves$ the$ expansion$ of$ EDSA,$ an$
$ eminent$domain$proceeding.$$
Espiritu'vs'Pozzorrubio' $ State$ in$ here$ already$ waived$ its$ right$ not$ to$ be$ sued.$ As$
$ In$ this$ case$ the$ original$ market$ was$ destroyed$ by$ war.$ So$ discussed$earlier,$even'if'there'is'waiver'in'regard'to'being'sued'on'
they$ transferred$ the$ vendors$ to$ a$ public$ plaza.$ They$ were$ collecting$ the' part' of' the' state' still,' that' waiver' is' only' good' to' proceedings'
rent$ $ treated$ as$ a$ rent$ for$ the$ stalls$ in$ the$ market,$ not$ for$ the$ public$ anterior'to'the'execution.$
plaza.$$ $ Here$ there$ is$ money$ judgment$ in$ favor$ of$ the$ owner$ but$
$ according$to$the$court,$this' money' judgment' could' not' be' executed'
Makasiano'vs'Diokno' and' enforced' against' public' funds' pertaining' to' bureau' of' public'
' In$LGC,$there$is$power$granted$to$the$Local$Government$Unit$ highway.''
to$close$public$road$upon$2/3$vote$of$all$members$of$municipal$council.$ $
But$there$are$certain$conditions:$ Philippine'National'Bank'vs'Judge'Pabalan'
It$must$provide$for$alternative$road.$ ' A$ case$ which$ involves$ funds$ pertaining$ to$ PVTA,$ a$
*When$you$exercise$this$power$to$close,$you$must$exercise$this$with$the$ government$agency,$subject$to$a$writ$of$execution.$$
well$ settle$ principles$ governing$ property$ of$ public$ dominion.$ You$ $ Writ$was$issued$pursuant$to$a$collection$suit.$It$was$direct$to$
cannot$just$close$your$eyes$to$the$reality$ the$ funds$ of$ PVTA.$ It$ was$ held$ valid$ by$ the$ court.$ The$ reason$ of$ the$
If$the$reality$is$that$the$road$is$still'used'by'the'public,'you$ court$is$that$PVTA$is$a$GOCC,$it$has$a$distinct$personality$of$its$own$from$
cannot$just$close$the$road.$ the$state$$its$funds$can$be$garnished.$$
*This' is' different' to' Oxygen' &' Acetylene' case' where' the' reality' $
there' was' that' the' public' no' longer' used' the' road' before' the' *For'as'long'as'the'government'entity'concerned'has'a'personality'
issuance' of' resolution.' The' resolution' was' just' confirmatory' of' distinct'from'the'state,'its'funds'can'be'garnished'subject'to'a'writ'
what'is'the'reality.'But'if'the'reality'is'that'it'is'actually'used'by'the' of'execution.''
public,' you' cannot' change' the' reality' just' because' you' have' the' Is' this' still' valid' rule' ' in' the' light' of' the' earlier'
power'to'close.' discussion'of'MIAA?'
$ ;$ I$ would$ assume$ that$ the$ determination$ of$ the$ reality$ is$ Of$ course$ it$ is$ not$ enough$ that$ the$ entity$ has$ personality$
subject$to$judicial$review$if$there$is$grave$abuse$of$discretion.$$Atty.$G.$ distinct$from$the$state.'
$ o We$ can$ only$ consider$ that$ the$ agency$ is$ a$ true'
*What' if' council' closes' a' road' on' the' sole' basis' that' in' their' GOCC' (Government' Owned' and' Controlled'
judgment' it' is' needed' for' public' service?' Can' they' do' that?' ' or' Corporation)$ when$ it$ is$ organized$ in$ accordance$
close'then'they'will'sell''on'the'basis'of'their'power'to'close.' with$ the$ Corporation' Code.$ $ ALL$ FUNDS$
Of$ course$ it$ can$ close$ (provided$ it$ meets$ certain$ PERTAINING$TO$IT$CAN$BE$GARNISHED'
requirements),$but$it$cannot$sell.$' ! If$ it$ is$ a$ non$ stock$ corporation,$ still$
What'shall'be'done'for'the'LGU'can'sell?' organized$with$corporation$code,$then$it$
There$ has$ to$ be$ a$ specific$ authority.$ $ At$ present$ there$ was$ is$still$GOCC'
none.' '
' *'Thus,'Pavalan'ruling'is'modified'accordingly'by'the'MIAA'case'
RECAP:'J'IMPORTANT' '
$ With$ regard$ to$ properties$ for$ public$ use$ given$ to$ the$ Professional'Video'vs'Tesda'
province,$city$or$municipality,$even$those$are$registered$in$its$name,$it$ ' TESDAs$function$is$to$provide$IDs$as$a$certification$of$works.$
does$not$mean$that$the$State$abdicates$its$control$over$these$properties.$ It$ entered$ into$ a$ contract$ of$ supplier$ of$ ID$ but$ former$ could$ not$ pay.$
$ Even$ if$ the$ public$ purpose$ character$ has$ been$ abandoned,$ Professional$ Video$ filed$ a$ case$ and$ wanted$ to$ attach$ file$ pertaining$ to$
still$ the$ LGU$ concern,$ deciding$ to$ sell$ these$ properties,$ it$ has$ to$ seek$ TESDAs$general$appropriation$funds.$SC$held$that$it$could$not$be$done$
authority$ from$ the$ state.$ Unless,$ the$ authority$ is$ given$ in$ advance$ because$those$are$government$funds.$$
pursuant$to$its$charter.$ $ You$ will$ notice$ here$ that$ there$ is$ already$ a$ specific$
$ The$ only$ properties$ where$ the$ state$ does' not' have' any' appropriation$ for$ TESDA,$ but$ SC$ held$ that$ those$ funds$ could$ not$ be$
control$is$in$regard$to$properties$acquired'by'LGU'with'its'own'local' attached.$
funds.''HERE'LGU'HAS'CONTROL$ $ In$ here,$ just$ because$ the$ government$ entity$ enters$ into$ a$
But$ if$ the$ property$ is' given' to' it' gratuitously' from' the' contract$ it$ does$ not$ mean$ that$ the$ funds$ pertaining$ to$ it$ under$ the$
state,'but$later$on$public$purpose$is$abandoned,$the$LGU$cannot$sell$the$ general$ appropriations$ act$ maybe$ garnishable$ or$ maybe$ subject$ to$ a$
property.$$ writ$of$execution.$
$ $ First,$you$need$to$determine$the$nature$of$the$exercise$of$its$
GOVERNMENT' FUNDS' ' this$ will$ crap$ up$ when$ the$ issue$ is$ with$ the$ function$ when$ it$ enters$ into$ a$ contract.$ Whether' it' entered' into' the'
garnishing$of$government$funds.$ contract'in'its'governmental'function.'$
$ $ The$Contract$here$is$maybe$a$commercial$contract$but$that$is$
Ralyos'Case' only$incidental$in$the$exercise$of$its$governmental$function.$$
$ This$ is$ a$ property$ near$ Southwestern$ University$ where$ $
Mayor$ Rama$ does$ not$ want$ to$ pay$ the$ Ralyos.$ Former$ Mayor$ Osmea$ NOTE:' There$ is$ no$ judgment$ yet$ here.$ This$ case$ is$ only$ for$ the$
wanted$ to$ pay$ them$ because$ there$ is$ a$ final$ and$ executory$ decision$ in$ attachment.$$
favor$of$the$owners.$ Attachment''before$the$judgment$to$preserve$the$assets$of$
$ Osmea$ contend$ that$ if$ we$ will$ not$ pay$ the$ Ralyos,$ interest$ the$ defendant$ so$ that$ it$ will$ not$ be$ disposed$ during$ the$
will$add$up.$Rama$on$the$other$hand$says$that$there$is$allegedly$a$deed$ pendency$of$the$case.'
of$donation$in$favor$of$the$City.$ Execution''only$after$the$judgment'
$ The$point$here$is$pursuant$to$the$final$and$executory$decision$ $
in$favor$of$the$Ralyos,$what$the$sheriff$did$here$went$to$the$depository$ So'what'shall'be'done'here?''J'NOT'ANSWERED!''
banks$of$the$City$of$Cebu.$He$served$this$writ$of$garnishment$to$hold$the$ '
deposits$of$City$of$Cebu.$Can'it'be'done?' '
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
July'13,'2013' At$most,$this$cases$will$only$be$resolve$in$just$1$year.$$
OWNERSHIP' ' Civil$ Code$ does$ not$ define$ ownership.$ It$ simply$ $
enumerates$the$rights$which$are$included$therein.$$more$like$a$bundle$ Forcible$ Entry$ and$ Unlawful$ Detainer$ is$ a$ disturbance' of' the' social'
of$rights.$ order'
$ These$ are$ the$ remedies$ available$ to$ the$ owner$ when$ his$
Art'428.'The"owner"has"the"right"to"enjoy"and"dispose"of"a"thing,"without" property$is$intruded$into$by$a$squatter,$to$recover$possession$
other"limitations"than"those"established"by"law." $
" The" owner" has" also" a" right" of" action" against" the" holder" and" Forcible'Entry''the$possession$of$the$defendant$is$illegal$from$the$very$
possessor"of"the"thing"in"order"to"recover"it."" beginning,$no$basis.$EX:'squatters$
$ Grounds'of'how'the'entry'was'made:'
Rights'of'Ownership'(General'Rights'under'Art.'428):' Force/$Intimidation'
Right$to$Enjoy' Strategy$$somewhat$accompanied$by$fraud'
Right$to$Dispose' Stealth$$done$secretly,$ninja$moves'
Right$o$Vindicate' '
' Unlawful'Detainer''the$possession$is$legal$from$the$start$but$become$
Right'to'Enjoy' illegal$later$on.$$
the$right$to$possess' EX1:' lessee,$after$the$duration$of$lease' contract$dli$muhawa$$initially$
consume' the$ possession$ is$ legal$ at$ first$ but$ becomes$ illegal$ when$ the$ lease$
enjoyment$of$the$fruits' contract$has$expired.$
' EX2:'possession'by'mere'tolerance.$$one$become$a$victim$of$his$own$
Right'to'Dispose' kindness.$ You$ let$ someone$ possess$ your$ land.$ Take$ note$ that$ in$ this$
power$to$use$' situation,$the$possessor$has$an$implied$obligation$that$anytime$that$the$
power$to$sell$' owner$ would$ need$ the$ premises,$ he$ will$ vacate.$ $ The$ possessor$ could$
power$to$alienate$' not$even$ask$for$improvements$before$he$will$vacate,$you$cannot$even$
power$to$encumber$' be$considered$as$builder$in$good$faith$(will$be$discussed$later).$
power$to$limit' $
power$to$transform' The'Bread'and'Butter'in'this'Situation:'THE'1YEAR'PERIOD''this$is$
*Power'to'Alienate''to$sell$or$to$donate$ the$time$limitation$whether$to$file$Forcible$Entry$and$Unlawful$Detainer$
*Power' to' Encumber' ' loaning$ in$ a$ bank,$ property$ as$ collateral$ $ This$ means$ that$ if$ it$ will$ go$ beyond$ 1$ year,$ your$ remedy$ is$
mortgage,$pledge$ not$FE$and$UD.$
' In'mortgage,'why'is'it'a'right'when'the'owner'puts'limit' $
to' himself' by' mortgaging' the' property?' ' Of$ course,$ in$ Credit$ *When'is'the'reckoning'point'to'count'the'1'year'period?'
Transactions,$ one$ of$ the$ essential$ element$ of$ mortgage$ is$ that$ the$ one$ Forcible'Entry'J'IMPORTANT'
mortgaging$the$property$should$be$the$owner$of$the$thing.$Or$one$who$ o 1$year$from$the$entry'by'force'
is$authorized$by$the$owner.$$ o 1$ year$ from$ the$ time$ the$ intimidation' has'
$ stopped'
Land'Bank'Case' o 1$year$from$the$time$the$stealth'is'discovered.'
' There$ can$ be$ no$ title$ that$ can$ be$ acquired$ by$ the$ bank$ *THIS'1'YEAR'PERIOD'MUST'BE'ALLEGED'IN'YOUR'COMPLAINT'
because$the$mortgagee$is$not$the$owner$therein.$The$true$owner$is$the$ Unlawful'Detainer'
state.$$ o 1$ year$ from$ the$ time$ of$ the$ last$ demand$ letter$ to$
$ vacate'
Right' to' Vindicate' ' the$ right$ to$ recover$ the$ possession$ of$ real$ or$ *In' other' words,' ING.ANI' NI,' today' (July' 13,' 2013)' you' send'
personal$property$ demand' letter.' So' July' 13,' 2013' ' July' 13,' 2014,' you' can' file' for'
Replevin''the$right$to$recover$personal'property$ unlawful'detainer'suit.'
o No$replevin$over$real$property$ ' J' now$ on$ July$ 12,$ 2014,$ wa$ pa$ man$ kay$ budget$ sa$ abugado,$
o those$ machines$ which$ became$ immovable$ $ still$ you$ did$ not$ file$ for$ unlawful$ detainer.$ Would' that' mean' you' cannot'
Replevin$ file'anymore?'NO,'you$can$still$file.$Just'give'another'demand'letter'
o when$ you$ recover$ possession$ of$ those$ machines$ to' have' another/' renewal' of' that' 1' year' period!' Bahalag' mag' cge'
used$ in$ an$ industry,$ you$ must$ uproot$ that$ thing,$ kag'padala'demand'letter'dha''the'law'said'1'year'from'the'LAST'
once$ uprooted,$ then$ it$ loses$ its$ character$ as$ an$ demand'letter.'
immovable.$ ' J' BUT' TAKE' NOTE' THAT' THIS' ONLY' APPLY' TO'
In$Real'Property''there$is$a$preliminary$actions' UNLAWFUL' DETAINER,' NOT' APPLICABLE' TO' FORCIBLE' ENTRY' '
o Forcible'Entry'' IMPORTANT'
o Unlawful'Detainer' '
' We$ said$ that$ in$ Unlawful$ Detainer,$ the$ possession$ at$ first$ is$ legal$ then$
FORCIBLE' ENTRY' AND' UNLAWFUL' DETAINER' ' these$are$summary$ later$becomes$illegal.$
actions$to$recover$possession$of$real$property.$$ Now$how$can$we$make$the$possession$illegal?$The' demand'
Summary$ Action/$ Proceedings$ $ different$ from$ ordinary$ to'vacate'which'is'not'complied.$
action$ If$you$dont$demand$to$vacate$then$the$possession$continues$
o In$ ordinary$ action,$ this$ is$ when$ you$ see$ to$be$legal.$$
presentation$ of$ witness$ in$ the$ witness$ stand,$ *Because$ there$ is$ the$ need$ of$ the$ demand$ to$ make$ the$ possession$
direct$examination,$cross;examination,$etc.$ illegal,'you'must'allege'in'your'compliant'that'there'was'a'demand'
o Presentation' of' affidavit$$you$may$come$across$ letter'sent.$
with$ruling$of$supreme$court$where$if$it$is$only$and$ $ Otherwise,$ if$ you$ do$ not$ allege,$ your$ complaint$ is$ fatally$
affidavit,$it$not$acceptable$as$evidence$because$it$is$ defective.$Basaha$una$ang$complaint$if$naa$ba$allegation$nga$demand$to$
self;serving.$Unless$the$one$signing$it$is$presented$ vacate.$NO$ALLEGATION,$NO$CAUSE$OF$ACTION.$
in$court$ $
o In$ Ordinary$ Civil$ Action,$ it$ would$ take$ time$ to$ In' Forcible' Entry,$ demand$ to$ vacate$ is$ not$ a$ requirement$ because$
resolve$the$case.$ possession$is$already$illegal$from$the$very$start.$But'you'have'to'allege'
$ how'the'entry'was'made.''IMPORTANT'
*Summary'because'in'Forcible'Entry'and'Unlawful'Detainer,'this'is' When$you$allege''dont$say$$Entry$is$made$through$force,$
governed' by' Special' Rule.' Position' Papers' and' Affidavits' are' the' intimidation,$strategy$and$stealth$$THIS'IS'WRONG!'
only'basis'in'these'cases.'$ o That$allegations$cannot$stand$together.$'
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
ISSUE'in'FE'and'UD:'POSSESSION'
$ Possession$ and$ Ownership$ are$ two$ different$ things.$ And$
Possession'in'itself'has'2'different'natures:$
Possession' de' jure' ' the$ legal$ possession,$ it$ is$ entitled$ to$
protection$even$if$you$are$not$the$owner'
EX:'lessee'
Possession' de' facto' ' without$ regard$ to$ legal$ possession$ $
this' is' a' question' of' who' is' in' actual' possession' ' this$
court$ here$ is$ still$ asking$ who$ occupied$ the$ land,$ wa$ pa$
nangutana$ ang$ korte$ kung$ unsa$ ba$ ang$ imo$ legality$ of$
possession$$the'possession'referred'to'in'a'FE'case'
' protected$ it$ must$ come$ from$ the$ owner.$ If$ your$ claim$ right$ to$
German'Management'vs'CA'
' This$involves$squatters$claiming$rights.$Now$here$comes$the$
registered$owner$who$wants$to$develop$the$land$into$subdivision.$The$
latter$demolished$the$houses.$
$ If$ we$ talk$ about$ legality$ her,$ German$ Management$ has$ the$
title.$But$his$action$of$bulldozing$the$housing$is$ILLEGAL.$$
$ WHY?' Because$ when$ the$ German$ Management$ filed$ for$
Forcible$ Entry,$ SC$ held$ that$ its$ action$ is$ not$ allowed.$ Here$ in$ forcible$
entry,$we$will$only$limit$ourselves$on$the$question$of$who$is$the$one$in$
legal$possession.$
$ Somebody$ is$ squatting$ in$ your$ property$ but$ you$ were$ not$
there$ at$ the$ time$ he$ took$ possession.$ When$ you$ visited,$ you$ have$
learned$that$he$is$already$there.$What'should'you'do?'
' If$ you$ think$ you$ can$ just$ demolish,$ build$ a$ fence,$ etc,$ your$
action$here$is$illegal.$If$that$somebody$will$file$for$forcible$entry$against$
you,$ rest$ assure$ that$ you$ will$ lose$ the$ case.$ Why?$ Because$ the$ only$
issued$in$the$FE$case$is$POSSESSION'DE'FACTO.'Especially$so$if$the$one$
in$actual$possession$has$a$semblance$of$right$which$would$support$his$
possession.$$
$ EX:' somebody$owns$a$lot,$on$the$other$hand,$squatters$who$
are$ beneficiaries$ of$ Socialized$ Housing$ Site$ pursuant$ to$ whatever$
program$ the$ government$ has.$ You$ must$ not$ demolish$ right$ away,$ you$
must$go$through$judicial$process$first.$$
$ speak$ of$ that$ would$ justify$ that$ the$ possession$ was$ lawful$ first$ then$
BUT' THERE' ARE' SITUATIONS' HERE' THAT' YOU' CANNOT' AVOID'
RULING' ON' THE' ISSUE' ON' OWNERSHIP' TO' DETERMINE' WHO' HAS'
POSSESSION'
EX:' 2$Claimants:$1$in$actual$possession,$the$other$is$not.$But$both$have$
title$to$the$same$lot.$$
$ So$ how$ is$ the$ real$ owner$ now?$ Aw$ wa$ ta$ kabaw,$ that$ s$ the$
beauty$of$law.$
$ possession$ thereof.$ You$ can$ still$ file$ unlawful$ detainer$ suit.$ Just$ allege$
It$ is$ just$ unavoidable$ that$ the$ judge$ will$ just$ rule$ on$ ownership$
preliminarily$ because$ it$ would$ be$ easy$ to$ determine$ the$ right$ to$
possession.$Remember'that'one'attribute'to'ownership'is'the'right'
to'possess.'$
$ drafted.$In$an$unlawful$detainer$suit,$you$must$be$very$careful$when$you$
*But' whatever' the' decision' of' the' court' in' the' issue' of' ownership'
in'the'forcible'entry'case,'that'is'not'final.'That'is'only'provisional.''
If' later' on' the' other' party' will' again' question' the'
ownership,' the' winning' party' could' not' invoke' res'
judicata' because,' again,' the' finding' of' the' court' of' the'
ownership'in'a'Forcible'Entry'case'is'just'PROVISIONAL.'
'IMPORTANT'
$ $
Jurisdiction'of'Forcible'Entry'and'Unlawful'Detainer$
No$ matter$ how$ much$ the$ property$ involved,$ jurisdiction$ is$
with$the$lowest$level$court$$MTC$
$ He$ can$ still$ file$ for$ Action' Reivindicatoria,' to$ recover$ the$
ACTION'PUBLICIANA''issue$here$is$still$possession$$
In$the$book,$one$of$the$instances$which$may$be$remedied$by$
action$ publiciana$ is$ when' the' 1' year' period' has' already'
lapsed'but'before'the'lapse'of'10'year'period.$
But$ there$ is$ another$ situation$ which$ maybe$ remedied$ by$
action$ publiciana$ $ When' you' have' A' RIGHT' TO' THE'
POSSEESION'which'is'independent'of'ownership.$
EX:' you$ are$ a$ lessee,$ deprived$ of$ possession,$ you$ can$ filed$
action$ publiciana$ because$ you$ have$ the$ right$ to$ possession$
independent$of$ownership.$
JURISDICTION:'Depends$on$the$assess$value$of$the$property.$
o More'than'20'$RTC$
$
$
ACTION' REIVINDICATORIA' ' this$ is$ not$ an$ action$ to$ recover$
ownership$ $ THIS$ IS$ STILL$ AN$ ACTION' TO' RECOVER' POSSESSION'
BUT'THE'POSSESSION'HERE'IS'BASED'ON'OWNERSHIP'
The$source$of$the$right$of$possession$here$is$the$ownership'
This$ is$ the$ Right' mentioned' earlier' with' regard' to'
ownership,'THE'RIGHT'TO'POSSESS'
'
July'19,'2013'
Villa'vs'Heirs'of'Altavas'
' The$lesson$in$this$case$is$that$for$a$right$of$possession$to$be$
possession$ comes$ from$ somebody$ who$ is$ not$ an$ owner,$ then$ you$ are$
not$ shielded$ from$ unlawful$ detainer$ suit.$ It$ is$ not$ enough$ to$ say$ that$
you$are$in$good$faith$in$relying$in$the$representation$of$one$who$claims$
to$ be$ the$ owner.$ It$ is$ incumbent$ upon$ you$ to$ determine$ the$ nature$ of$
the$ right$ of$ the$ one$ who$ transfer$ his$ or$ his$ possession$ over$ the$
questioned$land.$
$ What$happened$here$is$that$this$doctor$operating$a$fishpond$
in$good$faith.$But$he$court$said$it$is$not$enough$because$the$transferor$
has$no$right,$you$cannot$have$more$right$than$the$transferor$has.$$
$ Transferor$ is$ only$ the$ spouse$ of$ the$ administrator,$ and$ not$
even$the$administrator$can$transfer$possessory$right$over$the$property$
which$he$is$administering.$If$you$are$an$administrator,$your$only$right$is$
the$ power$ of$ administration,$ not$ the$ power$ of$ strict$ ownership.$
Transferring$possessory$right$is$not$a$power$of$administrator.$
$
Manantan'vs'Somera'
$ Also$ an$ ejectment$ action.$ Defendants$ here$ are$ in$ actual$
possession$and$alleged$they$have$been$allowed$by$the$original$owner$to$
take$possession.$$
$ The$ case$ filed$ was$ Unlawful$ Detainer$ but$ there$ are$ no$
sufficient$ allegations$ in$ their$ complaint$ to$ show$ that$ there$ is$ unlawful$
withholding$ of$ their$ property.$ Record$ how$ that$ the$ defendant$ are$ in$
possession$of$the$lot$prior$to$the$plaintiff.$$So$there$was$no$contract$to$
illegal$later$on.$$
$ What$prejudiced$the$plaintiff$here$is$the$insufficiency$of$their$
allegations$to$prove$that$there$existed$unlawful$detainer.$
$
*But'it'does'not'mean'that'that'person'who'gain'possession'ahead'
of'you,'you'will'never'win'an'ejectment'case.''
EX:'You$bought$a$property$but$it$is$occupied$by$squatters$ahead$of$your$
that$the$right$of$the$former$own$is$transmitted$to$you.$The$tolerance$of$
the$former$owner$is$also$transmitted$to$you.$
$ The$problem$with$Manantan' case$is$that$the$former$owner$
did$ not$ cooperate$ with$ the$ plaintiff.$ The$ complaint$ was$ also$ poorly$
draft$the$complaint.$All$necessary$allegations$must$be$there.$
$
*you' must' alleged' that' there' is' demand' to' vacate.' No' demand' to'
vacate,'your'complaint'is'defective.'
' The$problem$also$with$Manantan$is$that$the$date$of$demand$
to$vacate$was$not$specified.$You$have$no$way$of$determining$the$1$year$
period.$
When' he' is' defeated' in' this' unlawful' detainer' suit?' Is' he' also'
defeated' of' the' ownership' of' the' land?' Can' he' no' longer' ask' the'
defendant'to'vacate?'
possession$of$the$land$based$on$ownership.'
o As$ contra$ distinguish$ from$ unlawful$ detainer$
where$it$is$not$dependent$on$ownership.'
*So'if'you'win'the'action'for'reivindicatoria,'the'defendant'has'no'
choice'but'to'vacate'the'land'because'your'title'will'cover'the'said'
property'and'it'is'just'your'right'to'take'possession'thereof.'
' J'pildi$lage$ka$sa$unlawful$detainer$but$the$issue$there$is$just$
who$ is$ in$ the$ actual$ possession,$ while$ in$ action$ reivindicatoria$ $ the'
issue'of'ownership'will'be'exhaustively'dealt'with'by'the'court.''
'
ACTION' REIVINDICATORIA' ' action$ to$ recover$ the$ possession$ of$ the$
property$arising$from$ownership.$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
So$ if$ you' are' currently' in' possession' of' the' property' What'are'the'elements'you'need'to'remember'in'Eminent'Domain?'
which' is' subject' to' action' reivindicatoria,$ would$ it$ be$ Taking''there$must$be$just$compensation'
possible$ for$ you$ to$ still$ file$ said$ action$ even$ if$ you$ are$ not$ o it$must$be$justified$by$reason'of'public'purpose'
actually$deprived$of$the$possession$of$the$property?$YES.$ '
$ *There$ is$ a$ situation$ here$ that$ if$ you$ are$ a$ private$ subdivision$
Iglesia'ni'Cristo'vs'Ponferrada' developer,$you$are$required$to$allot$certain$percentage$of$the$total$land$
' When$there$is$certificate$of$title,$2$copies$are$issued.$1$to$the$ area$for$open$space.$Then$after$that,$you$have$to$donate$it$to$the$LGU.$
registered$owner$(Santos),$1$to$the$register$of$deeds.$When$the$copy$in$ The$ latter$ must$ accept$ the$ donation.$ This' is' an' example' of'
the$register$of$deeds$will$be$burnt$or$lost,$the$owner$is$required$to$file$ compulsory'time'of'donation.'The'reason'that'LGU'must'accept'so'
petitioner$for$reconstitution$of$title.$The$purpose$of$reconstitution$is$to$ that'the'lot'will'become'a'city'property.'So'that'the'spending'of'city'
reconstruct$the$lost$title$of$your$property.$ funds'there'will'be'justified.'(wa'kaau'ko'kasabot'nganu'ni,'gi'word'
$ One$ of$ the$ basis$ for$ the$ reconstitution$ is$ the$ copy$ of$ the$ for'word'ra'nako'na)'
registered$owner.$When$the$title$was$reconstituted,$nigawas$na$ang$title$ '
but$ on$ the$ name$ of$ INC.$ Technically$ there$ are$ now$ two$ separate$ titles$ The'issue'of'Just'Compensation'in'Eminent'Domain'
covering$the$same$property.$ The' Court' shall' determine' Just' Compensation' ' this$ is$ a$ judicial$
$ So$ when$ the$ Santoses$ discovered$ that$ there$ is$ another$ title$ function.$ It$ cannot$ just$ be$ determined$ by$ mere$ mathematical$
covering$ the$ same$ property,$ they$ filed$ for$ Quieting$ of$ Title$ in$ order$ to$ comparison.$$
silence$any$cloud$of$doubt$that$may$be$cast$about$the$title$$to$declare$ $ There$was$a$case$that$there$was$a$Presidential$Decree$fixing$
the$other$title$void.$ just$ compensation.$ It$ was$ questioned$ because$ just$ compensation$ is$ a$
$ But$ there$ is$ an$ alternative' prayer' in' the' complaint' of' judicial$function.$It$deprived$the$court$of$its$function.$$
Santoses:'an'action'reivindicatoria.$This$is$the$opening'attacked'by' $
the'Iglesia'ni'Cristo''alleging$in$their$defense$that$they$acquired$their$ Association'of'Land'Owners'Case'
TCT$ on$ 1984$ $ they$ put$ up$ a$ defense$ on$ prescription$ because$ the$ ' This$ case$ involves$ agrarian$ reform.$ This$ is$ a$ revolutionary$$
complaint$was$filed$on$2000.'$ type$ of$ imminent$ domain.$ It$ is$ Revolutionary' because' it' is' paid' by'
$ LOGIC' BEHIND' THERE' DEFENSE:' Action' Reivindicatoria' cash'and'LBP'bonds.$If$it$is$just$normal'imminent'domain,'it'should'
presupposes'that'the'plaintiff'is'deprived'of'the'possession'of'the' only'be'cash.$'
property.'' '
Because'prescription'will'run,'in'Quieting'of'Title'case,'if' There' was' this' law' that' there' are' only' 3' factors' to' be' considered'
the'plaintiff'is'not'in'possession'(10'years).'' when'determining'just'compensation'IN'REGALIAN'REFORMS:'
But' if' the' plaintiff' is' in' possession,' prescription' will' Capitalized$Net$Income'
never'run.' Market$Value'
INC$alleged$$that$since$the$case$is$action$reivindicatoria,$ Assessment'
implied$that$they$are$in$fact$deprived$of$possession.$Because$who$is$this$ Therefore,$ those' adjacent' to' public' highways,' etc' are' no' longer'
stupid$person$who$will$file$AR$if$he$is$not$deprived$of$possession?$ considered'for'purposes'of'agrarian'reform.$$it'gravely'reduce'the'
$ SC$ held$ that$ action$ reivindicatoria$ can$ also$ be$ field$ not$ only$ price' of' the' land' ' thats$what$happened$in$Apo' Fruits' Corporation'
by$a$person$deprived$of$possession$but$also$by$a$person$who$is$in$actual$ Case'
possession$of$the$property.$Because$in$Action$Reivindicatoria$what$are$ ' Pero' wa' tay' mahimo,' mao' man' na' ang' promulgation' sa'
actually$protected$are$all$attributes$of$the$right$to$ownership.$It' is' not' Supreme'court.'Pildi'ang'Apo'Fruits.'
therefore' correct' that' if' you' are' not' deprived' of' possession,' you' '
cannot' have' the' remedy' of' AR' ' because' if' other' rights' of' So'what'if'the'Public'Purpose'is'abandoned?'Of$course$in$imminent$
ownership'are'violated,'then'you'can'very'well'filed'AR.' domain,$ the$ proper$ exercise$ is$ that$ there$ must$ be$ a$ public$ purpose.$ If$
' the$ public$ purpose$ is$ abandoned,$ the$ owner$ can$ recover$ their$
*as'long'as'all'attributes'of'rights'of'ownership'are'involved,'AR'is' properties.'
a'proper'remedy' $
' Heirs'of'Moreno'case'J'WA'NA'NI'GAMIT'NGA'RULING!'
In$ this$ case$ what$ are$ the$ rights$ of$ Santoses$ that$ are$ violated?$ Right$ to$ ' SC$made$a$distinction$that$this$right$of$recovery$on$the$part$
Enjoy$(to$fence$their$property)$ of$ the$ owner$ would$ be$ dependent$ on$ the$ nature$ of$ the$ expropriators$
$ title.$$
Is'ownership'absolute?'NO,'it$is$subject$to$limitations$ $ In$ other$ words,$ if$ at$ the$ time$ the$ expropriator$ obtains$ title$
$ over$ the$ property$ as$ a$ result$ of$ imminent$ domain,$ there' was' no'
Limitations'of'Ownership' condition''meaning'absolute'ang'ownership'sa'State''there'is'no'
Limitations$established$by$the$state$ right'to'recovery'even'if'the'public'purpose'is'abandoned.'
Limitations$by$the$law$ '
Limitations$by$the$owner$ Lozada'Case''THE'PRESENT'RULING'
$ ' You' dont' have' to' prove' if' the' expropriation' is' absolute'
Limitations'imposed'for'the'Benefit'of'the'State' or'not.'If'the'public'purpose'of'the'taking'has'been'abandoned'the'
Police'Power''for$the$promotion$of$public$welfare.$ former' owner' is' entitled' as' a' matter' of' right' to' recover' their'
It$restricts$the$right$of$private$owners$to$exercise$their$rights$ property'whether'there'is'a'promise'or'not.''
to$ownership$ '
EX1:' Registration$ of$ the$ vehicle$ you$ owned.$ This$ is$ a$ regulatory$ *IN'ANSWERING'THE'EXAM,'STICK'TO'THE'LOZADA'RULING'
measure$and$regulatory$measure$is$an$exercise$of$police$power.$ '
EX2:' $You$have$a$parcel$of$land$in$a$subdivision.$You$cannot$just$put$a$ Taxation$ ;$ power$ of$ the$ government$ to$ raise$ revenue$ in$ order$ to$
business$ building$ there$ because$ it$ is$ a$ residential$ area$ classified$ support$its$existence$and$carry$out$its$legitimate$objectives.$
pursuant$to$a$zoning$ordinance.$ Instead$ of$ having$ more$ income,$ gi$ kaltasan$ because$ of$
$ taxation.$
Eminent' Domain' ' an$ inherent$ power$ of$ the$ State$ that$ enables$ it$ to$ $
forcibly$acquire$private$lands$intended$for$public$use$upon$payment$of$ Limitations'imposed'by'the'Law'
just$compensation$to$the$owner.$ Homestead'Patents''a$law$prohibiting$the$sale$or$loan$of$a$
EX1:' road$ widening$ $ you$ happen$ to$ be$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ land$ who$ property$of$the$grantee$within$5$years.$
happen$ to$ be$ affected$ by$ road$ widening,$ you$ cannot$ refuse.$ Greatest' o If$ you$ are$ a$ grantee$ of$ an$ agricultural$ land$
good'for'the'greatest'number.'' pursuant$ to$ a$ grant$ from$ the$ Department$ of$
' Agrarian$ Reform$ because$ you$ are$ a$ landless$
' beneficiary,$you$cannot$sell$or$loan$that$land.$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
Limitations'imposed'by'the'Owner' *Why' police' power?' Not' imminent' domain?' So$that$no$payment$for$
When'owner'enters'into'a'pledge' just$compensation.$
*Why' is' it' a' limitation?' Isnt' it' when' you' pledge' $ No$ a$ reasonable$ means,$ because$ why$ would$ you$ take$ lands$
something,' you' also' get' something' in' return?' ' because$ from$ a$ private$ cemetery$ while$ you$ have$ a$ public$ cemetery?$
you$cannot$sell$that$thing.$ Expropriation$nlang$kung$mao$na.$
When'testator'impose'limitations''if$he$will$indicate$in$his$ $
will$that$the$heirs$cannot$partition$that$land$within$20$years.$ July'20,'2013'
$If$thats$the$case,$filed$for$invalidation$of$the$limitation.$ Doctrine'of'SelfJHelp'
*But' there' are' instance' that' the' imposed' limitation' is' Art.' 429.' The" owner" or" lawful" possessor" of" a" thing" has" the" right" to"
unreasonable.$EX:'100$years$ exclude" any" person" from" the" enjoyment" and" disposal" thereof." For" this"
BASIS:$Roman'Catholic'vs'CA' purpose,"he"may"use"such"force"as"may"be"reasonably"necessary"to"repel"or"
$ In$ this$ case$ it$ talks$ about$ donation$ with$ an$ prevent"an"actual"or"threatened"unlawful"physical"invasion"or"usurpation"
unreasonable$ limitation$ imposed.$ This$ is$ not$ about$ will$ and$ of"his"property."
testament.$ So' whats' the' connection' to' the' testator?$ '
Because$SC$in$this$case$specifically$mentioned$the$situation$is$ $ There$is$this$rule$that$you$cannot$take$the$law$into$your$own$
similar$to$Testator.$They$applied$it$in$analogy.$(SUKOL' KAS' hands.$In$property,$if$you$are$trying$to$recover$a$property$from$a$person$
SUPREME'COURT?)' whom$ you$ believe$ has$ no$ right$ over$ it,$ you$ are$ not$ justified$ of$
' demolishing$or$bulldozing$or$destroying$that$other$persons$property.$
How'about'MOTELS?''lets'talk'about'short'time'rate'(KANI!)''can' $
you' be' prohibited' to' establish' motels' on' the' ground' that' it' is' a' German'Management'Case'
venue' for' marital' infidelity' and' immorality?' As' if' it' can' only' be' ' You$ are$ not$ allowed$ to$ just$ demolish$ other$ persons$
committed'in'motels.''there'are'so'many'ways'of'skinning'a'cat!' properties$even$if$you$are$the$owner$of$the$land$occupied$by$the$latter.$
But$the$law$prohibiting$such$is$a$police$power$measure,$but$ You$ must$ first$ resort$ to$ court$ and$ file$ the$ necessary$ action$ to$ recover$
can$ it$ be$ valid?$ NO' MOTELS' ARE' LAWFUL,' IN' THE' FIRST' (unlawful$detainer$or$forcible$entry).$$
PLACE.' *SEE?' MOTELS' ARE' LAWFUL!' It' is' a' legitimate' $
business.$ But'this'Rule'that'you'cannot'take'the'law'into'your'own'hands'is'
$ NOT'AN'ABSOLUTE'RULE.'
City'of'Manila'vs'Hon.'Laguio' EX:'The$Doctrine'of'SelfJHelp'$the$owner$of$the$property$has$the$right$
' In$ this$ case,$ the$ evil$ allegedly$ sought$ to$ be$ prevented$ by$ to'use'force'reasonably'necessary$to$repeal$or$prevent'the'violence'
ordinance$is$immorality,$prostitution$and$drugs.$$ or'threat'of'unlawful'invasion$of$his$property.$
*For' a' police' power' measure' to' be' valid,' what' must' be' $
established?' If' someone' entered' the' premises' at' the' time' you' were' not' there,'
There$must$be$a$lawful'subject' you' only' discovered' it' several' days' after.' But' their' entry' is' no'
The'means'employed'must'be'reasonable$to$abate$the$evil$ doubt' illegal' and' unlawful.' Can' you' invoke' Art.' 429?' NO,' because$
sought$to$be$prevented' you$must$be$there$at$the$time$that$there$is$usurpation$of$your$property$
$ right.$In$other$words$when$he$is$already$there,$you$need$to$go$to$court.$
So$in$this$case,$the$means$employed$is$to$prohibit$motels.$The$ $
Objective$ is$ to$ stop$ immorality.$ But$ SC$ held$ that$ in$ such$ measure$ you$ When'you'went'home,'you'found'out'that'there'are'thieves'in'your'
couldnt$stop$immorality$and$infidelity$because'lust'does'not'respect' house.' There' are' watching' TV' there.' Are' you' justified' in' driving'
time'and'place.'' them' out' or' you' will' wait' for' tomorrow' so' that' you' can' file'
' appropriate'case'in'the'provincial'prosecutor?'Theres'no'violence'
Mao'gali'ni'adto'kag'motel'para'di'makit.an,'para'dili'immoral!'Sit' here,'they'are'just'watching'TV.''In'what'manner'must'the'entry'be'
down'for'sa'dae,'let'me'discuss'this'for'awhile'because'this'topic'is' made'so'that'it'can'be'justified'in'invoking'429?'What'if'the'entry'
closer'to'my'heart!' is'not'accompanied'by'force?'They'were'allowed'by'your'caretaker'
' to'enter'by'their'misrepresentation'that'they'are'your'relatives.'
Whitelight'Corporation'Case' ' J' answered$ in$ recitation$ but$ wa$ gi$ confirm$ ni$ sir.$ Apply$ by$
' This$ time,$ Mayor$ Lim$ is$ not$ contended,$ city$ passed$ an$ analogy$nlang$kuno$the$Narvaes$Case$
ordinance$prohibiting$short$time$rates$(promo2,$3$hours$for$150).$.$This$ $
is$another$attempt$to$invoke$police$power.$$ *It' the' aggression' is' not' against' the' person' but' towards' the'
$ SC$again$declared$it$invalid$and$unconstitutional$because$the$ property,'can'you'invoke'Art.'429?'
means$employed$is$not$reasonable.$It$is$an$undue$restriction$on$exercise$ '
of$property$right.$When$you$prohibit$short$time$rates$you$are$actually$in$ Narvaes'Case'
effect$prohibiting$also$those$who$have$legitimate$use$of$those$short$time$ ' In$this$case$men$are$in$the$process$of$destroying$the$wall$of$
rates.$ the$owner.$The$owner$took$his$shotgun$and$shot$the$workers.$
$ So$dont$just$think$that$if$you$apply$for$short$time$rates$it$is$ ' Even$ if$ there$ is$ no$ aggression$ on$ the$ person,$ there$ is$ an$
illegitimate$ already.$ When$ you$ be$ lawyers$ and$ you$ have$ hearing$ in$ aggression$ towards$ the$ property.$ Thus$ the$ use$ of$ force$ of$ the$ owner$
other$ places,$ sayu$ nahuman$ imo$ hearing$ asa$ man$ ka$ mag$ standby?$ To$ could$be$justified.$The$force$or$aggression$contemplated$by$the$law$also$
rest,$you$just$want$to$sleep.$$(Sleep'kaha?)' includes$aggression$of$the$property.$
$ '
SolGen'vs'Ayala'Land' *So' even' if' aggression' is' directed' towards' the' property,' Art.' 429'
In$this$case,$malls$are$collecting$fees$for$parking.$Regulation$ can'be'invoked'
was$ passed$ prohibiting$ them$ to$ collect$ charges.$ $ The$ basis$ was$ in$ the$ '
National$Building$Code$that$malls$should$provide$free$parking$spaces.$$ German'Management'Case'
SC$ held$ that$ the$ law$ is$ clear;$ it$ only$ stated$ that$ malls$ shall$ $ The$possession$of$the$defendant$has$been$stabilized$already.$$
provide$ free$ parking$ spaces.$ But$ it$ does$ not$ state$ that$ they$ are$ Even$ if$ he$ is$ not$ the$ owner,$ you$ must$ resort$ to$ court$ to$ recover$
prohibited$from$collecting$fees.$$ possession.$
To$ rule$ otherwise,$ it$ would$ constitute$ undue$ taking$ of$ the$ $
property$without$due$compensation.$ *Will$Art$429$apply$to$all$type$of$aggression$against$your$property?$For$
$ as$ long$ as$ there$ has$ aggression$ that$ disturbs$ you$ possession$ of$ the$
Another'Case'not'assigned' property,$ can$ you$ invoke$ it?$ NO,$ it$ only$ pertains$ to' unlawful'
' This$ involves$ a$ private$ cemetery,$ owners$ to$ provide$ certain$ aggression.$
parts$of$their$lot$to$some$indigent$people.$It$was$sought$to$be$justified$as$ $
a$police$power$measure.$$ Thus'SelfJHelp'could'not'be'invoked'if'the'aggression'is'LAWFUL'
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
EX1:' Aggression$ of$ a$ sheriff$ pursuant$ to$ a$ lawful$ writ$ of$ execution$ What'is'the'next'best'document'that'you'may'rely'upon'if'you'want'
ordered$by$the$court.$ to'recover?$TAX$DECLARATION.$
EX2:' When$ somebody$ destroy$ your$ property$ because$ that$ is$ the$ only$ $ Tax$ Declaration$ only$ prove$ that$ you$ are$ indeed$ paying$ real$
way$to$prevent$the$spread$of$fire.$ property$tax.$If' you' are' going' to' be' asked' what' is' the' best' proof' if'
$ Thus,' the' aggression' in' Art.' 429' only' pertains' to' you'dont'have'a'title''the'answer'is'TAX'DECLARATION'COUPLED'
unlawful'aggression.' WITH'ACTUAL'POSSESSION.'
' '
Principle'of'Necessity'or'Acts'in'the'State'of'Necessity$ What$ if$ there$ is$ not$ Certificate$ of$ Title$ and$ Tax$ Declaration,$ how$ will$
Art.'432.$The"owner"of"a"thing"has"no"right"to"prohibit"the"interference"of" you$ prove$ ownership?$ Your' possession' itself' is' a' proof' of' title'
another" with" the" same," if" the" interference" is" necessary" to" avert" an" because' actual' possession' under' claim' of' ownership.' Meaning$you$
imminent" danger" and" the" threatened" damage," compared" to" the" damage" possessed$it$in'the'concept'of'an'owner.'
arising" to" the" owner" from" the" interference," is" much" greater." The" owner" ' Because$ if$ you$ possess$ it$ as$ a$ mere$ holder$ (a$ lessee),$ then$
may"demand"from"the"person"benefited"indemnity"for"the"damage"to"him." you$cannot$site$the$fact$of$your$possession$as$ownership$
EX:'When$the$dog$of$your$neighbor$attacks$you,$you$can$kill$the$dog.$ $
$ The' problem' is' if' you' rely' purely' on' you' possession,' how' would'
Qualifications'of'Doctrine'of'Necessity:' you'determine'the'boundaries?'
Defense$against$danger' You$may$rely$on$natural$boundaries$or$land$marks:'
o The$danger$must$not$necessarily$coming$from$the$ o By$ the$ old$ church,$ old$ tree,$ river,$ balay$ nga$ dako,$
thing$ to$ be$ destroyed.$ $ Just$ like$ the$ example$ etc.$ Sometimes$ you$ even$ rely$ on$ the$ light$ coming$
earlier,$in$case$of$fire.$Your$house$is$not$the$source$ from$the$moon.$'
of$the$fire$to$be$destroyed' '
' When'you'are'the'one'filing'the'case'to'recover,'you'must'rely'on'
*We'must'make'a'distinction'here'on'the'part'of'the'owner'of'the' the' strength' of' you' title' and' not' the' weakness' of' the' other' party'
thing'that'is'destroyed:'J'DEFENSE'AGAINST'DANGER' (defendants'claim).'
If$you$are$the$owner$of$that$house$being$destroyed$to$prevent$ '
the$fire$(NOT'THE'SOURCE'OF'DANGER),$you$have$the$right$ What' is' an' example' of' an' individual' filing' a' case' can' draw' its'
to$ask$for$compensation$against$those$who$are$benefitted.' strength'merely'from'the'weakness'of'a'defendants'complaint?'
o BASIS:' Unjust' Enrichment' ' no$shall$be$unjustly$ Filing$ a$ case$ against$ a$ person$ who$ is$ in$ possession$ but$ you$
enrich$in$the$expense$of$another.' know$that$this$person$has$no$document.'
If$ the$ thing$ destroyed$ is$ the' source' of' the' danger,' the$ What$is$the$basis$of$your$title?$Aw$your$honor,$I$dont$have$
owner'of'that'thing'has'no'right'to'ask'for'compensation.' a$title$but$the$defendant$also$dont$have$any$title!'
o EX:'You$kill$the$dog$of$your$neighbor$that$attacked$ We$ have$ a$ rule$ in$ evidence$ regarding$ Equipoise$ Evidence'
you.$ Your$ neighbor$ has$ no$ right$ to$ ask$ for$ (both$have$the$same$weight$of$evidence)'
compensation$ from$ you$ because$ his$ dog$ is$ the$ o So$ in$ this$ case,$ the' one' who' is' in' actual'
source$of$the$danger.' possession' of' the' property' will' probably' win'
! But$ if$ you$ have$ provoked$ the$ dog$ prior$ the'case.'
to$ the$ attack,$ thats$ another$ story,$ *Apply'in'analogy'the'principle'in'Presumption'of'Innocence:'The'
neighbor$ is$ justified$ to$ ask$ one'who'asserts'the'affirmative'of'an'issue'has'the'burden'of'proof.''
compensation.' Kung$ tan.aw$ nmu$ walay$ klaru$ ang$ kaso,$ ayaw$ ug$ testify$ to$
*EX:' Another$ situation$ is' when' you' are' poisoned.$ You$ broke$ into$ a$ prove$your$innocent.$Because$there$are$tendency$that$if$you$
drugstore$ because$ you$ know$ a$ fact$ that$ there$ is$ an$ antidote$ in$ that$ testify,$you$will$be$convicted.$Just$file$a$motion$to$dismiss$and$
drugstore.$That$is$technically$trespassing$but$can$be$justified$because$it$ thats$it,$end$of$story.$
is$done$in$the$state$of$necessity.$ $
*EX:' There$ is$ a$ food$ and$ mouth$ decease,$ your$ neighbor$ has$ a$ piggery$ Rule'which'is'Specific'to'Owners'of'land'
which$maybe$a$source$of$that$decease.$You$are$justified$to$destroy$that$ What' is' the' extent' of' ownership?' The$surface,$everything$above$and$
piggery.$$ everything$underneath.$
*EX:' There$ is$ dengue$ outbreak$ in$ you$ place.$ Your$ neighbor$ has$ a$ very$ $
large$stagnant$pond$in$his$property.$After$you$give$demand$to$destroy,$ Ownership' on' the' surface,' up$ to$ what$ extent?$ Only' up' to' what' is'
he$refused.$You$are$justified$in$destroying$his$pond$based$on$necessity.$$ stated'in'the'title.'
$ '
SelfJHelp,'Defense'of'Danger'and'Doctrine'of'Necessity''there$is$an$ Ownership' of' the' Space' above' the' surface' ' only$up$to$reasonable'
element$of$danger$in$these$cases.$These$are$only$exceptional$situations$ height,$ bound$ by$ law$ (Aerial' Navigation' or' The' National' Building'
against$the$general$rule$that$you$cannot$take$the$law$into$your$hands.$ Code)'
$ How'reasonable'is'reasonable?'When$it$is$still$possible$for$
July'26,'2013' the$owner$to$obtain'benefit.''
Action'to'Recovery' '
$ In$relation$to$the$right$of$the$owner$to$recover$his$property,$ Ownership' of' the' Space' underneath' ' the$ same$ criterion$ with$ the$
we$have$this$provision$on$identifying$the$property$he$wants$to$recover$ space$above.$$
because$when$you$file$a$case,$it$starts$with$a$complaint.$$ $
$ In$ the$ complaint,$ you$ will$ allege$ facts$ there.$ For$ example,$ a$ Economic'Benefit'pertaining'to'the'owner'
complaint$of$forcible$entry.$You$will$state$there$that$you$are$the$owner$ ' You$ are$ a$ farmer$ of$ an$ agricultural$ land.$ It$ is$ located$ at$ the$
then$you$will$state$the$property$you$want$to$recover.$Our$problem$now$ mountain$and$it$is$traversed$by$a$high$transmission$land$of$the$National$
is$how$to$identify$that$property.$What'will'be'the'reference'point?'Its' Power$ Corporation.$ Can$ you$ stop$ it$ from$ traversing$ your$ land?$ Or$
in'the'certificate'of'title.' require$ it$ to$ construct$ the$ tower$ in$ such$ a$ manner$ that$ it$ will$ not$
' endanger$you?$Can$you$ask$for$compensation?$$
What'will'you'find'in'the'certificate'of'title?' YES!' Because$ the$ government$ is$ taking$ your$ property.$
Title$number' Taking$will$have$no$basis$if$you$dont$own$the$space$above.$So$there$is$
Technical$description' no$ basis$ if$ that$ Corporation$ will$ say$ that$ they$ are$ not$ disturbing$ your$
Name$of$registered$owner' property$because$they$are$not$taking$the$surface.$
' $
Not$all$lands$are$covered$by$certificate$of$title.$But$it$does$not$mean$that$ NPC'vs'Lukman'
your$ land$ is$ not$ covered$ by$ certificate$ of$ title,$ you$ cannot$ recover$ it.$ ' Respondents$ applied$ for$ a$ construction$ of$ deep$ well,$ they$
were$ denied$ because$ it$ would$ obstruct$ the$ tunnel$ of$ NPC$ underneath$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
their$ lot.$ Lukman$ wants$ to$ be$ compensated.$ NPC$ contended$ that$ they$ Mayor$has$an$obligation$to$publish$the$same'
are$not$disturbing$the$right$of$the$Lukman.$ '
$ SC$held$that$Lukmans$are$entitled$to$just$compensation.$The$ finding' ' it$ must$ be$ found$ on$ the$ land,$ building$ or$ other$ property$
fact$that$they$applied$for$the$deep$well$and$was$not$granted$is$enough$ owned'by'the'owner.'
proof$that$they$are$deprived$of$the$enjoyment$of$the$use$of$the$property.$$ '
$ Lukamans$ even$ tried$ to$ obtain$ a$ loan$ and$ the$ land$ as$ their$ Manner'of'finding'in'order'to'qualify'as'a'hidden'treasure'
collateral.$They$were$again$denied$because$of$the$tunnel.$$ If$the$person$found$the$treasure$unintentionally$
Can' the' NPC' here' contend' that' they' will' just' deepen' their' Found$the$treasure$by$pure'luck$
excavation' such' that' it' will' not' jeopardize' the' construction' of' the' By$chance$$this$does$not$exclude$deliberate$purpose$to$look$
well?'It$will$now$depend$on$the$facts$of$the$case.$It$may$or$it$may$not.$ for$a$treasure$
If$NPC$will$be$favored,$then$the$Lukmans$can$counter$that$in$ o Because$ by$ chance$ also$ mean$ by$ stroke$ of$ good$
time$there$will$be$a$need$to$dig$deeper.$$ luck$
$ EX:' I$ am$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ land$ and$ I$ authorize$ you$ to$ look$ for$ hidden$
*This'criterion'on'ownership'is'never'a'static'thing,'it'is'dynamic.'' treasures.$You$used$equipment$like$metal$detector$to$find$the$treasure.$
' Can$you$claim$50%$share?$YES.$
What' if' there' are' mineral' deposits' in' your' agricultural' land,' can' $
you'assert'ownership'over'them'because'you'are'the'owner'of'the' Before' you' can' be' entitled' to' 50%' what' should' be' the'
subterranean' portion?' And' certainly' there' would' be' economic' qualification?'
benefit'given'to'you?' You$must$not$be$a$trespasser'
NO,' because$ here$ the$ state$ will$ become$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ o Trespasser' ' the$ one$ who$ is$ not$ given$ the$
property.$' authority$to$possess$the$property'
The' court' sets' down' the' rule' that' situations' like' this:' What' if' a' stranger' wants' to' lease' you' property' because' he' know'
That'classification'of'lands'is'INDIVISIBLE.'' for' a' fact' that' there' is' a' hidden' treasure' there,' you' consented.'
o In$ other$ words$ there$ is$ no$ such$ thing$ as$ half$ Then' later' on' he' found' a' hidden' treasure' in' your' property.' Is' he'
mineral$and$half$agricultural.' entitle'to'50%'share?'Is'that'stranger'a'trespasser?'
o Even$ if$ there$ are$ no$ minerals$ on$ top,$ still$ the$ NO,' because$you$already$have$granted$the$possession$of$the$
classification$ followed$ here$ would$ be$ MINERAL$ land$so$you$have$the$right$to$use$it.'
LAND' That$ person$ may$ be$ a$ stranger$ but$ he$ is$ not$ a$ trespasser.$
o So$in$here$the$owner$will$loss$his$ownership$over$ Remember$that$he$is$given$access$to$the$land'
the$ land$ PROVIDED$ THEYLL$ BE$ INDEMNIFIED$ It$did$not$state$that$his$authority$is$just$limited$to$possessing$
BASED$ ON$ IMMINENT$ DOMAIN$ $ the$property.$'
EXPROPRIATION' '
o We$ may$ not$ follow$ the$ just$ compensation$ rule$ in$ *A' stranger' may' not' be' a' trespasser' but' a' trespasser' is' always' a'
imminent$domain$$We$have$the$Mining$Law.' stranger'
' '
No'such'thing'as'2'classifications'of'a'land.'It'would'be'ridiculous' Art.' 438' will$not$be$the$governing$rule$if$what$is$involved$is$treasure'
that' while' the' farmer' is' planting' in' the' surface,' the' miners' are' hunting.''
blasting'underneath.' The$expedition$of$looking$for$treasure$in$a$sunken$ship$is$not$
' governed$by$438.$$
Reckoning' point' of' Compensation' $ value$ shall$ not$ be$ fixed$ at$ the$ When$ you$ conduct$ treasure$ hunting$ in$ government$ owned$
time$of$the$actual$taking$(the$construction$of$tunnels)$ properties$is$also$not$governed.$
Taking$ here$ should$ be$ understood$ to$ be$ with' legal' Those$are$governed$by$PD'1726JA$
authority.' o The$ gist$ of$ the$ law$ is$ that$ you$ need$ to$ file$ a$
' petition$for$the$issuance$of$a$permit$from$the$office$
Hidden'Treasures' of$the$president.$But$your$share$is$not$50;50.$The$
Art.' 438.' Hidden"treasure"belongs"to"the"owner"of"the"land,"building,"or" share$ of$ the$ government$ is$ always$ more$ than$ the$
other"property"on"which"it"is"found." finder.$$
" Nevertheless," when" the" discovery" is" made" on" the" property" of" o If$you$want$to$seek$treasure$in$caves$or$something$
another,"or"of"the"State"or"any"of"its"subdivisions,"and"by"chance,"oneFhalf" of$environmental$resources,$you$must$seek$permit$
thereof"shall"be"allowed"to"the"finder."If"the"finder"is"a"trespasser,"he"shall" from$the$DENR.$
not"be"entitled"to"any"share"of"the"treasure" $
" If"the"things"found"be"of"interest"to"science"or"the"arts,"the"State" Right'of'Accession'
may"acquire"them"at"their"just"price,"which"shall"be"divided"in"conformity" Art.' 440.$ The" ownership" of" property" gives" the" right" by" accession" to"
with"the"rule"stated." everything" which" is" produced" thereby," or" which" is" incorporated" or"
" attached"thereto,"either"naturally"or"artificially."
Treasure' ' understood$ to$ be$ any$ hidden$ and$ unknown$ deposit$ of$ Accession'J'the$right$of$an$owner$of$a$thing$to$the$products$of$said$thing$
money,$ jewelry,$ or$ other$ precious$ objects,$ the$ lawful$ owner$ of$ which$ as$well$as$to$whatever$is$inseparably$attached$thereto$as$an$accessory."
does$not$appear.$ So$everything$added$to$the$property$whether$it$is$a$fruit$done$
$ in$an$artificial$manner$or$by$natural$process.$
Other'Precious'Objects'J'ONLY$MOVABLES,$ejusdem'generis$ This$is$not' a' mode' of' acquiring' ownership' because$this$is$
$ the$consequence.' This$presupposes$that$there$is$ownership$
Precious' Objects' that' are' found' in' sunken' ships,' are' they' before$the$accession.$
considered' Treasures?' NO,' for$ precious$ objects$ to$ qualify$ as$ hidden$ '
treasure,$ it$ must$ be$ movable$ and$ found' in' the' building' or' property' 2'kinds'of'Accession'
owned'by'the'owner'
Accession' Discreta' J' the$ right$ of$ the$ owner$ to$ anything$
'
which$is$produced$by$his$property.$
Before'it'becomes'Hidden'Treasure,'what'is'the'rule'when'it'comes'
Accession' Continua' J' right$of$the$owner$to$anything$which$
to'OWNERSHIP?$Lawful$ownership$of$which$does$not$appear$
is$ incorporated$ or$ attached$ to$ his$ property,$ whether$ such$
It$does$not$mean$finding$something$without$an$owner$
attachment$is$through$natural$or$artificial$causes.$
You$must$establish$that$the$owner$really$do$not$exists$
'
$
Fruits'
If'you'find'something'without'an'owner,'what'is'your'obligation?'
Art.'442.'Natural"Fruits"are"the"spontaneous"products"of"the"soil,"and"the"
You$must$give$it$to$the$mayor' young"and"other"products"of"animals"
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
" Industrial" fruits" are" those" produced" by" lands" of" any" kind" If$ you$ enter$ into$ co;ownership$ today,$ tomorrow$ you$ want$ a$
through"cultivation"or"labor." partition.$The$other$co;owners$cannot$object$because$that$is$
" Civil"fruits"are"the"rents"of"buildings,"the"price"of"leases"of"lands" your$right$for$partition$anytime.'
and"other"property"and"the"amount"of"perpetual"or"life"annuities"or"other" So' even' in' voluntary' coJownership' the' law' allows'
similar"income." partition,' with' more' reason' should' the' force' coJ
( ownership'be'terminated.'
Accion'Continua' '
Natural'Fruits''by$nature,$spontaneous$ *So'why'Forced'CoJOwnership?'
EX1:'Trees$that$are$produce$from$the$seeds$you$throw$in$your$property$ ' In$ instances$ governed$ by$ the$ provisions$ in$ Accession,$ these$
(depends$on$how$you$throw$it!$XD)$ are$practically$solutions$to$stop$existence$of$Co;ownership.$
;$ it$ is$ Natural' Fruit$ $ if$ you$ just$ throw$ it$ and$ it$ just$ grow$ EX:' A$building$belonging$to$A$and$the$land$belonging$to$B.$B$is$in$good$
naturally$ faith,$ A$ is$ also$ in$ good$ faith.$ The$ problem$ now$ is$ shall' we' continue'
;$it$is$Industrial'Fruit$$if$you$have$cultivated$it$ maintain'a'situation'where'there'is'an'owner'of'the'land'who'is'not'
EX2:'The$young$and$product$of$animals$ the'owner'of'the'building?'
' '
Industrial' Fruits' ' products$ by$ lands$ of$ any$ kind,$ cultivated$ and$ July'27,'2013'
human$labor$ ' The$ owner$ of$ the$ thing$ or$ property$ has$ basic$ ownership$
Manufacturing$of$cars$$that$is$not$fruit$ rights:$ Right$ to$ Enjoy,$ Right$ to$ Dispose,$ Right$ to$ encumber.$ On$ top$ of$
$ those$rights,$one$of$the$fundamental$right$is$the$right$of$accession$to$the$
Civil'Fruits''rents,$lease$and$life$annuities$ thing$he$owns.$Anything$that$is$added,$anything$that$is$incorporated$to$
$ the$thing$he$owns,$that$is$also$owned$by$the$owner.$$
*Are' there' other' types' of' accessions' which' are' not' necessarily' $
fruits?'ACCION$CONTINUA$(refer$above$definition)$ Acceion' Distreta' ' fruits$ $ owner$ of$ the$ principal$ owns$ the$ fruits$
$ (natural$or$civil)$
*Accion'Continua'also'refers'to'movables'and'immovables.'' Exception:' There$ are$ situations$ that$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ thing$ is$ not$ the$
' owner$of$the$fruit.$
Accion'Continua'over'Immovables' Usufruct' ' another$ person$ gains$ right$ to$ possess$ anothers$
*When' can' you' say' that' a' building' is' an' accession' of' your' property.$$$Leasing'a'Property''J'in$a$contract$of$lease,$the$
property?' lessee$owns$the$fruits$of$the$land$
Art.' 445.' Whatever"is"built,"planted"or"sown"on"the"land"of"another"and" o Fruits$herein$pertains$to$the$industrial$fruits.$
the" improvements" or" repairs" made" thereon," belong" to" the" owner" of" the" o But$in$so$far$as$the$civil$fruits,$that$belongs$to$the$
land,"subject"to"the"provisions"of"the"ff."articles.' owner$
Art.' 446.' All" works," sowing," and" planting" are" presumed" made" by" the" When$ the$ fruit$ of$ a$ tree$ in$ your$ land$ falls$ on$ the$ land$ of$
owner"and"at"his"expense,"unless"the"contrary"is"proved.' another,$naturally.'$
$ Possessor'in'good'faith''when$a$person$took$possession$of$
EX.' Alluvion' ' deposit$ of$ soil$ in$ your$ property$ by$ the$ current' of' the' a$land$thinking$that$he$is$the$real$owner$therein.$$
river.$If$movement$by$the$current' of' the' sea' ' still$alluvion$but$does$ *When'can'a'person'think'that'he'is'the'owner'but'then'
not$pertain$to$a$private$ownership.$ he'is'mistaken?'Just$like$in$Land$Titles,$when$you$enter$into$
$ Now$ if$ your$ land$ is$ eaten$ up$ by$ the$ flood,$ that$ is$ already$ transaction$involving$a$sale$of$parcel$of$land$is$to$ask$for$the$
diminution.' The$ reason$ why$ alluvion$ is$ added$ to$ your$ property$ is$ title.$ The$ prudent$ thing$ to$ do$ so$ that$ you$ can$ be$ considered$
because$it$is$also$served$as$compensation$for$the$danger$exposed$to$the$ as$a$buyer'in'good'faith$is$to$check$the$title,$not$only$rely$on$
owner$of$timely$losing$his$land.$$ the$ duplicate$ certificate$ but$ go$ to$ the$ register$ of$ deed$ and$
$ check$ the$ certificate.$ If$ there$ is$ nothing$ there$ on$ the$ face$ of$
Avulsion' ' the$change$of$the$course$of$the$river,$formation$of$island$in$ the$ certificate,$ any$ encumbrance$ or$ annotations,$ then$ you$
the$river$ proceeded$to$buy$then$you$are$a$possessor$in$good$faith.$$
$ For$purposes$of$property$law,$Islands'can$also$be$formed$by$ o In$ reality,$ theres$ a$ situation$ that$ you$ have$
alluvial$deposits.$$ succeeded$ in$ registering$ a$ land$ but$ there$ is$
$ somebody$you$registered$it$before$you.$The$land$is$
Accession'of'Movables' now$actually$covered$by$2$titles.$
EX1:'Adjunction$$a$ring$with$a$stone$$the$ring$is$the$principal$and$the$ *How' about' the' fruits?' Are' you' the' owner' of' the' fruits' there?' Is'
stone$is$the$accessory$ there'a'prescriptive'period'of'your'ownership'of'the'fruit?'
EX2:'Commixtion/$Mixture/$Confusion$$when$you$mix$two$things,$you$ There$ is$ a$ time$ limit$ in$ regard$ to$ the$ ownership$ of$ the$ fruit.$
can$no$longer$identify$the$2$things$mixed.$ The$ moment$ facts$ exists$ which$ would$ have$ excited$ your$
Cows$transferred$to$another$ranch$and$deceit$was$employed$ belief$ that$ the$ land$ does$ not$ belong$ to$ you.$ From$ that$
by$the$owner$of$that$ranch.$Now$you$cannot$determine$which$ moment,$ all$ the$ fruits$ will$ not$ belong$ to$ you.$ Only$ the$ fruits$
cows$belong$to$which$ranch.$$ before$you$gain$knowledge$belongs$to$you.$'
Sacks$of$rice$own$by$2$individuals$are$stored$in$a$warehouse.$ '
In$ whatever$ occurrence,$ these$ sacks$ of$ rice$ were$ commixed$ Contract'of'Antichresis'J'the$creditor$acquires$the$right$to$receive$the$
such$that$it$is$hard$to$determine$which$pertains$to$A$or$B.$ fruits$of$an$immovable$of$his$debtor,$with$the$obligation$to$apply$them$
' to$the$payment$of$the$interest,$if$owing,$and$thereafter$to$the$principal$
EX3:'Specification''giving$a$new$form$of$an$object$ of$his$credit.$
Soil$$clay$$made$into$a$pot$ There$ is$ a$ creditor;debtor$ relationship$ and$ the$ creditor$ is$
Grape$$transformed$into$Red$Wine$ allowed$ to$ harvest$ the$ fruits$ with$ the$ obligation$ of$ applying$
$ the$proceeds$thereof$as$payment$of$the$debts.$
*The'provisions'in'Accession'prevent'the'continuing'coJownership.' $
The'law'does'not'like'the'existence'of'forced'coJownership.' Possessor'in'Good'Faith''he$is$not$the$real$owner.$$
When$there$are$several$owners$over$a$single$thing,$there$are$ General$ described$ as$ the$ one$ who$ does$ not$ have$ knowledge$
lots$of$conflicts.' that$there$is$a$flaw$exists$in$his$title.$$
' *Why' do' we' have' to' know' if' he' is' a' possessor' in' Good' Faith?$
There$ is$ a$ rule$ in$ co;ownership$ that:$ A' coJowner' can' demand' Because$ the$ time$ limit$ of$ ownership$ of$ the$ fruits$ will$ depend$ upon$
partition'anytime.' whether$he$is$in$good$faith$or$in$bad$faith.$
EX:'A$buyer$of$land$who$relied$on$the$face$of$the$certificate$of$title.$
$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$ So$in$other$words,$if$you$buy$as$property$knowing$that$there$
are$ annotations$ and$ encumbrances$ on$ the$ title,$ you$ are$ a' bad' faith'
buyer.' You$will$not$be$accountable$if$you$win$the$case.$But$af$a$case$is$
filed$ against$ you$ and$ you$ lose$ in$ that$ case,$ you$ are$ liable$ not$ only$ to$
deliver$ the$ principal$ thing$ but$ also$ to$ account$ for$ all$ the$ fruits$ of$ the$
thing.$$
EX:' When$ you$ file$ a$ case$ against$ a$ squatter,$ the$ squatter$ is$ not$ only$
liable$to$the$delivery$of$the$land.$Because$if$the$owner$can$establish$that$
the$ land$ could$ have$ produce$ fruits$ or$ have$ produced$ fruits$ not$
delivered$to$the$owner,$the$squatters$are$accountable$for$those$fruits.$
$ Thats$why$when$you$filed$a$case$of$forcible$entry,$aside$from$
being$asked$to$vacate,$there$is$an$additional$prayer$(incidental)$to' pay'
for'the'value'of'the'reasonable'use'and'occupation'of'the'premises.'
(kung' way' additional' prayer' asa' man' ka' kakuha' sa' imo' 10%'
attorney'fees?)'
' Art.' 447.' The" owner" of" the" land" who" makes" thereon," personally" or"
*Now' there' are' so' many' provision' with' regards' to' Accession,' but'
this'rules'are'irrelevant'if'the'one'involved'is'just'1'owner.''
This'rules'will'only'find'relevance'if'there'are'2'parties/'
persons'involved.'
o One$ is$ the$ owner,$ the$ other$ is$ the$ planter$ or$
builder$'
' of" the" materials" may" remove" them" in" any" even," with" a" right" to" be"
There'is'another'situation'where'there'are'3'parties'involved:'The$
owner$ of$ the$ Land,$ The$ Owner$ of$ the$ building,$ and$ the$ owner$ of$ the$
materials$
One$ building$ on$ the$ land$ of$ another$ and$ uses$ the$ materials$
belonging$to$another$person.$$$
$ *If'the'owner'of'the'land'is'in'bad'faith'and'using'the'materials'of'
This' situations' maybe' complicated' but' just' remember' the' basic'
principles:'J'IMPORTANT'
The'owner'of'the'thing'owns'the'extension'or'increase'of'
such'thing.'
The'accessory'follows'the'principal.'
o For$purposes$of$accession,$just$like$in$Art$448$(will$
be$ discussed$ later),$ the$ ownership$ of$ the$ building$
will$belong$to$the$owner$of$the$land.'
*Now' Practical' application:' The$ price$ of$ the$
building$is$more$than$the$price$of$the$land.$Can$the$
ownership$ go$ to$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ more$ valuable$
thing?$NO,'there$is$no$legal$basis.$
The' rules' on' accession' will' only' be' applied' when' it' is'
impossible'to'separate'the'things'united'without'causing'
damage'to'the'thing'itself.'
o If$ it$ is$ still$ possible$ to$ separate$ the$ thing$ united$
without$ causing$ injury$ to$ the$ thing$ itself,$ then$
there$is$no$true$accession.$
o This$presupposes$that$it$is$impossible$to$separate$
them$without$destruction.$
That'no'one'shall'unjustly'enrich'himself'at'the'expense'
of'another.'
o EX1:' Using$ materials$ of$ another,$ you$ should$ pay$
the$owner$of$the$material$you$have$used.$
o EX2:' Growing$ crops$ $ somebody$ spent$ for$ the$
production,$ gathering$ and$ preservation.$ This$
somebody,$ after$ a$ case$ was$ filed,$ was$ adjudged$
that$ he$ is$ not$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ land.$ Even$ if$ he$ is$
not$the$owner$of$the$land,$he$shall$be$reimbursed$
of$the$proceeds$he$spent$for$the$production.$$
o $EX3:' In$a$case$of$a$builder$on$anothers$property$
which$he$believes$to$be$owned$by$him.$Under$the$
rules$ of$ accession,$ if$ that$ is$ the$ case$ the$ owner$ of$
the$ land$ has$ the$ right$ to$ assert$ ownership$ of$ the$
building.$ But$ if$ he$ want$ to$ acquire$ it,$ he$ must$
indemnify$ the$ building$ for$ the$ value$ of$ the$
building.$
Good'Faith'is'rewarded'and'bad'faith'is'penalized.'$
o 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.$
$ $
' '
'
$
Good'Faith'Builder''you$have$the$right$to$be$reimbursed.$
This$ right$ to$ be$ reimbursed$ $ EVEN' A' POSSESSOR' IN' BAD'
FAITH'IS'ENTITLED'TO'THAT:$
o Only'if'it'is'a'necessary'expenses'and'expenses'
of'preservation'and'gathering'
! Because$ it$ is$ necessary,$ good$ faith$ or$
bad$faith$owner$still$spends'
Right$to$be$reimburse$of$useful$improvements'
If$the$landowner$decides$to$acquire$the$improvements,$in$the$
mean$ time$ that$ you$ are$ not$ yet$ paid$ of$ the$ value$ you$
introduced$to$the$premises,$you$can$stay$there.$'
o You$are$not$the$owner$but$you$are$given$the$right$
to$ stay.$ And' not' even' the' landowner' can' ask'
you'to'pay'rentals.''
'
through"another,"plantings,"constructions"or"works"with"the"materials"of"
another,"shall(pay(their(value;"and,"if"he"acted"in"bad"faith,"he"shall"also"
be"obliged"to"the"reparation"of"damages."The"owner"of"the"materials"shall"
have"the"right"to"remove"them"only"in"case"he"can"do"so"without"injury"to"
the" work" constructed," or" without" the" plantings," constructions" or" works"
being"destroyed."However,"if"the"landowner"acted"in"bad"faith,"the"owner"
indemnified"for"damages."
You$ use$ the$ material$ of$ another,$ you$ build$ something$ $ you'
pay'the'owner'of'the'materials.$
'
Elements'of'Good'Faith'and'Bad'Faith'in'Art.'447'
another.''
When$ is$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ land$ in$ bad$ faith?$ Just' the'
knowledge'that'the'material'does'not'belong'to'them.''
'
*But' when' can' we' say' that' the' owner' of' the' Materials' is' in' bad'
faith?' It$ is$ always$ presumed$ that$ he$ is$ the$ owner.$ It$ is$ only$ when$ he$
allowed$ the$ use$ of$ the$ materials$ without$ interposing$ any$ objection.$ $
you'are'already'bad'faith'here,'also'applicable'to'land'owners'
'
Practice' Application:' Somebody$built$on$the$land$that$belongs$to$you.$
You$just$let$that$person$build$something$in$your$land,$you$did$not$stop$
him$so$that$he$will$continue$contracting$the$building$so$that$when$the$
building$ is$ done,$ you$ will$ object$ and$ claim$ ownership$ of$ it.$ $ in' bad'
faith,'he'did'not'interpose'any'timely'objection.'
'
Bad'Faith'on'the'Owner'of'the'Land'
*What'is'the'right'of'the'owner'of'the'materials?'
to'be'paid'for'the'value$of$the$materials'
plus$ damages$ ;$ now$ this$ liability$ to$ damages$ is$ imposable$
against$a$person$who$is$in$bad$faith.$'
he$ can$ remove' the' materials' ' this$ presupposes$ with$ a$
court$order'
*But$just$because$the$house$constructed$using$the$materials$of$another$
person,$you$will$notice$that$that$another$person$cannot$be$a$co;owner$
of$the$building.$
EX:'You$are$the$owner$of$the$hardware$store.$90%$of$the$materials$used$
in$ constructing$ the$ building$ belong$ to$ you.$ There$ is$ no$ legal$ basis$ for$
you$to$go$to$court$so$that$you$will$be$decorate$as$the$90%$owner$of$the$
building.$
Reason:'Because$it$is$not$provided$by$law.$
$ You$cannot$even$treat$the$materials$as$accessory.$It$is$just$a$
component$ of$ the$ accessory,$ so$ there$ is$ no$ legal$ basis$ to$ declare$ the$
owner$of$the$materials$as$a$part$owner.$$
$ Your$ only$ right$ there$ is$ reimbursement$ and$ additional$
liability$on$the$part$of$the$builder$if$there$is$bad$faith.$
$
Lets'complicate'this'further,'this'Art.'447'J'IMPORTANT'
*What$happens$if$the' builder' owner' sells' the' land$together$with$the$
improvements$to' another' person$but$at' the' time' of' the' sale' he' did'
not' yet' pay' the' owner' of' the' materials.$ And$ the$ third' person' to$
whom$the$land$and$improvements$are$sold$was'in'good'faith.$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
Against' whom' shall' we' file' the' case' to' recover' the' value' of' the' ownership,$thats$why$its$always$the$right$of$the$co;owner$to$get$out$of$
materials?' it$if$he$wants$to.$
Can$you$file$it$against$the$new$owner?$Or$the$old$owner?' $ If$ it$ is$ a$ forced$ co;ownership,$ there$ must$ be$ a$ solution.$ To$
In'here'we'have'to'make'the'appropriate'qualification:'' result$the$respective$rights$of$the$party.$$
If$the$old$owner$will$say$that$the$one$who$ultimately$benefits$ $
is$the'NEW'OWNER,$so'the'one'who'benefits'the'accession' Solutions'Provided'by'Law'
should'be'the'one'who'should'be'held'liable.' 1.'land'owner'can'appropriate'the'improvements'
' *Does'the'owner'have'obligation'before'he'can'appropriate?'
But$ according$ to$ Justice$ Paras,$ even$ if$ the$ value$ of$ the$ ;$after$payment$of$the$indemnities:$
improvement$is$not$factored$in$fixing$the$consideration$of$the$ necessary'expenses'and''
sale,$still$the$action$should$be$filed$against'the'OLD'OWNER.' expenses'for'useful'improvements'
' 2.$land$owner$may' compel' the' Builder' and' PLANTER' TO' PAY' THE'
ART.'448' PRICE'OF'THE'LAND$
CASES'ASSIGNED'BY'SIR'IN'THIS'TOPIC:' the$one$who'SOW'for'rent''not'to'buy$
There$are$cases$involving$ownership$of$the$fruits$of$the$thing,$ o Sowing$is$transitory$in$nature.$
which$is$auctioned,$and$there$is$still$the$right$to$redemption$on$the$part$ *in'the'First'Remedy,'the'builder'has'the'right'to'retention.'
of$the$judgment$debtor.$ In' the' Second' Remedy,' there' is' NONE.' ' in$ other$ words,$
$ Public' Auction$$may$arise$from$a$final$judgment$or$from$a$ Lets$forget$the$right$to$retention$here.$$
foreclosure$of$a$mortgage.$So$whenever$a$public$auction,$there$is$public$ '
sale.$ Just$ because$ it$ is$ sold$ in$ a$ public$ auction,$ the$ buyer$ is$ not$ the$ What'if'the'landowner'has'already'chosen'what'option'to'avail,'can'
absolute$owner$$NOT$YET,$make$qualifications:$ you'change'that'option?'Can'he'change'his'mind?'NO,'GO$BACK$TO$
$ Subject'of'the'sale'is'movable''no'problem'here.' THE$ BASICS$ OF$ OBLIGATIONS$ AND$ CONTRACTS.$ HE$ CANNOT$
BUT'if'Subject'of'the'sale'is'immovable'by'nature''there$ ARBITRARILY$ WITHDRAW$ THE$ AGREEMENT.$ THERE$ IS$ ALREADY$ A$
is$right$to$redemption.$If$you$are$the$highest$bidder,$you$are$not$yet$the$ MEETING$OF$THE$MINDS.$
owner.$You'are'the'INCHOATE'OWNER'because'the'mortgagor'still' '
has'1'year'redemption.' Is'their'limitation'to'the'2nd'Option?'
' Yes,' if$the$value$of$the$land$is$substantially/' considerably'
Riosa'vs'Verzosa;'Velasco'vs'Rosenberg' more' than$ the$ value$ of$ the$ improvement$ such$ that$ you$
' One$ issue$ here$ is$ who' is' the' owner' of' the' fruits' of' the' cannot$compel$the$builder$to$pay$the$value$of$the$land.'
thing'during'the'1'year'period'of'redemption?'$The'mortgagor?'Or' EX:'If$the$value$of$the$building$is$100k,$and$the$value$of$the$land$is$10M$
the'Highest'Bidder?' $
' IT'IS'THE'MORGAGOR'OWNER.'' *Now'what'will'happen'if'the'builder/planter'CANNOT'pay'for'the'
' value'of'the'land'and'it'is'a'situation'where'you'can'compel?'
EX:' Possession$ over$ which$ is$ with$ the$ buyer$ already,$ he$ must$ account$ To$make$the$builder$and$landowner$enter$into$lease$contract.'
for$ the$ value$ of$ the$ fruits$ received$ during$ the$ redemption$ period$ But$ isnt' it' that' in' laws' on' contracts,' contracts' enjoy'
because$that$will$be$credited$as$the$redemption$price.$If$the$lot$will$not$ autonomy?$ That$ the$ court$ cannot$ compel$ the$ parties$ to$
be$ redeemed,$ then$ he$ has$ to$ pay$ for$ the$ value$ of$ the$ fruits$ to$ the$ enter$therein?$Would$that$be$a$violation?'
mortgagor$owner.$$ o NO,$because$that$is$based$on$law.'
$ $
August'2,'2013' *Can'the'landowner'be'declared'as'the'owner'of'the'improvement?'
Art.' 448.' The"owner"of"the"land"on"which"anything"has"been"built,"sown" NO,'because$the$landowner$has$3$remedies$if$the$building$owner$cannot$
or"planted"in"good"faith,"shall"have"the"right"to"appropriate"as"his"own"the" pay$ for$ the$ land.$ Nothing$ therein$ that$ if$ the$ builder$ or$ planter$ cannot$
works,"sowing"or"planting,"after"payment"of"the"indemnity"provided"for"in" pay,$the$owner$of$the$land$be$automatically$the$owner.$
Art." 546" and" 548," or" to" oblige" the" one" who" built" or" planted" to" pay" the" $
price" of" the" land," and" the" one" who" sowed," the" proper" rent." However," the" Remedies'of'the'Land'Owner'if'the'Building'Owner'cannot'pay'the'
builder" or" planter" cannot" be" obliged" to" buy" the" land" if" its" value" is" Land.''
considerably"more"than"that"of"the"building"or"trees."In"such"case,"he"shall" The'land'owner'can'auction'that'land'and'the'building''
pay" reasonable" rent," if" the" owner" of" the" land" does" not" choose" to" the$ proceeds$ from$ the$ auction$ will$ be$ paid$ first$ to$ the$
appropriate"the"building"or"trees"after"proper"indemnity."The"parties"shall" building$ and$ the$ residual$ shall$ sho$ to$ him.$ (Filipina' vs'
agree"upon"the"terms"of"the"lease"and"in"case"of"disagreement,"the"court" Timbang)'
shall"fix"the"terms"thereof." To'demolish'the'$
$ *Are'you'obliged'to'pay?''NO,'because'if'I'would'pay'the'
Gi'include'nako'dri'ang'recitation'kay'naglibog'ko'ani'nga'article.' price' of' the' building' then' it' would' dilute' my' right' to'
' demolish.'Demolish'then'imo'ra'd.i'tong'bayran?'
448''we$are$not$talking$about$materials$here,$we$are$talking$about$the$ $
building.$ SIRS'DISCUSSION'DISECTING'448''this$is$a$situation$where$the$land'
Possible'Scenarios' owner'and'a'builder,$$
Both$ parties$ (landowner$ and$ builder$ in$ good$ faith)$ acted$ in$ $
good$faith' REMEDIES' AVAILABLE' TO' THE' LANDOWNER' (Filipinal' Collage' vs'
o The$ builder$ here$ honestly$ believe$ that$ he$ owned$ Timbang)'
the$land$according$to$his$title$until$his$title$is$lost' 1ST' OPTION:' The$former$has$the' right' to' acquire' improvements$but$
o Good'Faith'Builder''he$has$claim$of$title' with$the$obligation' to' pay' the' appropriate' indemnities' (necessary'
' expenses' and' expenses' for' useful' improvement)' ' provided' that'
EX:' You$ are$ mistaken$ to$ the$ extent$ of$ your$ boundaries.$ There$ is$ an$ both'are'IN'GOOD'FAITH'
encroachment$of$about$10$meters$to$anothers$property.$Then$you$built$ There$ is$ no$ obligation$ to$ pay$ for$ luxurious$ improvements$
something$on$the$land.$But$later$on$after$the$$allocating$the$boundaries,$ unless'the'land'owner'choose'to'appropriate'them.''
it$was$determined$that$it$is$not$within$your$title.$ *Why'is'he'obliged'to'pay'the'value'of'the'building?'Because$of$the$
$ principle$of$there$should$be$no$unjust$enrichment.$$
Macasaet'Case' $
' The$ builder$ has$ no$ title.$ He$ already$ knows$ at$ the$ beginning$ 2nd'OPTION:'to$compel$the$builder$and$the$planter$to$pay$for$the$value$
that$he$has$not$right$over$the$property.$$ of$the$land$provided$that$the$value$of$the$land$is$not$substantially$more$
' In$ this$ case,$ when$ they$ are$ mistaken,$ there$ is$ a$ situation$ of$ than$the$value$of$the$improvements.$The$sower$for$proper$rent.$$
force$ co;ownership.$ The$ law$ frowns$ upon$ the$ existence$ of$ co;
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
$ Now$if$the$planter$or$builder$cannot$pay$the$value$of$the$land$ finally$be$paid$of$appropriated$indemnities$provided$by$law,$the$amount$
or$the$sower$does$not$like$to$be$in$a$lease$contract,$the$owner$has$the$ of$rentals$he$has$received$will$be$deducted.$
right$to$demolish$the$improvements$of$the$land.$ $
$ Ortiz'vs'Kayanan''
Right'to'Demolish''can$only$be$availed$of$in$the$outset$ $ This$case$is$about$the$right$of$retention;$you$are$renting$out$
Only$when$the$builder,$planter$failed$to$pay$the$value$of$the$ the$ property.$ You$ have$ the$ obligation$ to$ account$ for$ the$ fruits$ of$ the$
land$and$sower$to$disagree$to$enter$into$contract$of$lease.$ thing.$
*Little' absurdity' here.' I" think" the" more" sensible" solution" would" have" $
been" to( just( declare( that( the( landowner( be( the( owner( of( the( *Who' is' the' builder' or' planter' or' sower?' It$is$only$to$the$reference$
improvement"rather"than"asking"for"the"demolition"of"the"improvement." that$they$honestly$believe$that$they$are$the$owner$of$the$land.$$
In"Filipinas"Case,"SC"held"that"there"is"no"legal"basis"to"declare" EX:' mistaken$ of$ the$ boundary,$ title$ issued$ pursuant$ to$ judicial$ decree,$
the"landowner"to"be"the"owner"of"the"improvements."But"they" title$ issued$ pursuant$ to$ patent$ $ TWO$ TITLES$ COVERING$ THE$ SAME$
gave"the"landowner"an"option"for"demolition."" PROPERTY.$$
o It" is" like" a" wasteful" mindset." Tagaan" nmu" right" to" $ This$ good$ faith;bad$ faith$ thing$ can$ only$ be$ established$ after$
demolish" nga" pwede" pman" magamit" nang" balay." appropriate$proceedings.$
Rather" than" declaring" the" building" to" be" given" to" EX:' Actions$ to$ recover$ $ 448$ will$ be$ an$ issue$ there$ because$ those$
the"owner." involves$determination$of$who$the$owner$is.$
' EX:'Quieting$of$title$case$
In'fixing'the'value'of'the'land,'what'is'the'basis?'Is'it'the'time'the'' *Basta'any'case'where'the'question'is'WHO'IS'THE'OWNER!''448'
Improvements'are'introduced'in'the'premises?'Or'shall'it'be'fixed' will'be'just'an'incidental'issue.'
at'its'current'value?' Possessor'in'good'faith''you$believe$that$you$are$the$owner,$you$have$
Its$the$price$of$the$current$value' a$claim$of$ownership$over$the$land.$$
' $ So$448$will$not$apply$if$you$(builder,$planter,$sower)$has$no$
Why' is' the' option' given' to' the' landowner?' Because$so$far$as$448$is$ claim$ of$ title$ of$ the$ land.$ You$ are$ not$ disputing$ the$ ownership$ of$ the$
concern,$ the$ principal$ is$ the$ land$ and$ the$ building$ and$ plants$ are$ the$ land$on$which$the$improvements$you$introduced.$
accessories.$$ EX:' You$are$the$lessee$of$the$land,$after$the$expiration$you$will$ask$the$
$ lessor$ to$ pay$ you$ the$ value$ of$ improvements$ on$ the$ basis$ of$ 448.$ Can'
CONSEQUENCES''If$landowner$chooses'OPTION'1$but$cannot$pay$the$ you'compel'the'lessor'to'pay?'NO'
value$of$the$necessary$expenses$and$useful$improvements,$what$are$the$ '
RIGHTS'OF'THE'BUILDER?' *But' there' is' another' law' governing' LessorJLessee' Relationship,'
1.'Builder$may$retain$the$improvements$until$the$landowner$makes$the$ Art.'1678'where'the'lessor'may'be'compelled'to'pay'the'lessee'for'
full$payment.$ the' values' introduced.' So' the' lessee' may' be' entitle' for'
Retain''to$continue$in$possession,$he'cannot'be'compelled' reimbursement'but'not'in'Art'448.'Because'under'448,'it'must'be'
to' pay' for' rentals' in' the' meantime' he' is' not' paid' ' HE' in'good'faith'and'a'LESSEE'IS'NEVER'A'GOOD'FAITH.'
CAN'EVEN'LEASE'THE'BUILDING'TO'A'THIRD'PERSON.$ ' Lessee$ already$ recognize$ that$ there$ is$ a$ person$ who$ has$ a$
*' Is' he' accountable' for' the' proceeds' of' that' rental' to' the' better$right$of$a$title$than$you.$
landowner?' YES,' because$ the$ landowner$ is$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ $
fruits.$ When$ the$ landowner$ finally$ pays$ him,$ the$ rentals$ that$ the$ Another$case$where$you$cannot$apply$448$is$in$the$case$of$usufructory'
builder$has$received$will$be$deducted$to$the$payment.$$ (the'person'given'the'rights'to'the'fruits'and'use'of'the'thing).'The$
PIVOT:' There$ is$ this$ exemption$ that$ if$ the$ possessor$ is$ in$ good$ legal$ownership$is$with$the$naked$owner.$$
faith,$ the$ principal$ (landowner)$ will$ not$ own$ the$ fruits.$ But' take' If$you$are$a$usufruct,$you$introduce$improvement$to$the$land.$
note'that'in'this'case,'the'builder'can'no'longer'be'considered' After$ the$ termination$ of$ usufruct$ you$ cannot$ ask$ for$
as'the'builder'in'good'faith'because'he'already'knows'that'the' reimbursement.$ Because$ you$ know$ that$ the$ land$ does$ not$
land'is'not'his.''IMPORTANT' belong$to$you.$$
REMEMBER' THAT' THE' POSSESSOR' IN' GOOD' FAITH' IS' A' $
PERSON' WHO' DOES' NOT' KNOW' THAT' THERE' IS' A' FLAW' IN' 448$cannot$be$applied$to$Possessor'by'Mere'Tolerance''
HIS'TITLE.' *I$say$that$you$can$stay$in$my$land$in$the$meantime$you$have$no$place$to$
' be,$are'you'a'possessor'by'mere'tolerance?'
*Can' the' landowner' file' an' ejectment' case' against' the' builder' in' $ Justice$ Panganiban:$ That' is' not' tolerated' possession.' It'
good' faith?' NO,$because$the$case$will$not$fall$under$forcible$enter$nor$ must' be' at' the' beginning' is' not' absolutely' approved' of,' but' after'
unlawful$detainer.$In$fact$that$the$retention$of$the$builder$in$good$faith$ the'knowledge'of'the'possession''it'is'just'tolerated.'
is$protected$by$law.$$ $ HERE' YOU' ARE' NOT' A' POSSESSOR/' BUILDER' IN' GOOD'
$ Thus$he$cannot$be$asked$to$vacate$the$premises.$$ FAITH.'
$ '
Manotok'Realty'vs'Tecson' August'3,'2013'
*What' if' in' the' meantime' he' is' not' paid' of' the' values' of' the' Possessor'in'Good'Faith''he$is$in$possession$of$the$land$under$claim$
improvements,' the' building' was' lost' by' fire?' Can' he' stay' on' the' of$ownership$but$he$is$mistaken$
premises?' Can' the' builder' file' a' case' to' compel' the' owner' to' pay' $
the'value'of'the'building?'' But'there'are'cases'where'the'SC'relaxed'the'traditional'notion'of'
NO,' there$ is$ no$ legal$ basis$ to$ compel$ the$ landowner$ to$ pay$ Possessor/'Builder'in'Good'Faith.''
the$ value$ of$ the$ building$ which$ is$ not$ already$ there.$ In$ the$ Macasaet'Case'
first$place,'he'did'not'benefit.$ ' Where$ there$ is$ an$ invitation$ that$ the$ son$ was$ given$
*But'I'think'this'will'not'be'the'same'if'there'is'an'UNREASONALBE' permission$ by$ the$ parent$ to$ build$ on$ the$ land.$ This$ is$ not$ one$ of$ the$
DELAY' ON' THE' PART' OF' THE' OWNER.' (It' depends' on' how' you' traditional$ notion$ of$ builder$ in$ good$ faith$ because$ the$ son$ in$ the$ first$
argue'on'you'position)''IMPORTANT' place$ knows$ that$ the$ land$ does$ not$ belong$ to$ him.$ But$ because$ of$ the$
' invitation$given,$he$is$still$a$builder$in$good$faith.$
RECAP' $ The$ argument$ of$ the$ lawyer$ of$ the$ builder:$ he$ is$ trying$ to$
$ So$ when$ the$ builder$ is$ not' yet' paid,' he' has' this' right' to' formulate$an$argument$that$would$conform$to$article$448.$He$said$that$
retention.$ This$ right$ of$ retention$ is$ best$ manifested$ by$ his$ not$ being$ it$is$an'advance'inheritance.$In$effect,$he$is$also$asserting$ownership.$$
compelled$to$vacate$the$land$even$if$ejectment$case$is$filed.$$ so$ masud$ na$ ka$ sa$ 448,$ you$ are$ already$ builder$ in$ good$ faith$ $
$ He$cannot'be'compelled'to'pay'rentals.'But$if$he$chooses$to$ applicable$only$when$you$have$claim$of$title.$$IMPORTANT$
rent$the$improvement$to$another$person$and$then$he$profited,$he$has$to$ $
account$ for$ the$ rentals.$ This$ would$ practically$ mean$ that$ if$ ever$ he$ is$ '
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
How'to'refute:' o So$if$the$one$building$is$the$land$owner,$then$448$
' There$is$no$such$thing$as$advance$inheritance.$Your$parents$ is$not$applicable.$'
are$still$living,$this$right$is$still$inchoate.$ '
$ But$ it$ does$ not$ mean$ that$ it$ cannot$ be$ used$ as$ a$ claim$ of$ Sometimes'this'exercise'of'the'option'maybe'prone'to'abuse.''
ownership.$(depends'on'your'argument'again).$ EX:' A$ portion$ of$ the$ improvement$ encroaches$ on$ another$ land.$ The$
$ landowner$has$the$option$to$appropriate$the$improvements$or$compel$
Sarmiento'Case' the$builder$to$buy$the$land.$Now$let$use$say$that$the$encroached$portion$
' This$ is$ a$ case$ of$ future$ son$ in$ law$ who$ believe,$ yet$ he$ was$ only$ pertains$ to$ the$ kitchen.$ Can' the' landowner' appropriate' the'
deemed$as$builder$in$good$faith.$From$the$very$beginner$he$knows$that$ kitchen'only?'LEGALLY,'YES!'The$option$is$only$given$to$the$owner.$
the$land$does$not$belong$to$him.$But$SC$treated$them$as$builder$in$good$ The$owner$of$the$improvements$cannot$say$that$he$will$just$
faith.$ buy$the$land.'
$ Even$the$court$cannot$dictate$that$the$landowner$will$just$let$
If'you'are'a'Lessee,$you$cannot$invoke$Art$448.$But$you$maybe$entitled$ the$builder$buy$his$land.$THAT$IS$PATENT$GRAVE$ABUSE$OF$
to$50%$indemnification$under$Art.$1678.$$ DISCRETION.$'
$ Under$ 448,$ that$ is$ the$ option$ given$ to$ the$ landowner.$ You'
Possessor'by'mere'tolerance''not$a$builder$in$good$faith$because$he$ can' only' compel' the' landowner' to' exercise' the' option,'
knows$that$the$land$is$not$his.$ but'you'cannot'dictate'what'option'should'he'take.'
*What'if'he'interpose'an'objection'that'he'asked'the'permission'of' '
the' owner' to' build' in' his' land.' The' owner' did' not' interpose' Toralba'Case''just'an'obiter'dictum'
therefore' he' is' in' bad' faith.' ' NOT' ANSWERED' BY' SIR,' go$back$to$ ' Toralba$ was$ trying$ to$ convince$ the$ SC$ for$ a$ more$ workable$
the$definition$of$Justice$Panganiban.'J'IMPORTANT' solution.$SC$held$that$it$is$not$really$absolute$to$choose$the$1st$option$if$it$
(ako$ ra$ ni$ opinion$ hap!)$ GO' BACK' TO' THE' MEANING' OF' would$render$the$improvement$acquired$practically$useless.$
POSSESSOR' IN' GOOD' FAITH' THAT' HE' MUST' HAVE' A' $ Workable$ solution$ suggested$ here$ is$ to$ allow$ the$ builder$ to$
CLAIM'OF'TITLE'OVER'THE'LAND.'Then:$' pay$the$value$of$that$encroached$portion.$But$such$has$no$basis$in$law.$
o Justice'Panganiban:'Possessor'in'good'faith'J'it$ In$its$dispositive$solution,$it$is$not$applied.$$
must$ be$ at$ the$ beginning$ is$ not$ absolutely$ $
approved$of$by$the$owner,$but$after$the$knowledge$ Ignao'vs'IAC'
of$the$possession$$it$is$just$tolerated.' ' This$ workable$ solution$ was$ invoked$ by$ a$ co;owner$ who$
o Observation' lang:$ based$ on$ the$ definition$ of$ encroach$another$portion$of$another$co;owner.$$
Justice$Panganiban$the$initiative$of$toleration$came$ $ SC$ held$ that$ that$ workable$ solution$ in$ Toralba$ case$ cannot$
from$ the$ landowner$ (Just' like' the' case' of' create$a$binding$precedent.$Because$it$was$just$mentioned$in$passing.$$
Makasaet),$ while$ in$ this$ case,$ the$ initiative$ $
(asking$for$the$permission)$came$from$the$builder.$ *THEREFORE' NO' SETTLE' RULE' YET' IN' WORKABLE' SOLUTION'
PAKSIT!''IMPORTANT$ THING.'
$ '
Principle'of'Equity:'So$here$you$are$invited,$allowed$to$build$then$you$ *What' must' be' the' character' of' the' building' in' 448?' It$ must$ be$ a$
will$ ask$ for$ reimbursement$ for$ the$ improvements.$ The$ other$ will$ just$ permanent$one.$$
say$that$you$are$not$entitled$for$reimbursement$because$you$are$not$a$ $
builder$in$good$faith.$$ August'8,'2013'
$ Natural'Accession'
CoJowner''a$person$who$have$an$equal$share$of$the$property,$but$not$ Alluvion'
yet$absolute$until$it$is$partitioned.$$ Art.' 457.$ To"the"owners"of"the"land"adjoining"the"banks"of"rivers"belong"
He$ has$ the$ right$ to$ possess$ the$ co;owned$ property,$ he$ can$ the"accretion"which"they"gradually"receive"from"the"effects"of"the"current"
build$a$house$here$ of"the"waters."
But$ he$ cannot$ claim$ his$ absolute$ ownership$ over$ a$ specific$ $
portion$over$the$land$ Ignacio'vs'Director'of'Lands'
$ ' This$is$a$petitioner$for$registration$of$a$land$but$was$denied$
*Now'what'will'happen'if'he'build'a'house'there'but'it'encroaches' on$the$ground$that$that$is$a$property$of$public$dominion,$it$is$formed$by$
upon' a' land' belonging' to' another' coJowner' after' the' partition?' the$current$of$the$sea.$
Then$ART.$448$WILL$APPLY.$ Alluvion$is$a$situation$that$where$a$land$is$bordered$by$river$
$ or$ a$ sea,$ through$ time$ and$ due$ to$ the$ effect$ of$ current$ of$ the$ river,$
*So'are'we'saying'that'coJowner'building'on'a'coJowned'land'is'a' additional$soil$deposits$are$attached$to$the$land.$
builder'in'good'faith?'Isnt'it'that'builder'in'good'faith'is'defined'as' $ Of$ course,$ it$ is$ not$ only$ pertained$ to$ the$ additional$ land$ but$
one'who'builds'on'a'land'that'he'believe'to'be'his?'When'in'fact'the' also$the$danger$of$losing$the$same.$This$is$precisely$the$reason$why$art.$
coJowner'build'on'the'land'under'coJownership,'he'is'not'building' 457$grants$the$riparian$owner$the$ownership$of$those$lands$attached.$
on'a'land'that'is'not'belong'to'him'because'he'is'the'owner.'So'why' $ But$this$does$not$apply$if$the$land$is$formed$by$the$current$of$
should'we'apply'448?' the$sea.$$
You" cannot" really" invoke" Art." 448" here" because" under" coF $
ownership,"he"is"not"building"on"the"land"that"is"not"belong"to" What'are'the'requisites?'
him,"he"is"in"fact"the"owner.' Accression'J'It$must$be$gradual$and$imperceptible'
*There'are'just'cases'where'the'SC'applied'448'in'coJownership'in' o In$ other$ words,$ it$ must$ not$ be$ an$ additional$ area$
such'situation.' which$was$formed$overnight.'
(BANTAY' TA' ANI' KAY' BASIN' IYA' IPAGAWAG' SA' TEST,' IN' CASE' AvulsionJ' there$ is$ a$ land$ coming$ from$ different$ estate,$
LANG,'KAY'OPINION'PD'RBA'NA'NI'SIR)''IMPORTANT' segregated$and$carried$by$the$force$of$the$current$of$the$river$
' and$ finally$ attached$ to$ your$ land.$ SOMETHING$ THAT$ IS$
EX:'In$a$case$where$I$built$a$house$in$my$land$and$I$partitioned$the$land$ SUDDEN.$'
that$I$owned.$Then$a$portion$of$the$lot,$50%$of$the$house$belongs$to$lot$ o Here,$you$do$not$immediately$own$the$land$that$is$
1$ and$ the$ other$ 50%$ on$ lot$ 2.$ Then$ I$ decided$ to$ sell$ this$ lots$ to$ 2$ attached.$ This$ is$ delayed$ accession$ $ 2' years'
different$individuals.$Can'I'invoke'Art.'448?'NO' before'you'can'gain'ownership'
SC$ held$ in$ a$ case$ that$ one$ thing$ to$ be$ considered$ is$ the$ There'must'be'no'human'intervention''
existence$of$bad$faith$on$the$part$of$the$buyer.$' o Use$of$dike$$to$imped$the$flow$of$the$water$;$not$
448$will$also$not$apply$because$the$landowner$is$the$same$as$ allowed$$Republic'vs'CA'
the$builder$of$the$house.' ! Not$formed$by$natural$forces'
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
Also$ found$ out$ that$ the$ witnesses$ are$
! Republic'vs'Santos'
not$ reliable$ to$ testify$ the$ formation$ of$ $ Drying$up$of$a$river$bed$is$not$accression$$the$dried$up$area$
alluvial$formation.' belongs$to$the$state$as$property$of$public$dominion,$not$to$the$riparian$
! In$ order$ to$ prove/$ support$ your$ claim,$ owner$unless$a$law$vest$the$ownership$of$some$other$person.$
you$ must$ have$ several$ reliable$ $
witnesses.$' Change'in'the'Rivers'Course'
Land'formed'must'be'adjacent'to'the'banks'of'the'river.' that$former$river$bed$will$be$owned$by$the$owner$of$the$land$
' traversed$by$the$river$in$proportion$to$the$area$lost.'
*The' alluvial' deposits,' just' because' it' is' attached' to' a' registered' It$must$be$a$natural$process'
land,'it'does'not'follow'that'the'benefits'of'the'Torrens'system'will' '
be'vested'to'it.' Art.' 458.' The" owners" of" estates" adjoining" ponds" or" lagoons" do" not"
' acquire"the"land"left"dry"by"the"natural"decrease"of"the"waters,"or"lose"that"
Benefits'of'the'Land'when'it'is'covered'by'a'Torrens'System:' inundated"by"them"in"extraordinary"floods.'
Indefeasibility''it$cannot$be$acquired$through$prescription.' $
o It' is' already' immune' from' acquisitive' According'to'Paras:'
prescription.$' Pond' ' body$of$stagnant$water$without$an$outlet;$larger$than$a$puddle$
' and$smaller$than$a$lake.$
Now'to'have'the'alluvial,'you'must'register'it.'Because'if'you'dont' Lake' J' a$ body$ of$ water$ formed$ in$ depressions$ of$ the$ earth;$ ordinarily$
then'it'is'subject'to'acquisitive'prescription.'' fresh$water,$coming$from$rivers,$brooks,$or$springs$and$connected$with$
' the$sea$by$them'
Grande'vs'CA' Lagoon''a$small$lake,$ordinarily$of$fresh$water$and$not$very$deep.$$
' Accression$ is$ not$ practically$ registered$ even$ if$ it$ is$ attached$ $
to$ registered$ lands.$ But' those' lands' are' of' private' ownership' ' Lagoon'vs'Lake'
owned' by' riparian' owner' provided' that' he' must' assert' his' Lake''accression$formed$$private$ownership'
ownership.'' Lagoon''accression$formed$$public$dominion'
' Thus,$if$there$are$other$claimant$and$you$did$not$do$anything$ If'this'is'the'issue'of'a'case,'better'have'the'assistance'of'DENR'
and$ this$ claimant$ is$ asserting$ ownership,$ you$ might$ loose$ ownership$ '
over$ that.$ If$ no$ claimant,$ then$ you$ dont$ have$ to$ do$ anything.$ $ The$ Rivers:'
danger$here$is$that$on$the$next$flood,$mawala$na$pd$to.$So$important$jd$ An$ Island$ formed$ from$ Floatable/' Navigable' Rivers' '
ang$iparegister.$$ PRIVATE$OWNERSHIP'
$ An$ Island$ formed$ from$ NonJfloatable/' NonJnavigable'
*How'will'you'register'it?'$ Rivers''PUBLIC$DOMINION'
Place$it$under$Judicial$Titling$(independent'registration)$ *But' what' is' navigable/' floatable' and' what' is' nonJfloatable/' nonJ
Simply$file$a$petition$for$amendment'of'your'title$ navigable?'
Another'way:'Executive'or'Administrative'Titling''CA'141' Floatable''can$be$used$as$purposes$of$commerce$
Patent$$free$patent,$homestead$patent,$sales$patent' NonJFloatable''cannot$be$used$
o This$is$more$convenient' $
o But' take' note' that' the' accession' is' a' land' of' Basis'of'Art.'458:'Spanish'Law'on'Waters'
PRIVATE' OWNERSHIP.' Patents' are' for' lands' '
registered' from' are' LAND' THAT' FORM' PART' Art.' 459.' Whenever" the" current" of" a" river," creek" or" torrent" segregates"
OF'THE'PUBLIC'DOMAIN.''IMPORTANT' from"an"estate"on"its"bank"a"known"portion"of"land"transfers"it"to"another"
*thus' it' is' superfluous' for' an' accession' be' covered'' estate," the" owner" of" the" land" to" which" the" segregated" portion" belonged"
under'the'patents'$IMPORTANT' retains"the"ownership"of"it,"provided"that"he"removes"the"same"within"two"
' J' in$ other$ words,$ the$ state$ has$ no$ jurisdiction$ to$ years.'
grant$ a$ free$ patent$ because$ those$ are$ no$ the$ land$ of$ ' J'AVULSION'
public$domain$ remove' the' same' within' 5' years' $ it$ is$ not$ only$ claim$ (sending$
*Whats'the'effect?$ demand$letter)$$this$means$PHYSICALLY$REMOVE$
$ ;$ you$ cannot$ dispose$ of$ the$ land,$ if' it' is' covered' It$ is$ easy$ to$ physically$ remove,$ gamit$ lang$ kag$ mga$ heavy$
under'the'free'patent'it'has'a'prohibition'for'5'years'' equipment.$
' But$ the$ soil' you' intend' to' remove' must' still' be'
Danger'in'5'year'prohibitory'period' identifiable.$
' If$you$mortgage$the$patented$land$within$5$years$prohibition.$ o asking$ for$ impossibility$ man$ ni,$ at$ the$ first$ place$
Now$ the$ state$ through' SolGen' filed' an' action' for' reversion.$ You$ the$situation$is$caused$by$natural$event$
interpose$ why$ they$ filed$ reversion$ because$ under$ 457,$ the$ land$ is$ o kung$ mag;uwan,$ mixed$ up$ ang$ yuta,$ unsaon$ man$
private$ownership.$ kuno$ na$ pagila$ nga$ ang$ yuta$ nga$ naremove$ kay$
$ The$state'counter'claim$that$because$the$registrant$applied$ imoha?$
for$a$patent,$he$in$effect$admitted$that$the$land$covered$there$is$land$of$ *In$short,$if$not$removed,$the$owner$of$the$land$to$which$
public$domain.$He$is$already$estopped$from$claiming$that$otherwise.$ the$ avulsion$ was$ attached$ will$ own$ the$ land$ provided$
$ If$ you$ are$ the$ lawyer' for' the' registrant,' what' will' you' that$it$is$after$the$waiting$period$$2'years'
advice?' YOU' INSIST' ON' ARTICLE' 457.' That$ you$ are$ the$ riparian$ '
owner$and$the$state$has$no$jurisdiction$to$issue$a$free$patent$over$the$ *But'sometimes'the'segregation'is'not'caused'by'the'movement'of'
land.$And$if$at$all$the$free$patent$is$issued,$that$is$just$a$mere$surplusage,$ the' river,' creek' or' a' torrent.' It' maybe' caused' by' reason' of' the'
that$ is$ superfluous.$ It$ does$ not$ add$ anything.$ Because$ that$ is$ a$ land$ of$ movement'of'the'earth''earthquake.'Assuming'you'are'the'owner'
private$ ownership.$ It$ has$ no$ jurisdiction$ and$ whatever$ act$ that$ was$ of' the' lower' estate,' the' portion' of' the' higher' estate' will' be'
done$ without$ jurisdiction,$ that$ act$ is$ VOID.$ $ Attack' the' free' patent' attached'to'your'land.'
even' if' it' is' issued' unto' you' ' ESTOPPEL' is' enough' to' invalidate' Art$458$still$applies$$BY$ANALOGY$$opinion$from$Tolentino'
your'title'over'the'accession.''IMPORTANT' '
' ' Art.' 460.' Trees"uprooted"and"carried"away"by"the"current"of"the"waters"
Another'case'that'involve'the'Drying'up'of'River'Bed'vs'The'case'of' belong" to" the" owner" of" the" land" upon" which" they" may" be" cast," if" the"
pure'Accression'' owners" do" not" claim" within" six" months." If" such" owners" claim" them," the"
If$only$drying$up$of$a$river$bed$$land$of$public$domain$ shall" pay" the" expenses" incurred" in" gathering" them" or" putting" them" in" a"
If$accression$$private$ownership$ safe"place."
$
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
if$ the$ tree$ is$ cast$ upon$ the$ land$ of$ another$ owner,$ that$
another$ owner$ planted$ that$ tree$ so$ that$ it$ will$ not$ die$ and$
incurred$ expenses$ in$ that$ process.$ No$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ tree$
wants$to$claim.$Is$the$owner$of$the$tree$legally$obliged$to$pay$
the$owner$of$the$land$to$which$the$tree$was$cast$upon?$YES,'
on$the$principle$of$undue'enrichment''those'expenses'are'
necessary'expenses.''
In$ here$ the$ word$ used$ is$ claim$ therefore$ there$ is$ no$ need$
for$the$owner$of$the$tree$to$physically$remove.'
' DENR'
Art.'461.'River"beds"which"are"abandoned"through"the"natural"change"in"
the"course"of"the"water"ipso"facto"belong"to"the"owners"whose"lands"are"
occupied" by" the" new" course" in" proportion" to" the" area" lost." However," the"
owners"of"the"lands"adjoining"the"old"bed"shall"have"the"right"to"acquire"
the" same" by" paying" the" value" thereof," which" value" shall" not" exceed" the"
value"of"the"area"occupied"by"the"new"bed."
$ natural$accession.$It$is$just$the$same$as$placing$boulders.$$
If$ you$ happen$ to$ be$ the$ owner$ of$ the$ land$ traversed$ by$ the$ new$ river,$
you$own$the$proportionate$area$that$you$lost$in$the$old$river$bed$ip'so'
facto'(automatic)'
Therefore,$the$government$cannot$revert$the$river.$$But$this$
was$ not$ materialized$ because$ there$ are$ some$ cases$ that$ the$
government$will$indeed$revert$into$the$old$river$contending$
that$it$is$not$really$the$intention$of$the$law$because$that$ip$so$
facto$ $ is$ just$ an$ opinion$ of$ one$ commissioner$ of$ the$ Civil$
Code.'
o To$solve$this$issue,$there$is$this$Water'Code'
*So' what' is' the' extent' of' the' Governments' right' if' this' will'
happen?''
Art.' 58' of' the' Water' Code' ' when" the" river" or" stream"
suddenly" changes" its" course" to" traverse" private" lands," the"
owner" of" affected" lands" may" not" compel" the" government" to"
restore"the"river"to"its"former"bed.'
o You$ cannot$ file$ for$ mandamus$ against$ the$
government$so$that$you$can$recover$your$land.$'
o Nor$ can$ the$ private$ owners$ to$ restrain$ the$
government$ to$ revert$ the$ river$ to$ its$ former$
course.'
*The' owner' of' the' land' is' not' entitled' to' compensation,' but' they'
can' return' the' river' to' its' former' course' at' their' own' expense'
PROVIDED'THAT'THEY'HAVE'PERMIT.'''Art$461$is$just$modified.$
*so'the'present'rule'is:'IF'YOU'HAPPEN'TO'BE'THE'OWNER'OF'THE'
LAND' TRAVERSED' BY' THE' RIVER,' YOU' WILL' STILL' BE' GIVEN'
OWNERSHIP' OF' THE' PROPORTIONATE' AREA' OF' THE' OLD' RIVER'
BED'
' *But'when'Bad'Faith'comes'in,'there'is'a'need'to'analyze.'What'is'
But'in'Art'461,'it'seems'that'there'is'still'another'person'who'has'
more'right'that'the'owner'of'the'land'traversed'by'the'river.'
The$adjacent$landowner$of$the$old$river$bed'
o He$ has$ the$ preferential/superior$ right$ that$ the$
owner$of$the$land$traversed$by$the$river'
! He$ can$ pay$ the$ latter$ for$ the$ value$ of$
what$he$lost'
If'the'owner'of'the'land'traversed'says'that'under'the'law'he'is'the'
owner'provided'in'461,'now'we'will'have'a'conflict.'
ADJACENT'OWNER'SHALL'HAVE'PREFERENTIAL'RIGHT'
*WHY?' You$ must$ go$ back$ to$ the$ principle$ governing$
accession.$That$in$Accession$Continua,' preferential' right' is'
given' to' who' has' the' best' position' to' cultivate' the' land'
that'is'added.'
o It$is$possible$that$the$owner$of$the$land$traversed$
is$1km$away$from$the$land$that$is$added.$'
Bagaipo'vs'CA'
' His$ lot$ was$ lost$ and$ contends$ that$ he$ is$ the$ owner$ of$ that$
increase$in$the$other$sides$lot.$
$ First,$ he$ contends$ that$ the$ riverbed$ changed,$ but$ he$ cannot$
point$ out$ where$ is$ the$ former$ location$ of$ the$ riverbed.$ SC' held' that'
before'you'contend'that'riverbed'changed,'you'must'point'out'the'
former'location.'
' Second,$ he$ contends$ that$ this$ is$ accression,$ but$ this$ will$ not$
favor$ him.$ SC$ examined$ the$ topography$ of$ the$ land.$ Other$ side$ is$
slopping$ $ evidence$ of$ gradual$ transfer.$ His$ land$ is$ just$ straight$ $
evidence$of$erosion.$
$
$ The'principle'here'is'that:'in'the'absence'of'evidence'that'
the' change' of' the' river' is' sudden' or' gradual,' the' presumption' is'
that'the'change'is'that'it'is'accression.''NOT'AVULSION.'
'
What' is' the' effect' of' private' land' survey?' Is' it' a' competent'
evidence'to'prove'ownership?'
This$is$not$complete$evidence,$it$is$just$corroborative.'
For'it'to'be'a'complete'evidence,'the'surveyed'plan'must'
be' approved' by' the' Land' Management' Services' of' the'
o That$survey$plan$is$more$like$a$private$document.$
You$ need$ the$ approval$ of$ LMS$ of$ DENR$ to$
authenticate.$'
'
Ronquillo'vs'CA'
' A$ case$ where$ there$ is$ dumping$ of$ garbage$ in$ a$ lot$ is$ not$ a$
$
Baes'vs'CA'
' This$ is$ a$ change$ of$ the$ course$ of$ a$ creek.$ But$ the$ change$ is$
caused$ by$ the$ act$ of$ the$ Government.$ Now$ we$ mentioned$ that$ if$ the$
change$ is$ not$ natural$ causes,$ that$ cannot$ be$ give$ ownership$ to$ the$
owner$of$the$land$traversed.$
$ In$this$case,$SC$through$Justice$Cruz$held$that$through$natural$
process$we$grant$ownership$of$the$land$traversed$by$the$new$river,$why$
not$give$the$same$right$if$the$change$is$caused$by$a$government$act.$$
$ That$ would$ somehow$ neutralized$ a$ little$ that$ for$ there$ to$
benefit$ for$ the$ change$ of$ the$ river$ course,$ it$ must$ be$ purely$
through$natural$process.$$Thus,$if' the' change' is' also' made'
through' governmental' act,' then' the' owner' of' the' land'
traversed' shall' be' entitled' to' the' ownership' of' the'
portion'of'the'land'which'was'the'former'river'bed.'
'
August'10,'2013'
Accession'of'Movable'Things'
3'types'of'Accession'of'Movable'Property'
Specification'
Commixtion'
Adjunction''
'
It'is'in'Adjunction'that$the$identity$of$the$principal$is$retained$and$the$
identity$of$the$accessory$is$preserve'
EX:'A$Ring$with$diamond.$
RULE:' If$the$owner$of$the$principal$seeks$to$appropriate$the$
thing,$then$he$must$pay$the$owner$of$the$accessory.$
the'effect?'$
If$the$owner$of$the$principal' is' in' bad' faith' ' the$owner$of$
the$ accessory$ has$ the$ right$ to$ remove$ the$ accessory$ even$ if$
the$principal$is$damaged'
'
Art.' 467.' The" principal" thing," as" between" two" things" incorporated," is"
deemed"to"be"that"to"which"the"other"has"been"united"as"an"ornament,"or"
for"its"use"or"perfection"
'
*But' there' is' a' problem' in' accession' regarding' movable' property'
about' determining' which' is' the' principal' and' which' is' the'
accessory.'The'rule'is:'
If$the$other$is$merely' attached' as' an' ornament,$that$is$the$
accessory.'
o But$ there$ is$ this$ situation$ that$ it$ is$ the$ other$ way$
around'
Art.' 468.' If" it" cannot" be" determined" by" the" rule" given" in" the" preceding"
article"which"of"the"two"things"incorporated"is"the"principal"one,"the"thing"
of"the"greater"value"shall"be"so"considered,"and"as"between"two"things"of"
equal"value,"that"of"the"greater"volume."
" In"painting"and"sculpture,"writings,"printed"matter,"engraving"
and"lithographs,"the"board,"metal"stone,"canvas,"paper"or"parchment"shall"
be"deemed"the"accessory"thing."
if' it' cannot' be' determined' by' the' rule' in' preceding'
article' $meaning,$do' not' immediately' conclude$that$just$
because$the$thing$is$of$greater$value,$it$is$the$principal$thing.'
Apply'467'first$$Which$is$added$as$a$mere$ornament?'
Room$405$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $
o if$ it$ is$ difficult$ to$ know$ which$ is$ ornament,$ then$
apply$468.'
"
Art.' 469.' Whenever" the" things" united" can" be" separated" without" injury,"
there"respective"owners"may"demand"there"separation."
" Nevertheless," in" cases" the" thing" united" for" the" use,"
embellishment"or"perfection"of"the"other,"is"much"more"precious"than"the"
principal"thing,"the"owner"of"the"former"may"demand"its"separation,"even"
though" the" thing" to" which" it" has" been" incorporated" may" suffer" some"
injury."
'
NORMAL'RULE:$If$there$is$not$bad$faith$on$the$part$of$the$owner$of$the$
principal,$he$can$pay$the$entire$thing$and$pay$the$accessory.$'
'
*' In' Art.' 469,' there' are' cases' where' EVEN' IF' THERE' IS' NO' BAD'
FAITH' on' the' part' of' the' owner' principal,' the' owner' of' the'
accessory'thing'has'the'right'to'remove'the'valuables.''
In' Commixtune,' we$ will$ apply$ the$ Rule' on' Proportionate'
Ownership.'
'
Specification''conversion$of$a$thing$to$another$thing.$$
EX:'Grape$turn$into$red$wine,$a$peace$of$metal$into$a$jewelry$
*But' how' will' you' determine' which' is' the' principal' and' which' is'
the'assessor?'
A$ case$ of$ painting,$ the$ work$ is$ the$ principal,$ the$ material$ is$ the$
accessory.$Owner$of$the$principal$thing$is$the$owner$of$the$painting.$$
$
$ $ J'END'J''