Sie sind auf Seite 1von 11

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES

ARTICLE 415
STANDARD OIL OF NEW YORK VS. JARANILLA
Ministerial Duty of the Register of Deeds

There is nothing in the Chattel Mortgage Law or in the Administrative Code


conferring upon the register of deeds an authority w/ respect to the
qualification of chattel mortgages. His duties to register chattel mortgages are
ministerial only.

Jaramillo, the head of the Register of Deeds of Manila refused to annotate on


the title of land a chattel mortgage on the ground that it is not a chattel. SC
held that the duty of the Register of Deeds with regard to chattel mortgages is
ministerial only.

The defendant treated the property (2 storey house) as personal property


(even if the land on which it stood is owned by someone else). The chattel
mortgage over the same property is therefore valid

MANARANG VS. OFILANDA


Real property even if subject to a chattel mortgage

After the mortgage was foreclosed because the plaintiffs were not able to pay,
they tendered payment to the sheriff but it was refused on the ground that
there is still a balance of 260 pesos representing publication in newspapers.

For purposes of notice to be given for the propertys sale and execution, the
house of Maranang, even if subject to a chattel mortgage, is considered as
real property.

The fact that the parties entered into a contract regarding the house and
treated the said property as personal property in their contract does not bind
the sheriff in advertising the propertys sale at public auction as personal
property.

Sales on execution affect 3rd persons. The regulations governing sales on


execution are for public officials to follow. The form of proceedings for each
kind of property is suited to its character, not to the character w/c the parties
have given it. This is due to the need for a definite, orderly, well-defined
regulation for official and public guidance.

Par. 1: Land, building, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil
LEUNG YEE VS. STRONG MACHINERY CO
Law not followed because of bad faith

The building was real property, and the mere fact that the parties seem to
have dealt w/ it separate and apart from the land on w/c it stood didnt
change its character as real property.

Although Art. 1473 says that the title of ownership that is 1 st recorded shall 1st
have preference, this must be understood on the basis of good faith. Leung
Yee was not a purchaser in good faith, hence such rule did not apply.

Public records cannot be converted into instruments of fraud and oppression


by one who secures and inscription therein in bad faith. The force and effect
given by law to an inscription in a public record presupposes the good faith of
him who enters such inscription.

Par.2: Trees, plants and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or
form an integral part of an immovable
SIBAL VS. VALDEZ
Growing crops are movable properties by anticipation

Growing crops are considered immovable property so long as they are


attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable.

However, sugarcanes are movable properties by anticipation. They pass from a


state of growing (immovable) to a gathered one (movable).

PRUDENTIAL BANK VS. PANIS


Treatment of Parties to the property mortgaged essential
Issuance of Sales Patent an intervening cause

The rule in Article 415 paragraph 1 is that the inclusion of building means that
a building is by itself an immovable property. A building by itself may be
mortgaged apart from the land on w/c it was built.

A valid real estate mortgage can be constituted on the building erected on a


land belonging to another.

The second issue shows that the Issuance of Sales Patent by the Secretary of
Agriculture prohibiting the owner of the land to encumber the property makes
the second mortgage null and void.
Claro: The grantee under the Public Land Act is prohibited from encumbering the land.

Par5: Machineries, receptacles, instruments, or implements intended by the


owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a
building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of
the said industry or works
MINDANAO BUS CO. VS. CITY ASSESSOR
Machineries are not essential principal elements

Movable equipments to be immobilized in contemplation of the law must 1 st be


essential and principal elements of an industry or works, w/o w/c such
industry or works would be unable to function or carry on the industrial
purpose for w/c it was established.

The tools & equipment in this case (Welder Machines, Boring Machines,
Grinder and Hydraulic Press) are not essential and principal elements of the
business of transporting passengers and cargoes by motor trucks. They are
merely incidental and used to improve its service. Even w/o such tools, its
business may be carried on. The transportation business could be carried on

NAVARRO VS. PINEDA


Treatment of the owner of the property is essential

Parties to a contract may, by agreement, treat as personal property that w/c


by its nature would be real property.

the deed of chattel mortgage was valid based on the doctrine of estoppel, in
that the parties have so expressly agreed in the mortgage to consider the
house as chattel. However, this is good only insofar as the contracting parties
are concerned. But w/ respect to 3rd persons, it is considered as immovable.

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
-1-

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES

w/o the repair or service shop if its equipment is repaired or serviced in


another shop.
Par. 5 of Art. 415 also requires that the industry or works be carried on in a
building or a piece of land. The equipments in question are destined only to
repair or service the transportation business, w/c is not carried on in a building
or permanently on a piece of land. Hence the equipment may not be deemed
as real property.

Though the machineries were principal and essential elements of an industry


or work, the stipulation between the parties is valid and binding upon them so
long as it does not prejudice the rights of 3 rd persons. Ergo, the machineries
are personal property because they were stipulated in the Lease agreement as
a personal property.

Par. 9:. Docks and structures which, though floating are intended by their
nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river lake or coast.

DAVAO SAWMILL CO. VS. CASTILLO


Law not followed because the lessee constructed the machineries

Machinery w/c is movable in nature becomes immobilized when placed in a


land or a building by the owner of the property. Hence, such result will not be
accomplished by the placing of machinery in a plant by a tenant or
usufructuary or by any person having only a temporary right.

Even if the machineries tend to directly meet the needs of the said industry,
its construction should be done by the owner for it to be considered
immovable. Hence, the chattel mortgage over the sawmill is valid and
enforceable.

FELS ENERGY VS. PROVINCE OF BATANGAS


Barges, though moving, are Real property

Pursuant to Par. 9, the power barges are immovable properties by destination.


They are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a
river, lake, or coast.

Power barges are categorized as immovable property by destination, being in


the nature of machinery and other implements intended by the owner for an
industry or work which may be carried on in a building or on piece of land and
which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or work.

BERKENKOTTER VS. CU UNIJENG


Additional Machinery is an essential and principal element of the industry

The additional machinery is an essential and principal element of the sugary


central. The installation of machineries for the purpose of carrying out
industrial functions of the sugar central and increasing production constitutes
a permanent improvement on the property.

Buboy: WTF! There were 2 confusing provisions invoked by the SC, paragraphs 9 and 5
of Art 415. Par 5 talks about the property which is carried on in a building or on a piece
of land. Power barges, are floating! Moreover, barges are not intended to remain at a
fixed place because they have to move because they are vessels intended to transfer
oil from one point to another.
Sienna: WTS! (What the Shit?!) They cant use Par. 5 as a basis because power
barges, by their very nature, remain in the water. One of the requisites for Par. 5 to
apply is that the equipment must be carried on in a building or a piece of land. Water is
NEITHER a building nor a piece of land!

MAKATI LEASING & FINANCE CORP. VS. WEAREVER TEXTILE MILLS


Machineries treated as movable property in a chattel mortgage

Parties to a contract may, by agreement, treat as personal property that w/c


by nature would be real property, as long as n interest of 3 rd parties would be
prejudiced thereby.

The party is estopped in denying that the drive motor seized is movable for he
executed a chattel mortgage. By executing this accessory contract, the Milling
Company accepts the validity and enforceability of the chattel mortgage.

Par. 10: Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over
immovable property.
PRESBITERO VS. FERNANDEZ
Rights over sugar quota allocations are immovable properties

Sugar quotas are real property for they are considered real rights over
immovable property, just like servitudes & easements.

Under the Sugar Limitation Law, the sugar quota allocations are accessories to
land, and cannot have independent existence away from a plantation.
ARTICLE 416

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS VS. MERALCO


Steel Towers of Meralco are personal property

Vis--vis par 1 The poles are removable and attached to a square metal
frame by means of bolt, which when unscrewed could easily be dismantled
and moved from place to place.

Vis--vis par 3 They are not attached to an immovable in a fixed manner,


and they can be separated without breaking the material or causing
deterioration upon the object to which they are attached.

Vis--vis par 5 They are not machineries, receptacles, instruments and


implements, and even if they were, they are not intended for industry or
works on the land.

Paragraph 1
UNITED STATES VS. IGNACIO CARLOS
Electricity is a movable property

Electricity is considered as a movable property which is capable of


appropriation. The true test of the nature of a property is not its corporeality,
but its capability of being appropriated.

SERGS PRODUCTS INC. VS. PCI LEASING & FINANCE


Stipulation of the party prevails over the essential character of the property

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
-2-

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES

The manifestations and effects of electricity may be seen and felt. It is a


valuable article of merchandise, bought and sold like other personal property
and is capable of appropriation.
Paragraph 2
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VS CARIDAD CAPISTRANO
Philippine Bills may be considered as merchandise

Money in the country where it is current, is both a measure of value and a


medium of exchange, while in other countries it is a commodity bought and
sold in the market.

Philippine Bills when taken out of the country are deemed to be taken out of
domestic circulation as legal tender, and therefore considered as commodity.

ARTICLE 417

BACHRACH MOTOR CO. VS. LACSON LEDESMA


Certificate of Stocks are movable properties

A contract of pledge or chattel mortgage, to be binding against 3 rd parties,


need not appear in a public instrument, so long as it is delivered to the
creditor.

Certificates of stock or of stock dividends, under the Corporation law, are


quasi negotiable instruments in the sense that they may be given in pledge or
mortgage to secure an obligation. They have some of the attributes and
partaking of the character of negotiable instruments, in passing hand to hand.
Because of their characteristics of being close to commercial paper, they can
be treated as movable property.

Right/title of interest which a person may receive from a Milling Company can
be subject to a pledge

The 1987 Constitution bans corporations from acquiring any kind of alienable
land of the public domain. They are only allowed to hold them through lease.
The purpose of the law is to:
o
Prevent large landholdings w/c tend to create social unrest
o
Equitably diffuse land ownership
o
Encourage owner-cultivatorship
o
Transfer ownership of limited area of alienable land of public domain
to a qualified individual
o
Strengthen the constitutional limitation on individuals from acquiring
more than the allowed area of alienable land
Absent 2 official acts - a classification that these lands are alienable or
disposable and open to disposition and a declaration that these lands are not
needed for public service, lands reclaimed by PEA remain inalienable.
PEA may sell its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private
individuals, since there is no longer a statutory prohibition against such sales
and the constitutional ban doesnt apply to individuals. PEA however, cannot
sell any of its alienable or disposable lands of the public domain to private
corporations. The legislative authority only benefits individuals. Private
corporations remain barred from acquiring any kind of alienable land of the
public domain, including government reclaimed land.

HEIRS OF PROCESO BAUTISTA VS. SPS. BARZA


Timber lands

Until timer lands are released as disposable/alienable, neither the Bureau of


Lands nor the Bureau of Fisheries has the authority to lease/grant/sell/dispose
of these lands for homesteads, sales patents, leases, fishpond leases, etc.

Possession acquired in good faith doesnt lose its character except from the
moment facts exist w/c show that the possessor is not unaware that he
possess the thing improperly or wrongfully.

ARTICLE 419
ARTICLE 420
CRUZ VS. CRUZ VDA. DE NAEG

The applicants for the registration of title or for the confirmation of imperfect
title must prove that:
o
The land is alienable public land
o
Their open, continuous, exclusive & notorious possession &
occupation must be either since time immemorial or since June 12,
1945

An applicant for registration under Sec. 48 of the Public Land Act must secure
a certification from the Government that the lands w/c he claims to have
possessed as owner for more than 30 years are alienable and disposable. It is
the burden of the applicant to prove its positive averments.

A person who seeks the registration of title to a piece of land on the basis of
possession by himself and his predecessors-in-interest must prove his claim
by clear & convincing evidence; he should not rely on the weakness of the
evidence of the oppositors.

PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY VS. CITY OF ILOILO


Ports

A port is a place where the ships may anchor or tie up for the purpose of
shelter, repair, loading or discharge or cargo & other such activities connected
w/ water-borne commerce and including all land and water areas and
structures, equipment, and facilities related to these functions.

The warehouse in the case at bar may not be held as part of the port,
considering its separable nature as an improvement upon the port. The
warehouse is subject to taxation because exemption of public property doesnt
extend to improvements made thereon.

Moreover, the enumeration under Art. 420 specifically states ports


constructed by the State. The fact that the port was constructed by the State
must 1st be established by sufficient evidence. However, no proof was adduced
to establish that the port was constructed by the State.

CHAVEZ VS. PEA


Alienable lands of the public domain

PHILIPPINE FISHERIES DEVT AUTHORITY VS. CA


Public property not subject to execution/foreclosure sale

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
-3-

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES

Since the Iloilo Fishing Port Complex is a property of public dominion, it cannot
be sold at public auction to satisfy the tax delinquency. The IFPC was
constructed by the State for public use and/or service, hence it cannot be
subject to execution or foreclosure sale. The reclaimed land on w/c the IFPC
was built cannot be the object of a private/public sale w/o congressional
authorization. This means that the City has to satisfy the tax delinquency
through other means other than the sale at public auction of the IFPC.

REPUBLIC VS. LAT VDA. DE CASTILLO


shores

Lakeshore lands or lands adjacent to the lake must be differentiated from


foreshore land or that part of the land adjacent to the sea which is alternately
covered and left dry by the ordinary flow of the tides.

Accretions on the bank of a lake belong to the owners of the estate to w/c
they have been added, while accretion on a sea bank still belongs to the public
domain, and is not available for private ownership until formally declared by
the government to be no longer needed for public use.

The shores are properties of public domain intended for public use, and
therefore not remittable. Portions of the foreshore or of the territorial waters
and beaches cannot be registered. Their inclusion in a certificate of title
doesnt convert the same into properties of private ownership or confer title
upon the registrant.

ownership, it follows that banks w/c form part of them are also of public
ownership.
A river is a compound concept consisting of 3 elements: the running waters,
the bed and the banks. All these constitute the river. Since a river is but one
compound concept, it should have only 1 nature it should be either totally
public or completely private. And since rivers are of public ownership, it is
implicit that all 3 component elements be of the same nature also.
The City of Manila cannot be accused of unjustly profiting at Hilarios expense.
They were not responsible for the shifting of the River. It was due to natural
causes for w/c not one can be blamed. The government, through Hilario, may
have been enriched by chance, but not unjustly.

VDA. DE VILLONGCO VS. MORENO


Navigable river

RA 2056 states that any dam, dike or any other work that encroaches into any
public navigable river, stream, coastal waters and any other public navigable
waters or waterways, or that they are constructed in areas declared as
communal fishing grounds, shall be removed w/in 30 days.

In order to be exempted, the following requisites must be present:


o
The constructions/works were constructed in good faith before the
areas were declare communal fishing grounds
o
The constructions/works would not impede the free passage of any
navigable river or stream
o
The constructions/works wouldnt cause inundations of agricultural
areas

In the case at bar, the 2nd requisite is missing. The area included a portion of
the Manila Bay area or coastal area, & is evidently navigable at high tide for
vessels of deeper draft. Hence, it is part of the waterways waterways w/c
are especially used by fishermen & fishpond owners to bring in their catch to
market. It is public property and not susceptible of appropriation by any
private individual, not only because it belongs to the state, but also because it
is a waterway.

MANECLANG VS. IAC


Creek

The Compromise Agreement between the parties is null and void. The
stipulations contained therein partake of the nature of an adjudication of
ownership in favor of Maneclang of the fishpond, w/c was found as a creek
forming a tributary of the Agno River.

A creek is an arm extending from a river & participating in the ebb & flow of
the sea. It is property belonging to the public domain w/c is not susceptible to
private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. As public water, it cannot be
registered under the Torrens system in the name of any individual.

MUNICIPALITY OF CAVITE VS. ROJAS


Lease on a plaza is void there is reimbursement

The residential house of Rojas was constructed on a part of Plaza, a land of


public domain. The lease to her over the land was void and the SC ordered
reimbursement to the lease fees collected.

In leasing the said plaza to Rojas, the municipality exceeded its authority in
the exercise of its executing a contract over a thing w/c it could not dispose,
nor is it empowered to do. The contract is null and void, and the thing leased
cannot be the object of a contract.

SANTOS VS. MORENO


Streams/Canals

No private person has a right to usurp possession of watercourse, branch of a


river, or lake of public domain and use, unless it shall have been proved that
he constructed the same w/in property of his exclusive ownership.

Canals constructed by the State and devoted to public use are of public
ownership. Conversely, canals constructed by private persons w/in private
lands and devoted exclusively for private use must be of private ownership.
The streams involved were artificially made & devoted to the exclusive use of
the hacienda owner.

SANCHEZ VS. MUNICIPALITY OF ASINGAN, PANGASINAN


Cross-reference to Rojas is untenable.

The property involved in the case of Rojas was devoted to public use, and
therefore outside the commerce of man, while the property in the case at bar
is patrimonial in character.

HILARIO VS. CITY OF MANILA


River

All riverbanks are of public ownership including those formed when a river
leaves its old bed and opens a new course through a private estate. The
riverbank is part of the riverbed. Since all beds of rivers are of public

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
-4-

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES

The lease being valid, the reimbursement prayed for cannot be allowed. In
fact, the lessees benefited from the lease by constructing temporary stores
and buildings.

CITY OF MANILA VS GARCIA


Lease contracts to Squatters do not cure the illegality of taking of the land

The defendants entered the parcel of land without the knowledge and consent
of the owner. The contract of lease given cannot grant them the right to claim
the disputed land as their own.

The mayor of the City of Manila cannot legalize forcible entry into public
property by the simple expedient of giving permits or executing leases.

purchase, if it was not intended as patrimonial, his purchase does not transfer
the ownership of the property to him.
When there has been bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built,
sowed, or planted on anothers land, but also on the part of the owner of the
latter, the rights of both shall be the same as if they had acted in good faith.
Roa constructed the building in bad faith for he had knowledge of the fact that
his grantor was not the owner thereof. There was bad faith on the part of the
Municipality since it allowed Roa to construct the building w/o any opposition
on its part and to so occupy it for 8 years. The rights of the parties must,
therefore, be determined as if they had both acted in good faith.

CEBU OXYGEN AND ACETYLENE VS BERCILLES


Abandoned Roads changed the nature of the property from public to patrimonial.

Abandoned roads are of patrimonial character for it is no longer intended for


public use or for public service. The City Council of Cebu has the power wand
authority to pass resolutions declaring the land as patrimonial property.
Claro: The question of whether or not property of public domain is no longer needed
for public service and therefore shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State
is a question of fact.

GOVT VS. CABANGIS


Wearing away of land

General Rule: When the lots began to wear away & when it was completely
submerged, they became a part of the public domain.

Exception: If government removed silt & the shore moved, the owner wouldnt
lose title over the property because it wasnt due to the natural ebb and flow
of the tide.

Cabangis could have protected their land by building a retaining wall when the
waters of the sea began to wear it away. Their failure to do so constituted
abandonment.

Accdg. to the Law of Waters Lands reclaimed from the sea in consequence of
works constructed by the State, or by provinces, pueblos, or private persons,
w/ proper permission, shall become the property of the party constructing
such works.
Claro: the natural wearing away of the land is called natural expropriation and is not
subject to indemnity

ARTICLE 424
VIUDA DE TANTOCO VS. MUNICIPALITY OF ILOILO
Properties devoted to public service are not subject to attachment

Property, real or personal, held by municipal corporations, in trust for the


benefit of their inhabitants, and used for public purposes, is not subject to levy
and sale under execution.

Property for public use of the State is not w/in the commerce of man, and
consequently is inalienable and not subject to prescription.

There is no right to attach auto-trucks, police patrol automobiles, and police


stations for they are devoted to public service.

PALANCA VS LA COMUNIDAD DE FILIPINAS


Res Judicata does not apply to the government

The parcel of lands separated by rivers and esteros, for commercial navigation
and fishing, are considered lands of public domain.

ARTICLE 425

BUREAU OF FORESTRY VS CA
Convincing proof is not needed for Bureau of Forestry to declare a land as agricultural

The classification/reclassification of public lands into alienable or disposable,


mineral or forest lands is now the prerogative of the Executive Dept. & not of
the courts. It is not the court w/c determines the classification of lands of the
public domain into agricultural, forest or mineral but the Executive Branch of
Government through the Office of the President

ALBA VIUDA DE RAZ VS COURT OF APPEALS

Lachica cannot acquire the land through prescription via the Civil Code.
Lachica applied for Judicial Confirmation of Imperfect Title. This presumes that
the land sought to be registered is part of the public domain. Being land of
public domain, it cannot be acquire by prescription for no public land an be
acquired by private persons w/o any grant, express or implied, from the
government.

Prescription does not run against the State.

Even assuming that prescription can apply, Lachica cannot be considered in


good faith because he encroached upon the property of others. Being in bad
faith, 30 years are needed to obtain title over the land.

There are 2 classifications of land: alienable/disposable & inalienable/nondisposable


o
Alienable/Disposable

Agricultural

ARTICLE 422
MUNICIPALITY OF OAS VS ROA
Intended as Storage of Gov. Property; Statements made that pueblo owns the lot

The general rule is that a public property may only be sold to a private
individual when it becomes patrimonial. Even if ROA acquired the lot by

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
-5-

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES

Residential, commercial, industrial


Educational, charitable
Reservations for town sites and for public and quasi-public
purposes
o
Inalienable/Non-Disposable

Timber lands

Mineral lands
Claro: When the trial court applied prescription, it used the Civil Coe, but that applies
only to private property, not property of the public domain.
REPLEVIN (RULE 60)

SVs right over the land is premised on the certificate of title registered in its
name after it had purchased it. As the registered owner, it had the right of
possess of said land illegally occupied by another.
Claro: A certificate of title is a strong evidence of ownership. Possession is an
attribute of ownership.

JOVEN VS. CA

It is incorrect to say that a question of ownership was involved simply because


Joven alleged in her complaint. That she instituted a separate action for
annulment of the mortgage is not a valid reason for defeating the summary
remedy of ejectment.

The ejectment case did not involve the question of title as this was the subject
of the annulment case before the RTC of Lucena City

In case of extrajudicial foreclosure of mortgage, the court may issue as a


matter of course a writ of possession in favor of the purchaser even during the
redemption period, provided that:
o
A proper motion has been filed
o
A bond is approved
o
No 3rd person is involved

If no redemption is made w/in 12 months after the sale, the purchaser is


entitled to a conveyance and the possession of property. However, to give
effect to his right of possession, the purchaser must invoke the aid of the
courts & ask for a writ of possession. He cannot simply take the law into his
own hands & enter the property w/o judicial authorization.

In case of non-redemption, the purchaser at a foreclosure sale shall either:


o
File w/ the Register of Deeds a final deed of sale executed by the
person in authority by virtue of the power of attorney embodied in
the deed of mortgage, OR
o
File his sworn statement attesting to the fact of non-redemption

TILLSON VS. CA

Replevin, as a provisional remedy, is an ORDER FOR DELIVERY OF PERSONAL


PROPERTY

Replevin is the return to or recovery by a person of goods or chattels claimed


to be wrongfully taken or detained upon the persons giving security to try the
matter in court & return the goods if defeated in the action

Replevin is a form of action w/c lies to regain the possession the possession of
personal chattels w/c have been taken from the plaintiff unlawfully

When the trial court executed a Writ of Replevin in favor of Cooney, the sheriff
took possession of the yacht. The case is not removed from the operation of
Rule 60 by the fact that after the property was taken from Tillson, it was not
turned over to Cooney, but to the Coast Guard, on the instructions of the trial
court. It does not alter the reality of Tillsons loss of possession.

Tillson had substantially complied w/ the requirements of Sec. 6 of Rule 60


o
He posted a counterbond double the value of the property (in fact
more than double the value)
o
The counterbond was posted w/in 5 days after the taking of the
property

PHARMA INDUSTRIES INC. VS PAJARILLAGA

There are 3 kinds of action ejecting a person from the land:


- Accion Interdictal: may be either for forcible entry or detainer, w/c is a
summary that seeks the recovery of only physical possession, and is
brought w/in 1 year in the MTC
- Accion publiciana: intended for the recovery of the right to possess and is
a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceedings, before the RTC
- Accion de reivinidicacion: seeks the recovery of ownership w/c of course
included the jus utendi & jus fruendi also brought in the RTC

The present case is one for unlawful detainer because Del Rosario refused to
vacate the property upon demand & after her right to possess it had ceased to
be lawful.

In unlawful detainer, there is no need to allege prior possession & forcible


deprivation. Prior possession is not always a condition sine qua non.

But if prior possession be insisted, Pharma Industries actually had it before the
suit was filed. It acquired possession when Del Rosario executed in its favor
the Deed of Sale w/ right to repurchase over the land & title was confirmed
upon failure of Del Rosario to repurchase the property

MACHINERY ENGINEERING SUPPLY VS. CA

Replevin is brought to recover SPECIFIC PERSONAL PRORPERTY unlawfully


taken or detained from the owner, provided such property is capable of
identification & delivery

Replevin is not applicable to real property or incorporeal personal property

Machineries of respondent were obviously immovable, hence replevin is not


applicable
FORCIBLE ENTRY (RULE 70)
TOYOTA MOTORS PHILS. VS. CA

A certificate of title cannot be altered, modified or cancelled except in a direct


proceeding in accordance w/ law.

The complaint for reformation filed by Toyota warrants a dismissal because it


amounted to a collateral attack on Sun Valleys title.

What SV seeks in its complaint is the recovery of possession de jure & not
merely possession de facto. SVs complaint was one for accion publiciana
cognizable by the RTC.

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
-6-

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES

VIDE DEL ROSARIO VS. CA

BP 129 vests municipal courts w/ exclusive jurisdiction over cases of forcible


entry & unlawful detainer.

The fact that Dennis father filed an action for quieting of title before the RTC
does not divest the MTC of its jurisdiction over the ejectment case

In an ejectment case, the issue is the right to physical possession (possession


de facto) independent of any claim of ownership

In cases falling under the Revised Rules of Summary procedure, the


adjudication can be done on the basis of affidavits and position papers. The
court is no longer allowed to hold a hearing to receive testimonial evidence.
The proceeding must be as summary as possible in order not to defeat the
need to dispose ejectment cases in as fast a time as possible
REYES VS. STA. MARIA

The only issue in forcible entry and detainer cases is the physical possession of
real property possession de facto and not possession de jure. If plaintiff can
prove a prior possession in himself, he may recover such possession even fro
the owner himself. Whatever may be the character of his prior possession, if
he has in his favor priority of time, he has the security that entitles him to
stay on the property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better
right by either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

Petitioners action was not merely for recovery of possession de facto. It was
clearly one of accion publiciana for recovery of possession de jure, if not one
of accion reivindicatoria for declaration of their ownership over the land. Hence
it was correctly filed w/ the RTC

No demand was necessary for him to vacate the premises as this was
specifically provided for in the agreement that lessee Quemel should vacate
the leased premises w/o the necessity of further demand upon failure to
comply w/ the terms of the agreement.

Unlawful detainer is defined as the act of withholding the possession of land or


building from another who is entitled to it after the expiration or termination of
the right of the illegal detainer to hold possession by virtue of a contract,
express or implied, when 1 year had not yet elapsed from the time the original
possession had become illegal.

The act of withholding possession w/c could be the subject matter of an


ejectment suit is that w/c results from any contract. Thus, an unlawful
detainer case can sprint not only from a contract of lease, but may also spring
from a compromise agreement w/c is also a contract such as in the case at
bar.
MABALOT VS. MEDELA

The time limitation of 1 year w/in w/c to file an action for forcible entry and
detainer is reckoned not from the moment of occupancy by the defendant, but
from the time that his possession becomes unlawful.

The possession of Mabalot became unlawful only after Galvez died; such death
terminated the lease in his favor.
DE GUZMAN VS. CA

The right to file an action for forcible entry case has already prescribed. The
complaint dated 1988 alleged tat De Guzman entered the property in 1988.

Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are quieting processes & the 1 year time
bar to the suit is in pursuance of the summary nature of the action. The 1 year
period is counted from the time the entry by stealth was made by the
defendant.

After the lapse of the 1-year period, the remedy of the party dispossessed of a
land is to file an accion publiciana

DAYAO VS. SHELL CO. OF THE PHILS.

Shell filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Dayao & a Motion for
Issuance of Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. Dayao argues that a writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction can only be issued in cases of forcible
entry & not unlawful detainer. However:

Under Art. 1673 of the NCC, a lessor may judicially eject a lessee for violation
of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract. Also Art. 1674 allows the
issuance of the Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction in an unlawful
detainer case in the appellate court. It was designed to put an end to the
present state of the law w/c unjustly allows the lessee to continue in
possession during an appeal. Such provisions are applicable because of the
existing relationship of lessor-lessee between the parties.

ZOBEL VS. ABREU

Mere failure to pay rents or breach of contract to pay rents does not render
the possession of the lessee per se unlawful, nor may the action for his
ejectment from the land accrue upon such failure to breach

The right to bring an action of ejectment or unlawful detainer must be counted


from the time the defendant has filed to pay the rent after demand therefore.

It is not the failure to pay rents as agreed upon in a contract, but the failure to
pay the rents after a demand therefore is made that entitles the lessor to
bring an action of unlawful detainer.

MUNOZ. VS CA

There was no mention that Nicolas was in prior possession of the property. it
was only stated that the property was presently tenanted. He also failed to
state the date of entry or possession, hence he failed to state when entry
through stealth was made. Such failure is FATAL, as this determines the start
of counting of the 1 year period for filing of summary action of forcible entry.

When the complaint fails to state when dispossession started, the proper
action would be accion publiciana/accion reivindicacion cognizable by the RTC.

ARTICLE 435
REPUBLIC VS. GINGOYON
RULE 67
RA 8974
Commences expropriation proceedings through the filing of a complaint.
No need for legislative authorization to exercise eminent domain.
Outlines general procedure under w/c Covers expropriation proceedings intended

VILLEGAS VS. CA

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
-7-

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES

eminent domain may be exercised by


the Government
service Government is required to
make an initial deposit w/ an
authorized government depositary.

for national government


infrastructure
projects.
Service Government is required to make
immediate payment to the property owner
upon the filing of the complaint to be
entitled to a writ of possession.
The
initial
deposit
should
be Service Immediate payment is based on:
equivalent to the assessed value of 1. zonal valuation of the BIR (in the case of
the property for taxation purposes.
land)
2. value of the improvements or structures
under replacement cost method
3. proffered value of the property (no
valuation available & in case of utmost
urgency)
(FROM CALIDA DIGEST)

Replacement cost method: The amount necessary to replace the


improvements/structure, based on the current market prices for materials,
equipment, labor, contractors profit and overhead, and all other attendant
costs associated w/ the acquisition & installation in place of the affected
improvements/structures.

The commissioners are required to conduct a hearing to determine just


compensation, and to provide the parties the following:
o
Notice of the said hearings & the opportunity to attend them
o
The opportunity to introduce evidence in their favor during the said
hearings
o
The opportunity for the parties to argue their respective causes
during the said hearings
When the principal issue in a case is the determination of just compensation, a
hearing before the commissioners is indispensable to allow the parties to
present evidence on the issue of just compensation. Trial w/ the aid of the
commissioners is a substantial right, and the absence of such violated the
parties right to due process.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILS. VS. HEIRS OF ANGEL T. DOMINGO,

In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the


current value of the like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made
by government assessors shall be considered.

The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the
farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution
on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its
valuation.

CITY OF MANILA VS. CHINESE COMMUNITY OF MANILA

The right of expropriation is not an inherent power in a municipal corporation,


and before it can exercise the right some law must exist conferring the power
upon it. The courts must find:
1. that a law or authority exists for the exercise of the right of eminent
domain
2. that the right or authority is being exercised in accordance with the
law.

2 conditions are imposed upon the authority conceded to the City of Manila
1. the land must be private
2. the purpose must be public
If the court, upon trial, finds that neither of these conditions exists or that
either one of them fails, certainly it cannot be contended that the right is
being exercised in accordance with law

The necessity and expediency of exercising the right of eminent domain are
questions essentially political and not judicial in their character. The
determination of those questions) belongs to the sovereign power; the
decision of the legislative department is final and conclusive, and the courts
have no power to review it.

when the statute does not designate the property to be taken nor how may be
taken, then the necessity of taking particular property is a question for the
courts

But whether or not the municipal corporation or entity is exercising the right in
a particular case under the conditions imposed by the general authority, is a
question which the courts have the right to inquire into.
Claro: The courts may still step in when the legislature commits GADLEJ.

REPUBLIC VS. PLDT

The Republic may exercise the sovereign power of eminent domain and
require the telephone company to permit interconnection of the government
telephone system and that of the PLDT, as the needs of the government
service may require, subject to the payment of just compensation to be
determined by the court.

No cogent reason appears why the power of eminent domain may not be
availed of to impose only a burden upon the owner of condemned property,
without loss of title and possession.
DE KNETCH VS. BAUTISTA

even though the state has the right to take private property for public use with
just compensation, it may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private
property should be taken
REPUBLIC VS. DE KNETCH

The social impact factor which existed in the earlier case has disappeared. All
the residents in the area was relocated and was duly compensated, the EDSA
project is almost complete and only De Knecht, with her violent resistance,
stands in the way of the project of reducing the bottleneck traffic in EDSA and
also to solve the flood control problem in other area. Due to supervening
events, the SC found it proper to reverse the earlier decision.

NATIONAL POWER CORP. VS. SPOUSES DELA CRUZ,

VISAYAN REFINING VS. PAREDES

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
-8-

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES
to sell his land to the owner of the building. But he cannot refuse both to pay
for the building & to sell the land & compel the owner of the building to
remove it from the land. He is entitled to such remotion only when, after
having chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same.
The trial courts decision fails to determine the value of the buildings & of the lot
where they are erected as well as the periods of time w/in w/c the option may
be exercised & payment should be made, these particulars having been left for
determination apparently after the judgment has become final. This procedure
is erroneous, for after the judgment has become final, no additions can be
made thereto & nothing can be done therewith except its execution. And
execution cannot be had, the sheriff being ignorant as to how, for how much,
& w/in what time may the option be exercised, & certainly no authority is
vested in him to settle these matters w/c involve exercise of judicial
discretion. Thus the appealed judgment has never become final, it having left
matters to be settled for its completion in a subsequent proceeding, matters
w/c remained unsettled up to the time the petition is filed in the instant case.

The power of eminent domain is inseparable from sovereignty, being essential


the existence of the State and inherent in government even in its most
primitive forms. No law is ever necessary to confer this right upon sovereignty
or upon any Government exercising sovereign or quasi-sovereign powers.
The power of eminent domain must be exercised in subjection to all the
restraints imposed by constitutional or organic law. The are 2 limitations,
namely:
1. no law shall be enacted w/c shall deprive any person of property w/o
due process of law
2. private property shall not be taken for public use w/o just
compensation
The use of land by the Govt for military & aviation purposes is a public use
w/in the meaning of the provisions of law authorizing the Govt to acquire real
estate for public use by the exercise of the right of eminent domain. A military
establishment is essential to the maintenance of an organized society.
The existence of a legislative appropriation especially destined to pay for land
to be acquired by the Govt through the exercise of the power of eminent
domain is not an essential pre-requisite to the institution and maintenance of
judicial proceedings for the expropriation of such land. All that can be required
of the Government is that it should comply w/ the conditions laid down by law.
The preliminary deposit serves the double purpose of:
1. a prepayment upon the value of the property, if finally expropriated
2. as an indemnity against damage in the eventuality that the
proceedings should fail of consummation

TAYAG VS. YUSECO


Once a party in conformity w/ the court decision has made his choice, & has duly
informed the court of the said choice, & is accordingly ordered to comply w/
the same by buying the building erected on his land & pay the value thereof
fixed by the courts, that duty is converted into a money obligation w/c can be
enforced by executing regardless of the unwillingness or inability of the party
concerned to pay the amount.

MRR VS. VELASQUEZ

The report of the commissioners on the value of the condemned land is not
final. The judgment of the court is necessary to give effect to their estimated
value. Nor is the report of the commissioners conclusive so that the judgment
of the court is a mere detail or formality requisite to the proceedings.

The court may accept the commissioners report unreservedly; it may return
the report for additional facts; or it may set the report aside & appoint new
commissioners; or it may accept the report in part or reject it in part. Any one
of these methods of disposing of the report is available to and may be adopted
by the court according as they are deemed suited to secure the plaintiff the
necessary property and to the defendant just compensation.

The estimated value made by the appraisers is to be given great weight. Such
valuation must not be lightly set aside if there is a substantial testimony to
support it, unless error is plainly manifest, unless it is apparent that injustice
has been done, unless the commissioners have clearly gone astray or adopted
erroneous principles, or their award is grossly inadequate.

GRANA AND TORRALBA VS. CA


If it would be impractical for the owners of the land to buy that portion of the
building standing on his land, as where the whole building might be rendered
useless, the solution would be for the owner of the land to sell to the builder in
good faith that part of the land on w/c was constructed a portion of the latters
building. If the builder is unwilling or unable to buy, then he must vacate the
land & pay rentals until he does.
A builder in good faith cannot be compelled to pay rentals. He has the right to
retain the land on w/c he has built in good faith until he is reimbursed the
expenses incurred by him.
BACLAYON VS. CA
Once a judgment becomes final & executory, the only jurisdiction left with the
trial court is to order its execution. To require the trial court in a hearing
supplementary to execution, to receive private respondents evidence to prove
that they are builders in good faith will disturb a final executory decision.
PLEASANTVILLE VS. CA
Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is
his & his ignorance of any defect/flaw in his title. And as good faith is
presumed, Pleasantville has the burden of proving bad faith on the part of
Kee.
Violation of the Contract on Sale of Installment may not be the basis to negate
the presumption that Kee was a builder in good faith.

ARTICLE 448
IGNACIO VS. HILARIO
The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by another, is
entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the value of his
building. The owner of the land has the option either to pay for the building or

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
-9-

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES
of malice & the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable
advantage. It lies in an honest belief in the validity of ones right, ignorance of
a superior claim, & absence of intention to overreach another.
Art. 448 of the CC refers to a piece of land whose ownership is claimed by 2 or
more parties, 1 of whom has built some works, & not to a case where the
owner of the land is the builder who then later loses the ownership of the land
by sale or otherwise, for where the true owner himself is the builder of the
works on his own land, the issue of good faith/bad faith is entirely irrelevant.

TECNOGAS VS. CA
Unless one is versed in the science of surveying, no one can determine the
precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his paper title.
It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed in the same character in
w/c it was acquired, until the contrary is proved.
Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character except in case &
from the moment facts exist w/c show that the possessor is not unaware that
he possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully. The good faith ceases from
the moment the defects in the title are made known to the possessor, by
extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery of the property the true owner.
The supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner doesnt militate
against its right to claim the status of a builder in good faith. in fact, the
landowners exercise of his option can only take place after the builder shall
have come to know of the intrusion in short, when both parties shall have
become aware of it. Only then will the occasion for exercising the option arise,
for it is only then that both parties will have been aware that a problem exists
in regard to their property rights.
The settlement may have recognized the ownership of respondent but such
admission cannot be equated w/ bad faith. Petitioner was only trying to avoid
litigation, one reason for entering into an amicable settlement.
The obvious benefit to the builder is that, instead of being outrightly ejected
from the land, he can compel the landowner to make the choice between the 2
options. The landowner cannot refuse to exercise either option & compel
instead the owner of the building to remove it from the land.
Petitioner is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the seller in regard to all
rights of ownership over the immovable sold, including the right to compel the
private respondent to exercise either of the 2 options.

ARTICLE 457
CUREG VS. IAC
Accretion does not automatically become registered land just because the lot
w/c receives such accretion is covered by Torrens title. As such, it must also
be placed under the operation of the Torrens system.
VDA. DE NAZARENO VS. CA
Accretion, as a mode of acquiring property, requires the concurrence of these
requisites:
o
the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual & imperceptible
o
it be the result of action of the waters of the river (or sea)
o
the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of rivers
(or the sea coast)
These are called the rules on all alluvion, w/c if present in a case, give to the
owners of the land adjoining banks of rivers or streams any accretion
gradually received from the effects of the current of waters.
The requirement that the deposit should be due to the effect of the current of
the river is indispensable. This excludes from Art. 457 of the NCC all deposits
caused by human intervention. Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature.
Where land was not formed solely by the natural effect of the water current of
the river bordering said land but is also the consequence of the direct &
deliberate intervention of man, it was deemed a man made accretion and, as
such, part of public domain.
The dumping of boulders, soil & other filling materials into the creek & river
bounding the land, the same would still be part of the public domain.
In any case, Vda. De Nazareno is estopped from denying the public character of
the subject land. The mere filing of the Application by the late Nazareno
constituted an admission that the land being applied for was public land,
having been the subject of the survey plan.

ARTICLES 449-450
DE VERA VS. CA
According to Art 449 & 450, the landowner has 3 alternatives:
o
appropriate w/c has been built w/o any obligation to pay indemnity
o
demand the builder to remove what he has built
o
compel the builder to pay the value of the land
In any event, the landowner is entitled to be indemnified by the builder in bad
faith.

HEIRS OF NAVARRO
Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited, while alluvium is the soil
deposited on the estate fronting the river bank; the owner of such estate is
called the riparian owner.
Riparian owners are, strictly speaking, distinct from littoral owners, the latter
being owners of lands bordering the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal
waters. The alluvium, by mandate of Art. 457 of the CC, is automatically
owned by the riparian owner from the moment the soil deposit can be seen

PNB VS. DE JESUS


A builder in good faith can compel the landowner to make a choice bet.
appropriating the building by paying the proper indemnity or obliging the
builder to pay the price of the land. However, in order that the builder can
invoke the accruing benefit & enjoy his corresponding right to demand that a
choice be made by the landowner, he should be able to prove good faith on his
part.
Good faith is understood as an intangible & abstract quality with no technical
meaning or statutory definition. It encompasses an honest belief the absence

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
- 10 -

ALLAN CARLO SOLLER

SIENNA FLORES

but is not automatically registered property, hence, subject to acquisition


through prescription by 3rd persons.
The disputed land is an accretion not on a river bank but on a sea bank, or on
what used to be the foreshore of Manila Bay which adjoined Navarros own
tract of land on the northern side. As such, the applicable law is not Art. 457
of the CC but Art. 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1886.
Laguna de Bay is a lake the accretion on w/c, by mandate of Art. 84 of the
Spanish Law of Waters of 1866, belongs to the owner of the land contiguous
thereto.
As part of the public domain, the land is intended for public uses, & so long as
the land in litigation belongs to the national domain & is reserved for public
uses, it is not capable of being appropriated by any private person, except
through express authorization granted in by a competent authority.

The law clearly limits the usufruct constituted in favor of a corporation or


association to 50 years. A usufruct is meant only as a lifetime grant. Unlike a
natural person, a corporation or associations lifetime may be extended
indefinitely. The usufruct would then be perpetual.

USUFRUCT
MORALIDAD VS. PERNES
Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but simply allowing 1 to enjoy anothers
property it is also defined as the right to enjoy the property of another
temporarily, including both the just utendi & jus fruendi, w/ the owner
retaining the jus dispodendi or the power to alienate the same.
The term or period of the usufruct originally specified provides only 1 of the
bases for the right of a usufructuary to hold & retain possession of the thing
given in usufruct. There are other modes or instances whereby the usufruct
shall be considered terminated or extinguished.
Usufructuaries do not have the right to reimbursement for the improvements
they may have introduced on the property. If the rule were otherwise, the
usufructuary might improve the owner out of his own property.
HEMEDES VS. CA
The annotation of usufructuary rights in a certificate of title in favor of another
does not impose upon the mortgagee the obligation to investigate the validity
of its mortgagors title.
The owner may validly mortgage the property in favor of a 3 rd person & the
usufructuary shall not be obliged to pay the debt of the mortgagor, & should
the immovable be attached or sold judicially for the payment of the debt, the
owner shall be liable to the usufructuary for whatever the latter may lose by
reason thereof.
NATIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY VS. CA
A usufruct may be constituted for a specified term & under such conditions as
the parties deem convenient subject to the legal provisions on usufruct.
A usufructuary may lease the object held in usufruct. The owner of the property
must respect the lease entered into by the usufructuary so long as the
usufruct exists.
A usufructuary has the duty to protect the owners interests a usufructuary
gives a right to enjoy the property of another w/ the obligation of preserving
its form & substance, unless the title constituting it or the law provides
otherwise.

PROPERTY DOCTRINES
- 11 -