PROPERTY NOTES

Donation:
See Republic Act No. 7170 (Amended by 7885)
See PD 957
Reconstitution of Land Titles:
See Republic Act 6732

3.
4.
5.

Urban Lands:
See Republic Act 7279 (Sec 3-f-u) (Sec 7)
Foreign Investors Private lands:
See Republic Act 7652
Right of Way, etc:
See Republic Act 8974
NOTES:
Article 415
Numbers 1 and 2 may be referred to as immovable property by
their very nature;
Number 3 is immovable property by incorporation;
Numbers 4 to 9 may be called as immovable property by
destination;
Number 10 may be termed immovable property by analogy.

6.

taken. As where wine, bread, or oil is made up of anothers

grapes or olives.
That which gives the owner of the land new land formed by
gradual deposit. (accretion, alluvion)
That which gives the owner of a thing the property in what is
added to it by way of adorning or completing it.
That which gives islands formed in a stream to the owner of the
adjacent lands on either side.
That which gives a person the property in things added to his
own so that they cannot be separated without damage.

Accession the right to all which ones own property produces, whether
that property be movable or immovable , and the right to that which is
united to it by accessory, either naturally or artificially.
- Every building is an accession to the ground upon which it stands; and
the owner of the ground, if liable at all, is only liable to the owner of the
materials for the value of them. And the same rule holds where trees,
vines, vegetables, or fruits are planted or sown in the ground of another.
- If the materials of one person are united by labor to the materials of
another, so as to form a single article, the property in the joint product is, in
the absence of any agreement, in the owner of the principal part of the
materials by accession

Property of public dominion are outside the commerce of men; they are
not subject to attachment; they cannot be appropriated and alienated;

- The tree belongs to the owner of the land on which the root is, and its
fruit is to the owner of the tree (although limbs overhang a neighbors land)

Public land is so much of the national domain under the legislative power
of the Congress as has been subjected to private right or devoted to public
use. It is held equivalent to public domain and does not, by any means,
include all lands of Government ownership, but only so much of said lands
thrown open to private appropriation and settlement by homestead and
other like general terms

- Where, by agreement, an article is manufactured for another, the

property in the article, while making and when finished, vests in him who
furnished the whole or the principal part of the materials; and the maker, if
he did not furnish the same, has simply a lien upon the article for his pay.

Patrimonial property of the state is one owned by the state as if it were

owned by an individual so that the state has, over such property, the same
rights and powers subject to certain rules, as that of an individual over his
own property.

- The increase of an animal, as a general thing, belongs to the owner of

the dam or mother; but if it be lent to another, the person who thus
becomes the temporary proprietor will be entitled to its increase [see
Putnam v. Wyley, 5 Am. Dec. 345; see also Allen v. Delano, 92 Am. Dec.
573; 17 L.R.A. 81]
Read: Baker v. Neisch (45 N.W. 685); Wooden Ware Co. v. U.S. (27 L. Ed.
230); Curtis v. Groat (5 Am. Dec. 204); Snyder v. Vaux (21 Am. Dec. 466);
Goddard v. Windell, (52 N.W. 1124)

Patrimonial property of the State is within the commerce of men. It may be

acquired by prescription. Only property of public domain may not be
appropriated or alienated and/or acquired by prescription. The patrimonial
property of the State may be termed as property privately owned by the
State.

Real Rights rights of a person which are enforceable against all or the
whole world;

Property of public dominion is converted into patrimonial property of the

State by legislative enactment or declaration; it is up to the courts to
determine whether there was proper conversion.

Personal Rights rights of a person enforceable against definite passive

subjects for the fulfillment of prestations which may be obligations to give,
to do or not to do.

Importance of classifying real/personal properties:

In criminal law, see Articles 293, 308, 312 of the Revised Penal
Code
Venue of legal actions
Prescription real property involves longer period
Contracts certain requirements on real property or real rights
may not be present in a situation affecting personal property.

The object of real right is a specific, corporal thing while the object of
personal right consists in the act or prestation of a particular obligor or
debtor. Real right is enforceable against all while personal right is
enforceable against definite person or persons. Real right is more or less
permanent while personal right is merely temporary. The destruction of the
object in real right extinguishes the right while the personal right may
survive the things destruction because the object of personal right is
prestation.

Accession a manner of acquiring the property of a thing which becomes

united with that which a person already possesses. The doctrine of
property arising from accession is grounded on the rights of the
occupancy. It is said to be of six kinds in the Roman law:
1. That which assigns to the owner of a thing its products, as the
fruits of trees and the spring of animals.
2. That which makes a man the owner of a thing which is made of
anothers property, upon payment of the value of the material

The traditional rights included in ownership are the right to use; the right
to enjoy; the right to dispose; the right to abuse; the right to recover; the
right to possess.

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

Limitations on ownershipfixed by the Constitution, by statute, or by

voluntary acts like limitations fixed in contracts and wills.
Rights incident to ownership: Arts. 428, 429, 430, 431, 435, 436, 437, 438,
440, 441, 476-481.

1
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
A judgment for ownership does not necessarily include possession (Jabor
v. Alo, L-5094, Aug 7 1952)
Actions for recovery of property:
Action to eject (Rule 70) (Art. 539) , Accion publiciana, Accion
reivindicatoria, Replevin, Etc.
While accession discreta refers to a persons right (as owner) over the
fruits produced by his property, this rule is not absolute. There are certain
cases where the fruits of the property belong not to the owner. Thus, a
possessor of a property in good faith may claim the fruits of such property
(see Art. 544). A usufructuary is entitled to the fruits of the property held in
usufruct (see Art. 566). So also, in antichresis, the creditor may in the
proper case, appropriate the fruits of the security.
Accession Continua is a form of accession where the property of one
person is incorporated in that of another. The basic principles or
characteristics that underlie accession continua are the following:
1. Accessory follows the principal;
2. The nature of the incorporation is in such a way that separation
would injure or destroy either or both of the properties
incorporated;
3. No punitive liability shall be suffered by the person who acts in
good faith;
4. The person who acts in bad faith is punished by, among others,
requiring him to pay damages.
Read: Miranda v. Fadullon (51 O.G. 5778); Tufexis v. Chunaco (CA, 36
O.G. 2455); Atkins Kroll & Co. v. Domingo (46 Phil 362); San Diego v.
Montesa (L-177985, Sept 29 1962); Mendoza v. De Guzman (52 Phil
164); Ignacio v. Hilario (43 O.G. 140); Bernardo v. Bataclan (66 Phil 598);
Filipinas College Inc v. Timbang (L-12812, Sept 20 1959); Grana v. CA (L12486, Aug 31 1960); Gongon v. Tiango (CA, 36 O.G. 822); Montinola v.
Bantug (71 Phil 449); Alburo v. Villanueva (7 Phil 277); De Guzman v.
Rivera (4 Phil 60); Tayag v. Yuseco (L-14043, Apr 16 1959); Quemel v.
Olais (L-11084, Apr 29 1961)
Article 448 is not applicable in the following instances:
in cases of co-ownership
in cases of usufruct
in cases of lease already/previously agreed upon
in case a person who owns a house and lot sells only the lot but
not the house
in relations between private persons and a sovereign belligerent
constructions made exclusively for prosecuting a war
when key parties concerned agree on terms and conditions not
contemplated by Art. 448, the requirements of the Article not
being mandatory.

If by the labor of one man, the property has been converted into a thing of
different species, so that its identity is destroyed, the original owner can
only recover the value of the property in its unconverted state, and the
article itself will belong to the person who wrought the conversion, if he
wrought it believing the material to be his own. But if there be a mere
change of form or value, which does not destroy the identity of the
materials, the original owner may still reclaim them or recover their value
as thus improved. So, if the change had been wrought by a willful
trespasses, or by one who knew that the materials were not his own; in
such case, however radical the change may have been, the owner may
reclaim them, or recover their value in their new shape.
Every building is an accessory to the soil, and is therefore real estate; it
belongs to the owner of the soil; but a building placed on anothers land by
his permission is the personal estate of the builder.
Adjunction the attachment or union permanently of a thing belonging to
one person to that belonging to another. This union may be caused by
inclusion, as if one mans diamond be set in anothers right; by soldering,
as if ones guard be soldered on anothers sword; by sewing, as by

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

employing the silk of one to make the coat of another; by construction, as

by building on anothers land; by writing, as when one writes on anothers
parchment; or by painting, as when one paints a picture on anothers
canvas.
In these cases, as a general rule, the accessory follows the
principal; hence, those things which are attached to the things of
another become the property of the latter. The only exception
which the Civilists made was in the case of a picture, which
although an accession, drew to itself the canvas, on account of
the importance which was attached to it.
Avulsion the removal of a considerable quantity of soil from the land of
one man and its deposit upon or annexation to the land of another,
suddenly and by the perceptible action of water. [In such case, the
property belongs to the first owner.]

The owner acquires ownership over an accretion received by his land from
the effects of the waters, by virtue of the fact of addition and he need not
file an action to possess such addition.
Lands added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits are owner
by the state. The said lands, until a formal declaration on the part of the
government to the effect that they are no longer needed for coast service,
for public use or for special industries, continue to be part of public
domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership.
Accretion takes place even if the adjoining land is not titled under the
Torrens System.
Land acquired by accretion will not become automatically registered under
the Torrens System if such accretion took place on a registered land.
Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and registration under the
Torrens System of that ownership is quite another.
Read: Guison v. City of Manila (40 O.G. 3835); Pascual v. Angeles (13
Phil 441); Zapata v. Director of Lands (L-17646, Oct 30 1962); Roxas v,
Tuazon (9 Phil 408); Ignacio v. Director of Lands (L-11958, May 30 1960);
Payatas Estate v. Tuazon (53 Phil 55); Jinzon v. Rama (CA, 2 O.G. 307),
Grande v. CA (L-17652, June 30 1962); Cortes v. City of Manila (10 Phil
567); Government v. Colegio de San Jose (53 Phil 423); Hodges v. Garcia
(L-12730, Aug 22 1960); Caas v, Tuazon, et.al. (5 Phil 688); Villanueva v.
Claustro (23 Phil 54); Bautista v. Director of Lands (GR No. 8433-R, Nov
29, 1955)

Requisites of Co-ownership:
Plurality of subjects
Unity of object (absence of division)
Proportionate shares of such subjects
How created:
By Contracts
By Law
By Will
By Chance (as confusion or commixtion)
Kinds:
-

Ordinary (where right of partition exists)

Compulsory (no right of partition exists)
Legal (created by law)
Contractual (created by contract)
Universal (over universal things as among co-heirs in
inheritance)
Singular or particular (over a particular or specific things)
Incidental (if it exists independent of the will of the parties)

Characteristics:

2
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
-

The co-owners share in the property, although definite in

amount or size, is not physically and actually identified, it being
merely an ideal;
A co-owners share is absolutely owned by him and he may
dispose of it as he pleases
In regard to the use, enjoyment and preservation of the property,
the co-owners observe mutual respect
-

Distinguished from Ordinary Partnership:

Co-ownership is created not only by agreement of the parties
but also by law and other means while partnership is created
only by agreement of the parties;
The purpose of partnership is primarily for profit while the
purpose of co-ownership is principally common enjoyment of the
property owned in common
A co-owner may ordinarily sell to a third person his interest in
the co-ownership without the consent of the other co-owners
while a partner may not tell sell his interest in the partnership
without the consent of his co-partners.
Co-ownership is not a juridical person while a partnership has its
own juridical personality;
Death of a co-owner does not dissolve the co-ownership while
the death of a partner dissolves the partnership.
Distinguished from Joint Tenancy:
Disability in joint tenancy inures to the benefit of the others;
which is not true in co-ownership
In case of death of a joint tenant, the survivor is subrogated to
the rights of the decedent, which is not true in co-ownership
where the death of a co-owner transfers his share to the heirs.
A joint tenant may transfer or dispose of his share only with the
consent of the others; but no such consent is required in coownership.

Waters:
-

Cases when co-owned property cannot be partitioned:

in conjugal partnership (so long as it validly exists)
in the case of a party wall
READ:
-

Tagarco v. Garcia (61 Phil 5)

Tarnate v. Tarnate (46 OG 4397)
Lavadia v. Cosme (73 Phil 196)
Pardell v. Bartolome (23 Phil 450)
Hibbard v. Estate of Mc Elroy (25 Phil 164)
Alcala v. Pabalan (19 Phil 520)
Ramirez v. Bautista (14 Phil 528)
Lopez v. Ilustre (5 Phil 567)
Cadag v. Trinanes, CA (40 OG Supp 4, 324)
Santos v. BPI (58 Phil 784)

Laws Governing Wates

Philippine Constitution
Spanish Law of Waters (August 3, 1866)
Irrigation Law (Act 2152, as amended)
Water Paver Act (Act 4062)
Civil Code of the Philippines
Water Code
Water Course:
The flow or movement of the water in rivers, creeks and other
streams
A stream of water flowing in a definite channel having a bed and
sides or banks and discharging itself into some other stream or
body of water
The essential characteristic of a water-course are a channel
consisting of a well-defined bed and banks, and a current of
water
The bed, which is a definite and commonly a permanent
channel, is the characteristic which distinguishes the water of a

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

Dams:
-

river from mere surface drainage flowing without definite course

or certain limits, and from water percolating through the strata of
the earth. The banks of a water-course are the elevations which
confine the waters to their natural channel when they rise. The
water of a water-course must have a current. The flow of the
water must usually be in one direction, and by a regular channel
having both a source and a mouth.
The controlling distinction between a water-course and a pond
or lake is that in the former case, the water has a natural motion
or a current, while in the latter water is, in its natural state,
substantially at rest. And this is so independently of the size of
the one or of the other.
In the absence of a permanent source of supply, there can be no
water-course in its legal sense.
Water is a movable, wandering thing, and must of necessity
continue to be common by the law of nature; no one has any
property in the water itself, except in that particular portion which
might have abstracted from the stream and of which he had the
possession; flowing water is publici juris, not in the sense that it
is bonum vacans, to which the first occupant may acquire an
exclusive right, but that it is public and common in this sense
only, that none can have any property in the water itself, except
in the particular portion which he may choose to abstract from
the stream and take into his possession, and that during the
time of his possession only, but each proprietor of the adjacent
land has the right to the usufruct of the stream which flows
through it. [see US v. Inu Co., 156 Fed 123]
By the modern rule, the right of the riparian owner in the water is
usufructuray, and consists not so much in the fluid itself as in its
uses. The law does not recognize a riparian property right in the
corpus of the water; the riparian proprietor does not run the
water. He has the right only to enjoy the advantage of a
responsible use of the stream as it flows through the land,
subject to a like right belonging to all other riparian properties.
Water when reduced to possession is property, and it may be
bought and sold and have a market value; but it must be in
actual possession, subject to control and management.
The most essential element of an appropriation of water is
application to a beneficial purpose.
The right of a riparian proprietor or a non-navigable stream to
the use of its ordinary flow of water, undiminished by an
unreasonable use by an upper proprietor, is not an easement or
appurtenance, but is inseperably annexed to the soil and is part
and parcel of the land itself.
One who diverts water from a flowing stream for a beneficial
purpose may have the use of it so long as he conforms to the
law regulating such matters.
Riparian owners may not divert or sell running water for general
use, and are limited in their own use of it to ordinary purposes
incident to the enjoyment of the riparian land, and in exceptional
cases to extraordinary uses upon the land itself, if such use
does not unreasonably decrease the quantity of the water or
impair its quality.
A riparian owner may construct a dam; it is not per se an
improper structure as to lower owners; but a dam may not be
construed of such a height that it will back the water upon the
lands of others.
As against the rights of the upper proprietor, the owner of the
servient estate cannot obstruct surface water when it has found
its way to and is running in a natural drainage channel or
depression.
The owner of land cannot collect the water in an artificial
channel or volume and pour it upon the land of another to his
injury; he cannot interfere with the flow of surface water in a
natural channel; where water has been accustomed to gather
and flow along in a well-defined channel where by frequent

3
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
running it has worn or cut into the soil, it may not be obstructed
to the injury of the dominant tenant.
Rivers;
Natural streams of water flowing betwixt banks or walls in a bed
of considerable depth and width, being so called whether their
currents set always one way or flow and reflow with the tide.
At common law, the bed or soil of all rivers subject to the ebb
and flow of the tide, to the extent of such ebb and flow, belongs
to the crown (State); the ownership of the crown extends to the
high-water mark.
See Ensminger v. People (95 Am Dec 495)
Public rivers are divided into navigable and non-navigable; the
distinction being that the former flow and reflow with the tide,
while the latter do not.
The State has the right to improve all navigable rivers, and to
regulate them by lawful enactment for the public good; any
obstruction of them without legislative authority is a nuisance,
and any persons having occasion to use the river may abate the
same, or if injured thereby, may receive his damages from its
author.
Shore:
-

Lake:
-

Island:
-

Land on the side of the sea, a lake or a river. Strictly speaking,

when the water does not ebb and flow in a river, there is no
shore.
On a navigable river, it is the ground lying between ordinary high
and low water mark. Shore and shore line, when used in rules
for the division of accretions upon rivers, mean the margin of the
river or the waters edge.
A body of water surrounded by land, or not forming part of the
ocean, and occupying a depression below the ordinary drainage
level of the region.
No riparian owner could acquire title to the bed of any lake
however small.
Read: Hardin v Jordan (35 L.Ed 428), Stuart v. Greanyea (117
NW 655), State v. Narrows Island Club (5 SE 411), Olson v.
Huntamer (61 NW 479)
When new islands arise in the open sea, they belong to the first
occupant; but when they are newly formed so near the shore as
to be within the boundary of some state, they belong to that
state.
Island which arise in rivers when in the middle of the stream
belong in equal parts to the riparian proprietors; when they arise
mostly on one side, they belong to the riparian owners up to the
middle of the stream.
Read: Cooley v. Golden (23 SW 100), Glassell v Hansen (67
Pac 964)

Navigable Waters:
Those waters which afford a channel for useful commerce.
The test by which the character of a stream as public or private
is determined, is its navigability in fact.
The term navigable, at common law, is only applied to the sea,
to arms of the sea, and to rivers which flow and reflow with the
tide, in other words, to tide-waters, the bed or soil of which is the
property of the crown (State); all other waters are, in this sense,
unnavigable, and are, prima facie, strictly private property. [see
Com v. Charleston, 11 Am Dec 161]
There can be no prescription right to maintain or continue an
obstruction to the navigation of a public stream.
Every structure in the water of a navigable river is subordinate to
the right of the navigation and must be removed, even if the
owner sustains a loss thereby.
All rivers which are found of sufficient capacity to float the
products of the mines, the forests, or the tillage of the country
through which they flow, to market, or which are capable of use

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

for the floating of vessels, boats, rafts or logs, are subject to the
free and unobstructed navigation of the public, independent of
usage or of legislation.

Fee Simple it is the largest possible estate which a man can have, being
an absolute estate. It is where lands are given to a man and to his heirs
absolutely, without and end or limitation put to his estate.
Fee Tail an inheritable estate which can descend to certain classes of
heirs only. It is necessary that they should be heirs of the body of the
ancestor, and these are proper words of limitation. An estate-tail may be
general (limited to the heirs of the body merely) or special (limited to a
special class of such heirs, e.g. heirs male or heirs female, or those
begotten of a certain wife named.)

POSSESSION
Elements:
The thing or corpus
Intention to possess the property (animus possidendi)
Forms:
-

Possession based on absolute ownership or valid title

Possession based on just title (good faith)
Possession not in the concept of owner but based on a juridical
title (lessee)
Possession without any right (thief)

Characteristics:
Possession is characterized by a relation of power or control,
more or less effective, by a person over a thing without resolving
the question of ownership.
Acquisition:
By the material occupation of a thing
By the exercise of a right
By the fact that it is subject to the action of our will
By proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring
property
Miscellaneous:
It is the detention or enjoyment of a thing which a man holds or
exercises by himself, or by another who keeps or exercises it in
his name
It expresses the closest relation that can exist between a
corporeal thing and the person who possesses it, implying an
actual, physical contact, as b sitting or standing upon a thing.
Actual possession exists where the thing is in the immediate
occupancy of the party
Constructive possession is that which exists in contemplation of
law, without actual personal occupation.
Possession is the occupation of anything with the intention of
exercising the rights of ownership with respect to it. Natural
possession implies more physical contact with a thing, apart
from all attempted exercise of rights with respect to it. The lower
degree of control was known to the later civilists as Detention.
In order to complete a possession, two things are required: that
there be an occupancy, apprehension, or taking; that the taking
be with an intent to possess; hence, persons who have no legal
wills, as children and idiots, cannot possess or acquire
possession. But an infant of sufficient understanding ma lawfully
acquire the possession of a thing.
An owner in possession is protected against disturbance; the
rights of an owner out of possession are obscure and weak; it is
so with regard to chattels.
For many purposes, the true owner of goods is the person, and
the only person, entitled to immediate possession.

4
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
-

Legal possession does not necessarily coincide either with

actual physical control or with the right to possess, and it need
not have a rightful origin.
Possession is to be protected because a man by taking
possession of an object has brought it within the sphere of his
will; he has extended his personality into or over that object.
Rights of ownership are substantially the same as those incident
to possession The owner is allowed to exclude all and is
accountable to no one; the possessor is allowed to exclude all
but one and is accountable to no one but him.
Failure to take possession is sometimes considered a badge of
fraud, in the transfer of personal property.
Possession of real property will be presumed to accompany
ownership until the contrary is proved; and constructive
possession consequent upon legal ownership is sufficient as
against mere trespassers.
Long continued possession and use of real property creates a
presumption of lawful origin; and this presumption need not rest
upon belief that a conveyance was in point of fact executed.
When it is not based on legal right, but secured by violence and
maintained with force and arms, possession cannot furnish the
basis of a right.
A very high degree of legal protection is accorded to one lawfully
in possession and, whether its origin is rightful or not, a stranger
cannot be heard in opposition to it. The true owner may be
heard, but an intruder never.
The true limits of the bare possessors right to recover damages
for interference with his possession are:
o
If the defendant cannot show who the true owner is,
the bare possessor may recover the same measure of
damages as if he were the true owner, whether he is
liable over to the owner or not.
o
Where the true owner is shown, the bare possessor
cannot recover the value of the goods taken or the
diminution in their value, or for injury, unless he is
liable over to the owner.
o
Whether the true owner be shown or not, the
possessor may recover damages for the taking or
trespass, nominal or substantial, as the taking, is or is
not attended with aggravation.

Trespass:
Any unauthorized entry upon the realty of another to the
damage thereof
Where the rightful owner of land, entitled to the immediate
possession, attempts to recover it, he is not liable in a civil
action of trespass for assault upon a trespasser, if he used no
more force than was necessary for the expulsion of the intruder.
Usurpation:
The unlawful assumption of the use of property which belongs to
another; an interruption or the disturbing of a man in his right
and possession.
Common Law Principles:
Possession in fact is such actual exclusive control as the nature
of the thing admits;
Possession in law, the right which is protected by possessory
remedies, generally follows possession in fact, but does not
necessarily cease when possession in fact ceases.
Possession in law continues until determined in some way which
the law definitely recognizes, beyond the mere absence or
failure of a continuing intent to possess.
Possession in law is a commencement of title; in other words,
the possessor can deal with the thing as an owner against all
persons not having a better title and this protection extends to
person deriving title from him in good faith.

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

When possession in fact is so contested that no one can be said

to have actual effective control, possession in law follows the
better title.

In Louisiana:
CIVIL possession exists when a person ceases to reside in a
house or on the land which he occupied, or to detain the
movable which he possessed, but without intending to abandon
the possession. It is the detention of a thing by virtue of a just
title and under the conviction of possessing as owner.
NATURAL possession is that by which a man detains a thing
corporeal, as, by occupying a house, cultivating ground, or
retaining a movable in his possession.
Natural possession is also defined to be the corporeal detention
of a thing which we possess as belong to us, without any title to
that possession, or with a title which is void.
Possession applies properly only to corporeal things, movables
and immovables. The possession of incorporeal rights, such as
servitudes, and other rights of that nature, is only a quasipossession, and is exercised by species of possession of which
these rights are susceptible.
Possession may be enjoyed by the proprietor of the thing or by
another for him
To acquire possession of a property, two things are requisite: the
intention of possessing as owner; and the corporeal possession
of the thing.
Possession is lost with or without the consent of the possessor.
It is lost with his consent when he transfers the possession to
another with the intention to divest himself of it; when he does
some act which manifests his intention of abandoning
possession.
A possessor of an estate loses the possession against his
consent when another expels him from it, whether by force in
driving him away, or by usurping possession during his absence,
and preventing him from re-entering; when the possessor of an
estate allows it to be usurped and held for a year, without during
that time having done any act of possession or interfered with
the usurpers possession.

Occupancy:
The taking possession of those things corporeal which are
without, with an intention of appropriating them to ones own
use.
A mode of acquiring property by which a thing which belongs to
nobody becomes the property of the person who took
possession of it with the intention of acquiring a right of
ownership in it.
To constitute occupancy, there must be a taking of a thing
corporeal, belonging to nobody, with the intention of becoming
the owner of it.
A right by occupancy attaches in the finder of lost goods
unreclaimed by the owner; in the captor of beasts ferae naturae,
so long as he retains possession; the owner of lands by
accession, and the owner of goods acquired by confusion.
Occupant one who has the actual use or possession of a
thing.

ADVERSE POSSESSION:
The enjoyment of land, or such estate as lies in grant under
such circumstances as indicate that such enjoyment has been
commenced and continued under an assertion or color of right
on the part of the possessor.
A prescriptive title rests upon a different principle from that of a
title arising under the state of limitations. Prescription operates
as evidence of a grant and confers a positive title. The statute of
limitations operates not so much to confer positive title on the

5
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES

occupant, as to bar the remedy. Hence, it is said to be properly

called a negative prescription.
The statute of limitations is the source of title by adverse
possession; it is held to be not grounded upon the presumption
of a grant; but is the fiat of the legislative cutting off the right to
maintain suit, and is for the interest of the stability of titles. It
protects the disseisor in his possession not out of regard to the
merits of his title, but because the real owner has acquiesced in
his possession. It must be complied with in every substantial
particular.
A mere possession, without color or claim of an adverse title, will
not enable one in an action of right to avail himself of the state
of limitations.
The terms color of title and claim of title are not synonymous.
To constitute the former, there must be a paper title, but the
latter may rest wholly in parol. The claim of right may be made
inferentially by unequivocal acts of ownership, as by visible,
hostile, exclusive and continuous appropriation of the land. It
need not be a valid claim, so long as it is made and relied on by
the person in possession; and where all the other elements of
an adverse possession have concurrently and persistently
existed for the statutory time, color of title has been usually held
not essential.
The intention must be manifest; it guides the entry and fixes its
character. Possession taken under claim of title shows such
intention. But if by mistake one oversteps his bounds and
encroaches upon his neighbors lands, not knowing the true line
and intending to claim no more than he really is entitled to
possess, his possession is not adverse, and will not give him
title no matter how long he actually holds it. (see Shirley v
Whitlow, 97 S.W. 444) In such a case, the intent to claim title
exists only upon the condition that his belief as to his boundary
is true. The intention is not absolute, but provisional, and the
possession is not adverse. (see Preble v Railroad Co., 27 Atl.
149)
When a boundary line between adjoining landowners is
perpetually in dispute, and neither has actual occupation to any
definite line, there is no adverse possession beyond its true line;
nor will the enroachment of one in the erection of his building on
neighboring property through mistake constitute such a
possession as will ripen into title by the lapse of time; nor where
a deed, by mistake, covered land not intended to be conveyed.
Where one enters into possession of real property by
permission of the owner, without any tenancy whatever being
created, except at sufferance, possession being given as a mere
matter of favor, he can never acquire title by adverse
possession, no matter how long continued against the true
owner thereof, unless there is a clear, positive, unequivocal
disclaimer and disavowal of the owners title and an assertion by
the occupant of a title in hostility thereto, notice thereof being
brought home to the landowners.
The adverse possession must be actual, continued, visible,
notorious, distinct and hostile. It is founded in trespass and
disseisin, an ouster and continued exclusion of the true owner
for the period prescribed by the statute.
Where a co-tenant asserts possession under a deed purporting
to convey the whole title, he will be deemed to have ousted his
co-tenant.
The registration of a deed purporting to vest title to the entire
tract of land in the grantee is notice to the co-tenant of an
adverse holding.
One claiming by adverse possession cannot avail himself of the
previous possession of another person with whose title he is no
way connected.
There can be no adverse possession between husband and
wife while the marital relation continues to exist.
When trust property is taken possession of by a trustee, it is the
possession of the cestiu que trust and cannot be adverse until
the trust is disavowed, to the knowledge of the cestui que trust.

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

The possession of the tenant becomes adverse where, to the

knowledge of the landlord, the tenant disclaims the tenancy, and
sets up a title adverse to the landlord.
The title by adverse possession for such a period as required by
statute to bar an action, is a fee-simple title, and is as effective
as any otherwise acquired.
Where there has been severance of the title to the surface and
that to the minerals beneath it, adverse possession of the
surface will not affect the title to the minerals.

USUFRUCT:
The right of enjoying a thing the property of which is vested in
another, and to draw from the same all the profit, utility and
advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering
the substance of the thing.
Perfect usufruct is of things which the usufructuary can enjoy
without altering their substance, though their substance may be
diminished or deteriorated naturally by time or by the use to
which they are applied; as, a house, a piece of land, animals,
furniture and other movable effects.
Imperfect or quasi-usufruct is of things which would be useless
to the usufructuary if he did not consume and expend them or
change the substance of them; as, money, grain, liquors. In this
case, the alteration may take place.
Duties of the usufructuary:
o
To make an inventory of the things subject to the
usufruct, n the presence f those having an interest in
them;
o
To give security for their restitution when the usufruct
shall be at an end;
o
To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct;

Article 559 has to be considered in relation to Articles 1132 and 1505

Article 1505: (1) and (2) true owner can recover property
provided he reimburses the present possessor; (3) true
owner cannot recover anymore.
Where sold by one who is not the owner, sale no good; exceptions:
estoppel; also, sale valid when (1) and (2) apply, subject to recovery by
owner who shall reimburse; also, sale void when 3 applies; no recovery.
Article 559 speaks of public sale. (recover, with reimbursement) Article
1132 speaks of prescription. Re: personal property. Article 1505 speaks of
purchase in a merchants store, or in fairs or markets.

POSSESSION
(Philippine Rulings):
Possession should not be disturbed unless by judicial order
Trespasser is not protected by law
Possession of land cannot be dissociated from possession of
buildings
A possessor cannot be ousted except through judicial action
Public land applicant already in possession prior to award is entitled
to possessory action
Actual possession though not founded upon claim of ownership is
entitled to protection of the law
Only actual possessor may bring action of forcible entry
Symbolic tradition is equivalent to physical possession
Possession of a part is constructive possession of the whole
Possession in good faith is entitled to reimbursement of his
necessary and useful expenses
Possessor in good faith is entitled to his fruits

6
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
-

Bad faith is not transmissible from one possession to another

A right of retention arises only when the necessary expenses incurred
by the possessor in good faith and not refunded to him
A legitimate possessor is entitled to reimbursement for necessary
expenses and expenses for preservation
Transferee of a mortgage is not a possessor in good faith
Possessor in good faith is not liable for payment of damages
Rule on possession in good faith is not applicable to that of a mere
lessee
Possession of anothers property is presumed to be in good faith;
burden of proof is on party alleging bad faith
Possession in good faith of chattel is equivalent to a title
Possessor in good faith of improvements has right to buy land on
which improvements were built
Possessor in good faith has right to indemnity for necessary and
useful expenses
Improvements on property introduced by possessor in good faith
shall not be removed where great expenses would be incurred
Possession in good faith is not a good defense in accion
reivindicatoria
Bad faith is not presumed
Bad faith possessor is entitled to reimbursement of expenses
incurred in production, gathering and preservation of crops
Person who acquires possession of land through fraud cannot
acquire title over improvements thereon
Possessor in bad faith loses improvements and is liable for fruits
gathered
Improvements made by possessor only during trial are deemed to
have been made in bad faith
Possessor in bad faith is not entitled to reimbursement for useful
expenses
Abandonment of property arises only when hope of recovery and
intent to return are given up
Possession of co-owner is generally not adverse against his coowners
Donee signing deed of sale by donor to third person as witness is
estopped to claim adverse possession thereof
Prescription may be acquired in whatever way adverse possession
may have been commenced
Adverse possession is a sufficient title for registration where
government does not intervene
Possession of co-owner by mere tolerance does not give rise to
acquisitive prescription
Possession not in the concept of an owner is not adverse possession
Actual possession of entire land is not necessary; constructive
possession is enough
If occupant possessed land under same color of title derived from
registered owner, his possession may ripen into ownership
Possession of lessee is possession of landlord
Tenants possession cannot be the basis of acquisitive prescription
Possessor of stolen goods must explain such possession
The possessor of stolen property is presumed to be the author of the
stealing and this presumption stands in the absence of satisfactory
explanation as to his possession
Only a person who has lost his personal property or was illegally
deprived thereof may recover the same from any one possession it;
in other words, the point to be determined in suits for the recovery of
personal property is not whether the possessor has or has not a good
and indefeasible title; but whether the one who desires to recover it is
the former owner and either has lost it or has been illegally deprived
thereof.
Private deed of sale without possession cannot be a basis of
acquisition of ownership
Possession may be interrupted either naturally or civilly
Action for ownership includes that of possession
Void donation may be the basis of adverse possession
Stealing presupposes unlawful possession
Sublessee has less right of possession than the lessee
In action to recover possession of land, plaintiff must clearly identify
the land claimed
Writ of possession cannot be secured by mere motion

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

In ejectment cases, physical possession is the only issue; prior

possession by plaintiff is essential
Owner is entitled to recover possession from possessor by mere
tolerance
Administrator has right to the possession of all properties of the
estate as long as it is necessary to pay debts
Good faith notwithstanding, no one may acquire for himself stolen
property in any manner other than that provided by law
The ring in question having been acquired at a private sale, the lawful
owner is not under any obligation to reimburse the possessor the
amount paid by the latter in acquiring it
Notarial deed of sale is equivalent to delivery of legal possession of
lots sold
Adverse possession of alluvion to registered land may ripen into
ownership
Land involved in cadastral proceedings cannot be acquired by
adverse possession
Possession by mere tolerance cannot ripen into ownership
No adverse possession of registered land
Present possessor, who shows possession at some previous time, is
presumed to have held possession during the intermediate period
Action to recover possession of registered land is imprescriptible
Squatters on registered land acquire no possessory right
Claim of prior possessor cannot prevail over the right of a registered
owner; possession by tolerance is not a license to stay indefinitely
Torrens Title is a conclusive evidence of the right of possession
Possession begun in good faith presumed to continue in that
character
Possession in good faith is interrupted by court summons
No good faith in possessing registered land
A usurper cannot be a possessor in good faith
Rights acquired by long possession cannot be defeated by
subsequent declaration that land is a timberland
One who purchases land from a person other than the registered
owner is not a possessor in good faith
Good faith ceases when possessor becomes aware in the defect in
his title
Possessor in good faith is not obliged to pay rentals; he has a right to
receive the fruits
Squatters are not possessors or builders in good faith
One who is aware that he is not the owner cannot be a possessor in
good faith
Possessor in bad faith must account for the fruits received by him
After demand to vacate, defendants became possessors in bad faith
and theyre liable for rentals
Prescription or adverse possession cannot be set up against a
registered owner
Usufructuary cannot sell naked title
A possessor is not required to have his feet on every square meter of
ground
Reasonable force against invasion of actual possession is sanctioned
by the New Civil Code and the RPC
Occupancy of building implies tenancy or possession of land on
which it is constructed
Lessee, who introduces useful improvements, cannot claim
reimbursement or retention, like a possessor in good faith
Possessor in good faith becomes in bad faith from the time he
becomes aware of the flaw in his title
Lessee cannot be a builder in good faith on leased lot
Occupants in good faith have the right to retain the property until they
are reimbursed of the necessary expenses made on the land
Possessor in good faith is not required to make reimbursements for
fruits received
Lessees are not considered possessors in good faith for purposes of
recovery of the value of improvement made on the property
Temporary absence from residence not to be construed as
abandonment of possession
One claiming adverse possession must execute decisive and
unequivocal acts amounting to an ouster of others

7
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
-

Read: Arcenna v Raymundo (19 Phil 47); Dizon v Suntay (47 SCRA
160); Aznar v Yapdiangco (13 SCRA 485); Cruz v Pahati (98 Phil
788); US v Sotelo (28 Phil 147); Del Rosario v Lucena (8 Phil 535)
Owner has better right as against innocent third property over
possession of personal property

Easements are as various as the exigencies of domestic

convenience or the purpose to which buildings and lands may be
applied.
All easements must originate in a grant or agreement, express or
implied, of the owner of the servient tenement. The evidence of their
existence, by the common law, may be by proof of the agreements
itself, or by prescription, requiring an uninterrupted enjoyment
immemorially to the extent of the easement claimed, from which a
grant is implied.
Rea: Mead v Anderson (19 Pac 708); Kinney v Hooker (26 Ate 690);
Dixon v Schermeier (42 Pac 1091); Miller v Hoeschler (105 N.W.
790)

FOR FINALS:
EASEMENT:
A right in the owner of one parcel of land, by reason of such ownership, to
use the land of another for a special purpose not inconsistent with a
general property in the owner.
A privilege which the owner of an adjacent tenement has of another,
existing in respect of their several tenements, by which that owner against
those tenement the privilege exists is obliged to suffer or not to do
something or in regard to use his land for the advantage of him in whose
land the privilege exists.
Although the terms are sometimes used as if controvertible, properly
speaking, easement refers to the right enjoyed by one and servitude, the
burden imposed upon the other.
In interest in land created by grant or agreement, express or implied,
which confers a right upon the owner thereof to some profit, benefit,
dominion, or lawful use out of or over the estate of another.

Easements are extinguished:

by release
by merger
by necessity or abandonment
by non-user
The destruction of an easement of a private right of way for public
purposes is a taking of the property of the dominant owner for which he
must be compensated.
Prescription does not run against the exercise of a servitude in favor of
one who resisted and prevented its exercise (Sarpy v Hymel, 4 South
439.) Mere non-user must be accompanied by adverse use of the servient
estate (Welsh v Taylor, 31 N.E. 896). One cannot acquire a prescriptive
right over his own lands or the lands of another which he occupies as a
tenant (Vossen v Dautel, 22 S.W. 734)

SERVITUDE:
The subjection of one person to another person, or of a person to a thing,
or of a thing to a person, or of a thing to a thing.
A right which subjects a land or tenement to some service for the use of
another kind or tenement which belongs to another master

The land against which the privilege exists is called the SERVIENT
tenement; its proprietor, the servient owner; he in whose favor it exists, the
dominant owner; his land, the DOMINANT tenement. And, as these rights
are not personal and do not change with persons who may own the
respective estates, it is very common to personify the estates as
themselves owning or enjoying the easements.

A mixed servitude is one which arises in consequence of the natural

condition or situation of the soil.

The distinction between an ordinary easement and an easement in gross

is that in the former there is and in the latter there is not a dominant
tenement.

A real of praedial servitude is a charge laid on an estate for the use and
utility of another estate belong to another proprietor. When used without
any adjunct, the word servitude means a real or praedial servitude. Real
servitudes are divided into rural and urban.

The essential qualities of easements:

easements are incorporeal
they are imposed upon corporeal property
they confer no right to participation in the profits arising from it
they must be imposed for the benefit of corporeal or incorporeal
hereditaments, and are usually imposed for the benefit of
corporeal.
there must be two distinct tenements the dominant, to which
the right belongs; and the servient, upon which the obligation is
imposed.
the cause must be perpetual
Easements in gross are personal, are not assignable and will not
pass by a deed of conveyance; they are not inheritable.
Continuous easements are those of which the enjoyment is, or may
be, continual, without the necessity of any actual interference by
man; discontinuous are those, the enjoyment of which can be had
only by the interference of man.

A personal servitude is the right of requiring of another what he is bound to

do or not to do; this right arises from all kinds of contracts or quasicontracts.

Rural servitudes are those which are due by an estate to another estate,
such as the right of passage over the serving estate, or that which owes
the servitude, or to draw water from it, or to water cattle there or to take
coal, lime and wood from it, and the like.
Urban servitudes are those which are established over a building for the
convenience of another, such as the right of resting the joints in the wall of
the serving building, of opening windows which overlook the serving
estates, and the like.
In common law, the use of the word servitude is as correlative of
easement; where one person has an easement which creates a burden
upon the property of another, the latter is said to be burdened with
servitude. All servitudes are stereotyped and cannot be varied at the
pleasure of the parties. (see Merson v Safe Deposit Co., 57 Atl. 569)

WAY:

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

8
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
A right of way is the privilege which an individual or a particular description
of individuals, as the inhabitants of a village or the owners or occupiers of
certain farms, have of going over anothers ground. It is an incorporeal
hereditament of a real nature, entirely different from a common highway.
A right to pass over anothers land more or less frequently according to the
nature of the use to be made of the easement, and how frequently is
immaterial, provided it occurred as often as the claimant had occasion or
chose to pass.
A right of way may arise: by prescription and immemorial usage, or by an
interrupted enjoyment under a claim of right; by grant; as where the owner
grants to another the liberty of passing over his land; by necessity; as
where a man purchases land accessibly only over land of the vendor, or
sells, reserving land accessible only over the land of the vendee, he shall
have a way of necessity over the land which gives access to his purchase
or reservation; and this may exist even after the vendor has conveyed his
land to a third person; but a way of necessity is not created by the fact that
a road over grantors land would be of less distance to a highway than a
road already established; the necessity must be absolute, not a mere
convenience; and when it ceases then the way ceases with it; by
implication (see Rightsell v Hale, 18 S.W. 245); by reservation expressly
made in the grant of the land over which it is claimed; by custom; as where
navigators have a right of this nature to tow along the banks of navigable
rivers with horses; by acts of legislature; through a private way cannot be
so laid out without the consent of the owner of the land over which it is to
pass.
A right of way may be either a right in gross, which is a purely personal
right incommunicable to another, or a right appendant or annexed to an
estate, and which it is appurtenant; a right of way appurtenant to land is
appurtenant to all and every part of the land, and if such land be divided
and conveyed in separate parcels, a right of way passes to each of the
grantees; a way is never presumed to be in gross when it can be
construed to be appurtenant to land; where a way appurtenant to land
granted is not located by the grant, the parties may locate it by parol
agreement at any point on the premises over which the right is granted.
Ways may be abandoned by agreement, by evident intention, or by long
non-used. Where a way of necessity once existed it will be presumed to
exist until some fact is shown establishing non-existence.
A person cannot acquire a prescriptive right of way over his own lands, or
the lands of another which he occupies as tenent; and where one has
uninterruptedly used a way over anothers land for the necessary length of
time to establish an easement by adverse user, it will be presumed that
the user was adverse, and under claim of title, and the burden is on one
claiming that it was by virtue of a license to prove that fact.
The owner of a right of way may disturb the soil to pave and repair it. But a
way granted for one purpose cannot be used for another.
STREET:
A public thoroughfare or highway in a city or village; a street is not an
easement, but a dedication to the public of the occupation of the surface
for passing and repassing.
A street, besides it use as a highway for travel, may be used for the
accommodation of drains, sewers, aqueducts, water and gaspipes, lines of
telegraph, and for other purposes conducive to the general police, sanitary
and business interests of a city. Its use belongs, from side to side and end
to end, to the public. Streets and squares are for the public use at large.
A street may be used by individuals for the loading and unloading of
carriages, for the temporary deposit of movables or of materials and
scaffoldings for buildings and repairing, provided such use shall not
unreasonably abridge or incommode its primary use for travel.
An encroachment upon a street, the dedication and acceptance of which is
established, is nothing more or less than a nuisance, which cannot be
aided by lapse of time.

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

HIGHWAY:
A passage, road or street which every citizen has a right to use
A public right of way over a highway is not an easement, for there is no
dominant tenement, and the public are incapable of taking a grant from
any one. A private right of way is wholly distinct from a public right of way;
it can be exercised only by the occupier of the dominant tenement and his
family.
Any act of obstruction which incommodes or impedes the lawful use of a
highway by the public, such as arises from unloading carriages, putting up
buildings, etc., is a common law nuisance.
Equity will take jurisdiction of a civil action to abate and enjoin the
maintenance of an obstruction to a highway which is a public nuisance.

THOROUGHFARE:
A street of way opening at both ends into another street or public highway,
so that one can go through and get out of it without returning. It differs
from a cul de sac, which is open only at one end.

SIDEWALK:
That part of a public street or highway designed for the use of pedestrians
Generally the sidewalk is included with the gutters and roadway in the
general term street.
A municipal corporation which permits a walk to be used for public travel is
liable for an injury wrongfully caused by an obstruction thereon, no matter
how the walk came into existence.
The remedy for an injury resulting from a defective sidewalk is exclusively
against the city, and its liability cannot be avoided by the existence of any
ordinance on the subject.
Unguarded holes, pits or excavations are obstructions; in order to hold the
city liable for negligence in permitting an obstruction, it must have notice,
but this may be constructive thought the lapse of sufficient time for the
presumption of notice to arise.
A citizen owes the city the duty to use his senses, and not to run into
obstructions with which he is familiar and which he might avoid by exercise
of ordinary care.
Even if the city was negligent, a person injured by a defective sidewalk
cannot recover unless he show himself in the exercise of due care; and if
the accident occurred by reason of the plaintiffs being intoxicated, he
cannot recover.
A law requiring the abutting owners to keep sidewalks in repair is a duty
cast directly upon the property owner and is in the nature of a police
regulation. (see Wilkinsburg Bor v Home for Aged Women, 18 Atl. 937, 6
L.R.A. 531)
During building operations, materials may be placed in the street.

Dominicum That of which one has the lordship or ownership; that which
remains under the lord is immediate charge and control.
Dominion ownership or right to property; sovereignty or lordship.

9
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
Dominium perfect and complete property or ownership in a thing; its
elements are: the right to use, the right to enjoy, and the right to dispose of
the thing, to the exclusion of every other person.
Dominium Directum legal ownership; ownership as distinguished from
enjoyment
Dominium Utile the beneficial ownership; the use of the property.
Dominus the lord or master; the owner; the owner or proprietor of a
thing, as distinguished from him who uses it merely; a master or principal,
as distinguished from an agent or attorney.
DRAIN:
To conduct water from one place to another, for the purpose of drying the
former
Drainage the right of draining water through another mans land; this is
an easement or servitude acquired by grant or prescription.
A state may provide for the construction of canals for drainage marshy and
malarious districts, and of leaves to prevent inundations; Hagar v
Reclamation Dist, 111 U.S. 701; the expenses of such works may be
charged against parties especially benefitted and may be made a lien
upon their property.
ANCIENT LIGHTS:
Windows or openings which have remained in the same place and
condition twenty years or more; in England, a right to unobstructed light
and air through such openings is secured by mere user for that length of
time.
One is entitled to as much light as his building may ordinarily require for
habitation or business.

such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt that the law

will presume a consequent damage.
A private nuisance is anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands,
tenements, or hereditaments of another. It produces damage to but one or
a few persons, and cannot be said to be public.
A public of common nuisance is such an inconvenience or troublesome
offense as annoys the whole community in general and not merely some
particular person. It produces no special injury to one more than another of
the people.
A mixed nuisance is on which, while producing injury to the public at large,
does some special damage to some individual or class of individuals.
It is difficult to say what degree of annoyance constitutes a nuisance. If a
thing is calculated to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of a mans
house, it is a nuisance; in relation to offensive trades, it seems that when
such a trade renders the enjoyment of life and property uncomfortable, it is
a nuisance.
A thing may be a nuisance in one place which is not so in another;
therefore, the situation or locality of the nuisance must be considered.
Every citizen holds his property subject to the implied obligation that he
will use it in such way as not to prevent others from enjoying the use of
their property.
To constitute a public nuisance, there must be such a number of persons
annoyed that the offense can no longer be considered a private nuisance.
One who has been divested of littoral rights cannot maintain a suit to
enjoin obstructions to his access to navigable waters in front of his land
under the rule that individuals are not entitled to redress against a public
nuisance. (see McCloskey v Coast Co., 160 Fed 794)
Private nuisances may be to corporeal inheritances or to incorporeal
hereditaments.

To constitute alienable actionable deprivation of light, it is not enough that

there be less light than before; there must be a substantial deprivation of
light, enough to render occupation uncomfortable according to ordinary
notions of mankind.

Any annoyance arising from odors, smoke, unhealthy exhalations, noise,

interference with water power, etc., etc., whereby a man is prevented from
fully enjoying his own property, may be ranked as a private nuisance.

In England, the obstruction of ancient lights remains a question of

nuisance or no nuisance, and the test now is, not how much light has been
taken, and whether that is enough materially to lessen the enjoyment and
use of the house which the owner previously had, but how much light is
left, and whether that is enough for the comfortable use and enjoyment of
the house according to the ordinary requirements of mankind.

Remedies:
- by an action for the damages done, by the owner, in the case of a private
nuisance; or by an party suffering special damage, in the case of a public
nuisance;
- by injunction;
- by indictment for a public nuisance

In the USA, such right is not acquired without an express grant. (The
British doctrine is said not be suited to the conditions of a growing
country.)

A private individual cannot abate a nuisance in a public highway, unless it

does him special injury, and then only so far as is necessary to the
exercise of his right of passing along the highway.

One who claims that the land adjoining his shall remain unimproved shall
show an express grant or covenant. There can be no such easement by
implication over adjoining unimproved land of the grantor.

Every continuance of a nuisance or recurrence of the injury is an

additional nuisance forming in itself the subject-matter of the new action.

As between landlord and tenant, it is held that a lease of a tenement

carries with it an implied grant of the right to light and air from the adjoining
land of the landlord where the situation and habitual use of the demised
tenement are such that the right is essential to its beneficial enjoyment.

Equity will consider the comparative injury which will result from the
granting or refusing of an injunction, and it will not be granted where it will
be inequitable and oppressive, as where it would cause a large loss to
defendant and others, while the injury, if it is refused, would be
comparatively slight and can be compensated by damages.

See: Janes v Jenkins (6 Am. Rep. 300, 16 Am. L. Rev. 628)

NUISANCE:
That class of wrongs that arises from the unreasonable, unwarrantable, or
unlawful use by a person of his own property, either real or personal, or
from his own improper, indecent, or unlawful personal conduct, working an
obstruction of or to the right of another, or of the public, and producing

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

DONATION
Kinds of Donation
1. Inter vivos
2. Mortis Causa
3. Simple
4. Remunerative

10
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES

5. Onerous
6. Modal
7. Conditional
(See:
o
Bonsato v. CA, 60 O.G 3568
o
Manalo v. De Mesa, 29 Phils 495
o
Carla v. Dela Steamship, 51 O.G. 755
o
Di Siok Jian v. Sy Lioc Suy, 43 Phils. 562
o
Liguez v. CA, L-11240, Dec 18, 1957
o
Guzman c. Ibea, 67 Phils 633
o
Cario v. Abaya, 70 Phils 182
o
Laureta v. Mata, 44 Phils 668
A gift;
Transfer of the title to property to one who receives it without
paying for it
Act by which the owner of a thing voluntarily transfers the title
and possession of it from himself to another person, without any
consideration
A donation is never perfected until it has been accepted; for an
acceptance is requisite to make the donation complete

INTERVIVOS
A contract which takes place by the mutual consent of the giver,
who divests himself of the thing given in order to transmit the
title of it to the donee, gratuitously, and the donee who accepts
and acquires the legal title to it.
MORTIS CAUSA
A gift under apprehension of death; as when anything is given
upon condition that if the donor dies:
o
the donee shall possess it absolutely, or
o
return it if the donor should survive or should repent of
having made the gift, or
o
if the donee should die before the donor.
Differs from a legacy, inasmuch as it does not require proof in
the court of probate; and no assent is required from the executor
to perfect the donees title.
Differs from a gift intervivos because it is ambulatory and
revocable during the donors life, and because it is liable for his
debts.
Read: Sheedy v. Roach, 26 Am. Rep. 680 and Williams v. Guile,
22 N.E 1071
----o---

Where actual manual tradition cannot be made, either from their

nature or situation at the time in such cases the delivery may be
constructive; technically, there must be an acceptance by the
donee as well as delivery by the donor; bit this is a matter of
slight practical importance, for where the gift is beneficial to the
donee, an acceptance will be presumed.
Donation of real property must be in a public instrument
Donation in Private Instrument cannot prevail over sale in public
document.
Oral donation may be basis of ownership
Verbal donation may constitute legal basis for adverse
possession
Invalid donation may give rise to prescription
Void donation may serve as basis of acquisitive prescription
Oral donation of a real property is void.
A deed of donation that does not identify the land donated is of
no effect.
Assignment of a real property which partakes of the nature of
donation must be in public instrument and accepted in writing.
Attorney-in-fact of donor is not incapacitated as donee
Incapacities applicable to donations are similar to those
testamentary succession.
Acceptance of donation is essential to its validity

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

No formal notice of acceptance is necessary when donor has

confirmed acceptance in open court.
The strict requirement of formal notice is rational only where the
donor does not avow receipt thereof or the receipt of the notice
is open to doubt.
Acceptance of donation indicates it was intended to be donation
inter vivos.
Donation without acceptance is not valid
Donation to church may be accepted by parish priest.
Donation transfers title upon acceptance with all the requisite
formalities
Mayor may accept donation to a municipal corporation.
Grandmother may accept pure donation for grandchild although
she was not legal guardian.
Conditions in a donation are binding on donees
Where the right to dispose of property was reserved by donor,
donation is revocable
Reservation by donor of possession and usufruct of the property
is not incompatible with transfer of naked ownership.
Retention of ownership and title by grantor is incompatible with
donation inter vivos of such title.
Donee has burden of proving onerous donation
Only onerous donations are governed by law of contracts
Donation in consideration of services rendered and to be
rendered by donee is onerous (to be governed by law on
contracts)
Donation propter nuptias must be in public instrument (i.e real
property)
Donation propert nuptias in private instrument is valid
Donation given to future spouse is not donation propter nuptias.
Donations to forced heirs are subject to collation
Obligation to collate donation does not prescribe during life of
donor.

INOFFICIOUS DONATION
Creditors cannot ask for reduction of inofficious donation.
Forced heirs are entitled to have inofficious donation set aside.
Collation of donation may be threshed out in settlement of
estate of deceased donor
Donation is inofficious when donor has no other property than
that donated
REVOCATION
Courts alone can declare revocation of donation.
Revocation of donation must be with donees consent or by
judicial decree.
Action for revocation of donation may be brought by donor even
after donees death
Donation may be revoked only on grounds provided by law.
Subsequent disposition of property by donor does not revoke
prior donation thereof.
Judicial sanction is necessary for revocation of donation with
onerous cause.
Positive proof of non-compliance with conditions is needed to
revoke donation
When terms of donation have been substantially complied with,
reversion does not lie.
Heirs of donor cannot have better right than predecessor to
assail donation made by the latter.
Title to property must revert to donor before latters heirs can
sue to recover it as inheritance.
Donor cannot ask for annulment of donation tainted by immoral
cause.
Donation is not revocable by donors unilateral act.

11
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
Action to revoke donation for breach of condition is
intransmissible and prescribes after then years (Ongsiaco v.
Ongsiaco, No. L-7510, March 30, 1957)
Prescription of action to revoke donation begins upon
commission of breach by donee.
Action for revocation should be filed within 4 years from noncompliance with conditions. ( Nagrampa v. Nagrampa, L-15434,
Oct. 31, 1960)

---- o --- Donations mortis cause should be executed with the formalities
of a will.
Legal heirs, who are not forced heirs, cannot question
decedents donations inter vivos.
Irrevocability is a characteristic of donation inter vivos.
Donee who accepts donation is estopped to deny donors
ownership.
Donation from husband to wife is illegal.
Lack of description of donated property is curable by extrinsic
evidence.
Inscription of donation in the registry does not affect right of
adverse claimant.
Donation founded upon immoral consideration is void.
Donation of conjugal properties affects only the donors half
interest therein.
Unregistered deed of donation cannot affect third persons.
Mere trustee of property cannot donate it.
Husbands donation of conjugal property is not void in its
entirety.
Donation does not require tradition to complete transfer of
ownership.
In pari delicto rule does not apply to a donee who is a minor.
Donation between spouses during marriage is ineffective.
Future inheritance of child is not an adverse claim that may be
annotated in the title of property donated to another child.
Services between spouses are not contemplated in
remunerative or onerous donations
Property donated to wife by her parents is paraphernal property
and, hence, does not answer for obligations of husband.
Acceptance of donation of realty should be in a public
instrument.

When donation to religious organization is exempt from taxation

[ see R.A No. 1916]
Consent of donee is needed for revocation of accepted
donation.
Right of action to annul inofficious donation inter vivos accrues
after donors death.
Revocation of conditional donation should be made judicially.
Filipino mother and her illegitimate children by a foreigner are
qualified to be donees of latters real properties.
Donations made for services rendered are remunerative or
compensatory in nature rather than onerous and are in
praesenti rather than in future.
Verbal donation of land is not effective to transfer title, but it may
explain adverse possession.
Inoperative donation does not bar other heirs from asking for
partition.
A donation, whether it be remuneratory or simple, is taxable.
Whatever was given to the service of God became incapable of
private ownership; and that when property was given for a
particular object such as a church, a hospital, a convent, a
community, etc. and the object failed, the property did not revert
to the donor, or his heirs, but devolved to the crown, the church,
or other convent or community, unless the donation contained
an express condition in writing to the contrary [see Roman
Catholic Church v. Santos, 7 Phil. 67]

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

Onerous donation inter vivos partakes of the nature of a

contract.
Donation propter nuptias may be subject of reduction at the
instance of the donor during his lifetime.
Will cannot revoke donation by reason of marriage. (see
Deogracias v. Rosario et al. CA G.R No. 28262-12, July 18,
1966)
Donation in money need not be in writing (if delivery is
simultaneously made)
Inofficious donations is subject to reduction upon the death of
the donor.
Acknowledgment in deed of sake whereby vendees-donees and
vendor-donor admitted the instrument as their free and
voluntary act and deed is sufficient acceptance by donees of
the donation under Article 749 of the Civil Code.
If a donation is a joint one to both donees, one could not accept
independently of his co-donee, for there is no accretion among
donees unless expressly so provided, or unless they be
husband and wife.
So long as the donation inter vivos has not been judicially
declared void, the properties donated are of the absolute
ownership of the donee.
Only in an ordinary civil action may it be determined whether the
donation was valid and whether the subject property does not
now form part of the estate subject to disposition.
Ban on donations between spouses during the marriage applies
to a common law relationship
An onerous donation need not be executed in a public
document; private writing is sufficient.
Validity of donation can be litigated only in an appropriate action
thereof.
Donation of personal property worth over P5,00 must be in
writing.
Donees acceptance of donation of real estate must be made
during the lifetime of the donor.
There could be no valid donation of the free position of the
testators estate where the properties being donated are not
specifically described.
Property donated inter vivos is subject to collation after donor is
death, whether the donation was made to a compulsory heir or a
stranger.
o
Read: Vda de Tupas v. RTC of N.O Pn XLIII 144
SCRA 622
Fact that donation is irrevocable does not necessarily exempt
the donated properties from collation as required under Article
1061 Civil Code.
A co-owner cannot donate specific lot by metes and bounds but
only an aliquot part of the whole properties under co-ownership.
Article 764 does not apply to onerous donations in view of
Article 733, which provides that onerous donations are governed
by the law on contracts.
A valid donation once accepted becomes irrevocable except on
account of inofficiousness, failure by the donee to comply with
the charges imposed in the donation or by reason of ingratitude.
There is nothing in the law that prohibits the parties from
entering into an agreement that a violation of the terms of the
contract would cause its cancellation even without court
intervention.
Validity of 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 [ see RCA of
Manila v. CA, 198 SCRA 300]; however, judicial intervention is
necessary in order to determine whether or not rescission is
proper.
Only the donor or his heirs have the personality to question the
violation of any restriction in the deed of donation.
If there is no fulfillment or compliance with the resolutory
condition, the donation may now be revoked and all the rights

12
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES

which the donee may have acquired under it shall be deemed

lost and extinguished.
All crimes which offend the donor show ingratitude and are
causes for revocation.
Section 31 of P.D 957 makes a legal obligation on the
subdivision owner/developer to donate the open space for parks
and playgrounds.
Usurpation is an offense against the property of the donor and
considered as an act of ingratitude of a donee against the donor.
The donation is a real alienation which conveys ownership upon
its acceptance, hence, any increase in value or any deterioration
or loss thereof is for the account of the heir or donee.
For the presumption of fraud under Articles 759 and 1387 of the
Civil Code to apply, it must be established that the donor did no
leave adequate properties which creditors might have recourse
for the collection of their credits existing before the execution of
the donation.
Acceptance clause is a mark that the donation is inter vivos;
donations mortis causa, being in the form of a will, are not
required to be adequate by the donees during the donors
lifetime.
Where the deed of donation fails to show the acceptance, or
where the formal notice of the acceptance, made in a separate
instrument, is either not given to the donor or else is not noted in
the deed of donation and in the separate acceptance, the
donation is null and void.
Elements of a donation are:
o
Reduction of the patrimony of the donor
o
Increase in the patrimony of the donee
o
The intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi.
Donative intent is not negated by the presence of other
intentions, motives or purposes, which do not contradict
donative intent.
Donations, according to their purposes or causes may be
categorized as
o
Pure or simple
o
Remuneratory or compensatory
o
Conditional or modal
o
Onerous
The donation is inofficious if it exceeds this limitation no person
may give or receive, by way of donation, more than what he
may give or receive by will.
As between the parties to the donation and their assigns, the
registration of the deed of donation with the Registry of Deeds is
not needed for its validity and efficacy.

PARTY WALL

A wall erected on the line between two adjoining pieces of land

belonging to different persons, for the use of both properties

A structure for the common benefit and convenience of both the

tenements which it separates

A wall of which the two adjoining owners are tenants in common

Each adjoining owner is possessed in severalty of his own soil

up to the dividing line, and of that portion of the wall which rests
upon it; but the soil of each, with the wall belonging to him, is
burdened with an easement or servitude in favor of the others,
to the end that it may afford a support to the wall and building of
such other

Every wall and separation between two buildings is presumed to

be a common or party wall if the contrary be not shown

4 different senses of the term:

o
A wall of which the two adjoining orders are tenants in
common

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

A wall divided longitudinally into two strips, one

belonging to each of the neighboring owners
o
A wall which belongs entirely to one of the adjoining
owners, but is subject to an easement or right in the
other to have it maintained as a dividing wall between
the two tenants
o
A wall divided longitudinally into two moieties. Each
moiety being subject to a cross-easement in favor of
the owner of the other moiety
Party walls are generally regulated by statute
The law of party walls is based on the doctrine of lateral support
and is a statutory extrusion of the principle to buildings. An
owner of a party wall cannot extend the beams of his buildings
beyond the middle of the wall.
See:
o
Panton vs. Holland, 8 Am. Dec. 369
o
Lederer & Strauss vs. C. Inc. Co., 106 N. W. 357
o
Brooks vs. Curtis, 10 Am. Rep. 545
o
Partridge vs. Gilbert, 69 Am. Dec. 632
A party wall must be built without openings; a party wall can only
be built for mutual support; the principle of party wall is based
upon mutual benefit, and does not extend to the interior of lots
where the adjoining owner cannot be expected to build
See:
o
Gorham vs. Gross, 28 Am. Rep. 224
o
Hoffman vs. Kuhn, 34 Am. Rep. 491
o
Odd Fellows Assn. vs. Hegele, 32 Pac. 679
o
Stehr vs. Raben, 50 N. W. 327
o
Gibson vs. Holden, 56 Am. Rep. 146
o
Spaulding vs. Grundy, 104 S. W. 293
o
Sebald vs. Mulholland, 50 N. E. 260
o
Kinnear vs. Moses, 73 Pac. 380
o

LATERAL SUPPORT

The right of having ones land and the structures erected

thereon supported by the land of a neighboring proprietor.

Each of two adjoining land-owners is entitled to the support

of the others land. The right of lateral support exists only
with respect to the soil in its natural condition and it is an
incident to the land in that condition. (Gilmore v Driscell, 23
Am.Rep. 312)

Read: Richardson v R. Co. 60 Am. Dec. 283 and Bonquois

v Monteleone, 17 South. 305

A adjacent owner may excavate his own land for such

purposes as he sees fit, provided he does not dig
carelessly or recklessly; and if, in so doing, the adjacent
earth gives way, and the house falls by reason of the
additional weight placed upon the natural soil, the owner of
the house is without remedy. It was his folly to place it
there. But if it shall have stood for 20 years with the
knowledge of the adjacent proprietor, it acquires easement
of the support in the adjacent soil But this right of a
landowner to support his land against that of the adjacent
owner does not extend to the support of any additional
weight or structure that he may place thereon. If, therefore,
a man erect a house upon his own land, so near the
boundary line thereof as to be injured by the adjacent
owners excavating his land in a proper maneuver, and so
as not to have caused the soil of the adjacent parcel to fall
if it had not been loaded with an additional weight, it would
be DAMNUM ABSQUE INJURIA, - a loss for which the

13
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES

person so excavating would not be responsible in

damages.
The unquestionable right of a land-owner to remove the
earth from his own premises adjacent to anothers building
is subject to the qualification that be shall use ordinary care
to cause no unnecessary damage to his neighbors
property in so doing.
It has been held that prior notice to the neighbor whose
property may be endangered by the excavation is an
essential part of the ordinary care referred to.
In many cases it is held that after notice from the owner
who proposes to excavate, it is the duty of his neighbor to
shore up his own building.
The owner of land cannot be deprived of his right to
excavate his won land by the action of his neighbor in
building at or near the boundary live, and if the conduct his
operations with due care, and no right by grant or
prescription has been acquired by his neighbor, he is not
liable, even though the building of the latter ruined.
The American doctrine is that an easement for the support
of a building cannot be acquired by prescription.
The action for a wrong is not for the excavation, the land
owner does not sustain damages until there is an actual
subsidence of his soil. (Kansas City NWR Co. v Schwake,
78 Pac 431)
The measure of damages in actions for removing the
lateral support of anothers land is the amount required to
restore the property to its former condition with as good
means of lateral support, and special damages must be
specially pleaded; or the diminution of the value of the land
by falling, caving, or washing, as the natural result of the
excavation.
Read Graves v Mattison, 32 Atl 498
The right of support is an easement which one man, either
by contract or prescription, enjoys, to rest the joints or
timbers of his house upon the wall of an adjoining building
owned by another person. It is a right to the support of
ones land so as to prevent its falling into an excavation
made by the owner of adjacent lands.
This support is of two kinds, lateral and subjacent lateral
support is the right of the land to be supported by the land,
which lies next to it. Subjacent support is the right of land to
be supported by the land, which lies under it.

HOMESTEAD
The home place, it is the home the house and the adjoining
land where the head of the family dwells
Term necessarily includes the idea of residence
The homestead laws are constitutional or statutory provisions
for the exemption of a certain amount or value of real estate
occupied by a debtor as his homestead from a forced sale for
the payment of his debts.
In some cases, restraints are placed upon the alienation by the
owner of his property, and in some cases the exempt property,
upon the death of the owner, descends to the heirs, free from
liability for his debts.
In some states, there is money limit put to the homestead; in
others a limit of the quantity of land exempted
Homesteads may be designated by one of 3 ways:
1. By a public notice of record
2. By visible occupancy and use
3. By the actual setting apart of the homestead
The right of redemption is lost by the unequivocal abandonment
of the homestead by the owner, with the intention of no longer
treating it as his place of residence
When the homestead character has once attached, it may
persist for the benefit of a single individual, who is the sole
surviving member of the family
GIFT

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

A voluntary conveyance or transfer of property (without

consideration)
Delivery is essential; without actual possession, the title does
not pass. A mere intention or naked promise to give, without
some act to pass the property, is not a gift.
A gift is effectual only after the intention to make is has been
accompanied by delivery of possession or some equivalent act
When the gift is perfect it is then irrevocable, unless it is
prejudicial to creditors or the donor was under a legal incapacity
or was circumvented by fraud.
The subject of the gift must be certain; and there must be the
mutual consent and concurrent will of both parties
There must be intention on the part of the donor to make a gift,
and expressions of it are admissible as part of the res gestae,
Acceptance is also necessary.
Delivery must be according to the nature of the thing. It must be
an actual delivery, so far as the subject is capable of delivery. If
the thing is not capable of actual delivery, there must be some
act equivalent to it; something sufficient to work an immediate
change in the dominion of the property
Donor must part not only with possession, but with the
dominion. If the thing given be a chose in action, the law
requires an assignment or some equivalent instrument, and the
transfer must be executed
A written assignment of certificates of shares of stock without
delivery is NOT sufficient to constitute a valid gift, especially
where the donor retained control of the shares and collected
dividends thereon.

CONDOMINIUM
a condominium is an interest in real property consisting of a
separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or
commercial building and an undivided interest in common,
directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in
other common areas of the building.
Condominium corporations are generally exempt from local
business taxation under the local government code, irrespective
of any local ordinance that seeks to declare otherwise
The term buyer under PD 957 is not limited to those who enter
into contract of sale its concept is broad enough as to include
those who acquire for a valuable consideration a condominium
unit
A buyer of a condominium unit seeking to enforce the
performance of an obligation arising from such transaction or
claiming damages therefrom may bring an action with the
Housing and Land Regulatory Board.
One who acquires condominium units by way of assignment by
the condominium project answer in payment of its indebtedness
for contractors fee does so for valuable consideration and is a
buyer in contemplation of PD 957
Cases for specific performance of contractual obligations
against condominium owners filed by buyers fall within the
competence and expertise of the HLURB
In order to have a notice of assessment to be considered a lien
on a condominium unit, the same must be registered in the
Registry of Deeds
A buyer of a condominium unit is justified in suspending
payment of his monthly amortizations where the seller fails to
give the former a copy of the contract to sell despite repeated
demands thereof.
INCUMBRANCE:
any right to or interest in land which may subsist in third
persons, to the diminution of the value of the estate of the
tenant, but consistently with the passing of the fees
Incumbrance, when used in reference to real estate, includes
every right to or interest in the land granted, to the diminution of

14
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
the value of the land, but consistent with the passing of the fee
by the owner thereof. The following are incumbrances; municipal
claims; execution sale subject to redemption; restrictions on the
use of land; easement for a party wall; inchoate right of dower; a
private right of way; a right of removal of timber from land; a
reservation of minerals; a public highway; an easement which is
open, visible, and well known, an outstanding mortgage, a
liability under the tax always, a condition, the non-performance
of which by the grantee may work a forfeiture of the estate.
Restrictions as to the kind of building which may be erected on
land; a mechanics lien.
GRANT:
A generic term applicable to all transfers of real property
A technical term made use of in deeds of conveyance of lands
to import a transfer
A grant of personalty is a method of transferring personal
property, distinguished from a gift, which is always gratuitous by
being founded upon some consideration or equivalent.
Office grant applies to conveyances made by some officer of the
law to effect certain purposes where the owner is either unwilling
or unable to execute the requisite deeds to pass the title; among
the modes of conveyance included under office grant are levies
and sales to satisfy execution creditors, sales by order or decree
of a court of chancery, sales by order or license of court, sales
for non-payment of taxes and the like
A private grant is a grant by the deed of a private person
Public grant is the mode and act of creating a title in an
individual to lands which had previously belonged to the
government
Grant and Demise in a lease for years these words create an
implied warranty of title and a covenant for quiet enjoyment
The term grant is also applied to the creation or transfer by the
government of such rights as pensions, patents, charters, and
franchises, it is also sometimes used with reference to the
allowance of probate, and the issue of letters testamentary and
of administration

SUBDIVISIONS
Read: Heirs of Hugalbot v. CA, 518 SCRA 202
Bgy. Sindalan, etc. v. CA, 518 SCRA 649
Tamayo v. Huang, 480 SCRA 156
Zamora Realty v. OPP, 506 SCRA 591
Sia v. People, 504 SCRA 507
White Plains v. CA, 297 SCRA 547

The decree directs every owner and developer of real property

to
provide
the
necessary
facilities,
improvements,
infrastructures, and other forms of development, failure to carry
out which is sufficient cause for the buyer to suspend payment,
and any sums of money already paid shall not be forfeited.
In case the developer of a subdivision or condominium fails in its
obligation under Sec.20, Sec.23 gives the buyer the option to
demand reimbursement of the total amount paid, or to wait for
further development of the subdivision, and when the buyer opts
for the latter alternative, he may suspend payment of
installments until such time that the owner or developer had
fulfilled its obligation to him.
Sec.2 of PD No.957 does not confine the meaning of a
subdivision project to parcels of land classified as residential- a
subdivision project also includes parcels of land classified as
commercial.
A subdivision is never required to register the Contracts to Sell
in favor of the buyer, and its failure to do so is a violation of
Sec.17 of PD No.957
Open spaces, roads, alleys and sidewalks in a residential
subdivision are for public use and beyond the commerce of man

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

Ownership of the sidewalks in a private subdivision belongs to

the subdivision owner/developer until it is either transferred to
the government by way of donation or acquired by the
government through expropriation.
The law provides two remedies in case of incomplete
development of the subdivision project- 1. reimbursement of the
total amount paid, including amortization interests but excluding
delinquency interests, with interest thereon at the legal rate; or
2. for the buyer to suspend amortization payments until the
completion of the project- which remedied are available to the
prospective buyer, not to the developer.
It is the registered owner or developer of a subdivision who has
the responsibility for the maintenance, repair and improvement
of road lots and open spaces of the subdivision prior to their
donation to the concerned LGU. The use of LGU funds for the
widening and improvement of privately-owned sidewalks is
unlawful as it directly contravenes Sec.335 of RA7160
In case the subdivision developer fails to deliver the lot to the
buyer, it shout pay not the purchase price paid plus interest but
the current market value thereof. (Solid Homes Inc v. Tan, 465
SCRA 137).
Lot buyer and homeowners in a subdivision are not
stockholders, members or associates of the subdivision
developer.
The conveyance by a subdivision developer of its ownership
over the property to the individual homeowners does not
unavoidably mean its having lost obligation any interest in
respect thereto the developer can rightly seek to ensure that
the property continuous to meet the conditions and
requirements, like building specifications and easement
provisions, stipulated in, and made part of, the individual
contracts with its buyers

Read: Arranza vs B.F. Homes, Inc. 333 SCRA 799

Fajardo, Jr vs. Freedom to Build, Inc, 347 SCRA 474
Eugenio vs Drilon, 252 SCRA 106
PNB vs. OPP, 252 SCRA 5
FRC vs. CA, 252 SCRA 127
City of Angeles vs. CA, 261 SCRA 90

Pursuant to Section 18 of PD957, a mortgagee bank is obliged

to accept the payment by the lot buyer of the remaining unpaid
amortization and to apply the payments to the corresponding
mortgage indebtedness secured by the particular lot being paid
for, without prejudice to the mortgagee seeking relief against the
subdivision developer
The amendment in Section 31 of PD957 makes a legal
obligation on the subdivision owner or developer to donate the
open space for parks and playgrounds

Read: Casa Filipina realty Corp. vs. OPP, 241 SCRA 165

PRESCRIPTION
- Prescription may run against a government owned and controlled
corporation if such corporation exercises propriety and not sovereign
powers.
- Prescription may not run against co-heirs and co-owners so long as
the status of being co-heirs and the existence of co-ownership are
not repudiated.
- Prescription should not run against the State because of the
principle of public policy which forbids that public interest be

15
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES
prejudiced by the negligence of the officers or agents to whose care
public property is confided.
- Possession by an administrator is not in the concept of owner.
- Possession by a trustee is not in the concept of an owner, nor that
by an agent; neither is possession by a lessee; so also, possession
by a mortgagee is not in the concept of an owner.
- Prescription by a co-owner is in the concept of owner, but no
prescription may run against the other co-owners unless there is
repudiation of the co-ownership.
- The abandonment of a legal suit by the plaintiff shall result in the
non-interruption of prescription, as if there was no civil interruption.
- Titles to lands registered under the Torrens System shall be
indefeasible and imprescriptible.
- Read: Dolende v. Biarnesa, 7 Phil. 232
- The title for prescription should be a "titulo colorado" and not a
"titulo putativo."
- A "titulo colorado" is one which a person has when he buys a thing
in good faith from another person whom he believes to be the owner;
"titulo putativo" is one which is supposed to have preceded the
acquisition of a thing although in fact it did not as when one is in
possession of a thing in the wrong belief that the same was
bequeathed to him.
- The title for prescription must be TRUE in the sense that the title
must not be simulated or fictitious and VALID in the sense that the act
which gives rise to the title must not be void ab initio or inexistent.
- Read: Dinoso v. CA, L-17738, April 22, 1963
Rights/claims which do not prescribe:
> An action to demand a right of way
> An action to abate a public or private nuisance
> An action to declare a contract inexistent
> An action to quiet title to property possessed by plaintiff
> Actions to recover property subject to continuing and existing trust
or co-ownership in the absence of repudiation
> Right to ask for probate of a will

PRESCRIPTION

A mode of acquiring title to incorporeal hereditaments by

immemorial or long-continued enjoyment.

For distinction between a prescription and a custom is that a

o
CUSTOM is a local usage and not annexed to a
person
o
PRESCRIPTION is a personal usage confined to the
claimant and his ancestors or grantors. The theory of
prescription was that the right claimed must have
been enjoyed beyond the period of the memory of
man.
To avoid the necessity of proof of such long duration, a
custom arose of allowing a presumption of a grant on proof
of usage for a long term of years.

Proof of user as of right for so long as aged persons could

remember was enough to raise a presumption that the right had
existed from time immemorial, if it were neither secret, nor
forcible, nor by permission.

A grant cannot be presumed where it would have been unlawful.

Whatever incorporeal hereditaments may be granted may also

be acquired by long and uninterrupted user.

A co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other

co-owners, absent any clear repudiation of the co-ownership

For title to prescribe in favor of a co-owner, there must be a

clear showing that he has repudiated the claims of the other coowners and the latter has been categorically advised of the
exclusive claim he is making to the property in question.

Prescription does NOT run against the State and the latter may
still bring an action, even after the lapse of one year, for the

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

reversion to the public domain of lands which have been

fraudulently granted to private individuals.
The settled rule is that an action for quieting of title is
IMPRESCRIPTIBLE, where the person seeking relief is in
possession of the disputed property; a person in actual
possession of a piece of land under claim of ownership may wait
until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before
taking steps to vindicate his right.
An action for partition is IMPRESCRIPTIBLE.
Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring (or losing)
ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the
manner and under conditions laid down by law;
o
Possession is in good faith when there is a
reasonable belief that the person from whom the thing
is received has been the owner thereof and could
thereby transmit his ownership.
o
There is just title when the adverse claimant
comes into possession of the property through any of
the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of
ownership or other real rights, but the grantor is
neither the owner nor in a position to transmit the
right.
The prescriptive period is INTERRUPTED when:
o
an action has been filed in court,
o
when there is a written extrajudicial demand made
by the creditor, and
o
when there is any written acknowledgment of the
debt by the debtor.
The rule is that neither laches nor the statute of limitations
applies to a decision in a land registration case. (Sta. Ana
vs Manla, 1 SCRA 1294)
It is settled that an implied trust as opposed to an express trust
is subject to prescription and laches.
The right of the applicant or a subsequent purchaser to request
for the issuance of a writ of possession of the land never
prescribes.
The period of redemption is not a prescriptive period but a
condition precedent provided by law to restrict the right of the
person exercising redemption.
Estoppel by laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable
length of time to do that which, by the exercise of due diligence,
could or should have been done earlier.
Actions to recover movables prescribe in 8 years from the time
the possession is lost.
Real actions over immovable properties prescribe after 30
years.
Prescription as a mode of acquisition requires the existence of
the following:
Capacity to acquire by prescription;
A thing capable of acquisition by prescription;
Possession of the thing under certain conditions; and
Lapse of time provided by law
Acts of possessory character executed by virtue of license or
tolerance of the owner, no matter how long, do not start the
running of the period of prescription.
Possession of patrimonial property of the government, whether
spanning decades or centuries, cannot ipso facto riper into
ownership. [Alonso vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc., 417 SCRA 115]
A creek is property of the public domain which is not susceptible
to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription.
An action to recover possession of registered land never
prescribes in view of provision of Sec. 44 of Act No. 496.
An action for reconveyance based on violation of a condition in
the deed of donation should be instituted within 10 years from
the time of such violation.

16
Property 2A 2012

PROPERTY NOTES

Registration of an instrument in the office of the Register of

Deeds constitutes constructive notice to the whole world and
therefore the discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken
place at the time of registration.
Possession of a public land while it was still inalienable forest, or
before it was declared alienable and disposable land of the
public domain, could not ripen into private ownership, and
should be excluded from the computation of the 30-year open
and continuous possession in concept of an owner.
The contention of a party of having acquired ownership of a
piece of land by ordinary prescription through adverse
possession for 10 years is untenable where he has neither just
title nor good faith.
It is settled that the remedies of accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria must be availed within 10 years from
dispossession.
the possession of forest land, however long, never confers title
upon the possessor because the statute of limitations with
regard to public land does not run against the State, unless the
occupant can prove a grant from the State.
Petitioners possession of the stock certificate came about
because they were delivered to him pursuant to the contracts of
pledge. His possession as a pledgee cannot ripen into
ownership by prescription.
Although a review of the decree of registration is no longer
available after the expiration of the one year period from entry
thereof, an equitable remedy is still available to those who were
wrongfully deprived of their property, i.e., to compel
reconveyance of the property.
An action to recover possession of a registered land never
prescribes; the rule on imprescriptibility of registered lands not
only applies to the registered owners but extends to the heirs of
the registered owners as well.
If the claimants possession of the land is merely tolerated by its
lawful owners, the latters right to recover possession is never
barred by laches.
A notice of adverse claim does not constitute an effective
interruption of a persons possession civil interruption is
produced by judicial summons to the possessor.
Where private property is taken by the Government for public
use without first acquiring title thereto either through
expropriation or negotiated sale, the owners action to recover
the land or the value thereof does not prescribe.
Laches applies in equity, whereas prescription applies at law.
Where the claim was filed within the statutory period of
prescription, recovery therefor cannot bebarred by laches.
The right of the applicant or a subsequent purchaser to request
for the issuance of a writ of possession of the land never
prescribes.
The period of redemption is not a prescriptive period but a
condition precedent provided by law to restrict the right of the
person exercising redemption.
Estoppel by laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable
length of time to do that which, by the exercise of due diligence,
could or should have been done earlier.
Actions to recover movables prescribe in 8 years from the time
the possession is lost.
Real actions over immovable properties prescribe after 30
years.
Prescription as a mode of acquisition requires the existence of
the following:
1. Capacity to acquire by prescription;
2. A thing capable of acquisition by prescription;
3. Possession of the thing under certain conditions; and
4. Lapse of time provided by law

Atty. Robles Handwritten Notes: Compiled (2A 2012)

Acts of possessory character executed by virtue of license or

tolerance of the owner, no matter how long, do not start the
running of the period of prescription.
Possession of patrimonial property of the government, whether
spanning decades or centuries, cannot ipso facto riper into
ownership. [Alonso vs. Cebu Country Club, Inc., 417 SCRA 115]
A creek is property of the public domain which is not susceptible
to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription.
An action to recover possession of registered land never
prescribes in view of provision of Sec. 44 of Act No. 496.
An action for reconveyance based on violation of a condition in
the deed of donation should be instituted within 10 years from
the time of such violation.
Registration of an instrument in the office of the Register of
Deeds constitutes constructive notice to the whole world and
therefore the discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken
place at the time of registration.
Possession of a public land while it was still inalienable forest, or
before it was declared alienable and disposable land of the
public domain, could not ripen into private ownership, and
should be excluded from the computation of the 30-year open
and continuous possession in concept of an owner.
The contention of a party of having acquired ownership of a
piece of land by ordinary prescription through adverse
possession for 10 years is untenable where he has neither just
title nor good faith.
It is settled that the remedies of accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria must be availed within 10 years from
dispossession.

17
Property 2A 2012