Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
Articles 427 439
Civil Code
Preliminaries
Ownership Defined
Ownership is the independent right of a person to
the exclusive enjoyment and control of a thing
including its disposition and recovery subject only
to the restrictions or limitations established by law
and the rights of others. (De Leon)
Kinds of Ownership
Full Ownership
The title and the right to use and enjoy the fruits is in
the name of one person
Beneficial Ownership
Title is in the name of another
Ownership recognized by law and capable of being
enforced in court at the instance of the beneficial
owner
Example: Trust Agreement
Naked Ownership
Possession of bare title to the property
Ownership where the right to use and the fruits is
withheld as it is given to another
Example: Usufruct
Article 427
Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over
things or rights. (n)
Things, i.e. those that are capable of
appropriation
Rights, are classified as incorporeal property
Rights of Owner
Article 428 the owner has the right to:
Other Rights
Right of Accession, the right to everything that is
produced by or attached to the thing owned
(Articles 440 475)
Rights of Owner
Right to Enjoy
Right to possess (Jus Possidendi)
Right to use (Jus Utendi)
Rights of Owner
Right to Possess
Articles 523 to 561 on Possession
Rights of Owner
Provisions re: Right to Use
Article 429
Owner may exclude others from enjoyment/ disposal
of the property
Owner may use reasonable force to prevent actual or
threatened unlawful invasion of his property
Article 430
Owner may enclose or fence his land
Rights of Owner
Right to dispose
Right to consume or destroy or abuse
Right to encumber or alienate
Rights of Owner
Right to Recover/ Vindicate
Recovery of Personal Property
Recovery of Real Property
Where Filed
Period
Grounds
Issue
Forcible Entry
(Accion
Interdictal)
Metropolitan/
Municipal Trial
Court
Deprivation of
possession thru
FISTS. Possession is
invalid from the
start.
Mere physical
possession
(possession de
facto)
Unlawful
Detainer
(Deshaucio)
Metropolitan/
Municipal Trial
Court
Possession
becomes invalid
after the
termination or
expiration of the
right to possess.
Mere physical
possession
(possession de
facto)
Accion Publiciana
Regional Trial
Court
Deprivation of
possession thru
means other than
FISTS/ Expiration of
right to Possess
Plenary action to
recover
possession
(better right to
possess)
Accion
Reinvidicatoria
Regional Trial
Court
Possession is
claimed based on
ownership
Recovery of
ownership
Accion Reinvidicatoria
Art. 434. 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. (n)
Injunction
Art. 539: In forcible entry cases, the plaintiff may
petition the court within 10 days from the filing of the
complaint to issue a writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction to restore possession.
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF
OWNERSHIP
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of
ownership raises disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner must resort to
judicial process for the recovery of the property.
2 requirements to raise disputable
presumption of ownership
there must be actual possession of property
the possession must be under claim of ownership
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHT OF
OWNERSHIP
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Codal Provision
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property
except by competent authority and for public use
and always upon payment of just compensation.
Three Requirements
Exercised by competent authority
For public use
Payment of Just Compensation
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Competent Authority
The legislature grants the authority by
appropriating the funds to achieve the purpose
The Executive Branch exercises the authority
granted by the legislature
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Competent Authority LGU
The power of eminent domain is lodged in the
legislative branch of government, which may
delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, other
public entities and public utilities.
Section 19 of RA 7160 delegates to LGUs the
power of eminent domain, also lays down the
parameters for its exercise.
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Competent Authority LGUs, conditions for exercise of
eminent domain powers
1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council
authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, to
exercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation
proceedings over a particular private property.
2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use,
purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required under
Section 9 Article III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the owner
of the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was not
accepted.
(Yusay vs. CA, G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011)
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Public Use
Not limited to use by the public
May be equated with public benefit, public utility or public
advantage (Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration, 84 Phil
847)
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Public Use Subsequent Non Use
If property is expropriated for public use, the
government must make good its intent to use the
same otherwise, the government may be
compelled to return the property to its original
owner. (Ouano vs. Republic, G.R. No. 168770,
February 9, 2011)
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Just Compensation
Just compensation is defined as the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner by
the expropriator. The measure is not the takers gain,
but the owners loss. The word "just" is used to
intensify the meaning of the word "compensation"
and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent to
be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, and ample. Indeed, the "just"-ness of
the compensation can only be attained by using
reliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value of
the condemned property. (NPC vs. Bernal, G.R. No.
180979, December 15, 2010)
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Just Compensation Who Determines
The trial court has exclusive jurisdiction to
determine just compensation.
Thus a law which provides that the only basis for
determining just compensation in eminent
domain cases should be the market value as
declared by the owner or as determined by the
assessor, whichever is lower is void. (EPZA vs.
Dulay, 149 SCRA 305)
LIMIATATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Two Stages in Expropriation Cases
First Stage: Determination of the authority of the
plaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain and
the propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts
of the case. This ends with an Order - Dismissing the case
Of Condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawful
right to take the property for public use upon payment of
just compensation.
Surface Rights
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.
Hidden Treasure
Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building,
or other property on which it is found.
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another,
or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half
thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a trespasser, he
shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.
If the things found be of interest to science of the arts, the State may
acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity
with the rule stated. (351a)
Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and
unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the
lawful ownership of which does not appear.
Hidden Treasure
Two Requisites
they consist of money, jewels and other precious
objects;
they are hidden and unknown such that their
finding is a real discovery.
Hidden Treasure
Precious Objects
Law refers only to movables
Owner is Unknown
Money purposely hidden by the owner is not
hidden treasure;
Finding is by chance
There must be no purpose or intent to look for
treasure
ACCESSION
Accession Discreta
extension of the
rights of ownership
to the products of
the thing. (Art. 441)
Art. 440 ownership
of the thing gives
owner right to their
produce and to those
incorporated or
attached thereto.
Accession Continua
acquisition of
ownership over a thing
incorporated to that
which belongs to the
owner.
ACCESSION DISCRETA
3 Kinds of Accession
Discreta Under Art. 442
Natural Fruits
spontaneous products
of the soil and young
and other products of
animals.
Industrial Fruits
those produced by
lands of any kind thru
cultivation or labor.
Art. 444
Only such
are manifest
or born are
considered
as natural or
industrial
fruits.
Art. 443 He
who receives
fruits has the
obligation to pay
the expenses
made by 3rd
persons in their
production,
gathering and
preservation.
ACCESSION CONTINUA
ACCESSION WITH
RESPECT TO IMMOVABLE
PROPERTY (Arts. 445-465)
ACCESSION WITH
RESPECT TO MOVABLE
PROPERTY (Arts. 466-475)
Natural
1. Alluvion
2. Force of river
3. Change of river bed
4. Formation of islands
Industrial
1. Building, planting or
sowing
1. Conjunction or
adjunction
2. Specification
3. Commixtion
Adjunction may
take place by:
Inclusion
Soldering
Weaving
Painting
Article 447
Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes
thereon, personally or through another,
plantings, constructions or works with the
materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if
he acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged to
the reparation of damages. The owner of the
materials shall have the right to remove them
only in case he can do so without injury to the
work constructed, or without the plantings,
constructions or works being destroyed.
However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the
owner of the materials may remove them in any
event, with a right to be indemnified for
damages.
Landowner in Good
Faith
Landowner in Bad
Faith
Builds
UPON LAND OF
ANOTHER
Article 448
Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has
been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have
the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing
or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided
for in Articles 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 builder
or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value
is considerably more than that of the building or trees.
In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner
of the land does not choose to appropriate the building
or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree
upon the terms of the lease and in case of
disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
(361a)
Options of Landowner
If the builder, planter, sower is in Good Faith
To appropriate the improvement
Must pay NECESSARY EXPENSES
expenses made for the preservation of the thing or those which
seek to prevent the waste, deterioration or loss of the thing
(Manresa)
Example: expenses for cultivation, production and upkeep;
ordinary repairs required by natural wear and tear;
Options of Landowner
If the builder, planter, sower is in Good Faith
Oblige builder or planter to pay the price of the
land or the one who sowed the proper rent
Not available if the price of the land is considerably
more than the building or trees. In this case he must
pay the proper rent.
The parties shall agree on the terms of the lease and if
they fail to agree, the courts shall fix the terms.
Landowner in
Good Faith
Landowner in
Bad Faith
Article 454
Landowner in Bad Faith/ B-P-S in Good Faith
Apply 447 (As if Landowner is B-P-S in Bad Faith
on his own land with materials belonging to
another)
Thus, the owner of the materials who is the B-P-S
is entitled to:
Demand the value of his materials
Demand the return of his materials
Plus damages in both cases
Assigned Cases
1. Pacific farms, Inc., vs. Simplicio G. Esguerra, et al.,
G.R. No. L-21783 November 29, 1969
2. Macasaet vs. Macasaet
G.R. Nos. 154391-92 September 30, 2004
3. Technogas vs. CA, 268 SCRA 5
4. Del Campo vs. Abesia, 160 SCRA 379
5. Sarmiento vs. Agana, 129 SCRA 122
6. Javier vs. Javier, 7 Phil 261
7. PNB vs. De Jesus, 411 SCRA 557
8. Rosales vs. Castelltort, 472 SCRA 144
9. Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475
10. Nuguid vs. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 243
11. Manotok Realty vs. Tecson, 164 SCRA 587
Macasaet v. Macasaet
General Rule. Art. 448 applies to builders,
sowers or planters who believe themselves to
be owners of the land or, at least, to have a
claim of title thereto. It does not apply when
the interest is merely that of a holder, such as
a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. From
these pronouncements, good faith is
identified by the belief that the land is owned;
or that -- by some title -- one has the right to
build, plant, or sow thereon.
Macasaet v. Macasaet
Exceptions: However, in some special cases, this Court
has used Article 448 by recognizing good faith beyond
this limited definition. Thus, in Del Campo v. Abesia,
this provision was applied to one whose house -despite having been built at the time he was still coowner -- overlapped with the land of another. This
article was also applied to cases wherein a builder had
constructed improvements with the consent of the
owner. The Court ruled that the law deemed the
builder to be in good faith. In Sarmiento v. Agana, the
builders were found to be in good faith despite their
reliance on the consent of another, whom they had
mistakenly believed to be the owner of the land.
Macasaet v. Macasaet
Based on the aforecited special cases, Article 448
applies to the present factual milieu. The
established facts of this case show that
respondents fully consented to the
improvements introduced by petitioners. In fact,
because the children occupied the lots upon their
invitation, the parents certainly knew and
approved of the construction of the
improvements introduced thereon. Thus,
petitioners may be deemed to have been in good
faith when they built the structures on those lots.
Macasaet v. Macasaet
Observations
the stay of the children was NOT by mere
tolerance but by contract
the term of the stay is for so long as the parties
mutually benefitted until there is a change in
condition unresolved conflict that terminates
the agreement
Technogas vs. CA
The parties in this case are owners of adjoining lots in
Paraaque, Metro Manila. It was discovered in a
survey, that a portion of a building of petitioner
(technogas), which was presumably constructed by its
predecessor-in-interest, encroached on a portion of
the lot owned by private respondent (Eduardo Uy).
What are the rights and obligations of the parties? Is
Technogas considered a builder in bad faith because, as
held by respondent Court, he is "presumed to know
the metes and bounds of his property as described in
his certificate of title"? Does Technogas succeed into
the good faith or bad faith of his predecessor-ininterest which presumably constructed the building?
Technogas v. CA
Can the successor-in-interest of the BPS benefit
from Art. 448?
Yes, provided the successor did not know of the
encroachment.
Technogas v. CA
Since Technogas became aware of the
encroachment subsequent to its purchase, will
this not preclude resorting to Art. 448?
No, a reading of Art. 448 will show that the
landowners exercise of the option can only take
place AFTER the builder shall have come to know
of the intrusion in short, when both parties
became aware of it.
Held:
Lower court did not err in requiring landowner to exercise
the 2 options under Art. 448
Note: Since the landowner refused to exercise any of the 2
options, is it proper for the court to decide for them?
Javier v. Javier
The son built on land belonging to the father
and with the latters consent.
Father sold land to another.
The son eventually purchased the lot.
Son considered a builder in good faith and
court applied Art. 448.
PNB v. De Jesus
Is PNB a builder in good faith?
Held:
PNB was made aware that part of the building
encroached upon the land of De Jesus PNB is in
bad faith.
Article 448 does not apply if the builder is also the
owner of the land which he subsequently loses by
sale or other mode of transfer
Rosales v. Castelltort
Castelltort purchased Lot 16 from Lina.
The engineer of Lina pointed to Lot 17 by
mistke and Catelltort built a house on Lot 17
instead of Lot 16.
Court concluded that Castelltort is in good
faith and applied Art. 448.
Depra v. Dumlao
1. The trial Court shall determine
a) the present fair price of DEPRA's 34 square meter
area of land;
b) the amount of the expenses spent by DUMLAO
for the building of the kitchen;
c) the increase in value ("plus value") which the said
area of 34 square meters may have acquired by
reason thereof, and
d) whether the value of said area of land is
considerably more than that of the kitchen built
thereon.
Depra v. Dumlao
2. After said amounts shall have been determined by competent
evidence, the Regional, Trial Court shall render judgment, as follows:
a) The trial Court shall grant DEPRA a period of fifteen (15) days within
which to exercise his option under the law (Article 448, Civil Code),
whether to appropriate the kitchen as his own by paying to DUMLAO
either the amount of tile expenses spent by DUMLAO f or the building of
the kitchen, or the increase in value ("plus value") which the said area of
34 square meters may have acquired by reason thereof, or to oblige
DUMLAO to pay the price of said area. The amounts to be respectively
paid by DUMLAO and DEPRA, in accordance with the option thus
exercised by written notice of the other party and to the Court, shall be
paid by the obligor within fifteen (15) days from such notice of the option
by tendering the amount to the Court in favor of the party entitled to
receive it;
Depra v. Dumlao
b) The trial Court shall further order that if DEPRA exercises the option to oblige
DUMLAO to pay the price of the land but the latter rejects such purchase because,
as found by the trial Court, the value of the land is considerably more than that of
the kitchen, DUMLAO shall give written notice of such rejection to DEPRA and to
the Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of DEPRA's option to sell the land. In
that event, the parties shall be given a period of fifteen (15) days from such notice
of rejection within which to agree upon the terms of the lease, and give the Court
formal written notice of such agreement and its provisos. If no agreement is
reached by the parties, the trial Court, within fifteen (15) days from and after the
termination of the said period fixed for negotiation, shall then fix the terms of the
lease, provided that the monthly rental to be fixed by the Court shall not be less
than Ten Pesos (P10.00) per month, payable within the first five (5) days of each
calendar month. The period for the forced lease shall not be more than two (2)
years, counted from the finality of the judgment, considering the long period of
time since 1952 that DUMLAO has occupied the subject area. The rental thus fixed
shall be increased by ten percent (10%) for the second year of the forced lease.
DUMLAO shall not make any further constructions or improvements on the
kitchen. Upon expiration of the two-year period, or upon default by DUMLAO in
the payment of rentals for two (2) consecutive months, DEPRA shall be entitled to
terminate the forced lease, to recover his land, and to have the kitchen removed
by DUMLAO or at the latter's expense. The rentals herein provided shall be
tendered by DUMLAO to the Court for payment to DEPRA, and such tender shall
constitute evidence of whether or not compliance was made within the period
fixed by the Court.
Depra v. Dumlao
c) In any event, DUMLAO shall pay DEPRA an amount
computed at Ten Pesos (P10.00) per month as reasonable
compensation for the occupancy of DEPRA's land for the
period counted from 1952, the year DUMLAO occupied
the subject area, up to the commencement date of the
forced lease referred to in the preceding paragraph;
d) The periods to be fixed by the trial Court in its
Precision shall be inextendible, and upon failure of the
party obliged to tender to the trial Court the amount due
to the obligee, the party entitled to such payment shall
be entitled to an order of execution for the enforcement
of payment of the amount due and for compliance with
such other acts as may be required by the prestation due
the obligee.
Accession
Right of Retention
Cases
Pacific farms, Inc., vs. Simplicio G. Esguerra,
et al., G.R. No. L-21783 November 29, 1969
ACCESSION NATURAL
Accretion
Accretion is the process whereby the
soil is deposited on land due to the
current of the river.
Alluvium is the soil actually
deposited on the land by the process
of accretion.
Definitions
River
A natural collection of waters, arising from springs
or fountains, which flow in a bed or canal of
considerable width and length, towards the sea.
River" consists of water, a bed and banks, these
several parts constituting the river, the whole
river. It is a compound idea; it cannot exist
without all its parts. Evaporate the water, and you
have a dry hollow. If you could sink the bed,
instead of a river, you would have a fathomless
gulf. Remove the banks, and you have a boundless
flood. (Hilario vs. City of Manila, 19 SCRA 931)
Definition
Banks of River
Lateral strips or zones of its bed which are
washed by the stream only during such high
floods as do not cause inundations or to the
point reached by river at hightide. (Hilario vs.
City of Manila, 19 SCRA 931)
Rules on Accretion
Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the
banks of rivers belong the accretion which
they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of the waters. (336)
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 inundated by them in extraordinary
floods. (367)
Accretion on Riverbanks
They form part of the land of the riparian owner.
Provided all the requisites are present
Provided no human intervention is made to effect or
enhance accretion
Rule on Lagoons/Ponds
Article 458
owners of land adjoining ponds or
lagoons:
Do not acquire land left dry by the
natural decrease of waters
Do not lose what is inundated because of
floods
Rule on Lakes
ART 84. Accretions deposited gradually upon
lands contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers, and
lakes, by accessions or sediments from the
waters thereof, belong to the owners of such
lands. . (Govt vs. Colegio de San Jose, G.R. No.
L-30829, August 28, 1929)
Laguna de Bay is a lake. Hence the riparian
owner also owns the accretion.
Manila Bay is a sea for purposes of accretion.
Hence accretion from Manila Bay constitutes
foreshore lands and is owned by the
government. (Heirs of Emiliano Navarro)
Avulsion
Definition:
Transfer of a known portion of land from one
tenement to another by force of the current.
Two-Year Period
Reason:
It is impractical to insist on retention of ownership
because the owner of the segregated property may
not want to be burdened anymore due to the distance
of the segregated portion from his property;
the owner of the property to which it is attached will
be unduly burdened if the segregated property is not
timely removed;
the retention of ownership of the known portion may
require the establishment of an easement over the
tenement to which it is attached thereby developing
ill-will;
After some time, the segregated portion may blend
with the property to which it is attached.
Uprooted Trees
Art. 460
Owner of uprooted trees may reclaim within 6
months, but must pay expenses for gathering and
placing them in a safe place (preservation).
Owner of the land acquires ownership after 6
months.
Formation of Islands
Arts. 464 & 465
Islands formed on the seas, lakes, navigable or
floatable rivers belongs to the state.
Islands formed in non-navigable and nonfloatable rivers belong to the owners of the
margins or banks nearest to them. If the island is
in the middle of the river, it shall be divided
longitudinally in half.
Cases
1. Government of the Phil Islands vs. Cabangis, 53
Phil 112
2. Hilario v. City of Manila, GR No. L-19570 April
27, 1967
3. Republic v. CA, G.R. No. L-61647. October 12,
1984.
4. Binalay vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 92161 March 18,
1991
5. Baes vs. CA, G.R. No. 108065, July 6, 1993
6. Vda. De Nazareno v. CA, G.R. No. 98045. June
26, 1996.
Cases
7. De Buyser v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L22763. March 18, 1983.
8. Ignacio v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-12958.
May 30, 1960.
9. Government v. Colegio de San Jose, G.R. No.
30829. August 28, 1929.
10. Maneclang v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66575. September
30, 1986.
11. Bantao vs. Dabay, G.R. No. 12264,
September 23, 1918
12. Jaguling vs. CA, G.R. No. 94283, March 4, 1991
Definitions
Adjunction (conjunction)
Mixture
two or more things belonging to different owners are
mixed with the respective identities of the component
parts destroyed or lost.
Specification
work is done on the material of another, such
material, in the consequence of the work itself,
undergoing a transformation.
Illustration
Adjunction
metal figure of horse is welded on the metal hood
of a car.
Mixture
rice belonging to different owners are mixed
together.
Specification
wood belonging to another is used by a sculptor
and is transformed into a wooden statue.
ADJUNCTION
1. Inclusion or engraftment
MIXTURE
1. Commixtion mixture of
solid things belonging to
different owners.
Principal/ Accessory
Principal
that to which the other has been united as an
ornament, or for its use or perfection. (Art. 467)
Accessory
that which has been added to another object as
an ornament, of for the objects use or perfection.
Test
First, determine which is the principal and the
accessory using Art. 467. (Rule of Importance or
Purpose)
If unsuccessful, apply the following:
The Principal is the one which has greater value
If both of equal value, the Principal is the one with greater
volume
Special Rules
Paintings, canvass is the accessory
Sculpture, metal or stone is the accessory
Writings or printed matter, paper or parchment is the
accessory
Engraving or lithographs, the stone or metal plate is the
accessory
Accessory owner in BF
Owner of
Principal in
Good Faith
Owner of
Principal in
Bad Faith
Owner 1 in Bad
Faith
Owner 2 in Good
Faith
Owner 2 in Bad
Faith
Owner of Materials
in Bad Faith
User of
Materials
in Good
Faith
User of
Materials
in Bad
Faith
Nature of
Component
Parts
Principle
Applied
Adjunction
Mixture
Specification
Composed of Composed of One thing
2 things
2 things
whose form
is changed
Component The things
Component
parts
mixed may or parts retain
preserve
may not
their nature
their nature retain their
nature
Accessory
CoAccessory
follows the
ownership
follows the
principal
results
principal
Cloud On Title
A cloud on title is a semblance of title, either legal
or equitable, or a claim or a right in real property,
appearing in some legal form but which is, in fact,
invalid or which would be inequitable to enforce.
(Ballantine Law Dictionary, p. 226)
A statement claiming an equitable interest in
certain land, and signed only by claimant does
not, although recorded in the register of deeds,
constitute a cloud on title of the owner.
(Leeds vs. Wheeler, 157 Mass. 7, 31 N.E. 709)
Cloud On Title
Cloud Must Be Substantial
such as to cause a reasonable fear that it may at
some time be asserted against the owner injuriously.
Nature of Action
What is the nature of actions to quiet title?
Actions to quiet title are suits quasi-in-rem
Extinguishment of Right
The title to property may be quieted with
respect to any instrument which has become
functus oficio by reason of facts which can be
shown only by extrinsic evidence.
Title and liens which have lost their force or failed
to become operative because the persons entitled
thereto failed to enforce them have been
cancelled as clouds.
Mortgages which are unenforceable by reason of
the expiration of the period of limitations.
Prescription of Action
When Plaintiff is in Possession
the action does not prescribe (Aznar Bros. Realty
Co., vs. Aying, 458 SCRA 496)
Requirements
What are the requirements to maintain an
action to quiet title?
legal or equitable title or interest
CO-OWNERSHIP
Definition
It is a form of trust and every co-owner is a
trustee for others. (Castrillo vs. CA, G.R. No. L18046, March 31, 1964) Thus, as a general rule,
no one of the co-owners may acquire exclusive
ownership of the common property through
prescription, for possession by one trustee alone
is not deemed adverse to the rest.
A form of ownership which exists whenever an
undivided thing or right belongs to different
persons.
Definition
Sanchez Roman
the right of common dominion which two or more
persons have in a spiritual part of a thing, not
materially or physically divided.
Manresa
manifestation of the private right of ownership,
which instead of being exercised by the owner in an
exclusive manner over the thing subject to it, is
exercised by two or more owners and the undivided
thing or right to which it refers is one and the same.
Undivided Defined
It is not undivided if the shares are already
pre-determined/ identified even if not
technically identified.
How Created
By Contract
By agreement of the parties.
By Law
Article 90 of Family Code (The provisions on co-ownership shall
apply to the absolute community of property between the
spouses in all matters not provided for in this Chapter.)
By Succession
Heirs become co-owners with respect to the property of the
decedent.
Rights of Co-Owners
As to Benefits and Charges
They share in the benefits and charges in
proportion to their respective interest.
In the absence of contrary evidence, share is
presumed equal (Art. 485)
Rights of Co-Owners
Right To Use Property
Owned in Common
Must be for the purpose for which the coownership is intended.
In such a way as not to injure the interest of
the co-ownership.
In such a way as not to prevent the other coowners from using it according to their rights.
Purpose of Co-Ownership
How to determine purpose
Agreement of the parties
Ordinary use of the thing owned in common
Previous particular use of the thing owned in
common
Mere tolerance, in the absence of any agreement,
does not establish purpose.
Manner Of Use
Cannot be used for a different purpose than
that intended
Use of apartment house owned in common as
dwelling
Rights of Co-Owners
Ejectment
Anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for
ejectment
Basis
Suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.
Effects
A person authorized to file an action by one co-owner
does not require the authority of the others.
But all co-owners must be named as party to the suit.
Rights of Co-Owners
Expenses
Right to compel co-owners to contribute to
expenses for preservation of the thing and
taxes
Only necessary expenses (Art. 546) are covered
Exception
Co-owner may renounce so much of his share as
may be equivalent to his share in the expenses.
Acts of Preservation
What constitute acts of preservation?
Incurring expenses for the preservation,
maintenance, and necessary repairs of the thing
owned in common.
Examples:
Payment of real estate taxes
Payment of regular car maintenance
Expenses for the rehabilitation of structural
support of a building.
Acts of Administration
Definition
Acts or decisions for the common benefit of all
the co-owners.
Expenses to improve or embellish the thing
owned in common.
Example
Leasing co-owned property for less than one year
where lease is not registered.
House renovation to improve marketability.
Acts of Alteration
Definition
Change in the property owned in common involving:
Change in the essence of the property (conversion of a car to
a funeral car)
Change in the use of the property (van is used as a
stationary diner)
Any transformation which prejudices the condition or
substance of the property (conversion of residential lot to a
piggery)
Mere notice if
practicable. (Art. 489)
Acts of
Majority of the coAdministration owners is required.
(Art. 492)
* Majority = 51% or
more of financial
interest
Acts of
Alteration
Right of Redemption
Art. 1620
A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of
redemption in case the shares of all the other coowners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If
the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the
redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the
right of redemption, they may only do so in
proportion to the share they may respectively have in
the thing owned in common. (1522a)
Personal Rights
A co-owner may substitute another in the
enjoyment of his undivided interest EXCEPT:
When personal rights are involved
A right that cannot be transferred because it affects the
personal relations of the co-owners with one another.
Example: House inherited by children and used by them
as dwelling.
Termination of Co-Ownership
Consolidation in one co-owner of all the interests
of the other co-owners.
Destruction or loss of the property co-owned.
Acquisitive prescription by a third party or one
co-owner who repudiates the co-ownership.
By partition, either judicial or extra-judicial.
By the termination of the period agreed upon or
imposed by the donor or testator.
Sale of the co-owners of the thing and the
distribution of the proceeds.
Partition
General Rule: A co-owner may demand partition of the
thing owned in common. (Art. 494)
Exception:
when co-owners agree not to partition for a period not
exceeding 10 years.
when the donor/testator prohibits partition for a period
not exceeding 20 years.
When partition is prohibited by law.
When partition will render the thing unserviceable (Art.
495)
When another co-owner has possessed the property as
exclusive owner and for a period sufficient to acquire it by
prescription.
Rights of Creditors
Art. 497. The creditors or assignees of the coowners may take part in the division of the thing
owned in common and object to its being
effected without their concurrence. But they
cannot impugn any partition already executed,
unless there has been fraud, or in case it was
made notwithstanding a formal opposition
presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the
right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its
validity. (403)
Indivisible Object
Art. 498. Whenever the thing is essentially
indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it
be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify
the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds
distributed. (404)
Despite the fact that a thing cannot be partitioned if
it will become unserviceable (Art. 495), still, coownership can be terminated by adjudication to one
of the co-owners or the selling of the thing.
Accounting
Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall be a
mutual accounting for benefits received and
reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise,
each co-owner shall pay for damages caused
by reason of his negligence or fraud. (n)
Liability
Art. 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition,
be liable for defects of title and quality of the
portion assigned to each of the other coowners. (n)
Cases
Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 122904, April 15, 2005
Quimpo vs. Vda. De Beltran, G.R. No. 160956,
February 13, 2008
Castrillo vs. CA, G.R. No. L-18046, March 31, 1964
Dela Cruz vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-27759 April 17,
1970
Lavadia vs. Cosme, 72 Phil 196
Pardell vs. Bartolome, 23 Phil 450
Arcelona vs. CA, 280 SCRA 20
Documents Involved?
POSSESSION
Possession
Types of Possession
Possession may be had in one of two ways:
possession in the concept of an owner and
possession of a holder.
"A possessor in the concept of an owner may be
the owner himself or one who claims to be so."
On the other hand, "one who possesses as a
mere holder acknowledges in another a superior
right which he believes to be ownership, whether
his belief be right or wrong.