“Requirements in an action to recover”

MR. and MRS. ALEJANDRO PANG-ODEN Vs.

ISABEL LEONEN, CATALINA G. LEONEN, CAYETANO LEONEN, MANUEL LEONEN, ANGEL LEONEN, MARIA LEONEN,
HERMINIA LEONEN, TERESITA L. ACOSTA, and FRANCISCO LEONEN.

FACTS:
Petitioners and respondents are the owners of two (2) adjoining parcels of land located at Sudipen, La Union.
Petitioners' land is at the eastern portion while that of the respondents is at the western side. The two
properties have a common boundary: a creek which ran from south to north.

Due to constant heavy rains and flood, water from the creek overflowed and destroyed the irrigation canal
located at the north of the property in dispute. In order to minimize the damage to the irrigation canal, the
National Irrigation Administration (NIA) diverted the course of the creek so rain water will not go directly to the
irrigation canal. As a result, the course of the creek was instead diverted to run from south to northwest,
passing through the middle portion of the respondents' property and resulting to the formation of a new creek.

On November 23, 1995, the RTC rendered judgment for the respondents as plaintiffs thereat, adjudging the
latter to be the lawful and exclusive owners of the property in question, and ordering the spouses Pang-oden
to vacate the same and pay the respondents so the spouses went on appeal to the CA and subsequently to this
Court.

ISSUE:
W.O.N Spouses Pang-Oden is the owner of the disputed strip of land

RULING:
No.the provision of Article 434 of the Civil Code ordains that "in an action to recover, the property must be
identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's
claim.”

Based on the evidence submitted by the herein respondents, it was established that there was indeed an old
creek that used to separate the properties of plaintiffs-appellees and the herein petitioners which originally ran
from south to north. It has likewise been established by overwhelming evidence that a new creek was later
created that now runs from south to northwest and thus cuts through plaintiffs-appellees' property.

Court relied on the testimonies of two disinterested witnesses: a retired employee of the NIA and a resident of
Sudipen, La Union. Both testified as to the existence of an old creek and of the subsequent diversion of the
creek to its present position .

Testimonies of the witnesses were properly found to be credible as they were consistent with the cadastral
survey and the survey plan submitted by plaintiffs-appellees.

As the petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the present creek is still the same creek which bounds
their property on the west, the respondents have the right to recover possession of the disputed strip of land.

“Limitations of ownership - Rights of owner subject to existing servitudes”

NICOLAS LUNOD, ET AL. vs. HIGINO MENESES

FACTS:
Respondents, residents of the town of Bulacan, filed a written complaint against Higino Meneses, alleging that
their farm lands, situated in the places near a small lake named Calalaran, were damaged and flooded with
stagnant water due to the defendant’s act of constructing and maintaining a fish pond on his land which the same was
situated on top of the farmlands of the plaintiffs and as a result, their plantation were destroyed. Furthermore, plaintiffs
allege that said tract of land is subject to a statutory easement permitting the flow of water from the property of
the plaintiffs

They therefore asked that judgment be entered against the defendant, declaring that the said tract of land in
Paraanan is subject to a statutory easement and that the defendant be ordered to remove and destroy the
obstructions that impede the passage of the waters and that in future, and forever (walang poreber), he abstain
from closing in any manner the aforesaid tract of land.

ISSUE:
W.O.N Defendant has the all the rights to do whatever he wants in his own land including the construction and
maintenance of a fishpond?
RULING:
No. According to article 530 of the Civil Code, “an easement is charge imposed upon one estate for the benefit
of another estate belonging to a different owner, and the realty in favor of which the easement is established
is called the dominant estate, and the one charged with it the servient estate.”

According to the provisions of law above referred to, the defendant, Meneses, had no right to construct the
works, nor the dam which blocks the passage, through his lands, of the waters which flood the higher lands of
the plaintiffs; and having done so, to the detriment of the easement charged on his estate, he has violated the
law which protects and guarantees the respective rights of the owners of the fields below. It is true that article
388 of said code authorizes every owner to enclose his estate by means of walls, ditches fences or any other
device, but his right is limited by the easement imposed upon his estate.

“Writ of Possession Defined”

AUTOCORP GROUP and AUTOGRAPHICS, INC. vs.
Hon. COURT OF APPEALS and KEPPEL MONTE BANK

FACTS:

Respondent bank extended a loan of eighty-five million pesos (₱85,000,000.00) in favor of petitioner Autocorp Group
(Autocorp). Petitioner Autocorp failed to pay the loan. Despite its failure, it asked for an additional loan of
₱48,800,000.00. Autocorp was again unable to pay both accounts totaling ₱116,800,000.00, despite repeated demands
and various requests for extension.

Respondent bank requested for the sale of the six (6) mortgaged lots at a public auction, for the satisfaction of petitioner
Autocorp’s obligations. Before Deputy Sheriff could prepare the requisite publication and notice, the petitioners filed a
complaint for "Annulment of Loan Agreement and Real Estate Mortgage/ Declaration of Unenforceability of Loan
Agreement and Real Estate Mortgage with ex parte Restraining Order, Preliminary Injunction and Damages" against
respondent bank.

The trial court issued a writ of preliminary injunction, conditioned on petitioners’ filing of a bond of two million pesos
(₱2,000,000.00). It also set the pre-trial hearing of the case. The respondent bank sought a reconsideration of the order
but in vain. Respondent bank filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, to annul the order and resolution
of the trial court. The Court granted the petition.

Before the notice could be published, petitioners filed an "Urgent Motion to Hold in Abeyance the Extrajudicial Sale”. In
addition, it filed a "Very Urgent Motion for Issuance of an Order of Status Quo"
The Court denied the petition.

Issue: WON the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion on the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction.

Ruling:
YES, The preliminary injunction issued by the trial court to prevent respondent bank from taking possession of the
subject lots, was properly set aside by the Court of Appeals, as the trial court judge acted with grave abuse of discretion
when it issued the same. It was not alleged that respondent bank committed acts of possession over the properties
before it could file a petition for a writ of possession during the redemption period. If the trial court cannot refuse to
issue a writ of possession in the event that respondent bank complies with the requisites for its issuance, with more
reason that the trial court cannot issue an injunction, preempting respondent bank from filing a petition or application
for a writ of possession, over the properties subject of the certificate of sale.

A writ of possession is generally understood to be an order whereby a sheriff is commanded to place a person in
possession of a real or personal property, such as, when a property is extrajudicially foreclosed.

“Identity of Land must be established”

MISAMIS LUMBER CO., INC. vs. THE DIRECTOR OF LANDS ET AL.
FACTS:

It appears from the evidence that as late as the year 1925 most of the land involved in the present
proceedings was covered with forest.

In 1926,
Marciano Aldemita, in the capacity of homesteader, took possession of a portion of the land in question which,
at the time of his occupation, was covered with large trees. No one interrupted the possession of her homestead.
In the same year, another homesteader, Pablo Natividad, also entered upon another portion of the said land,
which was then also covered with forest. He has cleared a portion of his homestead, planting it to coconuts,
abaca, and corn. He has built four houses on the homestead, and other portions of the same land have also
been in the possession and occupation of other public land applicants.

The Misamis Lumber Co., Inc. showed that by virtue of a supposed possessory information title, Simeon
Ledesma, deceased, was in possession of a tract of abaca and pasture land situated in Cagayan, Misamis and he
was succeeded in his possession of the land by his children wherein the Ledesma brothers later sold to Vicente
L. Neri, and Salvador Neri two-thirds of said tract of land.
Afterwards, the Neris sold the said portion and the remaining one-third part of the same land to the applicant.
At the time the applicant took possession of the land in question, it was covered with forest.

ISSUE:

W.O.N Misamis Lumber Co. can register said disputed land under Torrens system of application?

RULING:

No. Because In order that an action for recovery may be maintained, it is indispensable, according, to the well-
settled doctrine of the courts of justice, that the person bringing the action shall fully prove not only his
dominion over the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same.
A person who brings an action to recover possession is under the obligation to fully prove, according to
repeated judicial decisions, not only his ownership, but also the identity of the thing claimed.

“Surface rights of the owner”

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION vs. LUCMAN G. IBRAHIM, et al.
FACTS:

The plaintiffs and their co-heirs discovered big underground tunnels in 1992. This was confirmed by the defendant by
the Acting Assistant Project Manager, Agus 1 Hydro Electric Project.

A co-heir requested the Marawi City Water District for permit to construct a motorized deep well over Lot 3 for his
residential house. He was refused the permit "because the construction of the deep well as the parcels of land will cause
danger to lives and property." He was informed that "beneath your lands are constructed the Napocor underground
tunnel in connection with Agua Hydroelectric plant" There in fact exists ample evidence that this construction of the
tunnel without the prior consent of plaintiffs beneath the latter’s property endangered the lives and properties of said
plaintiffs. It has been proved indubitably that MarawiCity lies in an area of local volcanic and tectonic activity. Lake
Lanao has been formed by extensive earth movements and is considered to be a drowned basin of volcano/tectonic
origin.

Moreover, it has been shown that the underground tunnels have deprived the plaintiffs of the lawful use of the land and
considerably reduced its value. Plaintiffs applied for a two-million peso loan with a bank to be secured by said land but
the application was disapproved by the bank because, accdg to the bank, the subject property offered as collateral has
an existing underground tunnel by the NPC, hence, an encumbrance. As a matter of bank policy, property with an
existing encumbrance cannot be considered neither accepted as collateral for a loan.

Petitioner maintains that the sub-terrain portion where the underground tunnels were constructed does not belong to
respondents because, even conceding the fact that respondents owned the property, their right to the subsoil of the
same does not extend beyond what is necessary to enable them to obtain all the utility and convenience that such
property can normally give. In any case, petitioner asserts that respondents were still able to use the subject property
even with the existence of the tunnels, citing as an example the fact that one of the respondents

ISSUE:
W.O.N. Petitioner is entitled to the subsoil of the respondents?

RULING:
No. Because Article 437 of the Civil Code which provides:

ART. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct
thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to
servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial
navigation.

Thus, the ownership of land extends to the surface as well as to the subsoil under it.