PROPERTY

ARTICLES 430 - 434

Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any

other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.

Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any

other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.

Right to enclose or fence

Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any

other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.

The limitation to this right is the right of others to existing servitudes imposed on the land or tenement

EXAMPLE

Owner A wanted to make and maintain a fishpond within his own land

EXAMPLE

The owner created a structure which closed the outlet to the river of water on B’s property

(impeding the flow of water )

EXAMPLE

Other houses (including B’s) were flooded.

Whether or not A has the right to close the outlet to the river of the water on B’s property?

No, A had no right to prevent the outflow of thewater from B’s estate. While he had the right to fence his estate, still he should not impair the servitudes or burdens constituted thereon.

Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use

thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person.

Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use

thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person.

Obligation to respect the rights of others

Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use

thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person.

Just restriction on the right of ownership

EXAMPLE

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if

the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited

indemnity for the damage to him.

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if

the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited

indemnity for the damage to him.

“State of Necessity”

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur criminal liability:x x x x x x x x x4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the REVISED PENAL CODE

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.

Article 432 of the NEW CIVIL CODE

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur criminal liability:x x x x x x x x x4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the REVISED PENAL CODE

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.

Article 432 of the NEW CIVIL CODE

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur criminal liability:x x x x x x x x x4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the REVISED PENAL CODE

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.

Article 432 of the NEW CIVIL CODE

Art. 11. Justifying circumstances. — The following do not incur criminal liability:x x x x x x x x x4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an act which causes damage to another, provided that the following requisites are present:First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it;Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.

Paragraph 4 of Article 11 of the REVISED PENAL CODE

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.

Article 432 of the NEW CIVIL CODE

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if

the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited

indemnity for the damage to him.

GENERAL RULE: a person cannot interfere with the right of ownership of another

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if

the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited

indemnity for the damage to him.

EXCEPTION: Art. 432 allows interference with another’s property under certain

conditions

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if

the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited

indemnity for the damage to him.

There are two requisites for the application of Art. 432.(1) The interference must be necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage to the actor or a third person

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if

the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited

indemnity for the damage to him.

If such interference is disproportionate to the necessity of averting the threatened danger or damage, or to the gravity of the danger or damage, it becomes unlawful or wrongful

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if

the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited

indemnity for the damage to him.

EXAMPLE: demolishing a house which is not in thepath of a fire

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if

the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited

indemnity for the damage to him.

(2) Damage to another must be greater than damage to property

Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if

the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner

from the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the person benefited

indemnity for the damage to him.

The owner of the sacrificial property is obliged to tolerate the act of destruction but subject to reimbursement by all those who benefitted.

General Rule: Compensation may be demanded by the property owner.

Exception: No compensation if the injury is caused by the property owner and the person who intervened was not at fault.

EXAMPLE #1

Z is drunk. Z is walking home and singing. Z passes J‘s house. J has a dog.

EXAMPLE #1

The dog attacks Z.

EXAMPLE #1

Z kills the dog.

Did Z act under Article 432? Yes.

Does Z have to pay? No, because the danger came from the property itself, the dog, and it was not Z‘s fault.

EXAMPLE #2

Z is drunk. Z is walking home and singing. Z passes J‘s house. J has a dog.

EXAMPLE #2

Z sees the dog sleeping. Z starts shouting at the dog. Z kicks the dog.

EXAMPLE #2

The dog attacks Z.

EXAMPLE #2

Z kills the dog.

Did Z act under Article 432? Yes.

Does Z have to pay? Yes, Z has to pay J since Z provoked the dog.

NOTE: The law does not require a person acting in a state of necessity to be free from negligence or mistake.

Conflict between Art. 429(self-help) and Art. 432(state of necessity)

In case of conflict between the exercise of the right of self-help and a proper and licit state of necessity, the Art. 432 prevails because there is no unlawful aggression when a person or group of persons acts pursuant to the right given in a state of necessity.

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process

for the recovery of the property.

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process

for the recovery of the property.

Presumption of Ownership

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process

for the recovery of the property.

REQUISITES:(1) There must be actual (physical or material) possession of the property

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process

for the recovery of the property.

REQUISITES:(2) The possession must be under claim of ownership

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process

for the recovery of the property.

Thus, a tenant, who admits his tenancy, cannot bepresumed to be the owner.

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process

for the recovery of the property.The true owner has to resort to judicial process to recover his property, only if the possessor does not want to surrender the property to him, after proper request or demand has been made.

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process

for the recovery of the property.Assuming that the possessor claiming the ownership is illegitimate, the true owner (not in possession) must go to court. He cannot apply the doctrine of self-help under Article 429

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process

for the recovery of the property.Art. 429(self-help) is applies when the owner is in possession of the property.

Article 433 applies when the owner is not in possession of the property.

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title

and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

Requisites in an action to recover:(1) Identity of the property

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title

and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

IDENTITY OF THE LAND - by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title

and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

Sufficient identification of land. — If a party fails toidentify sufficiently and satisfactorily the land which heclaims as his own, his action must necessarily fail

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title

and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

Doubt as to identity of land. — In cases of doubt as to the land’s identity, the court may conduct an investigation in the form of hearing or an ocular inspection, or both, to enable it to know positively the land in litigation

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title

and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

GENERAL RULE: When there is a conflict between the area and the boundaries of a land, the latter prevails. An area delimited by boundaries properly identifies a parcel of land.EXCEPTION: In cases, where there appears to be an overlapping of boundaries, the actual size of the property gains importance.

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title

and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

Requisites in an action to recover:(2) Strength of plaintiff’s title

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title

and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership.

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title

and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

Action founded on positive rights. — The action of the plaintiff must be founded on positive rights and not merely on negative ones

Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title

and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.

Therefore, where the claims of both plaintiff and defendants are weak, the plaintiff cannot recover.

Evidence to prove ownership.

Ownership may be shown by any evidence, written or oral,admissible in law, such as:(1) a Torrens title(2) title from the Spanish government(3) Long and actual possession. (4) Occupation of a building for a long time without paying rentals therefor. (5) Testimony of adverse and exclusive possession ofownership corroborated by tax declaration of properties, payment of taxes, and deeds of mortgage

SUMMARY:Articles 430-432: Limitations of the right of ownershipArt. 430: right of others to existing servitudes imposed on the land or tenementArt. 431: cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third personArt. 432: State of Necessity

Articles 433-434: Art. 433: Possessor of property has the presumption of title in his favorArt. 434: The person claiming better right must prove: identity of the property and strength of title