Sie sind auf Seite 1von 8


remember the traditional attributes of ownership generally what are

the rights of an owner,
-the right to use,
-right to the fruits,
-the right of use of attendee (?) - that should never be interepreted to
mean the right to abuse -- there is no such thing.
>"use of attendee" means the right to consume the thing by its use.
-right to dispose
-right to vindicate/recover
you also remember the limitations on the rights of ownership.
these are limitations which may come either from the state in the
exercise of its inherent powers of the government - police power,
eminent domain, [and] taxation.
these may be limitations imposed by provisions of law like the
provisions of the civil code dealing with easements, legal easements,
these may be limitations by the person transmitting the property if i am
donating a property to you, i may impose in the deed of donation
certain limitations on your use of the property e.g. in connection with
the rights of ownership remember the doctrine of self-help, under
"an owner or lawful possessor is allowed by law the use of such force
as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful deprivation or physical invasion or usurpation of
his property."
only reasonable force should be used.
the doctrine can be invoked only at the time when there is an actual or
threatened unlawful, physical deprivation not thereafter.
if the property has already been taken by the 3rd person, you are not
allowed to use force to get it back you must invoke the aid of judicial
one of the best examples in connection with the doctrine of self-help
would be the case of GERMAN MGMT:
here was a landowner, he wanted to develop his property so he
executed a power of attorney in favor of GERMAN MGMT to develop
that property, so the latter went to the property and discovered that
certain individuals are occupying the property they are cultivating the
property so GERMAN MGMT used physical force to oust the
occupants who are cultivating portions of that property. later on they
tried to invoke the doctrine of self-help. Court said that's not proper
because it is not disputed that when they tried to enter the property,
those occupants were already there. they have been cultivating the
land for some time. a party in peacable quiet possession shall not be
turned out by strong hand, violence, or terror, according to the court.
the doctrine of self-help can only be exercised or invoked at the time of
actual or threaten dispossession.
when possession has already been lost, the owner should resort to
judicial process for the recovery of his property, he should not take the
law into his own hands.
the owner property has the right to enclose his property with fence,
wall, or any other means
there is a case, CUSTODIO v. CA
there was a property owned by a person, there was no fence around
his property so some of his neighbors were passing through his land
to reach the public road, later on the property owner decided to
enclose his property with a fence, consequently, his neighbors could
no longer pass through his land. they have to take a roundabout route
to use the public street. they fled a complaint for damages. Court said,
this was a case of "nabnum absque injuriam".
the property owner was simply exercising a right, explicitly granted to
him by law, the right to enclose his property with a fence, in the
meantime, great inconvenience was caused to his neighbors, who
now has to take a longer route to reach the street, but they obviously
do not have the legal right to claim damages.
please take note, when the case was decided there was no easement,
it was only after the case was decided that the Court said an
easement should be created.
as long as there is no easement yet, you have the perfect right to
enclose your property with a fence, that is very clear in art.430.
a property owner has the right to use his proeprty, but the right to use
one's property must be exercised in such a way as not to injure others.
(latin term shiy)
in one case, there were 2 adjoining properties, the owner of the higher
property built their own artifcial bodies of water, artifcial lake,
waterpots, etc. unfortunately, during inclement or bad weather, some
of this constructions were washed away and they fell into the lower
adjoining estate.the lower court dismissed, the SC said the case
should be reinstated, applying art.431, while you have the right to use
your property you should use it in such a way not to injure others,
obviously, the Court considered the constructions of these artifcial
bodies of water, on the higher estate, something that causes damage
or prejudice to the adjoining estate, on bad weather.
take note of art.432. sometimes referred to as the emergency
if you are the owner of a thing, the law says that you have no right to
prohibit the interference of another person with your property as long
as the interference is necessary to prevent an imminent danger, and
as long as the threatened damage or injury is much greater than the
damage that may arise to you from the interference with your property.
in this connection, the view has been advance,
negligence on the part of the person interfering does not preclude
resort to the rule under art.432. if for example, while i was using my
car, another vehicle owned and driven by mr.x, was driven recklessly
in the street and slammed into a meralco post and started to cause
fre, under this article, mr. x, although he's negligent driving his car,
has the right to interfere with my property, if ever i have a fre
extinguisher, i do not have the right to prohibit him the right to use that
thing, his negligence does not preclude him from invoking the rule
under art.432. obviously, any possible damage that might be cause to
me through the use of fre extinguisher is much less than the damage
that may result into the complete burning of his car, so in that case, i
submit the requirements of art.432 be clearly met.
read art.433 & 434 actual possession under claim of ownership raises
a disputable presumption of ownership. the true owner must resort to
judicial process, if he wants to recover his property and then the
requirement to for an action to recover the property:
-the property must be identifed
- plaintif must rely in the strength of his own evidence and not on the
weakness of the defendant's claim which is accord with the rule, "one
who alleges has the burden to prove"
art.435. is simply a reinstatement of the basic principle in
constitutional law, one of the inherent power of the state, is the power
of eminent domain, property may be taken for public use as long as
there is payment of just compensation.
art.436. is a reinstatement on the rule of police power, the moment the
state, the governement exercises its police power, then, property rights
must necessarily yield.
if property is taken or damaged, or destroyed as a consequence of the
exercise of police power, there is no right to any indemnity, only the
possible indemnity is the feeling of satisfacation that somehow you
contributed in the common good.
art.437. the owner of property is the owner, not only of its surface, but
also of everything under it.
if you are the owner of a parcel of land, you are the owner not only of
the surface, but everything under it. of course, that does not
necessarily mean that that provision should be taken in its literal sense
if there are for example, minerals, under your land, that does not
belong to you. k?
that belongs to our kabalikat sa kaunlaran, the State - regalian
the question is up to what depth, will you be considered the owner of
what is beneath your land?
does that extend into the middle of the earth?
the rule of thumb is extends only to such depth as you can still make
use of it, and a the case decided by the Sc.
it is quite deep from the point of view of the SC,
here, was a property owner, unknown to him, the NPC has
constructed a tunnel, passing beneath his land, the NPC was drawing
water from the Agus river. so the property owner was not aware that
there was a tunnel underneath his land, constructed by the NPC, it
was only when he........
remember no.1. what is considered as treasure? the law defnes that is any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry or
other precious objects. the lawful ownership of which does not appear.
in other words, hindi alam sino may ari.
if you see your neighbor, one midnight, digging a hole on a parcel of
land near your house and hiding a jar full of jewelries, that is not
hidden treasure.
alam mo kung sino yung nagbaon.
the lawful ownership must not appear.
the law enumerates money, jewelry, or other precious objects
applying the ejusdem generis rule, that should be limited to things of
similar nature, therefore again, this does not include mineral deposits,
or oil.
hindi pwedeng hidden treasure yan, pagaari yan ng ating kabalikat sa
kaunlaran - the State
what is the rule with respect to hidden treasure?
it belong to the owner of the land, building, or other property in which it
is found
if it is found, by another person, other than the owner, and by chance,
you have the 50-50 rule, half to the owner, half to the fnder.
however, if the fnder is a trespasser, he is not entitled to any share.
the law requires that the fnding should be by chance, in other words,
this would usually mean, that the fnding was not intended, totally
unexpected. there was no looking for the treasure.
supposing that a man has been given the usufruct of a parcel of land
by his friend and so he stayed there and one day there was an old
man who gave him an old map that there was a part of that property
that there was a treasure buried by pirates a long time ago, and so this
usufructuary, believing what the old man has told to him, digs at the
precide spot indicated in that old map, and true enough, he found
hidden treasure. will he be entitled? is the fnding by chance?
he will not fall under "by chance" because he intentionally looked for
the treasure.
"By chance" - a stroke of good fortune
a lot of people has been engaged all over the philippines, for the
yamashita treasure, even books has been written for the search for
this treasure, people have been digging and spent millions to fnance
this excavation, but lot of them was unable to locate it at all.
even if you look for treasure, there is no guarantee that you'll be able
to fnd one.
if you look for treasure, the fnding can be considered by a a stroke of
good fortune, and be considered as a fnding by chance.
if the fnder, was precisely employed by the owner of the land to look
for treasure there, the fnder, will not be entitled to any share under
art.438, his remuneration will depend on the contract with the
landowner, on how the treasure will be shared, for the compensation
of the work to be undertaken.