8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
1/179
LAW ON PROPERTY
Lectures of Atty. Claro F. Certeza
Ateneo College of Law
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGk09.AYRKTgoAACdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTBsZDdmM2M5BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA3NrMQR2dGlkAw--/SIG=1h3mo25kj/EXP=1250251518/**http:/images.search.yahoo.com/images/view?back=http://search.yahoo.com/search?ei=UTF-8&p=ateneo+logo&w=223&h=222&imgurl=www.ateneo.edu/ateneo/www/images/sesqui_logo.jpg&size=27.1kB&name=sesqui+logo+jpg&rcurl=http://www.ateneo.edu/index.php&rurl=http://www.ateneo.edu/index.php&p=ateneo+logo&type=jpeg&no=3&tt=581&oid=694d0c253505ca42&tit=sesqui+logo+jpg&sigr=10vbmm0oh&sigi=11gdo0p8n&sigb=11l2lu95k8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
2/179
OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
Articles 427439
Civil Code
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
3/179
Preliminaries
Ownership Defined
Ownership is the independent right of a person to
the exclusive enjoyment and control of a thing
including its disposition and recovery subject onlyto the restrictions or limitations established by law
and the rights of others. (De Leon)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
4/179
Kinds of Ownership Full Ownership
The title and the right to use and enjoy the fruits is inthe name of one person
Beneficial Ownership Title is in the name of another
Ownership recognized by law and capable of beingenforced in court at the instance of the beneficialowner
Example: Trust Agreement
Naked Ownership Possession of bare title to the property
Ownership where the right to use and the fruits iswithheld as it is given to another
Example: Usufruct
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
5/179
Article 427
Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over
things or rights. (n)
Things, i.e. those that are capable of
appropriation
Rights, are classified as incorporeal property
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
6/179
Rights of the Owner
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and
dispose of a thing, without other limitations
than those established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against the
holder and possessor of the thing in order to
recover it. (348a)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
7/179
Rights of Owner
Article 428the owner has the right to:
Recover (Vindicate) (Jus Vindicandi)
Enjoy Dispose (Jus Disponendi)
Other Rights
Right of Accession, the right to everything that is
produced by or attached to the thing owned
(Articles 440475)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
8/179
Rights of Owner
Right to Enjoy
Right to possess (Jus Possidendi)
Right to use (Jus Utendi) Right to the fruits (Jus Fruendi)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
9/179
Rights of Owner
Right to Possess
Articles 523 to 561 on Possession
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
10/179
Rights of Owner
Provisions re: Right to Use
Article 429
Owner may exclude others from enjoyment/ disposal
of the property
Owner may use reasonable force to prevent actual or
threatened unlawful invasion of his property
Article 430
Owner may enclose or fence his land
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
11/179
Rights of Owner
Right to dispose
Right to consume or destroy or abuse
Right to encumber or alienate
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
12/179
Rights of Owner
Right to Recover/ Vindicate
Recovery of Personal Property
Recovery of Real Property
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
13/179
Action To Recover Personal Property
Action to Recover Property Under Rule 60 of theRevised Rules of Court
Requirements: Verified Petition stating -
Applicant is the owner of the property Property is wrongfully detained by the defendant
The property is not seized by virtue of a lawfulprocess
The actual market value of the property Posting of a bond equal to double the value of the
property
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
14/179
Action To Recover Real PropertyAction Where Filed Period Grounds Issue
Forcible Entry
(AccionInterdictal)
Metropolitan/
Municipal TrialCourt
Within One (1)
year fromdispossession
Deprivation of
possession thruFISTS. Possession is
invalid from the
start.
Mere physical
possession(possession de
facto)
Unlawful
Detainer
(Deshaucio)
Metropolitan/
Municipal Trial
Court
Within One (1)
year from date
when
possession
became illegal.
Possession
becomes invalid
after the
termination or
expiration of the
right to possess.
Mere physical
possession
(possession de
facto)
Accion Publiciana Regional Trial
Court
After One (1)
year but within
ten (10) years
from loss of
possession
Deprivation of
possession thru
means other than
FISTS/ Expiration of
right to Possess
Plenary action to
recover
possession
(better right to
possess)
Accion
Reinvidicatoria
Regional Trial
Court
Within ten (10)
years
Possession is
claimed based on
ownership
Recovery of
ownership
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
15/179
Accion Reinvidicatoria
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. (n)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
16/179
Other Means to Recover Possession
Writ of Possession
Used in connection with the Land Registration Lawdirecting a sheriff to place a successful registrantunder the Torrens System in possession of theproperty covered by a decree of the court
No separate action is filed by the registrant
Injunction
Art. 539: In forcible entry cases, the plaintiff maypetition the court within 10 days from the filing of thecomplaint to issue a writ of preliminary mandatoryinjunction to restore possession.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
17/179
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTION OF
OWNERSHIP
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of
ownership raises disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner must resort to
judicial process for the recovery of the property.
2 requirements to raise disputable
presumption of ownership
there must be actual possession of property
the possession must be under claim of ownership
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
18/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHT OFOWNERSHIP
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
19/179
Limitations on Rights of Owner
Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make usethereof in such manner as to injure the rights of athird person.
Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right toprohibit the interference of another with thesame, if the interference is necessary to avert animminent danger and the threatened damage,compared to the damage arising to the owner
from the interference, is much greater. Theowner may demand from the person benefitedindemnity for the damage to him.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
20/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP Power of Eminent Domain
Eminent domain, also often referred to as expropriation and, with less
frequency, as condemnation, is, like police power and taxation, aninherent power of sovereignty. It need not be clothed with anyconstitutional gear to exist; instead, provisions in our Constitution onthe subject are meant more to regulate, rather than to grant, theexercise of the power. Eminent domain is generally so described as"the highest and most exact idea of property remaining in thegovernment" that may be acquired for some public purpose through a
method in the nature of a forced purchase by the State. It is a right totake or reassert dominion over property within the state for public useor to meet a public exigency. It is said to be an essential part ofgovernance even in its most primitive form and thus inseparable fromsovereignty. The only direct constitutional qualification is that "privateproperty shall not be taken for public use without just compensation."
This proscription is intended to provide a safeguard against possibleabuse and so to protect as well the individual against whose propertythe power is sought to be enforced.
(Manosca vs. CA, G.R. No. 106440, January 29, 1996)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
21/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Codal Provision
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property
except by competent authority and for public use
and always upon payment of just compensation.
Three Requirements
Exercised by competent authority
For public use
Payment of Just Compensation
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
22/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Competent Authority
The legislature grants the authority by
appropriating the funds to achieve the purpose
The Executive Branch exercises the authority
granted by the legislature
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
23/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Competent AuthorityLGU
The power of eminent domain is lodged in the
legislative branch of government, which may
delegate the exercise thereof to LGUs, otherpublic entities and public utilities.
Section 19 of RA 7160 delegates to LGUs the
power of eminent domain, also lays down the
parameters for its exercise.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
24/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP Competent AuthorityLGUs, conditions for exercise of
eminent domain powers1. An ordinance is enacted by the local legislative council
authorizing the local chief executive, in behalf of the LGU, toexercise the power of eminent domain or pursue expropriation
proceedings over a particular private property.2. The power of eminent domain is exercised for public use,purpose or welfare, or for the benefit of the poor and the landless.
3. There is payment of just compensation, as required underSection 9 Article III of the Constitution and other pertinent laws.
4. A valid and definite offer has been previously made to the ownerof the property sought to be expropriated, but said offer was notaccepted.
(Yusay vs. CA, G.R. No. 156684, April 6, 2011)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
25/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Public Use Not limited to use by the public
May be equated with public benefit, public utility or publicadvantage (Guido vs. Rural Progress Administration, 84 Phil
847) Existence of Public Use
Generally the courts decides if a particular use is a privateone
Exception: When Congress has specified the public
purpose for which the authority to expropriate is granted,the courts are without jurisdiction to inquire into thenecessity of such purpose. (City of Manila vs. ChinesCommunity of Manila, 40 Phil 349)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
26/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Public UseSubsequent Non Use
If property is expropriated for public use, the
government must make good its intent to use the
same otherwise, the government may becompelled to return the property to its original
owner. (Ouano vs. Republic, G.R. No. 168770,
February 9, 2011)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
27/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Just Compensation Just compensation is defined as the full and fair
equivalent of the property taken from its owner bythe expropriator. The measure is not the takers gain,
but the owners loss. The word "just" is used tointensify the meaning of the word "compensation"and to convey thereby the idea that the equivalent tobe rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,substantial, full, and ample. Indeed, the "just"-ness of
the compensation can only be attained by usingreliable and actual data as bases in fixing the value ofthe condemned property. (NPC vs. Bernal, G.R. No.180979, December 15, 2010)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
28/179
LIMITATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Just CompensationWho Determines
The trial court has exclusive jurisdiction to
determine just compensation.
Thus a law which provides that the only basis for
determining just compensation in eminent
domain cases should be the market value as
declared by the owner or as determined by the
assessor, whichever is lower is void. (EPZA vs.
Dulay, 149 SCRA 305)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
29/179
LIMIATATIONS TO RIGHTS OF
OWNERSHIP
Two Stages in Expropriation Cases
First Stage: Determination of the authority of theplaintiff to exercise the power of eminent domain andthe propriety of its exercise in the context of the facts
of the case. This ends with an Order - - Dismissing the case
Of Condemnation declaring that the plaintiff has a lawfulright to take the property for public use upon payment of
just compensation. Second Stage: Determination by the Court of the just
compensation. (NPC vs. Jocson, 206 SCRA 536)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
30/179
Limitations on Rights of Owners
Art. 436. When any property is condemned or
seized by competent authority in the interest
of health, safety or security, the owner thereof
shall not be entitled to compensation, unlesshe can show that such condemnation or
seizure is unjustified.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
31/179
Limitations on Rights of Owners
Police Power
The concept of police power is well-established in thisjurisdiction. It has been defined as the "state authorityto enact legislation that may interfere with personal
liberty or property in order to promote the generalwelfare." As defined, it consists of (1) an impositionof restraint upon liberty or property, (2) in order tofoster the common good. It is not capable of an exact
definition but has been, purposely, veiled in generalterms to underscore its all-comprehensive embrace.(Phil. Association of Service Exporters vs. Drilon, G.R.No. 81958 June 30, 1988)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
32/179
Limitations on Rights of Owners
Police Power
Persons affected by the exercise of police power
are not entitled to compensation unlike those
whose lands are expropriated.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
33/179
Surface Rights
Art. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the
owner of its surface and of everything under
it, and he can construct thereon any works or
make any plantations and excavations whichhe may deem proper, without detriment to
servitudes and subject to special laws and
ordinances. He cannot complain of thereasonable requirements of aerial navigation.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
34/179
Hidden Treasure
Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building,or other property on which it is found.
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another,or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half
thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a trespasser, heshall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.
If the things found be of interest to science of the arts, the State mayacquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformitywith the rule stated. (351a)
Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden andunknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, thelawful ownership of which does not appear.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
35/179
Hidden Treasure
Two Requisites
they consist of money, jewels and other precious
objects;
they are hidden and unknown such that theirfinding is a real discovery.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
36/179
Hidden Treasure
Precious Objects
Law refers only to movables
Owner is Unknown
Money purposely hidden by the owner is not
hidden treasure;
Finding is by chance
There must be no purpose or intent to look for
treasure
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
37/179
ACCESSION
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
38/179
Art. 440ownership
of the thing gives
owner right to theirproduce and to those
incorporated or
attached thereto.
Accession Discreta
extension of therights of ownership
to the products of
the thing. (Art. 441)
Accession Continua
acquisition of
ownership over a thing
incorporated to that
which belongs to the
owner.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
39/179
ACCESSIOND
ISCRETA
3 Kinds of Accession
Discreta Under Art. 442
Natural Fruits
spontaneous productsof the soil and young
and other products of
animals.
Industrial Fruitsthose produced by
lands of any kind thru
cultivation or labor.
Civil Fruitsrent ofland or building or
amount of perpetual
life annuities.
Art. 444
Only such
are manifest
or born are
considered
as natural or
industrial
fruits.
Art. 443He
who receives
fruits has the
obligation to paythe expenses
made by 3rd
persons in their
production,
gathering and
preservation.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
40/179
ACCESSIONC
ONTINUA ACCESSION WITH
RESPECT TO IMMOVABLE
PROPERTY (Arts. 445-465)
ACCESSION WITH
RESPECT TO MOVABLE
PROPERTY (Arts. 466-475)
Natural
1. Alluvion
2. Force of river
3. Change of river bed4. Formation of islands
Industrial
1. Building, planting or
sowing
1. Conjunction or
adjunction
2. Specification
3. Commixtion
Adjunction may
take place by:
Inclusion
Soldering
Weaving
Painting
i bl
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
41/179
Accession on Immovable Property
Whatever is B-S-P on land belongs to the owner OF
THE LAND.
Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown onthe land of another and the improvements or
repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of theland, subject to the provisions of the followingarticles.
Disputable presumption is that B-S-P on land was
made by the owner. Art. 446. All works, sowing, and planting are
presumed made by the owner and at his expense,unless the contrary is proved. (359)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
42/179
Article 447
Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes
thereon, personally or through another,plantings, constructions or works with thematerials of another, shall pay their value; and, ifhe acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged tothe reparation of damages. The owner of thematerials shall have the right to remove themonly in case he can do so without injury to thework constructed, or without the plantings,constructions or works being destroyed.
However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, theowner of the materials may remove them in anyevent, with a right to be indemnified fordamages.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
43/179
Art. 447 - L.O. makes planting, construction or
works using materials of another.Owner of Material in Good Faith Owner of Material in Bad Faith
Landowner in Good
Faith
Landowner must pay value of
materials.
Owner of material can
remove provided no injury iscaused to the planting or
works.
Landowner must pay value
of materials.
Owner of material can
remove provided no injury iscaused to the planting or
works. (Paras , De Leon,
opines no right of removal)
Owner of materials liable to
pay damages.
Landowner in Bad
Faith
Landowner must pay valueof
materials plus damages.
Owner of materials can
remove even if injury will
result to the planting or works
plus damages.
As if both are in good faith.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
44/179
Builds
UPON LAND OF
ANOTHER
ARTICLES 448 - 454
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
45/179
Article 448 Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has
been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall havethe right to appropriate as his own the works, sowingor planting, after payment of the indemnity providedfor in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one whobuilt or planted to pay the price of the land, and the
one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builderor planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its valueis considerably morethan that of the building or trees.In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the ownerof the land does not choose to appropriate the building
or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agreeupon the terms of the lease and in case ofdisagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.(361a)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
46/179
When To Apply Article 448
A person builds on land belonging to another.
The builder, planter, or sower believes that he
is the owner of the landHe is in GOOD
FAITH.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
47/179
Good Faith/ Bad Faith
Good Faithhonest belief of the builder,
planter or sower that the land on which he is
building, planting, or sowing is his and is
ignorant of any defect or title.
Bad Faiththe builder, planter, or sower, is
aware that he is not the owner of the land or
that his title is defective.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
48/179
Art. 448 - Good Faith
This Court has ruled that this provision covers onlycases in which the builders, sowers or plantersbelieve themselves to be owners of the land or, atleast, to have a claim of title thereto. It does notapply when the interest is merely that of a holder,such as a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary.Fromthese pronouncements, good faith is identified bythe belief that the land is owned; or that -- by sometitle -- one has the right to build, plant, or sowthereon.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
49/179
Options of Landowner
If the builder, planter, sower is in Good Faith To appropriate the improvement
Must pay NECESSARY EXPENSES expenses made for the preservation of the thing or those which
seek to prevent the waste, deterioration or loss of the thing
(Manresa) Example: expenses for cultivation, production and upkeep;
ordinary repairs required by natural wear and tear;
Must pay USEFUL EXPENSES Those which add value to the thing or augment its income.
Example: levelling/ clearing of the ground, introduction ofimprovements to the house, construction of fishpond or irrigationsystem.
Must pay ORNAMENTAL/ LUXURIOUS EXPENSES
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
50/179
Options of Landowner
If the builder, planter, sower is in Good Faith
Oblige builder or planter to pay the price of the
land or the one who sowed the proper rent
Not available if the price of the land is considerablymore than the building or trees. In this case he must
pay the proper rent.
The parties shall agree on the terms of the lease and if
they fail to agree, the courts shall fix the terms.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
51/179
Who Exercises Option
The Landowner
Why is Option given to the landowner?
He is the owner of the principal and therefore
applying the principles of accession, he is the one
who benefits from it.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
52/179
When Builder Planter Sower in BAD FAITH Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the
land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without
right to indemnity. (362) Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been
built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand thedemolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing beremoved, in order to replace things in their former conditionat the expenseof the person who built, planted or sowed; orhe may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of theland, and the sower the proper rent. (363a)
Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, thelandowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planteror sower. (n)
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitledto reimbursement for the necessary expenses ofpreservation of the land. (n)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
53/179
EffectBPS in Bad Faith As to cost of what was Built, Planted, Sowed
No reimbursement is due to builder, planter, sower(Art. 449)
Remedies of the owner of land
Demand demolition of the work
Removal of what was planted or sowed
Require the builder or planter to buy the land
Require sower to pay the proper rent (Art. 450)
Builder, Planter, Sowerliable for damages to theowner of the land (Art. 451)
Builder, Planter, Sowerentitled to payment forexpenses to PRESERVE the land.
SUMMARY OF RULESA person builds, plants, or sows upon
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
54/179
Builder in Good Faith Builder in Bad Faith
Landowner in
Good Faith
L.O. can appropriate the
works but must pay necessary
& useful expense and
ornamental expense. (Art.
448)
L.O. can oblige the builder or
planter to pay for the land
(unless the value of the land
is considerably more) or the
sower to pay rent.
B-P-S loses what was built,
planted or sown without right
to any indemnity. (Art. 449)
Landowner may demand
demolition of work or
removal of what was planted
or sowed. (Art. 450)
May compel the B-P-S to pay
for the price of the land or
compel sower to pay the
proper rent. (Art. 450)
The B-P-S in bad faith is
entitled to reimbursementfor the preservation of the
land. (Art. 452)
L.O. is entitled to damages.
Landowner in
Bad Faith
Apply Art. 447 (Art. 454) Apply the rule as if both
parties are in good faith.
p , p , p
land belonging to another
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
55/179
Article 454
Landowner in Bad Faith/ B-P-S in Good Faith
Apply 447 (As if Landowner is B-P-S in Bad Faith
on his own land with materials belonging to
another) Thus, the owner of the materials who is the B-P-S
is entitled to:
Demand the value of his materials
Demand the return of his materials
Plus damages in both cases
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
56/179
Assigned Cases1. Pacific farms, Inc., vs. Simplicio G. Esguerra, et al.,
G.R. No. L-21783 November 29, 19692. Macasaet vs. Macasaet
G.R. Nos. 154391-92 September 30, 2004
3. Technogas vs. CA, 268 SCRA 5
4. Del Campo vs. Abesia, 160 SCRA 3795. Sarmiento vs. Agana, 129 SCRA 122
6. Javier vs. Javier, 7 Phil 261
7. PNB vs. De Jesus, 411 SCRA 557
8. Rosales vs. Castelltort, 472 SCRA 1449. Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475
10. Nuguid vs. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 243
11. Manotok Realty vs. Tecson, 164 SCRA 587
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
57/179
Pacific Farms v. Garcia
Carried Lumber sold construction materials to
Insular Farms, Inc., for construction of 6
buildings.
Insular Farms, Inc. failed to pay and Carried
Lumber sued the former and obtained
judgment.
Carried Lumber levied upon the six (6)buildings of Insular Farms.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
58/179
Pacific Farms v. Garcia
Pacific Farms filed a third-party claim asserting
that it purchased the 6 buildings from Insular
Farms.
Carried posted a bond so the sheriff
proceeded with auction sale.
Pacific Farms filed action against Carried and
the Sheriff to annul the levy of the sixbuildings.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
59/179
Pacific Farms v. Garcia
Court Ruling
We should apply Art. 447 by analogy
Levy of 6 buildings is proper
Pacific is given time to redeem the 6 buildings by
paying the price of the materials
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
60/179
Pacific Farms v. Garcia
Why Art. 447 was applied by analogy the SC made a finding that Insular Farms and Pacific
Farms are owned by one and the same beneficialowners.
Pacific Farms in BAD FAITH as it knows of the claim ofCarried Lumber against its predecessor Insular Farms
Why applied by analogy ordinarily Art. 447 applies only when a landowner
builds on his land using the materials of another
in this case Insular Farms built using materials ofanother but Art. 447 was applied with respect to therights of the buyer (Pacific Farms)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
61/179
Macasaet v. Macasaet General Rule.Art. 448 applies to builders,
sowers or planters who believe themselves to
be owners of the land or, at least, to have a
claim of title thereto. It does not apply when
the interest is merely that of a holder, such as
a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. From
these pronouncements, good faith is
identified by the belief that the land is owned;or that -- by some title -- one has the right to
build, plant, or sow thereon.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
62/179
Macasaet v. Macasaet Exceptions: However, in some special cases, this Court
has used Article 448 by recognizing good faith beyondthis limited definition. Thus, in Del Campo v. Abesia,this provision was applied to one whose house --despite having been built at the time he was still co-
owner -- overlapped with the land of another. Thisarticle was also applied to cases wherein a builder hadconstructed improvements with the consent of theowner. The Court ruled that the law deemed the
builder to be in good faith. In Sarmiento v. Agana, thebuilders were found to be in good faith despite theirreliance on the consent of another, whom they hadmistakenly believed to be the owner of the land.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
63/179
Macasaet v. Macasaet
Based on the aforecited special cases, Article 448applies to the present factual milieu. Theestablished facts of this case show thatrespondents fully consented to the
improvements introduced by petitioners. In fact,because the children occupied the lots upon theirinvitation, the parents certainly knew andapproved of the construction of theimprovements introduced thereon. Thus,petitioners may be deemed to have been in goodfaith when they built the structures on those lots.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
64/179
Macasaet v. Macasaet
Observations
the stay of the children was NOT by mere
tolerance but by contract
the term of the stay is for so long as the partiesmutually benefitted until there is a change in
conditionunresolved conflict that terminates
the agreement
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
65/179
Technogas vs. CA
The parties in this case are owners of adjoining lots inParaaque, Metro Manila. It was discovered in asurvey, that a portion of a building of petitioner(technogas), which was presumably constructed by itspredecessor-in-interest, encroached on a portion ofthe lot owned by private respondent (Eduardo Uy).What are the rights and obligations of the parties? IsTechnogas considered a builder in bad faith because, asheld by respondent Court, he is "presumed to knowthe metes and bounds of his property as described inhis certificate of title"? Does Technogas succeed intothe good faith or bad faith of his predecessor-in-interest which presumably constructed the building?
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
66/179
Technogas v. CA
Can the successor-in-interest of the BPS benefitfrom Art. 448?
Yes, provided the successor did not know of theencroachment.
Is Technogas in bad faith?
No, good faith is presumed under Art. 527
When Technogas purchased the land, the buildings
which encroached were already existing. Technogashad no way of knowing about the encroachment. Infact, the owner of the land encroached also becameaware only after he had his land surveyed.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
67/179
Technogas v. CA
Since Technogas became aware of the
encroachment subsequent to its purchase, will
this not preclude resorting to Art. 448?
No, a reading of Art. 448 will show that thelandowners exercise of the option can only take
place AFTER the builder shall have come to know
of the intrusionin short, when both parties
became aware of it.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
68/179
Del Campo vs. Abesia
Facts: A co-owner built on land owned in common.
The court appointed commissioner prepared a sketchplan and it was discovered that the house of one co-
owner encroached on the part belonging to the otherco-owner.
The court ruled that Art. 448 cannot be applied sincea co-owner is not a third party. The court applied the
rules on co-ownership. The court ordered the builder who encroached to
remove the encroachment.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
69/179
Del Campo vs. Abesia
Held:
The SC agreed with the ruling of the lower court.
However, when the co-ownership is terminated
by the partition and there is encroachment of 5sq. meters obviously made in good faith, Art. 448
may be applied by analogy citing Manresa and
Amandi.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
70/179
Sarmiento vs. Agana
Facts: Mother allowed her daughter and latters husband to
build their house on a parcel of land.
Believing that the mother owns the land, couple built
their house thereon.
It turns out the mother is not the owner. It is titled toanother who sold the same to Sarmiento.
Sarmiento filed ejectment case against the couple.
Lower court ruled that couple is in good faith. Itordered the couple to vacate the land after Sarmientopays them the value of the house.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
71/179
Sarmiento vs. Agana
Facts: On appeal to RTC, decision modified:
Sarmiento was given the ff. options exercisable within 60 days Reimburse the couple the value of the house, or
Require the couple to pay the value of the land
Sarmiento refused to exercise either option RTC required couple to deposit the sum equal to the value of land
Hence, the appeal.
Held: Lower court did not err in requiring landowner to exercise
the 2 options under Art. 448 Note: Since the landowner refused to exercise any of the 2
options, is it proper for the court to decide for them?
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
72/179
Javier v. Javier
The son built on land belonging to the father
and with the latters consent.
Father sold land to another.
The son eventually purchased the lot.
Son considered a builder in good faith and
court applied Art. 448.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
73/179
PNB vs. De Jesus
De Jesus sued PNB for recovery of ownership andpossession.
De Jesus claimed he purchased the propertycovered by TCT 17197 and after survey, north
part is being encroached upon by building ownedby PNB.
PNB claimed it purchased adjoining propertyfrom Ignacio. At time of sale, Ignacio
acknowledged encroachment and in fact offeredthe portion for sale to PNB since he also ownedthe lot (now owned by De Jesus)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
74/179
PNB v. De Jesus
Is PNB a builder in good faith?
Held:
PNB was made aware that part of the building
encroached upon the land of De JesusPNB is inbad faith.
Article 448 does not apply if the builder is also the
owner of the land which he subsequently loses bysale or other mode of transfer
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
75/179
Rosales v. Castelltort
Castelltort purchased Lot 16 from Lina.
The engineer of Lina pointed to Lot 17 by
mistke and Catelltort built a house on Lot 17
instead of Lot 16.
Court concluded that Castelltort is in good
faith and applied Art. 448.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
76/179
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
77/179
Depra v. Dumlao
2. After said amounts shall have been determined by competentevidence, the Regional, Trial Court shall render judgment, as follows:
a) The trial Court shall grant DEPRA a period of fifteen (15) days withinwhich to exercise his option under the law (Article 448, Civil Code),whether to appropriate the kitchen as his own by paying to DUMLAO
either the amount of tile expenses spent by DUMLAO f or the building ofthe kitchen, or the increase in value ("plus value") which the said area of34 square meters may have acquired by reason thereof, or to obligeDUMLAO to pay the price of said area. The amounts to be respectivelypaid by DUMLAO and DEPRA, in accordance with the option thusexercised by written notice of the other party and to the Court, shall be
paid by the obligor within fifteen (15) days from such notice of the optionby tendering the amount to the Court in favor of the party entitled toreceive it;
Depra v Dumlao
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
78/179
Depra v. Dumlao b) The trial Court shall further order that if DEPRA exercises the option to oblige
DUMLAO to pay the price of the land but the latter rejects such purchase because,as found by the trial Court, the value of the land is considerably more than that of
the kitchen, DUMLAO shall give written notice of such rejection to DEPRA and tothe Court within fifteen (15) days from notice of DEPRA's option to sell the land. Inthat event, the parties shall be given a period of fifteen (15) days from such noticeof rejection within which to agree upon the terms of the lease, and give the Courtformal written notice of such agreement and its provisos. If no agreement isreached by the parties, the trial Court, within fifteen (15) days from and after thetermination of the said period fixed for negotiation, shall then fix the terms of thelease, provided that the monthly rental to be fixed by the Court shall not be lessthan Ten Pesos (P10.00) per month, payable within the first five (5) days of eachcalendar month. The period for the forced lease shall not be more than two (2)years, counted from the finality of the judgment, considering the long period oftime since 1952 that DUMLAO has occupied the subject area. The rental thus fixedshall be increased by ten percent (10%) for the second year of the forced lease.DUMLAO shall not make any further constructions or improvements on thekitchen. Upon expiration of the two-year period, or upon default by DUMLAO in
the payment of rentals for two (2) consecutive months, DEPRA shall be entitled toterminate the forced lease, to recover his land, and to have the kitchen removedby DUMLAO or at the latter's expense. The rentals herein provided shall betendered by DUMLAO to the Court for payment to DEPRA, and such tender shallconstitute evidence of whether or not compliance was made within the periodfixed by the Court.
Depra v Dumlao
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
79/179
Depra v. Dumlaoc) In any event, DUMLAO shall pay DEPRA an amount
computed at Ten Pesos (P10.00) per month as reasonablecompensation for the occupancy of DEPRA's land for theperiod counted from 1952, the year DUMLAO occupiedthe subject area, up to the commencement date of theforced lease referred to in the preceding paragraph;
d) The periods to be fixed by the trial Court in itsPrecision shall be inextendible, and upon failure of theparty obliged to tender to the trial Court the amount dueto the obligee, the party entitled to such payment shall
be entitled to an order of execution for the enforcementof payment of the amount due and for compliance withsuch other acts as may be required by the prestation duethe obligee.
Accession
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
80/179
Accession General Rule: Accessory follows the principal. (Art. 445)
Exception: Art. 120. The ownership of improvements,whether for utility or adornment, made on the separateproperty of the spouses at the expense of the partnershipor through the acts or efforts of either or both spousesshall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the originalowner-spouse, subject to the following rules:
When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnershipand any resulting increase in value are more than the value of theproperty at the time of the improvement, the entire property of oneof the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject toreimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse atthe time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall beretained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to
reimbursement of the cost of the improvement. In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested
upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of theliquidation of the conjugal partnership. (158a)
G d i h ll i C
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
81/179
Good FaithIllustrative Case
Technogas vs. CA, 268 SCRA 5
One cannot be presumed to know the metes and
bounds of his property simply based on the
technical description on his title unless he is wellversed in the science of surveying.
Hence, one who holds title and builds beyond his
property line cannot be presumed to be in bad
faith.
Application of Art. 448 Beyond Limited
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
82/179
Application of Art. 448 Beyond Limited
Definition Good Faith
Art. 448 applied to the following cases:
Where children, upon invitation of their parents,
built a house on a lot owned by their parents.
(Macasaet case) Where a co-owner builds a house on land owned
in common which, after partition, is found to
overlapped with the land partitioned to another.
(Del Campo vs. Abesia, 160 SCRA 379)
Application of Art. 448 Beyond Limited
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
83/179
Application of Art. 448 Beyond Limited
Definition Good Faith
Art. 448 applied to the following cases:
Where a party obtains permission to build on
land from one whom they mistakenly believed to
be the owner thereof. (Sarmiento vs. Agana, 129SCRA 122)
Where a son builds on a lot belonging to his father
with the latters consent. (Javier vs. Javier, 7 Phil
261)
Transferability of Benefits Under Art.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
84/179
Transferability of Benefits Under Art.
448
Technogas case
A buyer of a property from a builder in good
faith enjoys the same if it can be shown that
at the time of acquisition, he is not aware ofany flaw in the property he is acquiring.
Grant To Of Option to Landowner is
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
85/179
Grant To Of Option to andowner is
Preclusive
The grant of the option is preclusive (PNB
vs. De Jesus, 411 SCRA 557)the landowner
cannot refuse to exercise either option and
compel instead the owner of the building toremove it from the land. (Technogas vs. CA, 28
SCRA 5)
Wh I G t P l i ?
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
86/179
Why Is Grant Preclusive? Where the builder, planter or sower has acted in good
faith, a conflict of rights arises between the owners,and it becomes necessary to protect the owner of theimprovements without causing injustice to the ownerof the land. In view of the impracticability of creating astate of forced co-ownership, the law has provided a
just solution by giving the owner of the land the optionto acquire the improvements after payment of theproper indemnity, or to oblige the builder or planter topay for the land and the sower the proper rent. Hecannot refuse to exercise either option. It is the owner
of the land who is authorized to exercise the option,because his right is older, and because, by the principleof accession, he is entitled to the ownership of theaccessory thing. (Rosales vs. Castelltort, 472 SCRA 144)
Can Landowner Demand Removal/
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
87/179
/
Demolition If BPS in Good Faith?
When the landowner opts to sell the land andpayment is refused without justifiable cause.
Justifiable cause means the value of the property
is considerably more than the building.
When the landowner opts to lease the land to
the builder but the latter defaults in the
payment of 2 consecutive monthly rent orwhen the lease expires. (Technogas case)
H Will th T i l C t A l A t 448
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
88/179
How Will the Trial Court Apply Art. 448
First, determine the values of the properties Determine the fair price of the property encroached
upon;
Determine the increase in value (plus value) which
the encroached property may have enjoyed by reasonof the existence of the portion of the building on thearea;
Determine the encroaching value of the building;
Determine whether the value of the said area of landis considerably more than the fair market value of theportion of the building thereon.
H Will th T i l C t A l A t 448
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
89/179
How Will the Trial Court Apply Art. 448
After determining the respective values, the courtshall render judgment, as follows Give the landowner 15 days within which to exercise
the option to appropriate the encroaching portion of
the building upon payment of its fair market value orto oblige the builder after paying the price of the areaencroached.
If landowner chooses to appropriatepay the valueof the building or the plus value.
If the landowner opts to sell the portion of landencroached upon, builder must pay the fair value ofthe land encroached upon.
H Will th T i l C t A l A t 448
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
90/179
How Will the Trial Court Apply Art. 448
If purchase of land is rejected because the valueof the land is considerably more than the value ofthe building advise the landowner and the court w/in 15 days
from notice of landowners exercise of the option. give the parties 15 days from notice of rejection to
agree on the terms of the lease.
If no agreement, the court fixes the terms of the leasewithin 15 days from expiry of the period for
negotiation. The term of the lease as fixed by the court should not
exceed 2 years. (Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475)
Ri ht f R t ti
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
91/179
Right of Retention Builder Planter or Sower in Good Faith may Retain
Possession of the Land If Landowner chooses to appropriate
Indemnity is not yet paid in full
Purpose of right of retentionto ensure full andprompt reimbursement.
During the period of retention, builder cannot beforced to pay rent. (Nuguid vs. Court of Appeals, 452SCRA 243)
Destruction of the improvement due to fortuitous
events and without fault of the landowner negates theright to be paid for the expenses and the right toretain. (Manotok Realty vs. Tecson, 164 SCRA 587)
Builder/Planter/Sower in Bad Faith
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
92/179
Builder/Planter/Sower in Bad Faith
General Rule: What is built, planted, or sown islost without right of indemnity. (Art. 449)
Exception: If the improvement has already beenharvested, there is no accession and Art. 449 willnot apply.
Consequently, if fruits have been gathered andthe sower/ planter is ordered to give the fruits to
the landownerArt. 443 applies and thesower/planter must be paid for the expensescultivation, harvesting, and preservation.
When Both BPS Acted in Good Faith
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
93/179
Landowner in Bad Faith
Article 454Apply provisions of Article 447
Landowner considered having made the building,
planting or sowing thru the BPS using the
materials of another. Consequently, the landowner should pay the
value of the materials plus damages.
The owner can remove the materials, even if
damage is caused, and still demand payment of
damages.
BPS Builds/Plants/Sows on Land of Another Using
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
94/179
/ / g
Materials of a Third Person Not in Bad Faith
Art. 455landowner makes use of the materials, hepays if the BPS has no property with which to pay. the landowner makes use of the materials only if he
appropriates the construction AND NOT if he compelsbuilder to purchase the land or to demolish the
construction. If landowner demolishes what was built/ planted/
sown Art. 455 DOES NOT apply.
If BPS paid the owner of the materials the BPS, the BPS
may demand from landowner the value of thematerials and labor. This assumes that the landownerchooses to appropriate the materials.
BPS Builds/Plants/Sows on Land of Another Using
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
95/179
/ / g
Materials of a Third Person Not in Bad Faith
What if the owner of the materials is in badfaith?
He loses the right to be indemnified
He is liable for damages
Good Faith & Negligence
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
96/179
Good Faith & Negligence
A party may be in good faith even if he wasnegligent.
the presence of negligence does not necessarily
produce bad faith. however, negligence gives rise to the obligation to
pay damages.
Cases
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
97/179
Cases
Pacific farms, Inc., vs. Simplicio G. Esguerra,et al., G.R. No. L-21783 November 29, 1969
Pacific Farms Case
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
98/179
Pacific Farms Case
Can we apply Article 447 in a case where aparty builds on land belonging to a third party
using the materials of another?
Yes, by analogy, the building is considered theprincipal and the building is the accessory.
Pacific Farms Case
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
99/179
Pacific Farms Case
Applying Art. 447 if a building constructedusing the materials of another is sold to a
third party, who should pay for the materials?
If the buyer is in bad faith, he should pay forthe materials. Well-established in
jurisprudence is the rule that compensation
should be borne by the person who has beenbenefited by the accession.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
100/179
ACCESSION NATURAL
Accretion
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
101/179
Accretion
Accretion is the process whereby thesoil is deposited on land due to the
current of the river. Alluvium is the soil actually
deposited on the land by the process
of accretion.
Requisites for Accretion
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
102/179
Requisites for Accretion
Accretion benefits a riparian owner when thefollowing requisites are present:
(1) that the deposit be gradual and imperceptible;
(2) that it resulted from the effects of the current of thewater; and
(3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent
to the bank of a river (Republic v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
No. L-61647, October 12, 1984, 132 SCRA 514, cited inAgustin v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. Nos.
66075-76, July 5, 1990, 187 SCRA 218).
Definitions
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
103/179
Definitions River
A natural collection of waters, arising from springs
or fountains, which flow in a bed or canal of
considerable width and length, towards the sea.
River" consists of water, a bed and banks, theseseveral parts constituting the river, the whole
river. It is a compound idea; it cannot exist
without all its parts. Evaporate the water, and you
have a dry hollow. If you could sink the bed,instead of a river, you would have a fathomless
gulf. Remove the banks, and you have a boundless
flood. (Hilario vs. City of Manila, 19 SCRA 931)
Definition
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
104/179
Definition
Banks of River
Lateral strips or zones of its bed which are
washed by the stream only during such high
floods as do not cause inundations or to thepoint reached by river at hightide. (Hilario vs.
City of Manila, 19 SCRA 931)
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
105/179
Accretion on Riverbanks
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
106/179
Accretion on Riverbanks
They form part of the land of the riparian owner. Provided all the requisites are present
Provided no human intervention is made to effect orenhance accretion
The addition formed by the alluvion belongsautomatically to the riparian owner as a naturalincident to ownership.
The purchaser of land sold on installment enjoys theaccretion even if there is no full payment yet. (Asst.
Secretary vs. CA, 169 SCRA 27) Reason: The ownerreserves title thereto only for its protection and thebeneficial and equitable title is in the purchaser.
Registration of Alluvial Deposit
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
107/179
Registration of Alluvial Deposit
The accretion is automatically owned by theriparian owner.
However, the alluvial property MUST be
registered. If not registered, it is subject toacquisition thru prescription by third parties.
(Heirs of Emiliano Navarro vs. IAC, 268 SCRA
86)
Ponds Lagoons Lake & Creek
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
108/179
Ponds, Lagoons, Lake & Creek Pondbody of stagnant water without an outlet,
larger than a puddle and smaller than a lake, or a likebody of water with a small outlet.
Lagoona small lake, ordinarily of fresh water, and notvery deep, fed by floods, the hollow bed of which isbounded by elevations of land.
Lake - A body of water formed in depressions of theearth. Ordinarily fresh water, coming from rivers,brooks, or springs, and connected with the sea bythem. (Govt vs. Colegio de San Jose, G.R. No. L-30829,August 28, 1929)
Creek- recess or arm extending from a river andparticipating in the ebb and flow of the sea. (Mercadovs. Municipal President of Macabebe,59 Phil. 592[1934])
Rule on Lagoons/Ponds
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
109/179
Rule on Lagoons/Ponds
Article 458
owners of land adjoining ponds or
lagoons:
Do not acquire land left dry by the
natural decrease of waters
Do not lose what is inundated because offloods
Rule on Lakes
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
110/179
Rule on Lakes ART 84. Accretions deposited gradually upon
lands contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers, andlakes, by accessions or sediments from thewaters thereof, belong to the owners of suchlands. . (Govt vs. Colegio de San Jose, G.R. No.
L-30829, August 28, 1929) Laguna de Bay is a lake. Hence the riparian
owner also owns the accretion.
Manila Bay is a sea for purposes of accretion.
Hence accretion from Manila Bay constitutesforeshore lands and is owned by thegovernment. (Heirs of Emiliano Navarro)
Avulsion
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
111/179
Definition:
Transfer of a known portion of land from onetenement to another by force of the current.
Distinguished from accretion
In accretion the deposit of soil is gradual, in avulsion
it is sudden or abrupt; In accretion, the owner of the land to which alluvion
attached becomes the owner, in avulsion, the ownerof the property from which a portion is detachedretains ownership.
In accretion, the owner of the soil (alluivium) is notknown, while in avulsion the owner of the land whichis detached is known.
Two-Year Period
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
112/179
Reason: It is impractical to insist on retention of ownership
because the owner of the segregated property maynot want to be burdened anymore due to the distanceof the segregated portion from his property;
the owner of the property to which it is attached willbe unduly burdened if the segregated property is nottimely removed;
the retention of ownership of the known portion mayrequire the establishment of an easement over the
tenement to which it is attachedthereby developingill-will;
After some time, the segregated portion may blendwith the property to which it is attached.
Uprooted Trees
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
113/179
Uprooted Trees
Art. 460 Owner of uprooted trees may reclaim within 6
months, but must pay expenses for gathering and
placing them in a safe place (preservation). Owner of the land acquires ownership after 6
months.
Abandonment of River Bed
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
114/179
Abandonment of River Bed
Article 461 the owner of the land invaded by the new course
of the river becomes owner of the abandoned
bed. The right is automatically acquired by the owner
of the invaded land.
Is Art. 461 applicable to a dried up river?
Art. 461 does not apply where the riverbed dries
up.
Lands Isolated By Branching of Rivers
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
115/179
Lands Isolated By Branching of Rivers
Art. 463 the owner does not lose his ownership simply
because of an inundation which has converted his
land into an island.
Formation of Islands
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
116/179
Formation of Islands
Arts. 464 & 465 Islands formed on the seas, lakes, navigable or
floatable rivers belongs to the state.
Islands formed in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers belong to the owners of the
margins or banks nearest to them. If the island is
in the middle of the river, it shall be divided
longitudinally in half.
Cases
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
117/179
1. Government of the Phil Islands vs. Cabangis, 53
Phil 1122. Hilario v. City of Manila, GR No. L-19570 April
27, 1967
3. Republic v. CA, G.R. No. L-61647. October 12,1984.
4. Binalay vs. Manalo, G.R. No. 92161 March 18,1991
5. Baes vs. CA, G.R. No. 108065, July 6, 19936. Vda. De Nazareno v. CA, G.R. No. 98045. June
26, 1996.
Cases
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
118/179
Cases7. De Buyser v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-
22763. March 18, 1983.
8. Ignacio v. Director of Lands, G.R. No. L-12958.May 30, 1960.
9. Government v. Colegio de San Jose, G.R. No.30829. August 28, 1929.
10. Maneclang v. IAC, G.R. No. L-66575. September30, 1986.
11. Bantao vs. Dabay, G.R. No. 12264,September 23, 1918
12. Jaguling vs. CA, G.R. No. 94283, March 4, 1991
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
119/179
Accession With Respect to
Movable PorpertiesArticles 466-475
Definitions
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
120/179
Definitions Adjunction (conjunction)
the union of two movable things belonging to twodifferent owners in such a way that they form a singleobject but each of the component things preservetheir value.
Mixture two or more things belonging to different owners are
mixed with the respective identities of the componentparts destroyed or lost.
Specification work is done on the material of another, such
material, in the consequence of the work itself,undergoing a transformation.
Illustration
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
121/179
Illustration Adjunction
metal figure of horse is welded on the metal hood
of a car.
Mixture
rice belonging to different owners are mixedtogether.
Specification
wood belonging to another is used by a sculptorand is transformed into a wooden statue.
ADJUNCTION MIXTURE
1 Inclusion or engraftment 1 Commixtion mixture of
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
122/179
1. Inclusion or engraftment 1. Commixtionmixture of
solid things belonging to
different owners.
2. Soldidura or solderingfusion of metals
2.1 ferruminacionboth principal &
accessory of same metal
2.2 plumbaturaobjects are of different
kinds of metal
2. Confusionmixture of
liquid things belonging to
different owners.
3. Escrituraa person writes on paper
belonging to another.
4. Pinturaa person paints on canvass
belonging to another.
5. Tejidowhen threads belonging to
different owners are used to make textile.
Principal/ Accessory
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
123/179
p / y
Principal that to which the other has been united as an
ornament, or for its use or perfection. (Art. 467)
Accessory that which has been added to another object as
an ornament, of for the objects use or perfection.
Test
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
124/179
First, determine which is the principal and the
accessory using Art. 467. (Rule of Importance orPurpose)
If unsuccessful, apply the following: The Principal is the one which has greater value
If both of equal value, the Principal is the one with greatervolume
Special Rules Paintings, canvass is the accessory
Sculpture, metal or stone is the accessory
Writings or printed matter, paper or parchment is theaccessory
Engraving or lithographs, the stone or metal plate is theaccessory
Application of Rules on AdjunctionFIRST DETERMINE WHICH IS THE PRINCIPAL AND WHICH IS THE ACCESSORY
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
125/179
Accessory owner in Good Faith Accessory owner in BF
Owner ofPrincipal in
Good Faith
Art. 466
Owner of the Principalacquires the accessory, but he must
pay the owner of the Accessory its
value.
Art. 470 - The owner ofthe Accessory loses
what is incorporated
and must pay the
owner of the Principal,
damages.
Owner of
Principal in
Bad Faith
Art. 470the owner of the
Accessory may:
1. Compel the owner of the
Principal to pay the value of
accessory; or2. Insist on separation of the
objects even if principal is
damaged.
3. Damages must be paid in either
option.
Apply 466both are
considered in good
faith.
Application of Rules on Mixture
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
126/179
ppOwner 2 in Good
Faith
Owner 2 in Bad
FaithOwner 1 in Good
Faith
Each owner shares
in proportion to the
value of the part
which belongs tohim. (Art. 472)
Owner 2 loses the
thing belonging to
him AND must pay
damages. (Art. 472)
Owner 1 in Bad
Faith
Owner 1 loses the
thing belonging to
him AND must pay
damages. (Art. 472)
Both are considered
in good faith and
each owner shares
in proportion to the
value of the part
which belongs to
him. (Art. 472)
Application of Rules on SpecificationOwner of Materials in Good Faith Owner of Materials
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
127/179
in Bad Faith
User of
Materialsin Good
Faith
The user becomes the owner of the final
product but must pay the owner of the
materials their value.
Exception: If the material is more
precious than the product, the owner of
the material may (a) appropriate the
product but must pay the value of the
labor employed; or (b) demand
indemnity for the material.
The user may: (a)
appropriate the newthing without
paying the value of
the material; or (b)
demand that the
owner of the
materials pay himthe value of his
labor. Plus damages
in either case.
User of
Materialsin Bad
Faith
Owner of the material has the option to: (a)
appropriate the work without paying the user; or(b) demand the value of the materials. Plus
damages in both cases.
Note: If the value of the product, for scientific or
artistic reasons, is considerably more than the
material option (a) is not allowed.
Both are considered
in good faith.
Adjunction/ Mixture/ Specification
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
128/179
j / / p
Adjunction Mixture SpecificationEnd-Product Composed of
2 things
Composed of
2 things
One thing
whose form
is changed
Nature of
Component
Parts
Component
parts
preserve
their nature
The things
mixed may or
may not
retain their
nature
Component
parts retain
their nature
Principle
Applied
Accessory
follows the
principal
Co-
ownership
results
Accessory
follows the
principal
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
129/179
ACTION TO QUIET TITLE
Arts. 476481
Cloud On Title
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
130/179
A cloud on title is a semblance of title, either legalor equitable, or a claim or a right in real property,appearing in some legal form but which is, in fact,invalid or which would be inequitable to enforce.
(Ballantine Law Dictionary, p. 226) A statement claiming an equitable interest in
certain land, and signed only by claimant doesnot, although recorded in the register of deeds,constitute a cloud on title of the owner.
(Leeds vs. Wheeler, 157 Mass. 7, 31 N.E. 709)
Cloud On Title
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
131/179
Cloud Must Be Substantial such as to cause a reasonable fear that it may at
some time be asserted against the owner injuriously.
Oral Assertion of Right not created by mere verbal or parol assertion of
ownership.
Apprehended or Threatened Cloud
can be resorted to even with respect to a threatened
cloud
Requisites for Existence of Cloud
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
132/179
q
There is an instrument, record, claim,encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently
valid or effective.
Such instrument, etc. is, in truth and in fact,invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, or
it has been extinguished or terminated, or has
been barred by extinctive prescription.
Such instrument, etc. may be prejudicialto said
title.
Examples of Cloud On Title
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
133/179
p
A fictitious contract of sale; A sale of an agent without written authority or
after expiration of his authority;
A forged contract; A contract of sale or donation which has
become in-operative because of non-performance by the vendee/ donee of a
condition precedent;
A voidable contract.
Nature of Action
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
134/179
What is the nature of actions to quiet title? Actions to quiet title are suits quasi-in-rem
What is meant by suits quasi-in-rem?
They are actions against persons with respect tothe res wherein the judgment does not extend
beyond the property in controversy.
They are conclusive only between the parties
(Portic vs. Cristobal, 456 SCRA 577)
Extinguishment of Right
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
135/179
The title to property may be quieted withrespect to any instrument which has becomefunctus oficio by reason of facts which can beshown only by extrinsic evidence.
Title and liens which have lost their force or failedto become operative because the persons entitledthereto failed to enforce them have beencancelled as clouds.
Mortgages which are unenforceable by reason ofthe expiration of the period of limitations.
Prescription of Action
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
136/179
When Plaintiff is in Possession the action does not prescribe (Aznar Bros. Realty
Co., vs. Aying, 458 SCRA 496)
When Plaintiff is not in Possession 10 yrs for ordinary prescription/ 30 yrs for
extraordinary prescription.
Requirements
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
137/179
What are the requirements to maintain anaction to quiet title?
legal or equitable title or interest
Does title mean an OCT/TCT? no title referred to is the legal right over the
property
Obligation of the Plaintiff
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
138/179
Art. 479the plaintiff must return to thedefendant all benefits he may have received
from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses
that may have redounded to his benefit. Thus, in the cancellation of a recorded contract of
sale of real estate, as a cloud upon vendors title,
the vendor is required to return to the vendee all
amounts paid to the former by virtue of thecontract, less any damages suffered by the vendor.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
139/179
CO-OWNERSHIP
Definition
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
140/179
It is a form of trust and every co-owner is atrustee for others. (Castrillo vs. CA, G.R. No. L-18046, March 31, 1964) Thus, as a general rule,no one of the co-owners may acquire exclusive
ownership of the common property throughprescription, for possession by one trustee aloneis not deemed adverse to the rest.
A form of ownership which exists whenever an
undivided thing or right belongs to differentpersons.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
141/179
Requisites for Co-Ownership to Exist
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
142/179
1. Plurality of owners; More than one owner of one single property.
2. The object of ownership is an undivided
thing or right; There is no partition of the property.
3. Each co-owners right is limited to his idealshare.
There is no specific portion allotted to the co-owner.
Undivided Defined
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
143/179
It is not undivided if the shares are alreadypre-determined/ identified even if not
technically identified.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
144/179
Rights of Co-Owners
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
145/179
As to Benefits and Charges They share in the benefits and charges in
proportion to their respective interest.
In the absence of contrary evidence, share ispresumed equal (Art. 485)
Rights of Co-Owners
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
146/179
Right To Use PropertyOwned in Common
Must be for the purpose for which the co-
ownership is intended. In such a way as not to injure the interest of
the co-ownership.
In such a way as not to prevent the other co-
owners from using it according to their rights.
Purpose of Co-Ownership
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
147/179
How to determine purpose Agreement of the parties
Ordinary use of the thing owned in common
Previous particular use of the thing owned incommon
Mere tolerance, in the absence of any agreement,
does not establish purpose.
Manner Of Use
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
148/179
Cannot be used for a different purpose thanthat intended
Use of apartment house owned in common as
dwelling Cannot use the property in a destructive way
Rights of Co-Owners
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
149/179
Ejectment Anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for
ejectment
Basis Suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all.
Effects
A person authorized to file an action by one co-ownerdoes not require the authority of the others.
But all co-owners must be named as party to the suit.
Rights of Co-Owners
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
150/179
Expenses Right to compel co-owners to contribute to
expenses for preservation of the thing and
taxes Only necessary expenses (Art. 546) are covered
Exception
Co-owner may renounce so much of his share asmay be equivalent to his share in the expenses.
Acts Relating To Property Owned in
Common
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
151/179
Common
Acts of Preservation
Acts of Administration
Acts of Alteration
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
152/179
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
153/179
Acts of Alteration
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
154/179
Definition Change in the property owned in common involving:
Change in the essence of the property (conversion of a car toa funeral car)
Change in the use of the property (van is used as astationary diner)
Any transformation which prejudices the condition orsubstance of the property (conversion of residential lot to apiggery)
Any act of strict ownership Sale or mortgage of entire property
Lease of property for more than 1 year and same isregistered.
Acts or Decisions Affecting Co-Owned Property
Consent Required Liability for Cost
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
155/179
Acts of
Preservation
Mere notice if
practicable. (Art. 489)
With or without notice, all co-
owners are liable. (Art. 489)subject to their respective
interest. (Art. 485)
* Any of the co-owners may
exempt himself thru
renunciation (Art. 488)Acts of
Administration
Majority of the co-
owners is required.
(Art. 492)
* Majority = 51% or
more of financialinterest
Each co-owner is liable to the
extent of their respective
interest. (Art. 485)
Acts of
Alteration
All of the co-owners
must give their consent.
(Art. 491)
Each co-owner is liable to the
extent of their respective
interest. (Art. 485)
Rights of Co-Owner Under Art. 493
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
156/179
Art. 493 He shall have full-ownership of his part, i.e. his
undivided interest or share in the common property;
He shall have full ownership of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto;
He may alienate, assign, or mortgage his ideal interest
independently of the other co-owners;
He may substitute another person in the enjoyment ofhis part, except when personal rights are involved.
Sale of Co-Owned Property
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
157/179
Effect of Sale of Entire Property Co-Owned
Sanchez vs. CA, 404 SCRA 540
5 out of 6 co-owners sold their rights over aparcel of land
Non-selling co-owner refused to vacate the landsold
Can the buyer take-over the land and demolish
the house of non-selling co-owner? No. There should be a partition to determine the
portion belonging to f the non-selling co-owner.
Vagilidad vs. Vagilidad, 507 SCRA
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
158/179
1931 - Zolio died. He is owner of parcel of land Lot1253 with an area of 4,280 sq. m
Zolio left 3 childrenLORETO, EFREN, and PRESCILA
May 12, 1986LORETO sold to Gabino V, a portion oflot 1253 (Lot 1235-B) measuring 1,604 sq m
July 31, 1987Extra Judicial Settlement by LORETO,EFREN, and PRESCILA adjudicating entire lot 1253 toLoreto.
Sept 21, 1988 - Gabino V paid real estate tax
Dec. 7, 1989Gabino sold to Wilfredo V Dec. 7, 1989LORETO sold lot to Wilfredo V
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
159/179
Right of Redemption
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
160/179
Art. 1620 A co-owner of a thing may exercise the right of
redemption in case the shares of all the other co-
owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person. If
the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, theredemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the
right of redemption, they may only do so in
proportion to the share they may respectively have inthe thing owned in common. (1522a)
Purpose of Right of Redemption
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
161/179
Purpose of Right Given Co-Owner The purpose of the law in establishing the right of
legal redemption between co-owners is to reduce the
number of the participants until the community is
done away with (Viola v. Tecson, 49 Phil. 808).
Effect of Redemption by Co-Owner
Redemption by a co-owner within the period
prescribed by law inures to the benefit of all the otherco-owners. (Mariano vs. CA, G.R. No. 101522 May 28,
1993)
Personal Rights
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
162/179
A co-owner may substitute another in theenjoyment of his undivided interest EXCEPT:
When personal rights are involved
A right that cannot be transferred because it affects thepersonal relations of the co-owners with one another.
Example: House inherited by children and used by them
as dwelling.
Termination of Co-Ownership
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
163/179
Consolidation in one co-owner of all the interestsof the other co-owners.
Destruction or loss of the property co-owned.
Acquisitive prescription by a third party or one
co-owner who repudiates the co-ownership. By partition, either judicial or extra-judicial.
By the termination of the period agreed upon orimposed by the donor or testator.
Sale of the co-owners of the thing and thedistribution of the proceeds.
Partition
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
164/179
General Rule: A co-owner may demand partition of thething owned in common. (Art. 494)
Exception: when co-owners agree not to partition for a period not
exceeding 10 years.
when the donor/testator prohibits partition for a periodnot exceeding 20 years.
When partition is prohibited by law.
When partition will render the thing unserviceable (Art.495)
When another co-owner has possessed the property asexclusive owner and for a period sufficient to acquire it byprescription.
Rights of Creditors
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
165/179
Art. 497. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thingowned in common and object to its beingeffected without their concurrence. But they
cannot impugn any partition already executed,unless there has been fraud, or in case it wasmade notwithstanding a formal oppositionpresented to prevent it, without prejudice to the
right of the debtor or assignor to maintain itsvalidity. (403)
Art. 497Creditors Included
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
166/179
All creditors are included, whether secured orprivileged, and those of any category under
title of alienation, exchange, donation or
assignment. Includes an assignee to whom there has been
no delivery of the interest assigned to him and
has only a personal right against the assignor.
Indivisible Object
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
167/179
Art. 498. Whenever the thing is essentiallyindivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that itbe allotted to one of them who shall indemnifythe others, it shall be sold and its proceedsdistributed. (404) Despite the fact that a thing cannot be partitioned if
it will become unserviceable (Art. 495), still, co-ownership can be terminated by adjudication to oneof the co-owners or the selling of the thing.
Lien on Co-Owned Property
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
168/179
Art. 499. The partition of a thing owned incommon shall not prejudice third persons,
who shall retain the rights of mortgage,
servitude or any other real rights belonging tothem before the division was made. Personal
rights pertaining to third persons against the
co-ownership shall also remain in force,
notwithstanding the partition. (405)
Art. 499 Interpreted
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
169/179
Third persons are those who did not participatein the partition.
A and B are co-owners of 28 lots. A sold to X hisshare in 2 of the lots with right to repurchase.
Thereafter A and B partitioned all the 28 lots suchthat 2 of the lots sold to X were granted to A.What is the right of X with respect to the 2 lots?
He is the owner of an undivided one-half of the 2lots in question. X is a third person within themeaning of Art. 499.
Accounting
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
170/179
Art. 500. Upon partition, there shall be amutual accounting for benefits received and
reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise,
each co-owner shall pay for damages causedby reason of his negligence or fraud. (n)
Liability
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
171/179
Art. 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition,be liable for defects of title and quality of the
portion assigned to each of the other co-
owners. (n)
Cases
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
172/179
Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 122904, April 15, 2005 Quimpo vs. Vda. De Beltran, G.R. No. 160956,
February 13, 2008
Castrillo vs. CA, G.R. No. L-18046, March 31, 1964
Dela Cruz vs. Cruz, G.R. No. L-27759 April 17,1970
Lavadia vs. Cosme, 72 Phil 196
Pardell vs. Bartolome, 23 Phil 450 Arcelona vs. CA, 280 SCRA 20
Cruz vs. CA, G.R. No. 122904, April 15, 2005 Documents Involved?
Deed of Partial Partition
MOA t h th d f th l
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
173/179
MOA to share the proceeds of the sale
Based on the provisions of the MOA was co-ownership continued? No, co-ownership is terminated upon judicial or extra-judicial
partition of the properties owned in common. Partition, in general, isthe separation, division and assignment of a thing held in commonamong those to whom it may belong. Every act which is intended toput an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees isdeemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, anexchange, a compromise, or any other transaction.
What were considered by the Supreme Court as indication that thewas indeed a partition despite the subsequent execution of theMOA. The statement in the Deed of Partial Partition ending the state of co-
ownership; The identification of the mass of shares and the distribution of a
particular part to each of the co-owners.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
174/179
Castrillo vs. CA, G.R. No. L-18046, March 31, 1964
Can a co-owner acquire the property held in
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
175/179
common by PRESCRIPTION?
No, as a general rule, no one of them may acquire
exclusive ownership of the common property
through prescription, for possession by one
trustee alone is not deemed adverse to the rest.
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
176/179
POSSESSION
Possession versus Ownership
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
177/179
Ownership Possession
Ownership exists when a thing pertaining
to one person is completely subjected to
his will in a manner not prohibited by law
and consistent with the rights of others.
On the other hand, possession is defined
as the holding of a thing or the enjoyment
of a right. Literally, to possess means to
actually and physically occupy a thing
with or without right.
Types of Possession
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
178/179
Possession may be had in one of two ways:possession in the concept of an owner and
possession of a holder.
"A possessor in the concept of an owner may be
the owner himself or one who claims to be so."
On the other hand, "one who possesses as a
mere holder acknowledges in another a superior
right which he believes to be ownership, whetherhis belief be right or wrong.
Garcia vs. CA - G.R. No. 133140,
August 10, 1999
8/10/2019 Ownership to Co Ownership
179/179
Top Related