Propery Case Digest

8/20/2019 Propery Case Digest

1/21

#1

China Banking Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 129644, ar!h ", 2

$el%& The assignment was done in fraud of creditors. China Bank is, therefore entitled

to rescind the same. Under Article 1381(3) of the Ciil Code, contracts which are

undertaken in fraud of creditors when the latter cannot in an! manner collect the claimsdue them, are rescissi"le. The e#istence of fraud with intent to defraud creditor ma!

either "e $resumed in accordance with Article 138%, &CC or dul! $roed in accordance

with the ordinar! rules of eidence. 'ence, the law $resumes that there is fraud ofcreditors when

a) There is alienation of $ro$ert! "! gratuitous title "! the de"tor who has not resered

sufficient $ro$ert! to $a! his de"ts contracted "efore such alienation or

") There is alienation of $ro$ert! "! onerous title made "! a de"tor against whom some

*udgment has "een rendered in an! instance or some writ of attachment has "een issued.The decision or attachment need not refer to the $ro$ert! alienated and need not hae

"een o"tained "! the $art! seeking rescission.+

G.R. No. '(11") *une +, 196

C--N/R 0 C s. CAR-3A3 CA-RAN

'eld -e "eliee that hili$$ine $eso "ills come within the conce$t of /merchandise,/ asthis term is understood in 0ection 133(f) of the 2eised Administratie Code. As

defined "! the same Code, merchandise, when used with reference to im$ortations or

e#$ortations, includes goods, wares, and in general an!thing that ma! "e the su"*ect ofim$ortation or e#$ortation. (0ec. 114.) 5t cannot "e gainsaid that mone! ma! "e acommodit! 6 an o"*ect of trade.

7one! in the countr! where it is current, is "oth a measure of alue and a

medium of e#change, while in other countries it is a commodit! "ought and sold

in the market, and its alue fluctuates in the market like that of othercommodities. (8 C. 9. 0. 8, citing 2ichard s. American Union Bank, 1%: &.

;. 3, 3, 4 A.


2/21

+

Bicerra . Tene@a

.2. &o. 118. &oem"er 4, 14.

';


3/21

2uling

The "uilding is real property, therefore, its sale as annotated in the Chattel 7ortgage2egistr! cannot "e gien the legal effect of registration in the 2egistr!of 2eal ro$ert!.

The mere fact that the $arties decided to deal with the "uilding as $ersonal $ro$ert! does

not change its character as real $ro$ert!. Thus neither the original registr! in the chattelmortgage registr! nor the annotation in said registr! of the sale of the mortgaged $ro$ert!

had an! effect on the "uilding. 'oweer, since the land and the "uilding had first "een

$urchased "! K0trong 7achiner!H (ahead of


4/21

e=ui$ment, "efore the war. The trans$ortation "usiness could "e carried on without the

re$air or serice sho$ if its rolling e=ui$ment is re$aired or sericed in another sho$

"elonging to another.

+13

Eels ;nerg!, 5nc. . The roince of Batangas and the Dffice of the roincial Assessor of Batangas, .2. &o. 18%, 1 Ee"ruar! ::%

$/'3

0ection of 2.A. &o. %1:, otherwise known as the


5/21

A mortgage on a essel is generall! like other chattel mortgages. The onl! difference

"etween a chattel mortgage of a essel and a chattel mortgage of other $ersonalt! is thatthe first must "e noted in the registr! of the register of deeds.

+1%

RB- @. R-@/RA, +" $-' "2

$/'3&

1. The legal rule set down in the 7ercantile Code su"sists, inasmuch as the amendment

solel! refers to the official who shall make the entr! "ut, with res$ect to the rights of the

two $urchasers, whicheer of them first registered his ac=uisition of the essel is the one

entitled to en*o! the $rotection of the law, which considers him the a"solute owner of the

$urchased "oat, and this latter to "e free of all encum"rance and all claims "! strangers

for, $ursuant to article 8 of the said code, after the "ill of the *udicial sale at auction has

"een e#ecuted and recorded in the commercial registr!, all the other lia"ilities of the

essel in faor of the creditors shall "e considered canceled. ,a$p%il.net

The $urchaser at $u"lic auction, Eausto2u"iso, who was careful to record his ac=uisition,

o$$ortunel! and on a $rior date, has, according to the law, a "etter right than the

defendant 2iera who su"se=uentl! recorded his $urchase. The latter is a third $erson,

who was directl! affected "! the registration which the $laintiff made of his ac=uisition.

. 0hi$s or essels, whether moed "! steam or "! sail, $artake, to a certain e#tent, of the

nature and conditions of real $ro$ert!, on account of their alue and im$ortance in theworld commerce and for this reason the $roisions of article %3 of the Code of

Commerce are nearl! identical with those of article 1%3 of the Ciil Code.

+18

ialvs @al%e7 G.R. No. '(262"8 August 4, 192"

$el%&

The 0u$reme Court concludes that $ar. of Article 33 (1) has "een modified "!

section : of the Code of Ciil rocedure and "! Act &o. 1:8 in the sense that for the $ur$ose of attachments and e#ecution, and for the $ur$oses of the Chattel 7ortgage


6/21

';


7/21

+3

G.R. No. 921+ *ul 2), 199

0alador '.


8/21

actiities and need to com$ete in the market $lace. ;conomic ia"ilit! refers to more than

financial ia"ilit! "ut also includes ca$a"ilit! to make $rofit and generate "enefits not

=uantifia"le in financial terms. 75AA, a goernment instrumentalit! ested withcor$orate $owers and $erforming goernmental or $u"lic functions, need &DT meet the

test of economic ia"ilit!. These instrumentalities need not "e economicall! ia"le since

the goernment ma! een su"sidi@e their entire o$erations for the! $erform essential $u"lic serices for the common good.

+

Chae@ u"lic ;state Authorit!2 &o. 133:, 9ul! 4, ::

2atio ?ecidendiThe $etitioner has standing to "ring the ta#$a!erNs suit "ecause the $etition seeks to

com$el ;A to com$l! with its constitutional duties. These duties are $articularl! in

answer of the right of citi@ens to information on matters of $u"lic concern, and of aconstitutional $roision intended to insure the e=uita"le distri"ution of aliena"le lands of

the $u"lic domain among Eili$ino citi@ens.

Eurthermore, the court considered that the $etition raised matters of transcendental

im$ortance to the $u"lic. The mere fact that the $etitioner is a citi@en satisfies there=uirement of $ersonal interest when the $roceeding inoles the assertion of a $u"lic

right. Also, ordinar! ta#$a!ers hae a right to initiate and $rosecute actions =uestioning

the alidit! of acts or orders of goernment agencies or instrumentalities if the issuesraise are of $aramount $u"lic interest and if the! immediatel! affect the social, economic

and moral well>"eing of the $eo$le.

The amended 9FA does not make the issue moot and academic since this com$els the

court to insure the goernment itself does not iolate a $roision of the Constitutionintended to safeguard the national $atrimon!. The content of the amended 9FA seeks to

transfer title and ownershi$ of reclaimed lands to a single cor$oration. The court does not

hesitate to resole the legal or constitutional issues raised to formulate controlling $rinci$les to guide the "ench, "ar and the $u"lic.

The instant case raises constitutional issues of transcendental im$ortance to the $u"lic.

Court can resole this case without determining an! factual issue related to the case. Theinstant case is a $etition for mandamus which falls under the original *urisdiction of the

Court. Eurthermore, ;A was under a $ositie legal dut! to disclose to the $u"lic the

terms and conditions for the sale of its lands. The $rinci$le of e#haustion ofadministratie remedies does not a$$l! when the issue inoled is $urel! legal or

constitutional =uestion.

The right to information includes official information on on>going negotiations "efore afinal agreement as re=uired "! the constitution.

The 0u$reme Court granted the $etition. ;A and Amari Coastal Ba! ?eelo$ment

Cor$oration are $ermanentl! en*oined from im$lementing the amended 9FA which is

here"! declared null and oid a" initio.

+%

Chave7 v. National $ousing Authorit

G.R. No. 164)2", August 1), 2"

$/'3& The &ational 'ousing Authorit! (&'A) is a goernment agenc! not tasked to

dis$ose of $u"lic lands under its charter P it is an Kend>user agenc!H authori@ed "! law to

administer and dis$ose of reclaimed lands. The moment titles oer reclaimed lands "asedon the s$ecial $atents are transferred to the &ational 'ousing Authorit! (&'A) "! the

2egister of ?eeds, the! are automaticall! conerted to $atrimonial $ro$erties of the 0tate

which can "e sold to Eili$ino citi@ens and $riate cor$orations, :O of which are owned "! Eili$inos. The com"ined and collectie effect of roclamations &os. 34 and with

0$ecial atents &os. 34 and 348 is tantamount to and can "e considered to "e an

official declaration that the reclaimed lots are aliena"le or dis$osa"le lands of the $u"lic

domain. ;en if it is conceded that there was no e#$licit declaration that the lands are nolonger needed for $u"lic use or $u"lic serice, there was howeer an im$licit e#ecutie

declaration that the reclaimed areas are not necessar! an!more for $u"lic use or $u"lic

serice when resident A=uino through 7D 1 cone!ed the same to the &ational


9/21

'ousing Authorit! (&'A) $artl! for housing $ro*ect and related commercialMindustrial

deelo$ment intended for dis$osition to and en*o!ment of certain "eneficiaries and not

the $u"lic in general and $artl! as ena"ling com$onent to finance the $ro*ect.

+8 Repuli! of the hilippines v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 1"9, Nove


10/21

matters which if inclu!e! woul! !efeat the policy of le"islation.

-2. abuco vs ille"as$o. The 3ourt herein uphol!s the constitutionality of epublic Act -)2/

on the stren"th of the establishe! !octrine that the sub!ivision of communallan! of the State Balthou"h title! in the name of the municipal corporationC

an! conveyance of the resultin" sub!ivision lots by sale on installment basisto bona #!e occupants by 3on"ressional authori


11/21

at bar the trial court foun! that Ful"encio Juerubin the father of thepetitioner ha! inscribe! his possessory information in the e"istry ofProperty of i"an locos Sur as early as April 2, )+90 an! ha! been incontinuous possession of the lan! therein !escribe! for more than )/ yearse1clu!in" the time that the property was submer"e!. Thus the petitionerJuerubin must be !eeme! to have conclusively prove! his ownership of the

property in !ispute or in the very least shown a prima facie title ofownership thereto. n the latter situation the respon!ents Alconcel et al. may!islo!"e Juerubin from his claim only by a superior title. 3onsi!erin"however that Alconcel et al. have no more than mere ta1 !eclarationscoverin" their respective claims the earliest of which !ates back only to )9-9Bcontraste! with Juerubin's ta1 !eclaration !ate! )9-5C it follows thatJuerubin's claim must prevail over that of Alconcel et al.

-,. Santos vs ste%a!a This contract as may be seen by its contents !i! not transfer the

ownership of the property to the parties ictoriano Santos an! An!reaspinosa neither !oes it show that these spouses ha! any le"al reason tosupport their possession of the sai! lan!. n the !ecision ren!ere! in the caseof 3ompaKia ?eneral !e Tabacos !e Filipinas vs. 7i"uel TopiKo et al. B5 Phil.ep. --C the rule was lai! !own thatL Gn an action of e%ectment the plainti6seekin" to recover possession of lan! must recover upon the stren"th of hisown title rather than upon the weakness of the title of the !efen!ant an! thebur!en of showin" his title rests upon him who asserts it.G1awphi1.net

n the !ecision of :elen s. :elen B)- Phil. ep. 2/2C it is state!LG7ere possession of the thin" claime! is sucient to insure respect for thepresent hol!er while no other person appears to show an! prove a betterri"ht in accor!ance with the !octrine of the courts.Gn the same !ecision of the followin" was likewise lai! !ownL Gf the plainti6upon whom rests the bur!en of provin" his cause of action fails to show in asatisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim the !efen!ant isun!er no obli"ation to prove his e1ceptions or !efense.G

n view of the fact that the plainti6s have not !uly prove! their title tothe lan! actually occupie! by the !efen!ants the ste%a!as as the tenants(on(shares an! representatives of 4omin"o :alu"ay who is foun! to be thelawful owner of the sai! lan! althou"h the proofs a!!uce! by him aresomewhat !e#cient there e1ists no le"al "roun! upon which to !eprive himof the possession he now en%oys as owner.

-*. ?arcia vs 3ourt of Appeals$o. ?arcia;s possession which starte! only in )9+, coul! not ripen into

ownership. @e has no vali! title thereto. @is possession in fact was that of anintru!er one !one in ba! faith Bto !efeat P:3om;s Writ of PossessionC. @ispossession is certainly not in the concept of an owner.

The 3ourt stresse! that possession an! ownership are !istinct le"alconcepts. 8wnership e1ists when a thin" pertainin" to one person iscompletely sub%ecte! to his will in a manner not prohibite! by law an!consistent with the ri"hts of others. 8n the other han! possession is !e#ne!as the hol!in" of a thin" or the en%oyment of a ri"ht. iterally to possessmeans to actually an! physically occupy a thin" with or without ri"ht.Possession may be ha! in one of two waysL possession in the concept of anowner an! possession of a hol!er.

The recor!s show that petitioner occupie! the property not in theconcept of an owner for his stay was merely tolerate! by his parents.3onse&uently it is of no moment that petitioner was in possession of theproperty at the time of the sale to the 7a"payo spouses. 8n the other han!petitioner;s subse&uent claim of ownership as successor to his mother;sshare in the con%u"al asset is belie! by the fact that the property was notinclu!e! in the inventory of the estate submitte! by his father to theintestate court. This buttresses the rulin" that in!ee! the property was nolon"er consi!ere! owne! by petitioner;s parents.

-+. Iavier vs eri!iano$o. The followin" are the re&uisites of res %u!icataL aC there is #nal

%u!"ment or or!erM bC the court have %uris!iction over the sub%ect matterM cCformer %u!"ment is a %u!"ment on meritsM an! !C i!entity of parties of


12/21

sub%ect matter an! of causes of action. The #rst three are present. There isi!entity of parties in the case. What is re&uire! is not absolute but substantiali!entity of parties. n the case osete is a successor in interest of :abol bytitle. $evertheless there is no i!entity of cause of action. 33 92, is acomplaint of forcible entry or accion inter!ictal where the issue is physical ormaterial possession of real property. n this case Iavier merely claime! a

better ri"ht or prior possession over the lan! without assertin" title. 33 22/-(/ is an action to recover a parcel of lan! or accion reivin!icatori. n this case

Iavier e1pressly alle"e! ownership Bby virtue of the 8ri"inal 3erti#cate of Titleissue!C an! speci#cally praye! that she be !eclare! the ri"htful owner an! be"iven possession of the !ispute! portion. A %u!"ement in forcible entry or!etainer case !isposes of no other issue than possession an! !eclares onlywho has the ri"ht of possession but by no means constitutes a bar to anaction for !etermination of who has the ri"ht or title of ownership.

-9. ?erman 7ana"ement N Services vs 3ourt of Appeals $o. The 4octrine of Self(help is not applicable because at the time

when ?erman 7ana"ement e1clu!e! the farmers there;s no lon"er an actual

or threatene! unlawful physical invasion or usurpation. That actual orthreatene! unlawful physical invasion by the farmers have alrea!y lapse! )2years a"o when they be"an occupyin" the sai! lan!. n fact they werealrea!y peaceably farmin" the lan!.

e"ar!less of the actual con!ition of the title to the property the partyin peaceable &uiet possession shall not be turne! out by a stron" han!violence or terror. Further there is now a presumption of ownership in favorof the farmers since they are the ones occupyin" the sai! property. They canonly be e%ecte! either by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria throu"hwhich the spouses Iose;s better ri"ht may be proven.

5/. Ou vs 4e ara et al

The circumstances a!verte! to are insucient to constituteaban!onment which re&uires not only physical relin&uishment of the thin"but also a clear intention not to reclaim or reassume ownership or en%oymentthereof. $o possessory ri"hts whatsoever can be reco"ni


13/21

!efen!ant shoul! have been overrule!.

52. ?utierre< vs osarioWith reference to the #rst assi"nment of error the lower court !i! not

!eci!e that the plainti6 was not entitle! to the possession of the lan! in&uestion. The !ecision of the lower court was to the e6ect that an action for

the possession of the lan! in &uestion coul! not be maintaine! in the court ofthe %ustice of the peace for the reason that more than one year ha! elapse!after the alle"e! ille"al possession an! before the commencement of theaction. t is possible that in an action of e%ectment commence! in the propercourt the plainti6 may be able to show that he is entitle! to the possessionof the lan! in &uestion.

The action bein" one for forcible entry an! !etainer commence! in the courtof the %ustice of the peace not be chan"e! to an action of e%ectment by anamen!ment of the plea!in"s in the 3ourt of First nstance. The aboveconclusion of course in now way in!icates that the plainti6 is not entitle! tothe possession of the lan! in &uestion. The conclusion is simply that thealle"e! wron"ful possession havin" e1ten!e! over a perio! of more than one

year the %ustice of the peace ha! no %uris!iction to consi!er it.

5-. sa"uirre vs 4e araAs a "eneral rule the mort"a"or retains possession of the mort"a"e!

property since a mort"a"e is merely a lien an! title to the property !oes notpass to the mort"a"ee. @owever even thou"h a mort"a"ee !oes not havepossession of the property there is no impairment of his security since themort"a"e !irectly an! imme!iately sub%ects the property upon which it isimpose! whoever the possessor may be to the ful#llment of the obli"ationfor whose security it was constitute!. f the !ebtor is unable to pay his !ebtthe mort"a"e cre!itor may institute an action to foreclose the mort"a"ewhether %u!icially or e1tra%u!icially whereby the mort"a"e! property will

then be sol! at a public auction an! the procee!s there from "iven to thecre!itor to the e1tent necessary to !ischar"e the mort"a"e loan. The trialcourt correctly issue! the writ of possession in favor of respon!ent. Such writwas but a necessary conse&uence of armin" the vali!ity of the ori"inalcerti#cate of title in the name of respon!ent Felicitas !e ara while at thesame time nullifyin" the ori"inal certi#cate of title in the name of petitioner3ornelio sa"uirre. Possession is an essential attribute of ownershipM thus itwoul! be re!un!ant for respon!ent to "o back to court simply to establish herri"ht to possess sub%ect property.

55. @eirs of oman Soriano vs 3ourt of Appeals$o. t shoul! be note! that the meat of the post !ecisional a"reement

sou"ht to be e1ecute! was the creation of a sub( lessor an! sub(lesseerelationship between the !e eras an! oman Soriano. While it appears fromthe above resolution of the trial court that there was a basis for privaterespon!ents; !eman! for reasonable compensation for the use of thepremises an! for %oint possession as a co(owner the #lin" of a motion fore1ecution of the post !ecisional a"reement between the !e era spouses an!the petitioners pre!ecessor oman Soriano was not the proper reme!y. Theplea!in" #le! with the trial court was captione! =7otion for 1ecution.>@owever it was very clear that un!er the circumstances they were in therelief !eman!e! by the private respon!ents can properly be aske! for in anunlawful !etainer case or in other proper procee!in"s. A case for unlawful!etainer was alrea!y brou"ht by the private respon!ents a"ainst thepetitioner but the former sou"ht its !ismissal for reasons not known. :e thatas it may there is still a pen!in" civil action between the parties B3ivil 3ase$o. )090+C where possession is one of the issues to be resolve!.

50. 3aisip vs PeopleArticle 529 is inapplicable 3abala" was "iven 2/ !ays from Iune ,

)909 within which to vacate the premises. 3abala" !i! not on Iune )* )909 or within sai! perio! inva!e or usurp sai! lot. She ha! merely remaine!in possession thereof even thou"h the hacien!a owner may have become itsco(possessor. Appellants !i! not =repel or prevent in actual or threatene! . . .physical invasion or usurpation.> They e1pelle! ?loria from a property of


14/21

which she an! her husban! were in possession. t is accor!in"ly clear thatappellants herein ha! by means of violence an! without le"al authoritytherefor prevente! the complainant from =!oin" somethin" not prohibite! bylaw> Bwee!in" an! bein" in ot )/0(AC an! compelle! her =to !o somethin"a"ainst> her will Bstoppin" the wee!in" an! leavin" sai! lotC =whether it beri"ht or wron"> thereby takin" the law into their han!s in violation of Art.

2+, of the evise! Penal 3o!e.

5,. People vs Pletcha Oes. The principle of self(help authori !octrine namely that the lan!owner is the absolute owner of theminerals either soli! or Hui! or "aseous foun! on or in his lan!. This rule wasfoun! to !o in%ustice to the nei"hborin" lan!owner an! the opposite e1tremewas then su""este! that it that the one !oes not =own> such minerals untilthey are !e#nitely appropriate!. t !oes not seem to have been perceive!that ownership was merely a term referrin" to an a""re"ate of le"al relationsin the =owner> an! hence !enote! the number of such relations beyon!which the ownership woul! be =absolute> instea! of =&uali#e!.>


15/21

0/. epublic vs 3A 4ela osa$o. 8ur hol!in" is that :en"uet an! Atok have e1clusive ri"hts to the

property in &uestion by virtue of their respective minin" claims which theyvali!ly ac&uire! before the 3onstitution of )9-0 prohibite! the alienation ofall lan!s of the public !omain e1cept a"ricultural lan!s sub%ect to veste!

ri"hts e1istin" at the time of its a!option. The 3ourt feels that the ri"hts over the lan! are in!ivisible an! that the

lan! itself cannot be half a"ricultural an! half mineral. The classi#cation mustbe cate"oricalM the lan! must be either completely mineral or completelya"ricultural.

The Haw in the reasonin" of the respon!ent court is in supposin" thatthe ri"hts over the lan! coul! be use! for both minin" an! non(minin"purposes simultaneously. The correct interpretation is that once minerals are!iscovere! in the lan! whatever the use to which it is bein" !evote! at thetime such use may be !iscontinue! by the State to enable it to e1tract theminerals therein in the e1ercise of its soverei"n prero"ative. The lan! is thusconverte! to mineral lan! an! may not be use! by any private party

inclu!in" the re"istere! owner thereof for any other purpose that will impe!ethe minin" operations to be un!ertaken therein.

0). illanueva vs 3laustroFirst. The law provi!es that the be!s of rivers which remain aban!one!

because the course of the water has naturally chan"e! belon" to the ownersof the riparian lan!s throu"hout their respective len"ths. Secon!. The ri"ht inre to the principal is likewise a ri"ht in re to the accessory as it is a mo!e ofac&uisition provi!e! by law as the result of the ri"ht of accretion since theaccessory follows the nature of the principal an! there nee! not be anyten!ency to the thin" or manifestation of the purpose to sub%ect it to ourownership as it is sub%ect thereto ipso ure from the moment the mo!e of

ac&uisition becomes evi!ent. Thir!. The occupation of a thin" belon"in" toanother may lea! to another mo!e of ac&uisition which is the prescription ofownership whenever the possession of such thin" un!er or!inaryprescription which is that alle"e! of twenty years is accompanie! by theother re&uisites prescribe! by law such as "oo! faith proper title an! le"alperio! of time. 7ere occupation is not a title of ac&uisition e1cept when itconcerns Gthin"s which can be appropriate! by reason of their nature whichhave no owners such as animals which are the ob%ect of huntin" an! #shin"hi!!en treasure an! aban!one! property.G

02. 7orales vs 3AWe cannot sustain the 3ourt of Appeals. En!er the afore&uote!

provisions a e"ional Trial 3ourt in the e1ercise of its appellate %uris!ictionshoul! reman! a case in the event it reverses a !ecision of the 7T3 whichrule! on a &uestion of law provi!e! that there was no trial on the merits. Areman! is a !ue process re&uirement because it a6or!s the parties anopportunity to present evi!ence on the merits of the case. n the case at barit is clear that the 7T3 a6or!e! !ue process to the partiesM it receive!relevant evi!ence sucient to !eci!e the e%ectment case on its merits. Asborne by its !ecision. As to the manner of entry into possession by the!efen!ant this 3ourt #n!s it !icult to believe that he !i! so throu"h stealthan! strate"y. :ein" relatives an! not estran"e! at least up to the time whenthe issue in this case croppe! up possession of the !efen!ant was open an!known to the plainti6. ikewise the use of the lan! is also known to remainas a"ricultural particularly !evote! to rice pro!uction. The 3ourt therefore#n!s no compellin" reason to reman! the case to the 7T3 as the un!erlyin"purpose an! ob%ective for such reman! is alrea!y fait accompli. As previouslynote! the 7T3 observe! !ue process. 8n appeal the !ecision of the T3 wasbase! on the facts a!!uce! by the parties before the 7T3. 3onse&uentlyreman!in" the case to the 7T3 serves no useful purpose for the parties havealrea!y presente! their evi!ence. :esi!es there was no alle"ation that theparties inten!e! to present a!!itional evi!ence which mi"ht warrant achan"e in the resolution of the case.

0-. "nao vs nterme!iate Appellate 3ourtPetitioner has the ri"ht whether to appropriate the houses or to sell his

lan!. The rulin" of the T3 an! A3 contravene! the e1plicit provisions of Art


16/21

55+ which "rante! him the e1plicit ri"ht to choose. The law is clear when itbestows choice upon the a""rieve! lan! owner an! not upon the buil!ers orthe courts.

05. 7acasaet vs 7acasaetn actions for unlawful !etainer possession that was ori"inally lawful

becomes unlawful upon the e1piration or termination of the !efen!ants ri"htto possess arisin" from an e1press or implie! contract. To show a cause ofaction in an unlawful !etainer an alle"ation that the !efen!ant is ille"allywithhol!in" possession from the plainti6 is sucient. This 3ourt hasconsistently hel! that those who occupy the lan! of another at the latterstolerance or permission without any contract between them are necessarilyboun! by an implie! promise that the occupants will vacate the propertyupon !eman!. n terms of the ri"hts of a buil!er in "oo! faith the court rule!that article 55+ covers only cases in which the buil!ers sowers or plantersbelieve themselves to be owners of the lan! or at least to have a claim oftitle thereto. t !oes not apply when the interest is merely that of a hol!ersuch as a mere tenant a"ent or usufructuary. From these pronouncements"oo! faith is i!enti#e! by the belief that the lan! is owne!M or that (( by sometitle (( one has the ri"ht to buil! plant or sow thereon. 3onse&uentlyrespon!ents have the ri"ht to appropriate (( as their own (( the buil!in" an!other improvements on the sub%ect lots but only after B)C refun!in" thee1penses of petitioners or B2C payin" the increase in value ac&uire! by theproperties by reason thereof. They have the option to obli"e petitioners topay the price of the lan! unless its value is consi!erably more than that ofthe structures (( in which case petitioners shall pay reasonable rent.

00. 7unar vs 3A The 7unars ne1t conten! that the $ieveses cannot anymore collect the

rentals because the special power of attorney e1ecute! in their favor wasrevoke! by the Palisocs. This contention is without merit. The trial court foun!that the contract of lease was between the 7unars an! $ieveses. ThePalisocs were not parties to the sai! lease contract. We have rule! that atenant cannot in an action involvin" the possession of the lease! premisescontrovert the title of his lan!lor! or assert any ri"hts a!verse to that title.$either can he set up any inconsistent ri"ht to chan"e the relation e1istin"between himself an! his lan!lor!. Well(settle! is the rule that the merealle"ation of ownership of the property in !ispute by the !efen!ant in ane%ectment suit or the pen!ency of an action for reconveyance of title over thesame property !oes not !ivest the inferior court of its %uris!iction over thee%ectment suit. The only e1ception to this rule is where the &uestion of defacto possession cannot be !etermine! properly without settlin" that ofownership because the latter is inseparably linke! with the former B?u

As re"istere! owners of the lots in &uestion the private respon!entshave a ri"ht to e%ect any person ille"ally occupyin" their property. This ri"ht isimprescriptible. ven if it be suppose! that they were aware of thepetitioner;s occupation of the property an! re"ar!less of the len"th of thatpossession the lawful owners have a ri"ht to !eman! the return of theirproperty at any time as lon" as the possession was unauthori


17/21

an! as such woul! entitle the former to the application of Article 55+ of the3ivil 3o!e "overnin" buil!ers in "oo! faith

0*. Pecson vs 3AWith re"ar! to Art. 55+ the provision on in!emnity may be applie! in

analo"y. Whoever is the owner of the lan! may appropriate whatever has

been built plante! or sown after payin" in!emnity. @owever it !oes notapply when the owner of the lan! is also the buil!er of the works on his ownlan! who later on loses ownership by sale or !onation.

Art. 05, refers to the necessary an! useful e1penses which shall berefun!e! to the possessor in "oo! faith with ri"ht of retention. @owever it!oes not state how to !etermine the value of the useful improvement. Thecase was reman!e! to the trial court for !etermination of the current marketvalue of the apartment bl!" an! or!ere! the Sps to pay Pecson otherwise itshall be restore! to Pecson until payment of in!emnity.

0+. Pecson vs 3A:y its clear lan"ua"e Article 55+ refers to a lan! whose ownership is

claime! by two or more parties one of whom has built some works or sownor plante! somethin". The buil!in" sowin" or plantin" may have been ma!ein "oo! faith or in ba! faith. The rule on "oo! faith lai! !own in Article 02, ofthe 3ivil 3o!e shall be applie! in !eterminin" whether a buil!er sower orplanter ha! acte! in "oo! faith. Thus in strict point of law Article 55+ is notapposite to the case at bar.

The trial court also erre! in or!erin" the petitioner to pay monthlyrentals e&ual to the a""re"ate rentals pai! by the lessees of the apartment

buil!in". Since the private respon!ents have opte! to appropriate theapartment buil!in" the petitioner is thus entitle! to the possession an!en%oyment of the apartment buil!in" until he is pai! the proper in!emnity aswell as of the portion of the lot where the buil!in" has been constructe!. Thisis so because the ri"ht to retain the improvements while the correspon!in"in!emnity is not pai! implies the tenancy or possession in fact of the lan! onwhich it is built plante! or sown.

09. $u"ui! vs 3A The Supreme 3ourt reinstate! the !ecision of the 3F of :ataan. The

basis for the 3ourt of Appeals' conclusion that petitioners were buyers in ba!faith is ambi"uous because sai! court relie! on the sin"ular circumstancethat the petitioners are from 8rani :ataan an! shoul! have personallyknown that the private respon!ents were the persons in actual possession.@owever at the time of the purchase the spouses $u"ui! !ealt with Pe!ro?uevarra an! Pascuala Tolentino the latter bein" the actual occupants. Therespon!ents ?uevarras chil!ren of the sai! Pe!ro an! Pascuala ?uevarracame into the picture only after their parents !ie!. As for the respon!entheirs of ictorino !ela osa their bein" in actual possession of any portion ofthe property was likewise simply presume! or taken for "rante! by the3ourt of Appeals.

,/. osales et al vs 3astellfortArmative. :oth parties havin" acte! in "oo! faith at least until

Au"ust 2) )990 Art. 55+ shoul! apply. espon!ent;s "oo! faith cease!when petitioner personally appraise! him of the title over the &uestione! lot.Shoul! petitioner opt to appropriate the house they shoul! only be ma!e topay for the part of the improvement built by respon!ent until Au". 2). Sai!part shoul! be pe""e! at its current fair market value. The commencement of respon!ent;s payment of reasonable rent shoul! start on Au". 2) )990 aswell to be pai! until such time that the possession of the property is !elivere!to the petitioners sub%ect to reimbursement of e1penses.

@owever appellants cease! as buil!ers in "oo! faith at the timeappellant was noti#e! of the appellee;s lawful title over the property. Thepayment of the reasonable rent shoul! accor!in"ly commence at that timeBnotice was "ivenC since he can no lon"er avail of the ri"hts for buil!ers in"oo! faith.


18/21

,). "nacio vs @ilario$o. The owner in good faith has to make a choice. @e cannot

!ispense the options un!er the law an! then e%ect the buil!er in "oo! faith. This is because both are in "oo! faith. @owever if after the owner in "oo!faith chose to sell his lan! to the buil!er in "oo! faith an! the latter fails to

pay the value of the lan! within the a"ree perio!. 8nly then can the owner in"oo! faith compel the buil!er in "oo! faith to remove the buil!in" he erecte!.

,2. Filipinas 3olle"es nc. vs Timban"$8 T@ APPA$TS 38$T$T8$ S SEPFE8ES. There is nothin"

in the lan"ua"e of these two articles 55+ an! 05, which woul! %ustify theconclusion of appellants that upon the failure of the buil!er to pay the valueof the lan! when such is !eman!e! by the lan!(owner the latter becomesautomatically the owner of the improvement un!er Article 550. Althou"h it istrue it was !eclare! therein that in the event of the failure of the buil!er topay the lan! after the owner thereof has chosen this alternative the buil!er'sri"ht of retention provi!e! in Article 05, is lost nevertheless there was

nothin" sai! that as a conse&uence thereof the buil!er loses entirely allri"hts over his own buil!in". The secon! contention was without merit. n theinstant case the 3ourt of Appeals has alrea!y a!%u!"e! that appellee:las is entitle! to the payment of the unpai! balance of the purchase price ofthe school buil!in". With respect to the or!er of the court !eclarin" appelleeFilipinas 3olle"es nc. part owner of the lan! to the e1tent of the value of itspersonal properties sol! at public auction in favor of the Timban" this 3ourtlikewise #n!s the same as %usti#e! for such amount represents in e6ect apartial payment of the value of the lan!. Failure of the Timban" spouses topay to the Sheri6 or to 7anila ?ervacio :las sai! sum of P0*0/.// within#fteen B)0C !ays from notice of the #nal %u!"ment an or!er of e1ecution shallissue in favor of 7aria ?ervasio :las to be levie! upon all properties of the

Timban" spouses not e1empt from e1ecution for the satisfaction of the sai!amount.

,-. Juemuel vs 8laesA cause of action presupposes a ri"ht of the plainti6 an! a violation of

such ri"ht by the !efen!ant. Accor!in" to the complaint itself the rental ofP2/.// monthly an! the or!er to vacate were provi!e! in a prior %u!"mentwhich is #nal an! its vali!ity is not assaile!. The !efen!ants are notcompellin" the plainti6s to rent the property but wante! them to vacate thepremises. f the rental !etermine! by the trial court were e1cessive theplainti6s are free to vacate the property. For plainti6s to insist on possessin"the property an! #1in" the rentals themselves woul! have no le"al sanctionat all.

The plainti6s claim that their secon! cause of action is base! on Article55+ in connection with Art. 05, of the new 3ivil 3o!e. A cursory rea!in" ofthese provisions however will show that they are not applicable to plainti6s'case. En!er Article 55+ the ri"ht to appropriate the works or improvementsor Gto obli"e the one who built or plante! to pay the price of the lan! belon"sto the owner of the lan!. The only ri"ht "iven to the buil!er in "oo! faith isthe ri"ht to reimbursement for the improvementsM the buil!er cannot compelthe owner of the lan! to sell such lan! to the former. This is assumin" thatthe plainti6s are buil!ers in "oo! faith. :ut the plainti6s are not buil!ers in"oo! faith.

,5. ?erminiano et al vs 3A et al$o they were not buil!ers in "oo! faith. The respon!ents knew that

their stay woul! en! after the lease contract e1pires. They can;t bank on thepromise which was not in writin" of the petitioners that the latter will sellthe lan! to them. Accor!in" to )5/- an a"reement for the sale of realproperty or an interest therein is unenforceable unless some note ormemoran!um thereof be pro!uce!. 8ther than the alle"e! promise bypetitioner respon!ents ha! no other evi!ence to prove their claim.

They are mere lessees in "oo! faithM therefore Art ),*+ may apply ifthe lessor chooses to appropriate the improvements. :ut since the petitionersrefuse! to e1ercise that option the private respon!ents can;t compel them toreimburse the one(half value of the house an! improvements. $either canthey retain the premises until reimbursement is ma!e. The private


19/21

respon!ents; sole ri"ht then is to remove the improvements without causin"any more impairment upon the property lease! than is necessary.

,0. Taya" vs Ouseco8nce a choice is ma!e by the lan!owner it is "enerally irrevocable.

Thus if the lan!owner has opte!electe! to appropriate the buil!in" but he is

unable to pay for the in!emnity or amount the lan!owner 3A$$8Tafterwar!s optelect to sell the lan!. Since Taya";s #rst choice ha! alrea!ybeen communicate! to the court an! she ha! alrea!y been or!ere! to payher !uty has been converte! into a monetary obli"ation which can beenforce! by a writ of e1ecution.

,,. 4epra vs 4umlaon the #rst issue res %u!icata woul! not apply shoul! the #rst case be

one for e%ectment an! the other for &uietin" of title. Article 55+ of the 3ivil3o!e provi!es that the lan! owner has 2 options to buy the buil!in" or tosellrent his lan!. This is so because the ri"hts of the owner of the lan! isol!er an! by the principle of accession he also has a ri"ht to the

accessories. The 3ourt reman!e! the case to the T3 to !etermine the fair price of

the lan! the e1penses incurre! by the :PS B4umlaoC the increase in value of the lan! an! whether the value of the lan! is consi!erably more than thevalue of the kitchen built on it. The T3 shall then "ive 4epra )0 !ays toe1ercise such option.

,*. @eirs of . $avarro vs A3t cannot be re"istere!. This is lan! of Public !omain. Pascual claime!

ownership un!er Article 50* of the 3ivil 3o!e sayin" that the !ispute! )5(hectare lan! is an accretion cause! by the %oint action of the Talisay an!:ulacan ivers Art 50*L Accretion as a mo!e of ac&uirin" property an!

re&uires the concurrence of the followin" re&uisitesL B)C that the accumulationof soil or se!iment be "ra!ual an! imperceptibleM B2C that it be the result ofthe action of the waters of the riverM an! B-C that the lan! where the accretiontakes place is a!%acent to the bank of the river. Enfortunately Pasucal an!@eirs claim of ownership base! on Art 50* is misplace!. f there;s any lan! tobe claime! it shoul! be lan! A4IA3$T to the rivers Talisay an! :ulacan. Thelaw is clear on this. Accretion of lan! alon" the river bank may be re"istere!.

This is not the case of accretion of lan! on the property a!%acent to 7anila:ay. Furthermore 7anila :ay is a sea. Accretion on a sea bank is foreshore lan!an! the applicable law is not Art 50* but Art 5 of the Spanish aw of Watersof )+,,.,+. A"ustin vs A3

Art. 50* states that the owner of the lan!s a!%oinin" river banks ownthe accretion which they "ra!ually receive from the e6ects of the currents ofthe waters. Accretion bene#ts a riparian owner provi!e! that these elementsare presentL )C !eposit be "ra!ual an! imperceptible 2C it resulte! from thee6ects of the current of the water an! -C the lan! is a!%acent to the riverbank. When the iver move! from )9)9 to )9,+ there was alluvium!eposite! an! it was "ra!ual an! imperceptible.

Also respon!ent;s ownership over sai! lots was not remove! when !ueto the su!!en an! abrupt chan"e in the course of the riverM their accretionswere transferre! to the other si!e. Art. 509 states when the current of a river1 1 1 se"re"ates from an estate on its bank a known portion of lan! an!transfers it to another estate the owner of se"re"ate! portion retainsownership provi!e! he removes the same win 2 years. An! Art. 5,- statesthat whenever the current of a river !ivi!es itself into branches leavin" apiece of lan! or part thereof isolate! the owner of the lan! retainsownership. @e also retains it if a portion of lan! is separate! from the estateby the current.

,9. ?ov;t vs 3ole"io 4e San Iosenasmuch as accor!in" to article 5/* of the 3ivil 3o!e lakes an! their

be!s belon" to the public !omain an! inasmuch as accor!in" to article *5 of the aw of Waters the be! of lake is the "roun! covere! by its waters at theirhi"hest or!inary !epthM whereas the waters of a"una !e :ay at their hi"hest!epth reach no farther than the northeastern boun!ary of the two parcels of


20/21

lan! in &uestion sai! parcels are outsi!e sai! be! an! conse&uently !o notbelon" to the public !omain. The ?overnment of the Philippine slan!s alsoconten!s that as the waters of a"una !e :ay have rece!e! very much as aresult of which the two parcels of lan! which ha! been un!er water beforewere left uncovere! the claimant 3ole"io !e San Iose which owne! theestate bor!erin" upon sai! a"una !e :ay !i! not ac&uire sai! two parcels of

lan! in accor!ance with the provisions of article -,* of the 3ivil 3o!e

Asmay be seen the le"al provision cite! by the appellant in support of itscontention refers to pon!s an! la"oons an! has therefore no application tothe case at bar

*/. ia%ar vs 3At was establishe! in the trial that for a perio! of 5/ years the Sua"ue

river overHowe! its banks yearly an! the property of the !efen!ant "ra!uallyreceive! !eposits of soil from the e6ects of the current of the river. t is a wellsettle! rule that re"istration un!er the Torrens System !oes not protect theriparian owner a"ainst the !imunition of the area of his re"istere! lan!throu"h "ra!ual chan"es in the course of an a!%oinin" stream or river.

Accretions which the banks of the river may "ra!ually receive from the e6ectof the current become the property of the owners of the banks.

*). eynante vs 3AWhile it is true that alluvial !eposits shall belon" to the owner of the lot

a!%oinin" such accretion it !oes not automatically bestow animprescriptibility. f the owners of sai! lan! have not re"istere! this with theproper entity sai! lan! will be sub%ect to ac&uisition by prescription whichwas what occurre! in this case. Since the a!avits prove that eynante hasbeen in possession of these lan!s for more than 0/ years the S3 ri"htly hel!that the lan! belon"s to him.

*2. epublic vs 3A The inun!ation of a portion of the lan! is not !ue to GHu1 an! reHu1 of

ti!esG itcannot be consi!ere! a foreshore lan! hence it is not a public lan! an!therefore capable of re"istration as private property provi!e! that theapplicant proves that he has a re"isterable title. The purpose of lan!re"istration un!er the Torrens System is not the ac&uisition of lan!s but onlythe re"istration of title which applicant alrea!y possesses over the lan!.While it is true that by themselves ta1 receipts an! !eclarations of ownershipfor ta1ation purposes are not incontrovertible evi!ence of ownership theybecome stron" evi!ence of ownership ac&uire! by prescription whenaccompanie! by proof of actual possession of the property. Applicant byhimself an! throu"h his father before him has been in open continuouspublic peaceful e1clusive an! a!verse possession of the !ispute! lan! formore than thirty B-/C years an! has presente! ta1 !eclarations an! ta1receipts. Applicant has more than satis#e! the le"al re&uirements. Thus he isclearly entitle! to the re"istration in his favor of sai! lan!.

*-. !a. 4e $a


21/21

accor!ance with the ocular inspection con!ucte! by the :ureau of an!.

*5. Payatas(state mprovement 3o. vs Tuason$o. Article -,, of the Q8l!R 3ivil 3o!e provi!esL =any accretions which

the banks of rivers may "ra!ually receive from the e6ect of the currentbelon" to the owners of the estates bor!erin" thereon.> This provision applies

even to Torrens title! lan!s.Accretions of that character are natural inci!ents to lan! bor!erin" on

runnin" streams an! are not a6ecte! by the re"istration laws. t follows thatre"istration !oes not protect the riparian owner BPayatas stateC a"ainst!iminution of the area of his lan! throu"h "ra!ual chan"es in the course of the a!%oinin" stream.

Avulsion cannot be raise! as well as a "roun! to lay claim over the 22hectares lan! now formin" part of the 7ari&uina estate. There was noevi!ence presente! to show that the increase was !ue to avulsion. Thepresumption is that the chan"e was "ra!ual an! cause by erosion of thePayatas bank of the river an! conse&uent accretion to the 7ari&uina estate. tfollows that the lan! in &uestion is now a part of that estate an! no lon"er

pertains to the Payatas estate.

*0. 3.$. @o!"es vs ?arciat shoul! here be state! that in the ca!astral procee!in"s wherein the

lan! ob%ect of this action was sou"ht to be re"istere! by herein !efen!antAma!or 4. ?arcia plainti6 3.$. @o!"es !i! not #le any opposition !espite!ue publication of the notice of the application an! hearin". The recor! alsoshows that the lan! now bein" claime! by plainti6 ha! been liti"ate! in threecivil cases. n those cases herein !efen!ant was reco"ni

Propery Case Digest

Documents

Transcript of Propery Case Digest