LOSS OF POSSESSION
If
(79) Bishop of Cebu vs. Mangaron, G.R. No. 1748,
June 1, 1906, En Banc
Facts:
Mariano Mangaron’s parents and brothers had been in
possession of a tract of land in the district of Ermita until
about the year 1877 (possession of at least 20 years). In
1878, they vacated the land by virtue of an order from the
municipality which declared that the land was included
within the zone of materiales Fuertes (fire zone) and the
houses in which they lived upon were of light materials.
They vacated said land without objection. After the land
was vacated, Parish Priests of Ermita Church fenced the
land and cleaned the same without any objection on the
part of anyone. In 1898, Mangarons entered upon the land
in question and built thereon a nipa house and continued
to live thereon without the consent of the parish priest of
Ermita Church or the Bishop of Cebu. Roman Catholic
Church, represented by the Bishop of Cebu filed an
action to recover possession of said land; amended
complaint for said land to be declared property of the
Catholic Church and that it be restored to the latter.
Property had belonged to the Catholic Church from time
immemorial. Mangarons occupied apart thereof by the
mere tolerance of the Catholic Church. Mangaron,
Claims to be the owner of the land by inheritance. He was
the legal owner when he was unlawfully ejected by the
Bishop of Cebu in 1879. He had a right to re-enter; time
for prescription has not yet expired since he was ejected.
Trial Court ruled in favor of Bishop of Cebu and ordered
Mangarons to vacate the land, the occupation of the land
by Mangaron in the year 1898 was illegal. If he thought
he had a right to the land, he should have filed an action
with the court to recover possession and not proceed to
occupy the property; if the Church acceded and
voluntarily returned possession and acknowledged that
the property belonged to him, there would be no necessity
to file an action; but in this case, Church has objected to
the occupation which necessitates a filing of a proper
action.
The possession held by Mangaron in 1898 cannot be
added to the former possession which was interrupted in
1877 by the order of the municipality. Art. 466 CC: “a
person who recovers possession according to law, which
is improperly lost, is considered as having enjoyed it
without interruption for all the purposes which may
redound to his benefit”
It cannot be ascertained that the possession enjoyed by
Mangaron was improperly lost. It has been lost by virtue
of an order from the municipality and no proof to the
contrary was presented. Impossible to say what was the
nature of possession prior to the year 1877—whether it
was held by right or by the mere tolerance of the Church.
Acts of violence or secrecy or mere tolerance cannot
affect the right of possession, Mangaron could not have
lawfully done what he did—to re-enter upon the land
from which he had been ejected by the city of Manila.
the order of the municipality was illegal, and that the
possession was improperly lost, Mangaron should have
requested assistance of competent authorities to recover it
(plenary action).
Mangaron filed petition. SC resolved a relevant question
of law in deciding whether to affirm the decision of the
TC (availability of accion publiciana)
Issue:
Whether after the promulgation of the CC, accion
publiciana, which had for its object the recovery of
possession in a plenary action before an action for the
recovery of title could be instituted, still existed.
Held: YES.
Available actions:
o Accion interdictal – recovery of physical
possession within 1 year from the time of
dispossession
o Accion publiciana – better right to such
possession brought after lapse of 1 year
o Recovery of ownership – action for title
If Mangaron instituted the accion interdictal within 1
year from dispossession, he would have been restored to
the possession; 1 year period has already elapsed so such
summary action for possession could not be maintained.
But even after the lapse of 1 year, he still could have
brought an accion publiciana that involved the right to
possess; based upon the fact the he, having been in
possession for 20 years, could not lose the same until he
had been given opportunity to be heard and had been
defeated in an action in court by another with a better
right.
Doubt arises whether accion publiciana is still available
from Art. 460 CC
o Possessor may lose possession:
(1) Abandonment
(2) Transfer to another for a good or valuable
consideration
(3) Destruction or total loss of the thing or by
the thing becoming unkmarketable
(4) By the possession of another, even against
the will of the former possessor, if the new
possession has lasted more than one year
o Questions: Which is lost, possession de facto or
also possession de jure? In the first three, both
may be lost, so it would be strange if the fourth
merely referred to possession de jure. However,
ownership cannot be lost under the fourth;
owner may recover ownership, and is only
barred by statute of limitations
Evidence that accion publiciana still exists: Possession
constitutes a right, a right in rem, whenever it is exercised
over real property or property rights; where there is a
right, there is a cause of action. It is sufficient that the
right existing, there should be an action to protect it. No
necessity of any special declaration in CC. It is
impossible to conceive that a person has a right which
need not be respected by others, and such respect cannot
be exacted unless the law provides a remedy for its
enforcement. If a person has a right over any kind of
property, such right would not be complete unles sit
could be enforced as against the whole world. The action
is a recognition of the right; it is a weapon for its
protection. The right does not arise from the action; but
vice versa. Accion publiciana exists, nor for the sake of
equity, but because it must necessarily exist or can exist
as provided in Art. 445.

Action brought by Catholic Church to recover the

possession which was unlawfully deprived by the
defendant can be properly maintained.