CAVITE vs ROJAS The Municipality of Maneclang leased to Rojas a parcel of land which is part of Plaza Soledad, who in turn

started construction of a house after paying in advance lease money. The municipality sought to recover possession of said property but the defendant claimed that the municipality can only recover possession of the property if the municipality intends it for public use. ISSUE: WON there was a valid contract in the first place HELD: NO.
According to article 344 of the Civil Code: "Property for public use in provinces and in towns comprises the provincial and town roads, the squares, streets, fountains, and public waters, the promenades, and public works of general service supported by said towns or provinces." The said Plaza Soledad being a promenade for public use, the municipal council of Cavite could not in 1907 withdraw or exclude from public use a portion thereof in order to lease it for the sole benefit of the defendant Hilaria Rojas. In leasing a portion of said plaza or public place to the defendant for private use the plaintiff municipality exceeded its authority in the exercise of its powers by executing a contract over a thing of which it could not dispose, nor is it empowered so to do. The Civil Code, articles 1271, prescribes that everything which is not outside he commerce of man may be the object of a contract, and plazas and streets are outside of this commerce, as was decided by the supreme court of Spain in its decision of February 12, 195, which says: "Communal things that cannot be soud because they are by their very nature outside of commerce are those for public use, such as the plazas, streets, common lands, rivers, fountains, etc." Therefore, it must be concluded that the contract, Exhibit C, whereby he municipality of Cavite leased to Hilaria Rojas a portion of the Plaza Soledad is null and void and of no force or effect, because it is contrary to the law and the thing leased cannot be the object of a contract. On the hyphotesis that the said lease is null and void in accordance with the provisions of article 1303 of the Civil Code, the defendant must restore and deliver possession of the land described in the complaint to the municipality of Cavite, which in its turn must restore to the said defendant all the sums it may have received from her in the nature of rentals just as soon as she restores the land improperly leased. For the same reasons as have been set forth, and as said contract is null and void in its origin, it can produce no effect and consequently the defendant is not entitled to claim that the plaintiff municipality indemnity her for the damages she may suffer by the removal of her house from the said land.

MANECLANG vs IAC
The stipulations contained in the Compromise Agreement partake of the nature of an adjudication of ownership in favor of herein petitioners of the fishpond in dispute, which, as clearly found by the lower and appellate courts, was originally a creek forming a tributary of the Agno River. Considering that as held in the case of Mercado vs. Municipal President of Macabebe, 59 Phil. 592 [1934], a creek, defined as a recess or arm extending from a river and participating in the ebb and flow of the sea, is a property belonging to the public domain which is not susceptible to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription, and as a public water, it cannot be registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual [Diego v. Court of Appeals, 102 Phil. 494; Mangaldan v. Manaoag, 38 Phil. 4551; and considering further that neither the mere construction of irrigation dikes by the

National Irrigation Administration which prevented the water from flowing in and out of the subject fishpond, nor its conversion into a fishpond, alter or change the nature of the creek as a property of the public domain, the Court finds the Compromise Agreement null and void and of no legal effect, the same being contrary to law and public policy. The finding that the subject body of water is a creek belonging to the public domain is a factual determination binding upon this Court. The Municipality of Bugallon, acting thru its duly-constituted municipal council is clothed with authority to pass, as it did the two resolutions dealing with its municipal waters, and it cannot be said that petitioners were deprived of their right to due process as mere publication of the notice of the public bidding suffices as a constructive notice to the whole world.

IGnACIO vs
It is not disputed that the land applied for adjoins a parcel owned by the applicant which he had acquired from the Government by virtue of a free patent title in 1936. It has also been established that the parcel in question was formed by accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the Manila Bay which boarders it on the southwest. Applicant Ignacio claims that he had occupied the land since 1935, planting it with api-api trees, and that his possession thereof had been continuous, adverse and public for a period of twenty years until said possession was distributed by oppositor Valeriano. ISSUE: WON the land is accretion by river HELD: Accretion by sea Appellant contends that the parcel belongs to him by the law of accretion, having been formed by gradual deposit by action of the Manila Bay, and he cites Article 457 of the New Civil Code (Article 366, Old Civil Code), which provides that: 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. The article cited is clearly inapplicable because it refers to accretion or deposits on the banks of rivers, while the accretion in the present case was caused by action of the Manila Bay. Appellant next contends that Articles 1, 4 and 5 of the Law of Waters are not applicable because they refer to accretions formed by the sea, and that Manila Bay cannot be considered as a sea. We find said contention untenable. A bay is a part of the sea, being a mere indentation of the same: Bay. An opening into the land where the water is shut in on all sides except at the entrance; an inlet of the sea; an arm of the sea, distinct from a river, a bending or curbing of the shore of the sea or of a lake. 7 C.J. 1013-1014 (Cited in Francisco, Philippine Law of Waters and Water Rights p. 6) Moreover, this Tribunal has some cases applied the Law of Waters on Lands bordering Manila Bay. (See the cases of Ker & Co. vs. Cauden, 6 Phil., 732, involving a parcel of land bounded on the sides by Manila Bay, where it was held that such land formed by the action of the sea is property of the State; Francisco vs. Government of the P.I., 28 Phil., 505, involving a land claimed by a private person and subject to the ebb and flow of the tides of the Manila Bay).

Then the applicant argues that granting that the land in question formed part of the public domain, having been gained from the sea, the trial court should have declared the same no longer necessary for any public use or purpose, and therefore, became disposable and available for private ownership. Article 4 of the Law of Waters of 1866 reads thus: ART. 4. Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea, form part of the public domain. When they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea and are not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for the coastguard service, the Government shall declare them to be the property of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as increment thereof. Interpreting Article 4 of the Law of Waters of 1866, in the case of Natividad vs. Director of Lands, (CA) 37 Off. Gaz., 2905, it was there held that: Article 4 of the Law of Waters of 1866 provides that when a portion of the shore is no longer washed by the waters of the sea and is not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for coastguard service, the government shall declare it to be the property of the owners of the estates adjacent thereto and as an increment thereof. We believe that only the executive and possibly the legislative departments have the authority and the power to make the declaration that any land so gained by the sea, is not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, on for coast-guard service. If no such declaration has been made by said departments, the lot in question forms part of the public domain. (Natividad vs. Director of Lands, supra.) The reason for this pronouncement, according to this Tribunal in the case of Vicente Joven y Monteverde vs. Director of Lands, 93 Phil., 134, (cited in Velayo's Digest, VI. I, p. 52). . . . is undoubtedly that the courts are neither primarily called upon, nor indeed in a position to determine whether any public land are to be used for the purposes specified in Article 4 of the Law of Waters. Consequently, until a formal declaration on the part of the Government, through the executive department or the Legislature, to the effect that the land in question is no longer needed for coast guard service, for public use or for special industries, they continue to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership.

MACASIANO vs DIOKNO FACTS: The respondents, municipality of Paranaque, passed an ordinance declaring 2 streets as no longer for public use, when in fact, it was still being used regularly.The respondents subsequently entered into a lease agreement for the use of the said streets as flea markets and also for the development and regulation of the said market. The petitioners herein, the Sherriff, sought to close the flea market on the ground that the respondents have no authority to declare the said property as no longer for public use because legislative power was needed for that declaration. ISsUE: Does the respondent have the legislative power? HELD: YES. BUT:

Article 424 of the Civil Code lays down the basic principle that properties of public dominion devoted to public use and made available to the public in general are outside the commerce of man and cannot be disposed of or leased by the local government unit to private persons. Aside from the requirement of due process which should be complied with before closing a road, street or park, the closure should be for the sole purpose of withdrawing the road or other public property from public use when circumstances show that such property is no longer intended or necessary for public use or public service. When it is already withdrawn from public use, the property then becomes patrimonial property of the local government unit concerned (Article 422, Civil Code; Cebu Oxygen, etc. et al. v. Bercilles, et al., G.R. No. L-40474, August 29, 1975, 66 SCRA 481). It is only then that the respondent municipality can "use or convey them for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the local unit concerned might be lawfully used or conveyed" in accordance with the last sentence of Section 10, Chapter II of Blg. 337, known as Local Government Code. In one case, the City Council of Cebu, through a resolution, declared the terminal road of M. Borces Street, Mabolo, Cebu City as an abandoned road, the same not being included in the City Development Plan. Thereafter, the City Council passes another resolution authorizing the sale of the said abandoned road through public bidding. We held therein that the City of Cebu is empowered to close a city street and to vacate or withdraw the same from public use. Such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary contract (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles, et al., G.R. No. L-40474, August 29, 1975, 66 SCRA 481). However, those roads and streets which are available to the public in general and ordinarily used for vehicular traffic are still considered public property devoted to public use. In such case, the local government has no power to use it for another purpose or to dispose of or lease it to private persons.

CEBU OXYGEN vs BERCILLES From the foregoing, it is undoubtedly clear that the City of Cebu is empowered to close a city road or street. In the case of Favis vs. City of Baguio, 7 where the power of the city Council of Baguio City to close city streets and to vacate or withdraw the same from public use was similarly assailed, this court said: 5. So it is, that appellant may not challenge the city council's act of withdrawing a strip of Lapu-Lapu Street at its dead end from public use and converting the remainder thereof into an alley. These are acts well within the ambit of the power to close a city street. The city council, it would seem to us, is the authority competent to determine whether or not a certain property is still necessary for public use. Such power to vacate a street or alley is discretionary. And the discretion will not ordinarily be controlled or interfered with by the courts, absent a plain case of abuse or fraud or collusion. Faithfulness to the public trust will be presumed. So the fact that some private interests may be served incidentally will not invalidate the vacation ordinance. (2) Since that portion of the city street subject of petitioner's application for registration of title was withdrawn from public use, it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary contract.

Article 422 of the Civil Code expressly provides that "Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State." Besides, the Revised Charter of the City of Cebu heretofore quoted, in very clear and unequivocal terms, states that: "Property thus withdrawn from public servitude may be used or conveyed for any purpose for which other real property belonging to the City may be lawfully used or conveyed." Accordingly, the withdrawal of the property in question from public use and its subsequent sale to the petitioner is valid. Hence, the petitioner has a registerable title over the lot in question.

LAUREL vs GARCIA
As property of public dominion, the Roppongi lot is outside the commerce of man. It cannot be alienated. Its ownership is a special collective ownership for general use and enjoyment, an application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social group. The purpose is not to serve the State as a juridical person, but the citizens; it is intended for the common and public welfare and cannot be the object of appropration. The applicable provisions of the Civil Code are: ART. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership. ART. 420. The following things are property of public dominion (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks shores roadsteads, and others of similar character; (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. ART. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property. The Roppongi property is correctly classified under paragraph 2 of Article 420 of the Civil Code as property belonging to the State and intended for some public service. The fact that the Roppongi site has not been used for a long time for actual Embassy service does not automatically convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens only if the property is withdrawn from public use (Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co. v. Bercilles, 66 SCRA 481 [1975]). A property continues to be part of the public domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from being such (Ignacio v. Director of Lands, 108 Phil. 335 [1960]). The respondents enumerate various pronouncements by concerned public officials insinuating a change of intention. We emphasize, however, that an abandonment of the intention to use the Roppongi property for public service and to make it patrimonial property under Article 422 of the Civil Code must be definite Abandonment cannot be inferred from the non-use alone specially if the non-use was attributable not to the government's own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial support to repair and improve the

property (See Heirs of Felino Santiago v. Lazaro, 166 SCRA 368 [1988]). Abandonment must be a certain and positive act based on correct legal premises.

MIAA vs CA FACTS: The MIAA charter gave the title of the airport to MIAA and also excluded it from taxes. After the LGC was passed the OGCC gave the opinion that MIAA's tax exemption has been expressly withdrawn. The City of Paranaque subsequently taxed the MIAA which paid the 604 M tax delinquency in part. The MIAA asked the OGCC to clarify its opinion who in turn stated that the revoking of the tax exemption may be rebutted if the MIAA presents the section in its charter explicitly exempting it from tax. Because MIAA failed to pay, the City of Paranaque sought to sell the entire airport. ISSUE: WON the MIAA's airport, in spite of the title, is part of public domain WON the Airport is in the commerce of man

HELD:
No one can dispute that properties of public dominion mentioned in Article 420 of the Civil Code, like "roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State," are owned by the State. The term "ports" includes seaports and airports. The MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings constitute a "port" constructed by the State. Under Article 420 of the Civil Code, the MIAA Airport Lands and Buildings are properties of public dominion and thus owned by the State or the Republic of the Philippines. The Airport Lands and Buildings are devoted to public use because they are used by the public for international and domestic travel and transportation. The fact that the MIAA collects terminal fees and other charges from the public does not remove the character of the Airport Lands and Buildings as properties for public use. The operation by the government of a tollway does not change the character of the road as one for public use. Someone must pay for the maintenance of the road, either the public indirectly through the taxes they pay the government, or only those among the public who actually use the road through the toll fees they pay upon using the road. The tollway system is even a more efficient and equitable manner of taxing the public for the maintenance of public roads. The charging of fees to the public does not determine the character of the property whether it is of public dominion or not. Article 420 of the Civil Code defines property of public dominion as one "intended for public use." Even if the government collects toll fees, the road is still "intended for public use" if anyone can use the road under the same terms and conditions as the rest of the public. The charging of fees, the limitation on the kind of vehicles that can use the road, the speed restrictions and other conditions for the use of the road do not affect the public character of the road. As properties of public dominion, they indisputably belong to the State or the Republic of the Philippines.

Airport Lands and Buildings are Outside the Commerce of Man The Airport Lands and Buildings of MIAA are devoted to public use and thus are properties of public dominion. As properties of public dominion, the Airport Lands and Buildings are outside the commerce of man. The Court has ruled repeatedly that properties of public dominion are outside the commerce of man. Before MIAA can encumber26 the Airport Lands and Buildings, the President must first withdraw from public use the Airport Lands and Buildings he authority of the President to reserve lands of the public domain for public use, and to withdraw such public use, is reiterated in Section 14, Chapter 4, Title I, Book III of the Administrative Code of 1987, which states: SEC. 14. Power to Reserve Lands of the Public and Private Domain of the Government. (1) The President shall have the power to reserve for settlement or public use, and for specific public purposes, any of the lands of the public domain, the use of which is not otherwise directed by law. The reserved land shall thereafter remain subject to the specific public purpose indicated until otherwise provided by law or proclamation

PPA vs ILOILO

This is an action for the recovery of sum of money filed by [respondent] City of Iloilo, a public corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Hon. Rodolfo T. Ganzon as City Mayor, against petitioner, Philippine Ports Authority (PPA), a government corporation created by P.D. 857. [Respondent] seeks to collect from [petitioner] real property taxes as well as business taxes, computed from the last quarter of 1984 up to fourth quarter of 1988. [Respondent] alleges that [petitioner] is engaged in the business of arrastre and stevedoring services and the leasing of real estate for which it should be obligated to pay business taxes. It further alleges that [petitioner] is the declared and registered owner of a warehouse which is used in the operation of its business and is also thereby subject to real property taxes.

OWNERSHIP Definition: The independent and general power of a person over a thing for purposes recognized by law and within the limits established thereby.

 2. A relation in private law by virtue of which a thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in everything not prohibited by public law or the concurrence with the rights of another.

Rights of an Owner Right to enjoy, right to dispose, and the right to recover or vindicate

Enjoy: right to possess, right to use, and right to the fruits Dispose: right to consume or destroy or abuse, right to encumber or alienate

Actions to Recover: 1. For personal property- Replevin under Rule 60, Rules of Court 2. For Real Property: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer under Rule 70 , 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure: Accion Publiciana- the plenary right to recover possessesion. Accion Reinvidicatoria- an action to recover ownership.
RULE 60 REPLEVIN Section 1. Application. A party praying for the recovery of possession of personal property may, at the commencement of the action or at any time before answer, apply for an order for the delivery of such property to him, in the manner hereinafter provided. Sec. 2. Affidavit and bond.

The applicant must show by his own affidavit or that of some other person who personally knows the facts:

(a) That the applicant is the owner of the property claimed, particularly describing it, or is entitled to the possession thereof; (b) That the property is wrongfully detained by the adverse party, alleging the cause of detention thereof according to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief; (c) That the property has not been distrained or taken for a tax assessment or a fine pursuant to law, or seized under a writ of execution or preliminary

attachment, or otherwise placed under custodia legis, or if so seized, that it is exempt from such seizure or custody; and (d) The actual market value of the property. The applicant must also give a bond, executed to the adverse party in double the value of the property as stated in the affidavit aforementioned, for the return of the property to the adverse party if such return be adjudged, and for the payment to the adverse party of such sum as he may recover from the applicant in the action. Sec. 3. Order.

Upon the filing of such affidavit and approval of the bond, the court shall issue an order and the corresponding writ of replevin describing the personal property Sec. alleged 4. to be wrongfully Duty detained of and requiring the the sheriff sheriff. forthwith to take such property into his custody.

Upon receiving such order, the sheriff must serve a copy thereof on the adverse party, together with a copy of the application, affidavit and bond, and must forthwith take the property, if it be in the possession of the adverse party, or his agent, and retain it in his custody. If the property or any part thereof be concealed in a building or enclosure, the sheriff must demand its delivery, and if it be not delivered, he must cause the building or enclosure to be broken open and take the property into his possession. After the sheriff has taken possession of the property as herein provided, he must keep it in a secure place and shall be responsible for its delivery to the party entitled thereto upon receiving his fees and necessary expenses for taking and keeping the same. Sec. 5. Return of property.

If the adverse party objects to the sufficiency of the applicants bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon, he cannot immediately require the return of the property, but if he does not so object, he may, at any time before the delivery of the property to the applicant, require the return thereof, by filing with the court where the action is pending a bond executed to the applicant, in double the value of the property as stated in the applicants affidavit for the delivery thereof to the applicant, if such delivery be adjudged, and for the payment of such sum to him as may be recovered against the adverse party, and by serving a copy of such bond on the applicant. Sec. 6. Disposition of property by sheriff.

If within five (5) days after the taking of the property by the sheriff, the adverse party does not object to the sufficiency of the bond, or of the surety or sureties thereon; or if the adverse party so objects and the court

affirms its approval of the applicants bond or approves a new bond, or if the adverse party requires the return of the property but his bond is objected to and found insufficient and he does not forthwith file an approved bond, the property shall be delivered to the applicant. If for any reason the property is not delivered to the applicant, the sheriff must return it to the adverse party. Sec. 7. Proceedings where property claimed by third person.

If the property taken is claimed by any person other than the party against whom the writ of replevin had been issued or his agent, and such person makes an affidavit of his title thereto, or right to the possession thereof, stating the grounds therefor, and serves such affidavit upon the sheriff while the latter has possession of the property and a copy thereof upon the applicant, the sheriff shall not be bound to keep the property under replevin or deliver it to the applicant unless the applicant or his agent, on demand of said sheriff, shall file a bond approved by the court to indemnify the third-party claimant in a sum not less than the value of the property under replevin as provided in section 2 hereof. In case of disagreement as to such value, the court shall determine the same. No claim for damages for the taking or keeping of the property may be enforced against the bond unless the action therefor is filed within one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of the filing of the bond. The sheriff shall not be liable for damages, for the taking or keeping of such property, to any such third-party claimant if such bond shall be filed. Nothing herein contained shall prevent such claimant or any third person from vindicating his claim to the property, or prevent the applicant from claiming damages When against writ a of third-party replevin is claimant issued who in filed favor a of frivolous the or plainly of the spurious claim, in the same or a separate action. the Republic Philippines, or any officer duly representing it, the filing of such bond shall not be required, and in case the sheriff is sued for damages as a result of the replevin, he shall be represented by the Solicitor General, and if held liable therefor, the actual damages adjudged by the court shall be paid by the National Treasurer out of the funds to be appropriated for the purpose. Sec. 8. Return of papers.

The sheriff must file the order, with his proceedings indorsed thereon, with the court within ten (10) days after taking the property mentioned therein. Sec. 9. Judgment.

After trial of the issues, the court shall determine who has the right of possession to and the value of the property and shall render judgment in the

alternative for the delivery thereof to the party entitled to the same, or for its value in case delivery cannot be made, and also for such damages as either party may prove, with costs. Sec. 10. Judgment to include recovery against sureties.

The amount, if any, to be awarded to any party upon

any bond filed in

accordance with the provisions of this Rule, shall be claimed, ascertained, and granted under the same procedure as prescribed in section 20 of Rule 57.

RULE 70 FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER Section 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when.

Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. Sec. 2. Lessor to proceed against lessee only after demand. Unless otherwise stipulated, such action by the lessor shall be commenced only after demand to pay or comply with the conditions of the lease and to vacate is made upon the lessee, or by serving written notice of such demand upon the person found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no person be found thereon, and the lessee fails to comply therewith after fifteen (15) days in the case of land or five (5) days in the case of buildings. Sec. 3. Summary procedure. Except in cases covered by the agricultural tenancy laws or when the law otherwise expressly provides, all actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered, shall be governed by the summary procedure hereunder provided. Sec. 4. Pleadings allowed. The only pleadings allowed to be filed are the complaint, compulsory

counterclaim and cross-claim pleaded in the answer, and the answers thereto. All pleadings shall be verified.

Sec. 5. Action on complaint. The court may, from an examination of the allegations in the complaint and such evidence as may be attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds for the dismissal of a civil action which are apparent therein. If no ground for dismissal is found, it shall forthwith issue summons. Sec. 6. Answer. Within ten (10) days from service of summons, the defendant shall file his answer except to lack the of complaint and serve over a copy thereof on the plaintiff. and Affirmative and negative defenses not pleaded therein shall be deemed waived, jurisdiction not the subject in the matter. Cross-claims be compulsory counterclaims asserted answer shall considered

barred. The answer to counterclaims or cross-claims shall be served and filed within ten (10) days from service of the answer in which they are pleaded. Sec. 7. Effect of failure to answer. Should the defendant fail to answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein. The court may in its discretion reduce the amount of damages and attorneys fees claimed for being ex cessive or otherwise unconscionable, without prejudice to the applicability of section 3 (c), Rule 9 if there are two or more defendants. Sec. 8. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. Not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall be held. The provisions of Rule 18 on pre-trial shall be applicable to the preliminary conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule. The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall be cause for the dismissal of his complaint. The defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in accordance dismissed. If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall likewise be entitled to judgment in accordance with the next preceding section. This procedure shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a common cause of action who had pleaded a common defense shall appear at the preliminary conference. No postponement of the preliminary conference shall be granted except for highly meritorious grounds and without prejudice to such sanctions as the court in the exercise of sound discretion may impose on the movant. Sec. 9. Record of preliminary conference. with the next preceding section. All cross-claims shall be

Within five (5) days after the termination of the preliminary conference, the court shall issue an order stating the matters taken up therein, including but not limited to: 1. Whether the parties have arrived at an amicable settlement, and if so, the terms thereof; 2. The stipulations or admissions entered into by the parties; 3. Whether, on the basis of the pleadings and the stipulations and admissions made by the parties, judgment may be rendered without the need of further proceedings, in which event the judgment shall be rendered within thirty (30) days from issuance of the order; 4. A clear specification of material facts which remain controverted; and 5. Such other matters intended to expedite the disposition of the case. Sec. 10. Submission of affidavits and position papers. Within ten (10) days from receipt of the order mentioned in the next preceding section, the parties shall submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other evidence on the factual issues defined in the order, together with their position papers setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them. Sec. 11. Period for rendition of judgment. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment. However, to be should the court find it necessary parties to to clarify certain material or other facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters clarified, and require the submit affidavits evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last affidavit or the expiration of the period for filing the same. The court shall not resort to the foregoing procedure just to gain time for the rendition of the judgment. Sec. 12. Referral for conciliation. Cases requiring referral for conciliation, where there is no showing of compliance with such requirement, shall be dismissed without prejudice, and may be revived only after that requirement shall have been complied with. Sec. 13. Prohibited pleadings and motions. The following petitions, motions, or pleadings shall not be allowed: 1. Motion to dismiss the complaint except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with section 12; 2. Motion for a bill of particulars; 3. Motion for new trial, or for reconsideration of a judgment, or for reopening of trial; 4. Petition for relief from judgment;

5. Motion for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper; 6. Memoranda; 7. Petition for certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition against any interlocutory order issued by the court; 8. Motion to declare the defendant in default; 9. Dilatory motions for postponement; 10. Reply; 11. Third-party complaints; 12. Interventions. Sec. 14. Affidavits. The affidavits required to be submitted under this Rule shall state only facts of direct personal knowledge of the affiants which are admissible in evidence, and shall show their competence to testify to the matters stated therein. A violation of this requirement may subject the party or the counsel who submits the same to disciplinary action, and shall be cause to expunge the inadmissible affidavit or portion thereof from the record. Sec. 15. Preliminary injunction. The court may grant preliminary injunction, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 58 hereof, to prevent the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession against the plaintiff. A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry or unlawful detainer may, within five (5) days from the filing of the complaint, present a motion in the action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof. Sec. 16. Resolving defense of ownership. When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue of possession. Sec. 17. Judgment. If after trial the court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorneys fees and costs. If it for finds the that said to allegations recover are not true, If a it shall render is judgment defendant his costs. counterclaim

established, the court shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and award costs as justice requires.

Sec. 18. Judgment conclusive only on possession; not conclusive in actions involving title or ownership. The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession only and shall in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an action between the same parties respecting title to the land or building. The judgment or final order shall be appealable to the appropriate Regional Trial Court which shall decide the same on the basis of the entire record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda and/or briefs as may be submitted by the parties or required by the Regional Trial Court. Sec. 19. Immediate execution of judgment; how to stay same. If judgment is upon rendered motion, against unless the an defendant, has execution been shall and issue the immediately appeal perfected

defendant to stay execution files a sufficient supersedeas bond, approved by the Municipal Trial Court and executed in favor of the plaintiff to pay the rents, damages, and costs accruing down to the time of the judgment appealed from, and unless, during the pendency of the appeal, he deposits with the appellate court the amount of rent due from time to time under the contract, if any, as determined by the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court. In the absence of a contract, he shall deposit with the Regional Trial Court the reasonable value of the use and occupation of the premises for the preceding month or period at the rate determined by the judgment of the lower court on or before the tenth day of each succeeding month or period. The supersedeas bond shall be transmitted by the Municipal Trial Court, with the other papers, to the clerk of the Regional Trial Court to which the action is appealed. All amounts so paid to the appellate court shall be deposited with said court or authorized government depositary bank, and shall be held there until the final disposition of the appeal, unless the court, by agreement of the interested parties, or in the absence of reasonable grounds of opposition to a motion to withdraw, or for justifiable reasons, shall decree otherwise. Should the defendant fail to make the payments above prescribed from time to time during the pendency of the appeal, the appellate court, upon motion of the plaintiff, and upon proof of such failure, shall order the execution of the judgment appealed from with respect to the restoration of possession, but such execution shall not be a bar to the appeal taking its course until the final disposition thereof on the merits. After the case is decided by the Regional Trial Court, any money paid to the court by the defendant for purposes of the stay of execution shall be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of the judgment of the Regional Trial Court. In any case wherein it appears that the defendant has been deprived of the lawful possession of land or building pending the appeal by

virtue of the execution of the judgment of the Municipal Trial Court, damages for such deprivation of possession and restoration of possession may be allowed the defendant in the judgment of the Regional Trial Court disposing of the appeal. Sec. 20. Preliminary mandatory injunction in case of appeal. Upon motion of the plaintiff, within ten (10) days from the perfection of the appeal to the Regional Trial Court, the latter may issue a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore the plaintiff in possession if the court is satisfied that the defendants appeal is frivolous or dilatory, or that the appeal of the plaintiff is prima facie meritorious. Sec. 21. Immediate execution on appeal to Court of Appeals or Supreme Court. The judgment of the Regional Trial Court against the defendant shall be immediately executory, without prejudice to a further appeal that may be taken therefrom.

VILLA vs ALTAVAZ FACTS:

On November 26, 1997, Enrique Altavas II, Erlinda Liboro and Maria de Jesus (respondents), in their capacity as heirs of Enrique Altavas (Enrique), filed a Complaint[5] for ejectment with the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Pontevedra-Panay in the Province of Capiz against Dr. Lorna Villa (petitioner) together with Virginia Bermejo (Virginia) and Rolito Roxas (Roxas), alleging that respondents are heirs of the deceased Enrique, the registered owner of two parcels of fishpond designated as Lot No. 2816 and Lot No. 2817, who have been in actual possession through their administrator, overseer and representative, the late councilor Mussolini C. Bermejo, the husband of Virgina; that on January 31, 1994, after the death of Mussolini, Virgina took over the possession of the premises in question without the consent or permission of respondents; that Virginia leased in favor of petitioner a portion of about five hectares of Lot No. 2816, without any right whatsoever to do so; that on October 21, 1997, respondents through counsel formally sent demand letters to Virginia and petitioner to vacate the respective portions occupied by them; and that despite said demands, they persisted in continuing their illegal possession of the premises.

The MTC ruled in favor of the respondents which was affirmed by the CA in its assailed decision. (case of certiorari against RTC.)
Upon appeal to SC, petitioner argues that respondents have no cause of action against her as they are not lessors, vendors or persons with whom petitioner has a contract, express or implied and that respondents failed to aver facts constitutive of either forcible entry or unlawful detainer. As such, the MCTC did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.

ISSUE: WON the respondents have a cause of action against the petitioners. HELD: YES
The CA sustained the following findings of the MCTC, to wit: that respondents' predecessor, Enrique Altavas, was not divested of his ownership of the subject lots; that the titles over the subject properties remain in his

name; that, not being the owner or administrator of the said lots, Virginia has no right to enter into any contract for the lease of the said properties; and that petitioner's possession of portions of the disputed properties is merely upon tolerance of respondents. As to respondents' ownership and right of possession of the subject properties, records show that the MCTC based its Decision not only on the Position Paper of respondents but also on the pieces of evidence submitted by them. Respondents attached, as annexes to their Complaint, the Original Certificates of Title Nos. RO-4326 and RO-4327 in the name of Enrique, covering Lot Nos. 2816 and 2817, respectively, as evidence of their ownership and right to possess the disputed properties. Moreover, being a mere lessee, petitioner steps into the shoes of her lessor, Virginia. However, Virginia's claim of ownership was not sustained by the MCTC, which instead found that she was not the owner of and had no right to possess the disputed property or to transfer possession of the same, through lease, in favor of another person. Virginia later withdrew her appeal filed with the RTC. By reason of such withdrawal, she is bound by the findings of the MCTC.

MANANTAN vsSOMERA FACTS

Manantan alleged in her Complaint that she was the owner of a 214- square meter parcel of land located in Fairview Subdivision, Baguio City (subject property), as evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 54672, issued in her name by the Registry of Deeds of Baguio City. After causing a relocation survey of the subject property, she discovered that respondent and Tavera occupied certain portions thereof [disputed portions]. Manantan advised respondent and Tavera to vacate the disputed portions as soon as she would decide to sell the subject property to an interested buyer. Later, a prospective buyer approached Manantan about the subject property. However, upon learning that respondent and Tavera occupied some portions of the subject property, the prospective buyer decided not to proceed with the sale until after respondent and Tavera vacated the same. Manantan repeatedly requested respondent and Tavera to abandon the disputed portions of the subject property, but the two refused. Hence, Manantan hired the services of a lawyer who immediately sent a formal letter of demand to respondent and Tavera requesting them to leave the disputed portions. Respondent and Tavera, however, ignored the demand letter. Manantan submitted the matter before the barangay justice system of Fairview Subdivision, Baguio City, but the parties failed to reach a settlement. Upon issuance by the barangay secretary of a Certificate to File Action, Manantan instituted Civil Case No. 10467.

In her Complaint in Civil Case No. 10467, Manantan prayed that respondent, Tavera, and all persons claiming rights under them, be ordered to vacate the portions of the subject property they were occupying; that respondent and Tavera be directed to pay her P600.00 and P400.00, respectively, every month. Respondent and Tavera filed a Joint Answer to Manantans Complaint in Civil Case No. 10467. In their Joint Answer, respondent and Tavera averred that the MTCC had no jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 10467, because it was neither an action for forcible entry nor for unlawful detainer. The Complaint did not allege that Manantan was deprived of possession of the disputed portions by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, which would make a case for forcible entry. It also did not state that respondent and Tavera withheld possession of the disputed portions from Manantan after expiration or termination of the

right to hold possession of the same by virtue of an express or implied contract, which would build a case for unlawful detainer. After submission of the parties respective position papers and other pleadings, the MTCC rendered a [9] Decision in Civil Case No. 10467 on 21 May 1999, favoring Manantan. The MTCC ruled that it had jurisdiction over the case and that respondent and Tavera were not builders in good faith. Consequently, the Court of Appeals concluded that the MTCC had no jurisdiction over the [12] Complaint in Civil Case No. 10467.

ISSUE: WON the MTCC acquired jurisdiction of the case through proper filing by the petitioner HELD: NO.

In the main, petitioner argues that the Complaint is in the nature of an action for unlawful detainer [15] over which the MTCC had jurisdiction. An action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer is governed by Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, Section 1 of which provides: SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs. (Emphasis ours.)

Unlawful detainer is a summary action for the recovery of possession of real property. This action may be filed by a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession by [17] virtue of any contract, express or implied. In unlawful detainer cases, the possession of the defendant was originally legal, as his possession was permitted by the plaintiff on account of an express or implied contract between them. However, defendants possession became illegal when the plaintiff demanded that defendant vacate the subject property due to the expiration or termination of the right to possess under their [18] contract, and defendant refused to heed such demand.

[16]

A case for unlawful detainer must be instituted before the proper municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court within one year from unlawful withholding of possession. Such one year period should be counted from the date of plaintiffs last demand on defendant t o vacate the real property, [19] because only upon the lapse of that period does the possession become unlawful. Well-settled is the rule that the jurisdiction of the court, as well as the nature of the action, are [20] determined by the allegations in the complaint. To vest the court with the jurisdiction to effect the ejectment of an occupant from the land in an action for unlawful detainer, it is necessary that the complaint should embody such a statement of facts clearly showing attributes of unlawful detainer cases, [21] as this proceeding is summary in nature. The complaint must show on its face enough ground to give [22] the court jurisdiction without resort to parol testimony. Thus, in order that a municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court may acquire jurisdiction in an action for unlawful detainer, it is essential that the complaint specifically allege the facts constitutive of unlawful [23] detainer. The jurisdictional facts must appear on the face of the complaint. When the complaint fails to aver facts constitutive of unlawful detainer, an action for unlawful detainer is not a proper remedy and, thus, the municipal trial court or metropolitan trial court has no jurisdiction over the case. Noticeably, the Complaint does not allege facts showing compliance with the prescribed one year period to file an action for unlawful detainer. It does not state the material dates that would have established that it was filed within one year from the date of Manantans last dema nd upon respondent to vacate the disputed portion of land. Such allegations are jurisdictional and crucial, because if the complaint was filed beyond the prescribed one year period, then it cannot properly qualify as an action for unlawful detainer over which the MTCC can exercise jurisdiction. It may be an accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria. Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession, which should be brought before the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint, more than one year has lapsed since defendant unlawfully withheld possession from plaintiff, the action will not be for illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana. Accion reivindicatoria, meanwhile, is an action to recover ownership, as well as possession, which should also be brought before the proper regional trial court in an ordinary civil proceeding Further, it appears from the allegations in the Complaint that the respondent was already in possession of the disputed portion at the time Manantan bought the subject property from the Bayot family, and it was only after the conduct of a relocation survey, which supposedly showed that respondent was encroaching on the subject property, did Manantan begin asserting her claim of ownership over the portion occupied and used by respondent. Clearly, respondents possession of the disputed portion was not pursuant to any contract, express or implied, with Manantan, and, resultantly, respondents right of possession over the disputed portion is not subject to expiration or termination. At no point can it be said that respondents possession of the disputed portion ceased to be legal and became an unlawful withholding of the property from Manantan

INC vs PONFERRADA
Plaintiffs alleged therein that, during his lifetime, Enrique Santos was the owner of a 936-square-meter parcel of land located in Tandang Sora, Quezon City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 57272 issued by the Register of Deeds on July 27,

1961 which cancelled TCT No. 57193-289. He had been in possession of the owners duplicate of said title and had been in continuous, open, adverse and peaceful possession of the property. He died on February 9, 1970 and was survived by his wife, Alicia Santos, and other plaintiffs, who were their children. Thereafter, plaintiffs took peaceful and adverse possession of the property, and of the owners duplicate of said title. When the Office of the Register of Deeds of Quezon City was burned on June 11, 1988, the original copy of said title was burned as well. The Register of Deeds had the title reconstituted as TCT No. RT-110323, based on the owners duplicate of TCT No. 57272. Sometime in February 1996, plaintiffs learned that defendant was claiming ownership over the property based on TCT No. 321744 issued on September 18, 1984 which, on its face, cancelled TCT No. 320898, under the name of the Philippine National Bank, which allegedly cancelled TCT No. 252070 in the names of the spouses Marcos and Romana dela Cruz. They insisted that TCT Nos. 321744, 320898 and 252070 were not among the titles issued by the Register of Deeds of Quezon City and even if the Register of Deeds issued said titles, it was contrary to law. Enrique Santos, during his lifetime, and his heirs, after his death, never encumbered or disposed the property. In 1996, plaintiffs had the property fenced but defendant deprived them of the final use and enjoyment of their property. Defendant likewise averred that the complaint should be dismissed on the ground of prescription. It argued that plaintiffs anchor their claim on quieting of title and considering that they are not in possession of the land in question, their cause of action prescribed after ten years. On the other hand, if the supposed right of plaintiffs is based on accion reinvindicatoria, prescription would set in after 10 years from dispossession. In both cases, defendant asserts, the reckoning point is 1984 when defendant acquired TCT No. 321744 and possession of the land in question.

HELD:
On the issue of prescription of action, petitioner avers that the action of respondents is one to quiet title and/or accion reinvindicatoria, and that respondents asserted ownership over the property and sought the recovery of possession of the subject parcel of land. It insists that the very nature of the action presupposes that respondents had not been in actual and material possession of the property, and that it was petitioner which had been in possession of the property since 1984 when it acquired title thereon. The action of respondent prescribed in ten years from 1984 when petitioner allegedly dispossessed respondents, in accordance with Article 555(4) of the New Civil Code. The contention of petitioner has no merit. The nature of an action is determined by the material allegations of the complaint and the character of the relief sought by plaintiff, and the law in effect when the action was filed irrespective of whether he is entitled to all or only some of such relief.37 As gleaned from the averments of the complaint, the action of respondents was one for quieting of title under Rule 64 of the Rules of Court, in relation to Article 476 of the New Civil Code. The latter provision reads: Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein. A cloud is said to be a semblance of a title, either legal or equitable, or a cloud of an interest in land appearing in some legal form but which is, in fact, unfounded, or which it would be inequitable to enforce. 38 An action for quieting of title is imprescriptible until the claimant is ousted of his possession.39 The owner of a real property, as plaintiff, is entitled to the relief of quieting of title even if, at the time of the commencement of his action, he was not in actual possession of real property. After all, under Article 477 of the New Civil Code, the owner need not be in possession of the property. If on the face of TCT No. 321744 under the name of plaintiff, its invalidity does not appear but rests partly in pais, an action for quieting of title is proper.40 In the present case, respondents herein, as plaintiffs below, alleged in their complaint, that their father, Enrique Santos, was the owner of the property based on TCT No. 57272 issued on July 27, 1961; and that, after his death on February 9, 1970, they inherited the property; Enrique Santos, during his lifetime, and respondents, after the death of the former, had been in actual, continuous and peaceful possession of the property until 1994 when petitioner claimed ownership based on TCT No. 321744 issued on September 18, 1984 and barred respondents from fencing their property. Petitioners claim that it had been in actual or material possession of the property since 1984 when TCT No. 321744 was issued in its favor is belied by the allegations in the complaint that respondents had been in actual and material possession of the property since 1961 up to the time they filed their complaint on October 24, 2001. Admittedly, respondents interposed the alternative reinvindicatory action against petitioner. An accion reinvindicatoria does not necessarily presuppose that the actual and material possession of the property is on defendant and that plaintiff seeks the recovery of such possession from defendant. It bears stressing that anaccion reinvindicatoria is a remedy seeking the recovery of ownership and includes jus possidendi, jus utendi, andjus fruendi as well. It is an action whereby a party claims ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession.41 Thus, the owner of real property in actual and material possession thereof may file

an accion reinvindicatoria against another seeking ownership over a parcel of land including jus vindicandi, or the right to exclude defendants from the possession thereof. In this case, respondents filed an alternative reinvindicatory action claiming ownership over the property and the cancellation of TCT No. 321744 under the name of petitioner. In fine, they sought to enforce their jus utendi and jus vindicandi when petitioner claimed ownership and prevented them from fencing the property. Since respondents were in actual or physical possession of the property when they filed their complaint against petitioner on October 24, 2001, the prescriptive period for the reinvindicatory action had not even commenced to run, even if petitioner was able to secure TCT No. 321744 over the property in 1984. The reason for this is that x x x one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being, that his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.

ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP vs CA On November 29, 1984, private respondents as plaintiffs, filed a complaint for nullification of deed of donation, rescission of contract and reconveyance of real property with damages against petitioners Florencio and Soledad C. Ignao and the Roman Catholic Bishop of Imus, Cavite, together with the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, before the Regional Trial Court, Branch XX, Imus, Cavite and which was docketed as Civil Case No. 095-84 therein. 3 In their complaint, private respondents alleged that on August 23, 1930, the spouses Eusebio de Castro and Martina Rieta, now both deceased, executed a deed of donation in favor of therein defendant Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila covering a parcel of land (Lot No. 626, Cadastral Survey of Kawit), located at Kawit, Cavite, containing an area of 964 square meters, more or less. The deed of donation allegedly provides that the donee shall not dispose or sell the property within a period of one hundred (100) years from the execution of the deed of donation, otherwise a violation of such condition would render ipso facto null and void the deed of donation and the property would revert to the estate of the donors. It is further alleged that on or about June 30, 1980, and while still within the prohibitive period to dispose of the property, petitioner Roman Catholic Bishop of Imus, in whose administration all properties within the province of Cavite owned by the Archdiocese of Manila was allegedly transferred on April 26, 1962, executed a deed of absolute sale of the property subject of the donation in favor of petitioners Florencio and Soledad C. Ignao in consideration of the sum of P114,000. 00. As a consequence of the sale, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 115990 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Cavite on November 15, 1980 in the name of said petitioner spouses. On December 19, 1984, petitioner Roman Catholic Bishop of Imus also filed a motion to dismiss on three (3) grounds, the first two (2) grounds of which were identical to that of the motion to dismiss filed by the Ignao spouses, and the third ground being that the cause of action has prescribed. The trial court issued an order dated January 31, 1985, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the cause of action has prescribed. 5 On December 23, 1986, respondent Court of Appeals, holding that the action has not yet prescibed, rendered a decision in favor of private respondents.

ISSUE: Did the action for rescission of the donation prescribe? HELD: NO. Although it is true that under Article 764 of the Civil Code an action for the revocation of a donation must be brought within four (4) years from the non-compliance of the conditions of the donation, the same is not applicable in the case at bar. The deed of donation involved herein expressly provides for automatic reversion of the property donated in case of violation of the condition therein, hence a judicial declaration revoking the same is not necessary In support of its aforesaid position, respondent court relied on the rule that a judicial action for rescission of a contract is not necessary where the contract provides that it may be revoked and cancelled for violation of any of its terms and conditions.

The validity of such a stipulation in the deed of donation providing for the automatic reversion of the donated property to the donor upon non-compliance of the condition was upheld in the recent case of De Luna, et al. vs.Abrigo, et al. 13 It was held therein that said stipulation is in the nature of an agreement granting a party the right to rescind a contract unilaterally in case of breach, without need of going to court, and that, upon the happening of the resolutory condition or non-compliance with the conditions of the contract, the donation is automatically revoked without need of a judicial declaration to that effect. The rationale for the foregoing is that in contracts providing for automatic revocation, judicial intervention is necessary not for purposes of obtaining a judicial declaration rescinding a contract already deemed rescinded by virtue of an agreement providing for rescission even without judicial intervention, but in order to determine whether or not the rescission was proper. 14 When a deed of donation, as in this case, expressly provides for automatic revocation and reversion of the property donated, the rules on contract and the general rules on prescription should apply, and not Article 764 of the Civil Code. Since Article 1306 of said Code authorizes the parties to a contract to establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy, we are of the opinion that, at the very least, that stipulation of the parties Providing for automatic revocation of the deed of donation, without prior judicial action for that purpose, is valid subject to the determination of the propriety of the rescission sought. Where such propriety is sustained, the decision of the court will be merely declaratory of the revocation, but it is not in itself the revocatory act. On the foregoing ratiocinations, the Court of Appeals committed no error in holding that the cause of action of herein private respondents has not yet prescribed since an action to enforce a written contract prescribes in ten (10) years. 15 It is our view that Article 764 was intended to provide a judicial remedy in case of non-fulfillment or contravention of conditions specified in the deed of donation if and when the parties have not agreed on the automatic revocation of such donation upon the occurrence of the contingency contemplated therein. That is not the situation in the case at bar. Nonetheless, we find that although the action filed by private respondents may not be dismissed by reason of prescription, the same should be dismissed on the ground that private respondents have no cause of action against petitioners. The cause of action of private respondents is based on the alleged breach by petitioners of the resolutory condition in the deed of donation that the property donated should not be sold within a period of one hundred (100) years from the date of execution of the deed of donation. Said condition, in our opinion, constitutes an undue restriction on the rights arising from ownership of petitioners and is, therefore, contrary to public policy.

SELF- HELP Principle of Self-Help ( ARTICLE 429 of the Civil Code) 1. This authorizes the lawful possessor to USE FORCE, not only to prevent a threatened unlawful invasion or usurpation thereof. 2. Qualification to the rule that a person should not take the law in his own hands. It is lawful to repel force by force.

GERMAN MANAGEMENT vs CA
Spouses Cynthia Cuyegkeng Jose and Manuel Rene Jose, residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA are the owners of a parcel of land and they executed a special power of attorney authorizing petitioner German Management Services to develop their property covered by TCT No. 50023 into a residential subdivision. Consequently, petitioner on February 9,1983 obtained Development Permit No. 00424 from the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission for said development. Finding that part of the property was occupied by private respondents and twenty other persons, petitioner

advised the occupants to vacate the premises but the latter refused. Nevertheless, petitioner proceeded with the development of the subject property which included the portions occupied and cultivated by private respondents, destroying their crops and bulldozing stuff, etc. Respondents filed a case for forcible entry. On January 7,1985, the Municipal Trial Court dismissed private respondents' complaint for forcible entry. 2 On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch LXXI sustained the dismissal by the Municipal Trial Court. 3 Private respondents then filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals. On July 24,1986, said court gave due course to their petition and reversed the decisions of the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court. 4 HELD: In the case at bar, it is undisputed that at the time petitioner entered the property, private respondents were already in possession thereof . There is no evidence that the spouses Jose were ever in possession of the subject property. On the contrary, private respondents' peaceable possession was manifested by the fact that they even planted rice, corn and fruit bearing trees twelve to fifteen years prior to petitioner's act of destroying their crops. Although admittedly petitioner may validly claim ownership based on the muniments of title it presented, such evidence does not responsively address the issue of prior actual possession raised in a forcible entry case. It must be stated that regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror. 9 Thus, a party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his prior possession, if he has in his favor priority in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.10 Both the Municipal Trial Court and the Regional Trial Court have rationalized petitioner's drastic action of bulldozing and destroying the crops of private respondents on the basis of the doctrine of self-help enunciated in Article 429 of the New Civil Code. 11 Such justification is unavailing because the doctrine of self-help can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession which is absent in the case at bar. When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of property. This is clear from Article 536 of the Civil Code which states, "(I)n no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing."

ATO and MCIA vs GOPUCO

Respondent Apolonio Gopuco, Jr. was the owner of Cadastral Lot No. 72 consisting of 995 square meters located in the vicinity of the Lahug Airport in Cebu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 13061-T. The Lahug Airport had been turned over by the Unites States Army to the Republic of the Philippines sometime in 1947 through the Surplus Property Commission, which accepted it in behalf of the Philippine Government. In 1947, the Surplus Property Commission was succeeded by the Bureau of Aeronautics, which office was supplanted by the National Airport Corporation (NAC). The NAC was in turn dissolved and replaced with the Civil Aeronautics Administration (CAA).[3]

Sometime in 1949, the NAC informed the owners of the various lots surrounding the Lahug Airport, including the herein respondent, that the government was acquiring their lands for purposes of expansion. Some landowners were convinced to sell their properties on the assurance that they would be able to repurchase the same when these would no longer be used by the airport. Others, including Gopuco, refused to do so. Thus, on 16 April 1952, the CAA filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Cebu for the expropriation of Lot No. 72 and its neighboring realties, docketed as Civil Case No. R-1881. On 29 December 1961, the CFI promulgated a Decision, 1. 2. Declaring the expropriation of [the subject lots, including Lot No. 72] justified and in lawful exercise of the right of eminent domain; Declaring . a balance of P1,990 in favor of Apolonio Go Puco, Jr. with legal interest from November 16, 1947 until fully paid. ;

3. After the payment of the foregoing financial obligation to the landowners, directing the latter to deliver to the plaintiff the corresponding Transfer Certificates of Title to their respective lots; and upon the presentation of the said titles to the Register of Deeds, ordering the latter to cancel the same and to issue, in lieu thereof, new Transfer Certificates of Title in the name of the plaintiff. [4] No appeal was taken from the above Decision on Lot No. 72, and the judgment of condemnation became final and executory. Thereafter, on 23 May 1962, absolute title to Lot No. 72 was transferred to the Republic of the Philippines under TCT No. 25030. [5] Subsequently, when the Mactan International Airport commenced operations, the Lahug Airport was ordered closed by then President Corazon C. Aquino in a Memorandum of 29 November 1989.[6] Lot No. 72 was thus virtually abandoned.[7] On 16 March 1990, Gopuco wrote[8] the Bureau of Air Transportation, through the manager of the Lahug Airport, seeking the return of his lot and offering to return the money previously received by him as payment for the expropriation. This letter was ignored.[9] In the same year, Congress passed Republic Act No. 6958 creating the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority (MCIAA) and in part providing for the transfer of the assets of the Lahug Airport thereto. Consequently, on 08 May 1992, ownership of Lot No. 72 was transferred to MCIAA under TCT No. 120356.[10] On 06 August 1992, Apolonio Gopuco, Jr. filed an amended complaint [11] for recovery of ownership of Lot No. 72 against the Air Transportation Office[12] and the Province of Cebu with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu, Branch X, docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-11914. He maintained that by virtue of the closure of the Lahug Airport, the original purpose for which the property was expropriated had ceased or otherwise been abandoned, and title to the property had therefore reverted to him. On 20 May 1994, the trial court rendered a Decision[15] dismissing the complaint and directing the herein respondent to pay the MCIAA exemplary damages, litigation expenses and costs. Aggrieved by the holding of the trial court, Gopuco appealed to the Court of Appeals, which overturned the RTC decision, ordered the herein petitioners to reconvey Lot No. 72 to Gopuco upon payment of the reasonable price as determined by it, and deleted the award to the petitioners of exemplary damages, litigation expenses and costs.

HELD:
In this petition, the MCIAA reiterates that the Republic of the Philippines validly expropriated Lot No. 72 through the proceedings in Civil Case No. R-1881, the judgment of which had long become final and executory. It further asserts that said judgment vested absolute and unconditional title in the government, specifically on the petitioners, there having been no condition whatsoever that the property should revert to its owners in case the Lahug Airport should be abandoned. We resolve to grant the petition. In Fery, the Court asked and answered the same question confronting us now: When private land is expropriated for a particular public use, and that particular public use is abandoned, does the land so expropriated return to its former owner? [22] The answer to that question depends upon the character of the title acquired by the expropriator, whether it be the State, a province, a municipality, or a corporation which has the right to acquire property under the power of eminent domain. If, for example, land is expropriated for a particular purpose, with the condition that when that purpose is ended or abandoned the property shall return to its former owner, then, of course, when the purpose is terminated or abandoned the former owner reacquires the property so expropriated. If, for example, land is expropriated for a public street and the expropriation is granted upon condition that the city can only use it for a public street, then, of course, when the city abandons its use as a public street, it returns to the former owner, unless there is some statutory provision to the contrary. . . If upon the contrary, however, the decree of expropriation gives to the entity a fee simple title, then of course, the land becomes the absolute property of the expropriator, whether it be the State, a province, or municipality, and in that case the non-user does not have the effect of defeating the title acquired by the expropriation proceedings. (10 R.C.L., 240, sec. 202; 20 C.J. 1234, secs. 593-599 and numerous cases cited; Reichling vs. Covington Lumber Co., 57 Wash., 225; 135 Am. St. Rep., 976; McConihay vs. Wright, 121 U.S., 201.)

When land has been acquired for public use in fee simple, unconditionally, either by the exercise of eminent domain or by purchase, the former owner retains no rights in the land, and the public use may be abandoned or the land may be devoted to a different use, without any impairment of the estate or title acquired, or any reversion to the former owner . (Fort Wayne vs. Lake Shore, etc. Ry. Co., 132 Ind., 558; 18 L.R.A., 367.) (Emphases Supplied)[23] Did the judgment of expropriation in Civil Case No. R-1881 vest absolute and unconditional title in the government? We have already had occasion to rule on this matter inMactan-Cebu International Airport Authority v. Court of Appeals,[24] which is a related action for reconveyance of a parcel of land also subject of the expropriation proceedings in Civil Case No. R-1881. One of the landowners affected by the said proceeding was Virginia Chiongbian, to whom the CFI ordered the Republic of the Philippines to pay P34,415.00, with legal interest computed from the time the government began using her land. Like the herein respondent, she did not appeal from the CFIs judgment. Also like Gopuco, she eventually filed for the reconveyance of her property when the airport closed. Although she was upheld by both the RTC of Cebu and the Court of Appeals, on appeal we held that the terms of the judgment (in Civil Case No. R-1881) are clear and unequivocal and granted title to Lot No. 941 in fee simple to the Republic of the Philippines. There was no condition imposed to the effect that the lot would return to CHIONGBIAN or that CHIONGBIAN had a right to repurchase the same if the purpose for which it was expropriated is ended or abandoned or if the property was to be used other than as the Lahug Airport.[25] Moreover, we held that although other lot owners were able to successfully reacquire their lands by virtue of a compromise agreement, since CHIONGBIAN was not a party to any such agreement, she could not validly invoke the same.

G.R. No. 164195: APO Fruits Corp. et al vs Court of Appeals, Land Bank of the Philippines 06 February 2007, Civil Law Property Eminent Domain Determination of Just Compensation

AFC and Hijo Plantation Inc. were owners of 5 parcels of land (1338.60 has.) located in San Isidro, Tagum, Davao. On 12 October 1995, the two voluntarily offered to sell the properties to the DAR. DAR offered P86.9M for AFCs land and P164.40 for HPIs land. AFC, HPI and DAR cannot agree on a price hence the Complaint for Determination of Just Compensation was filed before the DAR Adjudication Board on 14 February 1997. The DARAB failed to render a decision on the valuation of the land for three years. But nevertheless, the government deposited P26M into AFCs account and P45M into HPIs account as down payment in 1996. The DAR also caused the titling of the land in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Later, titles were given to farmers under the CARP. Due to DARABs failure to adjudicate, AFC and HPI filed a complaint for determination of just compensation before the RTC of Davao which rendered a decision in favor of AFC and HPI. The RTC ruled, based on the reports it gathered from assessors, that the purchase price should be higher than what was offered by DAR; that the purchase price should be at P103.33/ sq. m; that DAR is to pay AFC and HPI a total of P1.38B. DAR appealed to the CA, the CA reversed the RTC. ISSUE: Whether or not there was just compensation. HELD: No. AFCs and HPIs land were taken in 1996 without just compensation. DARAB, an agency of the DAR which was commissioned by law to determine just compensation, sat on the cases for three years, which was the reason that AFC and HPI filed the cases before the RTC. The RTCs finding is to be sustained as it based its ruling on evidence. DAR was given chance to support its ruling on why the purchase price should be at a lower amount but DAR failed to present such evidence. To allow the taking of landowners properties, and to leave them empty -handed while government withholds compensation is undoubtedly oppressive. The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" inasmuch as the property owner is being made to suffer the consequences of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.

Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator. It has been repeatedly stressed by this Court that the measure is not the takers gain but the owners loss . The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, and ample. The power of expropriation is by no means absolute (as indeed no power is absolute). The limitation is found in the constitutional injunction that "private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation" and in the abundant jurisprudence that has evolved from the interpretation of this principle. Basically, the requirements for a proper exercise of the power are: (1) public use and (2) just compensation. Section 57 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) provides: SEC. 57. Special Jurisdiction. The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, which is particularly relevant, providing as it does the guideposts for the determination of just compensation, reads, as follows: Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-workers and by the Government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation. Note should be taken that in said Appraisal Report, permanent improvements on AFCs and HPIs lands have been introduced and found existing, e.g., all weather-road network, airstrip, pier, irrigation system, packing houses, among others, wherein substantial amount of capital funding have been invested in putting them up. The agricultural properties of AFC and HPI are just a stones throw from the residential and/or indust rial sections of Tagum City, a fact DAR should never ignore. The market value of the property (plus the consequential damages less consequential benefits) is determined by such factors as the value of like properties, its actual or potential use, its size, shape and locatio