December 11

Civil Law Review I Lyceum College of Law
Atty. Uribe Lecture Notes Juan Paolo Ollero
DECEMBER 11
Quiz
 An action filed by a co-owner against another will not prosper.
False A co-owner may file an action against another co-owner. E.g. Action for
partition; Action for ejectment when the co-owner takes exclusive possession and
asserts exclusive ownership over the co-owned property (De Guia)
An action filed by a co-owner against another MAY prosper depending on the

nature of the action. However an action to recover property because they are co-
owners. Maybe this is an action to recognize the rights of a co-owner or an action
for partition.
 Possession constitutes the foundation of a prescriptive right.
False. The possession should be adverse possession. In Bogo-Medellin Milling,

the Court held that “for possession to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive
right, it must be under claim of title or adverse. It must be coupled with the
element of hostility towards the true owner.”
This is false because not every kind of possession will constitute as a foundation
of a prescriptive right. There must be an adverse possession.
 An easement is non-apparent if it is used at intervals and depends on

the act of man, like the easement of right of way.
False. An easement is discontinuous if it is used at intervals and deoends on the

act of man (e.g. road v. drainage). It is the presence of physical signs indicating
their existence that makes an easement apparent (asphalt road v. unpaved road).
The determination of whether an easement is continuous or discontinuous or
whether it is apparent or non-apparent is relevant in determining whether the
easement may be acquired by prescription. Only continuous and apparent
easements may be acquired by prescription of 10 years. All other easements are
acquired by virtue of a title.
It would be an easement is discontinuous, otherwise it is non-apparent obviously

because there is no physical manifestation of such easement. Maybe an example
1
of a discontinuous is a case decided by the SC is the easement of the right of
way.
 An easement or servitude is a personal right, constituted on the

corporeal movable property of another, by virtue of which the owner has
to refrain from doing, or must allow someone to do something on his
property, for the benefit of another thing or person.
False. An easement must be constituted on an immovable property.
This is false on 2 grounds. First, it is not a personal right but a real right. And
second, it is constituted on an incorporeal immovable property.
 Donations of an immovable property must be in writing to be valid.
False. The law further requires that donation be on a public instrument

specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges, if any.
The law requires that the donations of an immovable must be in a public

instrument to be valid.
 The non-registration of a deed of donation does not affect its validity.
True. The registration of a donation does not affect its validity. However, it must
be registered in order to affect third persons.
As long as it is in the form prescribed by law, it will not affect its validity. It will
only affect its greater efficacy. In other words, it will not bind 3rd persons if it is
not registered.
 The lease of a property for more than one year is considered not merely
an act of administration but an act of strict dominion or ownership.
False. This should be lease of real property.
Not every lease of a property for more than one year is considered not merely an
act of dominion. It must be a lease of real property. And therefore, it will, in fact,
be in writing. Kung entered into by an agent, dapat may SPA.
2
 In case of double sale of real property which is registered under the
Torrens system, mere registration is not enough to give such registrar a
better right over the property.
True. The registration should have been done in good faith.
It is to be concurred with good faith. Mere registration is not enough.
 A builder in good faith cannot be compelled to pay rentals during the

period of retention nor be disturbed in his possession by ordering him
to vacate.
True. In Nuguid, the Court held that the right of retention is considered as one
of the measures devised by the law for the protection of builders in good faith.
Its object is to guarantee full and prompt reimbursement of necessary and useful
expenses.
Being a builder in good faith, he has the right of retention and therefore can be
ordered to vacate. And also, he cannot be ordered to pay rentals. However, ung
rentals that should pertain to the owner shall be compensated with the
indemnity that should be paid to the owner of the property.
 The owner of the land has the right to offset or compensate the
necessary and useful expenses incurred by the builder-possesor in good
faith with the fruits received by the latter.
False. See Nuguid case cited above. Builder possessor in good faith has to be
reimbursed.
As a builder in good faith, he is entitled to the fruits BEFORE he be considered

in bad faith—before he had notice of the fact he is not really the owner.
 Legal easements are those established by the will of the owners.
False. Legal easements are established by law. Voluntary easements are those
established by the will of the owners.
 A person, as a buyer or mortgagee, is not required to go beyond what

appears on the face of the covering title itself.
3
False. When the OCT/TCT is in the name of the seller when the land is sold, the
buyer has a right to rely on what appears on the face of the document. If there
is nothing that indicates any irregularity, he is not expected to make further
investigations or inquiries. However, the rule above does not apply to banks since
a higher degree of diligence is expected of them.
Not every person is not required to go beyond what appears on the page. There
are some persons like juridical persons which are required to exercise the highest
degree of diligence.
 Where the party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is

unregistered at the time he acquired a right to the same land, his
knowledge of that prior unregistered interest has the efect of
registration as to him.
True. Actual knowledge has the same effect of registration.
 Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of things in good

faith and with just title for a period of thirty years.
FALSE. Only ten years is required for acquisitive prescription if the possession
is in good faith and with just title. It is in extraordinary acquisitive prescription
that thirty years of open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession is
required.
 The statutory period of prescription starts when a person who has

neither title nor good faith, secures tax declaration in his name and may,
therefore, be said to have adversely claimed the ownership of the lot.
False. The statement is only accurate if the person who acquired the tax
declaration is in actual possession of the land.
I may not agree with this but this is the ruling of the court. Ang premise dito ay
he is in actual possession of the property. If you read the case of RESTAL, under
the circumstances, I cannot agree with the ruling because… because the claim
of the other heirs was that this brother requested that he be allowed to harvest
the fruits during the time that his children are still going to school. Pero ang
4
ginawa ng kapatid, ni-rehistro sa pangalan niya. Why should the prescriptive
period start to run from that scenario? … Yes, this is TRUE.
 Ownership is one of the attributes of possession.
False. It’s the other way around. Possession is one of the attributes of ownership.
 Those who occupy the land of another at the latter’s tolerance without
any contract between them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise
that the occupants will vacate the property upon demand.
True.
 A co-owner of an undivided parcel of land is an owner of the whole, and

over the whole he exercises the right of dominion.
True.
 There is still co-ownership even if the different portions owned by

different people have already been concretely determined and separately
identified if they have not yet been technically described.
False. There is no co-ownership if the property has been partitioned.
 An action to demand partition is imprescriptible and not subject to

laches.
True. A co-owner may demand partition anytime except (1) if there is an

agreeement to keep the thing undivided; (1) if the donor or testator prohibited
partition; or (3) if it is prohibited by law.
5
Sample Bar Exam Questions
Property is classified in so many ways. The most important classification

pertains to whether the property is movable of immovable; or a property of public
dominion or private ownership. Of course you have to know also if a property is
consumable or non-consumable, fungible or non-fungible in relation to contracts
and other transactions. But for example in this Bar Exam Question…
 Manila Petroleum Co. owned and operated a petroleum operation facility

off the coast of Manila. The facility was located on a floating platform
made of wood and metal, upon which was permanently attached the
heavy equipment of the petroleum operations and living quarters of the
crew. The floating platform likewise contained a garden area, where
trees, plants and flowers were planted. The platform was tethered to a
ship, the MV 101, which was anchored to seabed.
(1) Is the platform movable or immovable property?
Immovable under par. 9 of Art. 415 if it can be shown that it was intended
to remain fixed on the sea.
The platform is an immovable property under Article 415 (9), NCC which
provides that “docks and structures which, though floating, are intended
by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake or
coast.” Since the floating platform is a petroleum operation facility, it is
intended to remain permanently where it is situated, even if it is tethered
to a ship which is anchored to the seabed.
This is an immovable property by destination, depending on the intention

of the parties. But may alternative answer that I accepted. Only because
the platform is tethered to a ship and it is not shown whether the ship was
meant to be permanently placed in that area.
(2) Are the equipment and living quarters movable or immovable

property?
Immovable under par. 5 of Art. 415 if it can be shown that they are being
used for the industry, and that they were permanently attached to the
immovable property by the owner of said immovable property.
6
(3) Are the trees, plants and flowers immovable or immovable property?
Yes. Under par. 2 of Art. 415, trees, plants and growing fruits are
immovable while they are attached to another immovable property.
Flowers, although not expressly included in the enumeration, can fall
under growing fruits.
NOTE: your answer in 2 and 3 will depend on your answer in 1. Kasi kung
immovable ung sa 1, therefore ung mga naka attach doon permanently
would also be immovable. Pero kung movable ito, movable din ung iba.
But another common par exam question would pertain to machineries
because under circumstances, and machineries ay pwede maimobilize.
Although ordinarily, they may be brought from one place to another, thus
treated as a movable, pero pwede maging immovable in certain
circumstances. Example: A, an owner of a lot, executed a chattel mortgage
on the building erected as well as machineries therein. The CM was
executed in favor of C. The building was levied upon. Is the CM valid to C?
In other words, this is a CM on both building and machineries. Will this
contract bind a 3rd person kasi si C is not a party to a contract? As to the
building, that is definitely a void CM because it is a CM over a immovable.
As far as our law is concerned, a building, regardless kung sino ang may
ari ng lupa, is considered as an immovable property. Thus, the CM over
the building is void and it will never bind 3rd parties even if it is registered.
However, into the machineries, in the facts, some newly bought and stored
therein cannot be considered to have been immobilized because to be
immobilized, the machinery must be placed by the owner of the building
in relation to a certain industry. Therefore, it remained to be movable.
Hence, the CM over this property, if registered would bind 3rd persons.
 Salvador, a timber concessionare, built on his lot a warehouse where he

processes and stores his timber for shipment. Adjoing the warehouse is
a furniture factory owned by NARRAMIX of which Salvador is a majority
stockholder. NARRAMIX leased space in the warehouse where it placed
its furniture-making machinery.
(1) How would you classify the furniture-making machinery as property

under the Civil Code?
Movable. It was not attached to the land by the owner of the land but only
by the lessee. Except in cases where the Court applies the doctrine of
7
piercing the veil of corporate fiction, Salvador, although a majority
stockholder of Narramix, is a separate entity from the corporation.
Take note, ang nag lagay ng machinery is not the owner of the building
and therefore, under the Code, it cannot be considered as immobilized.
Ang naglagay ng machinery ay ang lessee.
(2) Suppose the lease contract between Salvador and NARRAMIX

stipulates that at the end of the lease the machinery shall become
the property of the lessor, will your answer be the same?
My answer would be different. In Davao Saw Mill, the Court ruled that the
lessee was acting as an agent of the lessor of the premises. Therefore, the
machinery attached by lessee Narramix was, by fiction of law, attached by
owner Salvador.
As ruled by the supreme court in the case of Davao Saw Mill v. Castillo,
kung may ganitong stipulation, it is as if the property was placed by the
owner. The lessee is acting as an agent of the owner, therefore, the
machinery here is considered to be immobilized. In this case, ang naging
issue dito goes into the material lien as to materials used in the
construction of the building. Ung lien ng supplier, would that also extend
to the land upon which the building was constructed. The SC said no
because these two are different immovable. Therefore, the building is an
immovable by itself, it doesn’t matter kung sino ang may ari ng lupa.
This one, into the property of public dominion, alam niyo naman na ung mga
consequences. It cannot be the subject of registration, it cannot be a subject of
acquisitive prescription…
 The following things are property of public dominion, except:

(1) Ports and bridges constructed by the State – Art. 420
(2) Vehicles and weapons of the AFP – for public service
(3) Rivers – Art. 420
(4) Lands reclaimed by the state from the sea – ANSWER; This is patrimonial
property of the State that may be alienated.
The Code expressly includes ports and bridges as property of public

dominion. Also rivers are considered. So ang pagpipilian nalang is vehicles
and weapons and lands. Definitely I would agree that and mas magandang
8
sagot eh ung lands. Because vehicles and weapons of the AFP is definitely
are property of public dominion. Reclaimed lands may actually pertain to
private ownership.
 Which of the following statements is wrong?

(1) Patrimonial property of the state, when no longer intended for public
use or for public service, shall become property of public dominion
(2) All property of the State, which is not of public dominion, is
patrimonial property
(3) The property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into
property for public use and patrimonial property
(4) Property is either of public dominion or of private ownerhship
Answer: (1) because it is the other way around – ANSWER; It is the other
way around. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for
public use or for public service, shall become patrimonial property of the
state.
(2) is true. Property owned by the State which is not intended for public
use or public service is patrimonial.
(3) is true. Property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into

property for public use and patrimonial property. Property for public use
in these LGUs consist of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal
streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public
works for publc service paid for by the concerned LGUs. All others are
patrimonial property.
(4) Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.
The relevance of distinguishing public properties from private ones is that

the former are exempt from execution because of their necessity for
governmental functions. For the same reason, properties of the public
domain are not within the commerce of men.
 Distinguish occupation from possession

(1) Both are modes of acquiring ownership
(2) Occupation is a way of acquiring things that are appropriable by nature
which are without an owner such as animals, hidden treasure and
9
abandoned movables. It is, however, not a mode for acquiring a piece
of land.
(3) On the other hand, possession is a mode for acquiring both movables
and immovables. In the case of immovables, such possession must be
adverse in character.
 Anthony bought a piece of untitled agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in

turn, acquired the property by forging Carlo’s signature in a deed of sale
over the property. Carlo had been in possession of the property for 8
years, declared it for tax purposes, and religiously paid all taxes due on
the property. Anthony is not aware of the defect in Bert’s title, but has
been in actual physical possession of the property from the time he
bought it from Bert, who had never been in possession. Anthony has
since then been in possession of the property for one year.
(1) Can Anthony acquire the property through acquisitive prescription?
Yes. He can acquire the property through acquisitive prescription because

the subject land is unregistered property.
Here, this falls under the ordinary acquisitive prescription because he

bought the property. In other words, he acquired the property with a just
title. 10 years lang ang prescriptive period dito. Ang question lang gito ay
10 years ang total, Anthony has been in possession for 1 year, does that
mean that he still has to be in possession for another 9 years in order to
complete the 10 year period to acquire ownership? The answer is 1 more
year because ung tunay na may ari dito, si Carlo, had already been in
possession for 9 years. That period can be added to the possession of
Anthony because Anthony is a buyer in good faith.
(2) How many years does Anthony need?
1 year because Anthony is a possessor in good faith. Thus, the 8 years of

possession by Carlo can be continued by Anthony to acquire the real
property through ordinary acquisitive prescription.
(3) If Carlo is able to legally recover his property, can he require Anthony
to account for all the fruits he has harvested from the property while
in possession?
10
No. The general rule is that the fruits pertain to the owner. There are
exceptions to this rule such as: (1) when possessor of the land receives the
fruits in good faith; (2) in antichresis where the creditor gets the fruits; (3)
in usufructuary where the possesor has the right to enjoy the fruits; and
(4) in a lease agreement where the lessee gets the natural and industrial
fruits.
(4) If there are standing crops on the property when Carlo recovers
possession, can Carlo appropriate them?
Yes. Art. 448 applies since both parties acted in good faith. Carlo, as owner
of the land, has the following options:
a. Appropriate the fruits
b. Compel Bert, who is a sower in good faith, to rent the land
 The residents of a subdivision have been using an open strip of land as

passage to the highway for over 30 years. The owner of that land decided,
however, to close it in preparation for building his house on it. The
residents protested, claiming that they became owners of the land
through acquisitive prescription, having been in possession of the same
in the concept of owners, publicly, peacefully, and continuously for more
than 30 years. Is this claim correct?
Ginagawa mo lang daanan yan. You cannot validly claim that you are in a
continuous possession. Ano ginawa mo sa buong buhay mo, nag lakad ka
lang doon para maging continuous. Again, the easement of right of way is
discontinuous. Kaya ang the answer is NO.
 An action for conveyance of a registered piece of land may be brought

against the owner appearing on the title based on a claim that he latter
merely holds such title in trust for the plaintiff. The action prescribes,
however, within 10 years from the registration of the deed or the date
of the issuance of the certificate of title of the property as long as the
trust had not been repudiated. What is the exception to this 10-year
prescriptive period?
The SC would consistently would consider ung actual possession of the

plaintiff as an exception to the 10-year prescriptive period. As long as the
plaintiff is in possession, the action will not prescribe dahil siya ang in
possession of the property.
11
 Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has found a map which

appears to indicate the location of hidden treasure. He has an idea of
the land where the treasure might possibly be found. Upon inquiry,
Marcelino learns that the owner of the land, Leopoldo, is a permanent
resident of Canada. Nobody, however, could give him Leopoldo's exact
address. Ultimately, anyway, he enters the land and conducts a search.
He succeeds. Leopoldo, learning of Marcelino “find", seeks to recover the
treasure from Marcelino but the latter is not willing to part with it.
Falling to reach an agreement, Leopoldo sues Marcelino for the recovery
of the property, Marcelino contests the action. How would you decide
the case?
(1) Is this still by chance since he found a map and used it to find the
hidden treasure?
I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is considered a finder by

chance of the hidden treasure, hence, he is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the
hidden treasure. While Marcelino may have had the intention to look for
the hidden treasure, still he is a finder by chance since it is enough that
he tried to look for it. By chance in the law does not mean sheer luck such
that the finder should have no intention at all to look for the treasure. By
chance means good luck, implying that one who intentionally looks for the
treasure is embraced in the provision. The reason is that it is extremely
difficult to find hidden treasure without looking for it deliberately.
Marcelino is not a trespasser since there is no prohibition for him to enter

the premises, hence, he is entitled to half of the treasure. To be a
trespasser, there must be a physical manifestation. In other words, may
fence dapat or other markings na no trespassing. I support this position
because in the rural areas, from your house to your land, kilometers away,
you will cross parcels of land which you do not own. As ling as walang
prohibition it cannot be said na trespasser and tao na ito.
(2) Is Leopoldo entitled to a share?
Yes. The owner of the land is the owner of its surface and everything under
it. Assuming arguendo that Marcelino found the subject property by
chance and that the find is therefore hidden treasure, Leopoldo is still
entitled to ownership of the subject property. Under Art. 438, hidden
12
treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building or other property on
which it is found. Marcelino would have been entitled to a 50% share
except that he was a trespasser.
 Adam, a building contractor, was engaged by Blas to construct a house

on a lot which he (Blas) owns. While digging on the lot in order to lay
down the foudation of the house, Adam hit a very hard object. It turned
out to be the vault of the old Banco de las Islas Filipinas. Using a
detonation device, Adam was able to open the vault containing old notes
and coins which were in circulation during the Spanish era. While the
notes and coins are no longer legal tender, they were valued at P100
million because of their historical value and the coins silver nickel
content. The following filed legal claims over the notes and coins:
(1) Adam, as finder;

(2) Blas, as owner of the property where they were found;
(3) Bank of the Philippine Islands, as successor-in-interest of the owner
of the vault; and
(4) The Philippine Government because of their historical value.
Who owns the notes and coins?
One of the requirements to be considered as a treasure, ay ung ownership

does not appear to be clear. Pero ang claim ng iba, this is owned by Bank
of the Philippine Island as the successor to Banco de las Islas Filipinas.
That is not the best argument because it has been more than a century
since nagging may ari ito. And there seems to be no showing na hinanap
talaga nila ito. Kaya the property can be considered as abandoned.
Therefore, it can be considered as hidden treasure. As such, the answer is
one-half, one-half and owner and finder.
Hidden treasure is money jewelry or other precious objects the ownership

of which does not appear (Art. 439, CC). The vault of the Banco de las Islas
Filipinas has been buried for about a century and the Bank of the
“Philippine Islands cannot succeed by inheritance to the property of Banco
de las Islas Filipinas. The ownership of the vault, together with the notes
and coins can now "legally be considered as hidden treasure because its
ownership is no longer apparent. The contractor, Adams is not a trespasser
and therefore entitled to one-half of the hidden treasure and Bias as owner
of the property, is entitled the other half (Art. 438, CC). Since the notes
13
and, coins have historical value, the government may acquire them at their
just price which in turn will be divided equally between Adam and Bias
(Art. 438, par. 3, CC).
RULES IN HIDDEN TREASURE

FINDER SHARE IN TREASURE
Owner of the property where the 100% to the owner
treasure was found
Not the owner but if the discovery 1/2 owner, ½ finder
is made on the property of another,
or of the State, or any of its
subdivisions AND by chance
Unless found by employee No share unless there was an
agreement to the contrary, but he
should be paid his wages
Trespasser 100% owner; the trespasser has no
share
 A congregation for religious women, by way of commodatum, is using

the real property owned and registered in the name of Spouses Manuel
as a retreat house. Maria, a helper of of the congregation discovered a
chest is the backyard. When she opened the chest, it contained several
pieces of jewelry and money. (A) Can the chest containing the pieces of
jewelry and money be considered as hidden treasure? (B) Who has the
right to claim ownership of it?
Ang tanong niya ay ang chest. Hindi ang mga jewelry and money. Kaya if
you go by the definition of treasure, the chest is a treasure. It is the money
and jewelry inside the chest which is the treasure. But, also from the facts,
discovered the chest in the backyard. It doesn’t seem hidden. Kaya the
rules on hidden treasure are not applicable here. If the rules on hidden
treasure are not applicable, the owner here are the spouses. Pero the
helper who found it, under the law on property, is entitled to 10% of the
value of the property.
 Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering the beach belonged to

Ernesto. However, since the latter was studying in Europe and no one
was taking care of the land Demetrio occupied the same and constructed
thereon nipa sheds with tables and benches which he rented out to
14
people who want to have a picnic by the beach. When Ernesto returned,
he demanded the return of the land. Demetrio agreed to do so after he
has removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto refused to let Demetrio remove the
nipa sheds on the ground that these already belonged to him by right of
accession. Who is correct?
Ernesto is correct. Demetrio built the nipa huts with the knowledge that
Ernesto owned the lot and without the consent of Ernesto. He was therefor
a builder in bad faith. In cases where the landowner acted in good faith
while the builder acted in bad faith, Art. 449 applies. Thus, the builder,
planter or sower loses what is built, planted or sown, and the landowner
becomes the owner of the same.
As an alternative, Ernesto may demand the demolition of the nipa hut at

the expense of Demetrio in order to restore the land to its former condition.
Another option available to Ernesto is to compel Demetrio to buy the land

regardless if the value of the land is considerably more than the nipa hut.
In all three cases, the landowner is entitled to damages and the builder,
planter or sower has a right to be reimbursed for necessary expenses for
the preservation of the land.
 In good faith, Pedro constructed a five-door commercial building on the

land of Pablo who was also in good faith. When Pablo discovered the
construction, he opted to appropriate the building by paying Pedro the
cost thereof. However, Pedro insists that he should be paid the current
market value of the building, which was much higher because of
inflation.
(1) Who is correct, Pedro or Pablo?
Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the New Civil Code in relation to
Article 546, the builder in good faith is entitled to a refund of the necessary
and useful expenses incurred by him, or the increase in value which the
land may have acquired by reason of the improvement, at the option of the
landowner. The option between the two is determined by the landowner
Pablo.
15
The case of Pecson v. CA is not applicable to the problem. In the Pecson
case, the builder was the owner of the land who later lost the property at
a public sale due to non-payment of taxes. The Court ruled that Article
448 does not apply to the case where the owner of the land is the builder
but who later lost the land; not being applicable, the indemnity that should
be paid to the buyer must be fair market value of the building and not just
the cost of construction thereof. The Court opined in that case that to do
otherwise would unjustly enrich the new owner of the land.
(2) In the meantime that Pedro is not yet paid, who is entitled to the
rentals of the building, Pedro or Pablo?
Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building. As the owner of the land,
Pablo is also the owner of the building being an accession thereto.
However, Pedro who is entitled to retain the building is also entitled to
retain the rentals. He, however, shall apply the rentals to the indemnity
payable to him after deducting reasonable cost of repair and maintenance.
Owner is entitled to the rentals at the moment that Pedro ceased to be in
good faith. Kaya lang, he has the right to rentention and kung and rentals
ay ibabayad sakanya, okay lang na tangapin niya but it will become fixated
to the indemnity to the owner in relation to the building or improvement.
 Anselmo is the registered owner of a land and a house that his frind
Boboy occupied from a nominal rental and on the condition that Boboy
would vacate the property on demand. With Anselmo’s knowledge, Boboy
introduced renovations consisting of an additional bedroom, a covered
veranda, and a concrete block fence, at his own expense. Subsequently,
Anselmo needed the property as his residence and thus asked Boboy to
vacate and turn it over to him. Boboy, despite an extension, failed to
vacate the property, forcing Anselmo to send him a written demand to
vacate. In his own written reply, Boboy signified that he was ready to
leave but Anselmo must first reimburse him the value of the
improvements he introduced on the property as he is a builder in good
faith. Anselmo refused, insisting that Boboy cannot ask for
reimbursement as he is a mere lessee. Boboy responded by removing the
improvements and leaving the building in its original state. (A) Resolve
Boboy’s claim that as a builder in good faith, he should be reimbursed
the value of the improvements he introduced.
16
The claim is untenable. As mere lessee, he cannot be considered as a
builder in good faith under Art 448. To be a builder in good faith, he must
be claiming ownership over the land and house. But as a mere lessee, he
is not claiming ownership over the land and the house. Therefore, he
cannot validly claim to be a builder in good faith.
This is one of the cases where 448 is applied by analogy. In other words, in
extraordinary circumstances, even if the builder knew that the land is not his,
nonetheless, 448 may apply. Ang scenario dito is ung anak na pinag aral ng mga
magulang para maging abugado ay nakipagkaso laban sa mga magulang. Ang
original claim dito ng anak ay sila lang ang may ari ng lupa upon which their
house was constructed. But ang claim ng parents eh they own the land. The SC
held that the claim of the son was untenable na binili ito or it was acquired
through dacion or it was an advance inheritance, wala lahat ng mga claim na
un. Ang pinaniwalaan ng SC is that the son and his wife was invited by the
parents to construct their house in the land of the parents. Hence, they knew
that the land was not owned by them. But sabi ng SC, 448 is applicable by
analogy because of the circumstances. This is the case of Macasaet vs.
Macasaet.
 Mr and Mrs X migrated to the US with all their children. As they had no
intention of coming back, they offered their house and lot for sale to
their neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. A (the buyers) who agreed to buy the
property for P8M. Because Spouses A needed to obtain a loan from a
bank first, and since the sellers were in a hurry to migrate, the latter
told the buyers that they could already occupy the house, renovate it as
it was already in a state of disrepair, and pay only when their loan is
approved and released. While waiting for the loan approval, the buyers
spent P1M in repairing the house. A month later, a person carrying an
authenticated special power of attorney from the sellers demanding that
the buyers either immediately pay for the property in full now or vacate
it and pay damages for having made improvements on the property
without a sale having been perfected. (A) What are the buyers’ option or
legal rights with respect to the expenses they incurred in improving the
property under the circumstances? (B) Can the buyer be made to
immediately vacate on the ground that the sale was not perfected?
Explain briefly.
Itong phrase na ito, “without a sale having been perfected” is it a fact? I agree
with the view that this is not a fact. It is merely a claim of the sellers. Kaya itong
17
option na binigay vacate and pay because it was made improvements without a
sale being perfected. But from the circumstances, this is a case of a perfected
sale. But even assuming for the sake of argument that the sale has not been
perfected, can the buyers be made to vacate the premises? The answer is no
because under the facts, they are builders in good faith. Binili na nila ito. Kaya
they cannot be made to vacate immediately until they are reimbursed.
 For many years, the Rio Grande river deposited soil along its bank,
beside the titled land of Jose. In time, such deposit reached an area of
one thousand square meters. With the permission of Jose, Vicente
cultivated the said area. Ten years later, a big flood occurred in the river
and transferred the 1,000 square meters to the opposite bank, beside
the land of Agustin. The land transferred is now contested by Jose and
Agustin as riparian owners and by Vicente who claims ownership by
prescription. Who should prevail,? Why?
Jose should prevail. The disputed area, which is an alluvion, belongs by right
of accretion to Jose, the riparian owner (Art. 457). When, as given in the
problem, the very same area was "transferred" by flood waters to the opposite
bank, it became an avulsion and ownership thereof is retained by Jose who
has two years to remove it (Art. 459, CC).
Vicente's claim based on prescription is baseless since his possession was by

mere tolerance of Jose and, therefore, did not adversely affect Jose's
possession and ownership (Art. 537, CC). Inasmuch as his possession is
merely that of a holder, he cannot acquire the disputed area by prescription.
 The properties of Jessica and Jenny, who are neighbors, lie along the
banks of the Marikina River. At certain times of the year, the river would
swell and as the water recedes, soil, rocks and other materials are
deposited on Jessica's and Jenny's properties. This pattern of the river
swelling, receding and depositing soil and other materials being
deposited on the neighbors' properties have gone on for many years.
Knowing this pattern, Jessica constructed a concrete barrier about 2
meters from her property line and extending towards the river, so that
when the water recedes, soil and other materials are trapped within this
barrier. After several years, the area between Jessica's property line to
the concrete barrier was completely filled with soil, effectively
increasing Jessica's property by 2 meters. Jenny's property, where no
18
barrier was constructed, also increased by one meter along the side of
the river.
(1) Can Jessica and Jenny legally claim ownership over the additional
2 meters and one meter, respectively, of land deposited along their
properties?
Only Jenny may legally claim ownership over the additional one meter in
her property. Under Art. 457, to the owners of lands adjoining the banks
of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects
of the current of the waters. Deposit should be gradual and natural
without intervention of man. By constructing a barrier to trap the soil and
other materials brought by the water, the accretion can no longer be said
to have been from the effects of the current of the Marikina River.
(2) If Jessica's and Jenny's properties are registered, will the benefit
of such registration extend to the increased area of their
properties?
No, there is a need to register the accretion. To the owners of land adjoining
banks of rivers belong the accretions it receives from the gradual effects of
the current of the waters. When the accretion was created, its ownership
was passed automatically to Jenny. However, there is still a need to
register the same in order for that portion of the land to be imprescriptible.
(3) Assume the two properties are on a cliff adjoining the shore of
Laguna Lake. Jessica and Jenny had a hotel built on the properties.
They had the earth and rocks excavated from the properties
dumped on the adjoining shore, giving rise to a new patch of dry
land. Can they validly lay claim to the patch of land?
No. This is reclamation without the authority of the State. As held in

Chavez v PEA, reclaimed land belongs to the State. Since the bed of the
lake is public dominion then everything above it is also part of public
dominion.
 A delayed accession is: (A) formation of an island, (B) avulsion, (C)

Alluvium, (D) Change in the course of the riverbed.
19
The answer here is Avulsion. Kapag na transfer doon sa lupa mo, ay hindi
ikaw ang may ari automatically.
 Mr. Magabun and Mr. Ortelano each delivered 1000kgs of palay to Mr.
Kono for milling. Magabun’s rice was Milagrosa quality and was worth
three times more per kilo than the rice of Ortelano. Before Mr. Kano
could mill the rice, an accidental fire broke out in the mill. Kono was
able to save one half of the rice of both Magabun and Ortelano but in the
confusion, the rice ended up mixed and commingled. What are the
respective rights of Magabun and Ortelano over the mixture? Explain.
This is about two solids mixed because of a fortuitous event. Because of

this, they cannot be easily separated. The answer to this is in proportion
to the value of the property. Since Magabun’s rice was worth 3 times, 750
kilos and 250 kilos, respectively.
 Marciano is the owner of a parcel of land through which a river runs out
into the sea. The land had been brought under the Torrens System, and
is cultivated by Ulpiano and his family as farmworkers therein. Over the
years, the river has brought silt and sediment from its sources up in the
mountains and forests so that gradually the land owned by Marciano
increased in area by three hectares. Ulpiano built three huts on this
additional area, where he and his two married children live. On this same
area, Ulpiano and his family planted peanuts, monggo beans and
vegetables. Ulpiano also regularly paid taxes on the land, as shown by
tax declarations, for over thirty years.
When Marciano learned of the increase in the size of the land, he ordered
Ulpiano to demolish the huts, and demanded that he be paid his share
in the proceeds of the harvest. Marciano claims that under the Civil
Code, the alluvium belongs to him as a registered riparian owner to
whose land the accretion attaches, and that his right is enforceable
against the whole world.
Is Marciano correct? Explain.
From RJ: Marciano is correct. As the registered riparian owner of the land,
the alluvium (resulting from effects of the current of the waters) belongs to
him and his right is enforceable against the world.
20
What rights, if any, does Ulpiano have against Marciano? Explain.
From RJ: Ulpiano, who is a builder and sower in bad faith, has the right
to receive reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the
land (452) and if Marciano appropriates the harvest, to the expenses in his
production, gathering, and preservation (443).
 Alex died without a will, leaving only an undeveloped and untitled lot in
Taguig City. He is survived by his wife and 4 children. His wife told the
children that she is waiving her share in the property, and allowed
Bobby, the eldest son who was about to get married, to construct his
house on ¼ of the lot, without however obtaining the consent of his
siblings. After settlement of Alex’s estate and partition among the heirs,
it was discovered that Bobby’s house was constructed on the portion
allocated to his sister, Cathy. Cathy asked Bobby to demolish his house
and vacate the portion allotted to her. In lieu of demolition, Bobby
offered to purchase from Cathy the lot portion on which his house was
constructed. At that time, the house was valued at P300,000 while the
portion of the lot on which the house was constructed was valued at
P350,000.
a) Can Cathy lawfully ask for demolition of Bobby’s house?
Based on the facts, there appears to be no reason to believe that Bobby

knew that the land where he constructed his house was on the lot portion
alloted to Cathy. Thus, in the absence of contrary facts, it is to be
presumed that Bobby acted in good faith. Since Cathy and Bobby both
acted in good faith, the provisions of Art. 448 applies. There are only three
alternatives available to the landowner in Art. 448 and demolition of the
building, planting or sowing is not one of them. Demolition is only available
in cases where the landowner acted in good faith while the builder, planter
or sower acted in bad faith.
b) Can Bobby legally insist on purchasing the land?
No, it is the landowner who has the option between (1) appropriating the
work, planting or sowing for himself or (2) selling the land to the builder
or planter or renting the land to the sower.
21
• Action to recover real property based on ownership. Here, the object is the
recovery of the dominion over the property as owner. What action is being
referred to: (A) Accion publiciana, (B) Accion reinvindicatoria, (C) Accion
Interdictal, (D) Quieting of title
• Which of the following is an indispensable requirement in an action for

quieting of title involving real property? The plaintiff must: (A) be in actual
possession of the property, (B) be the registered owner of the property, (C)
have legal or equitable title to the property, (D) be the beneficial owner of
the property.
• Antonio, Bart, and Carlos are brothers. They purchased from their
parents specific portions of a parcel of land as evidenced by three
separate deeds of sale, each deed referring to a particular lot in metes
and bounds. When the deeds were presented for registration, the RD
could not issue separate certificates of title due to the absence of a
subdivision plan. The new title had to be issued, therefore, in the name
of the brothers as co-owners of the entire property. The situation has
not changed up to now, but each of the brothers has been receiving
rentals exclusively from the lot actually purchased by him.
Anton sells his lot to a 3rd person, with notice to his brothers. To enable
the buyer to secure a new title in his name, the deed of sale was made
to refer to an undivided interest in the property of the seller (Antonio),
with the metes and bounds of the lot sold being stated. Bart and Carlos
reacted by signifying their exercise of their right of redemption as co-
owners. Antonio, in his behald and in behalf of his buyer, contends that
they are no longer co-owners, although the title covering the property
has remained in their names as such. May Bart and Carlos still redeem
the lot sold by Antonio? Explain.
Ung co-ownership dito is important in relation to sale. Kasi under Sales,

kapag ang isang co-owner ay nag benta, the other co-owners have the right
of retention. So it is important to determine if, during the sale, is there co-
ownership.
In the first place, tama ba itong contention ni Antonio na hindi sila co-
owners? In case that a title is in the name of two or more owners, does
that make them co-owners? No, not necessarily. It is only evidence of
ownership. Ang claim na wala nang co-ownership doesn’t make sense. Ang
22
premise na hindi na sila co-owners ay they are once co-owners. But under
the circumstances, the brothers were never co-owners. When they
purchased the land, they purchased it with metes and bounds. Nung binili
nila ung lupa, meron nang partition.
• Senen and Peter are brothers. Senen migrated to Canada early while
still a teenager. stayed on in Bulacan to take care of their widowed
mother and continued to work on the family farm even after her
death. Returning to the country some thirty years after he had left,
Senen seeks a partition of the farm to get his share as the only co-heir
of Peter. Refer interposes his opposition, contending that acquisitive
prescription has already set in and that estoppel lies to bar the action
for partition, citing his continuous possession of the property for at
least 10 years, for almost 30 years in fact. It is undisputed that Refer
has never openly claimed sole ownership of the property. If he ever
had the intention to do so, Senen was completely ignorant of it. Will
Senen’s action proper? Explain.
Senen’s action will prosper. This is a case of implied trust. (Art 1441, NCC).
For purposes of prescription, one has to have possession under the
concept of an owner (Art 540, NCC). There is no such concept here. Peter
was a co-owner, he never claimed sole ownership of the property. He is
therefore estopped under Art. 1431, NCC.
In other words, in relation to a co-owned property, a co-owner will only

acquire the property through acquisitive prescription first if there is
repudiation of co-ownership. The second requirement is that notice of
repudiation must be given to the other co-owners. The SC would say the
proof as to the repudiation and the notice must be clear and convincing,
saka lang tatakbo ang prescriptive period. In this case, walang
repudiation.
• A, B and C are the co-owners in equal shares of a residential house

and lot. During their co-ownership, the following acts were
respectively done by the co-owners:
1. A undertook the repair of the foundation of the house, then

tilting to one side, to prevent the house from collapsing. 
2. B and C mortgaged the house and lot to secure a loan.
23
3. B engaged a contractor to build a concrete fence all around
the lot.
4. C built a beautiful grotto in the garden.
5. A and C sold the land to X for a very good price.
a) Is A's sole decision to repair the foundation of the house binding

on B and C? May A require B and C to contribute their 2/3 share of
the expense? Reasons.
Yes. A’s sole decision to repair the foundation is binding upon B and C must
contribute 2/3 of the expense. Each co-owner has the right to compel the other
co-owners to contribute to the expense of preservation of the thing (the house)
owned in common in proportion to their respective interests (Arts. 485 and 488,
Civil Code).  
b) What is the legal effect of the mortgage contract executed by B and

C? Reasons.
The mortgage shall not bind the 1/3 right and interest of A and shall be deemed
to cover only the rights and interests of B and C in the house and lot. The
mortgage shall be limited to the portion (2/3) which may be allocated to B and
C in the partition (Art. 493, Civil Code).  
c) Is B’s sole decision to build the fence binding upon A and C? May
B require A and C to contribute their 2/ 3 share of the expense?
Reasons.
B’s sole decision to build the concrete fence is not binding upon A and C.
Expenses to improve the thing owned in common must be decided upon by a
majority of the co- owners who represent the controlling interest (Arts. 489 and
492, Civil Code). It will depend on the consent of the majority of co-owners. When
the law says majority, it does not necessarily mean per head, it will depend on
the interest of a co-owner.
d) Is C’s sole decision to build the grotto binding upon A and B? May
C require A and B to contribute their 2/ 3 share of the expense?
Reasons.
C’s sole decision to build the grotto is not binding upon A and B who cannot be
24
required to contribute to the expenses for the embellishment of the thing owned
in common if not decided upon by the majority of the co-owners who represent
the controlling interest (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil Code).
e) What are the legal effects of the contract of sale executed by A. C

and X? Reasons.
The sale to X shall not bind the 1/3 share of B and shall be deemed to cover only
the 2/3 share of A and C in the land (Art. 493, Civil Code). B shall have the right
to redeem the 2/3 share sold to X by A and C since X is a third person (Art. 1620,
Civil Code).
• X, Y, Z are siblings who inherited a 10-storey building from their

parents. They agreed in writing to maintain it as a co-owned property
for leasing out and to divide the net profits among themselves equally
for a period of 20 years. On the 8th year, X wanted to get out of the co-
ownershio so he could get his 1/3 share in the property. Y and Z refused,
saying X is bound by their agreement to keep the co-ownership for 20
years. Are Y and Z correct? Explain.
Yes, they are correct. But their agreement is invalid because under the law
ang maximum period allowed is only 10 years. Pero tama sila because it
was only on the 8th year na balak ng co-owner na baliwalain ang
agreement. The agreement is valid until 10 years.
• A summary action to recover physical or material possession only and must

be brought within 1 year from the time the course of action arises. What
action is being referred to? (A) Accion publiciana, (B) accion reinvindicatoria,
(C) Accion interdictal, (D) Quieting of Title.
• A plenary action for the recovery of the possession of real estate, upon mere
allegation and proof of a better right thereto, and without allegation of proof
of title. This action can only be brought after the expiration of 1 year. What
action is being referred to? (A) Accion publiciana (B) Accion reinvindicatoria
(C) Accion interdictal (D) Quieting of Title
• Bartolome constructed a chapel on the land of Eric. What are Bartolome’s

rights if he were a usufruct of the land?
25
Upon the termination of the usufructuary, he has the right to remove the chapel
because the law provides that the usufruct can remove the improvement
provided that it does not cause damage to the property. Obviously and lupa hindi
madadamage kahit tangalin mo ung chapel.
• On 1 January 1980, Minerva, the owner of a building granted Petronila

a usufruct over the property until 01 June 1998 when Manuel, a son of
Petronila, would have reached his 30th birthday. Manuel, however, died
on 1 June 1990 when he was only 26 years old. Minerva notified
Petronila that the usufruct had been extinguished by the death of
Manuel and demanded that the latter vacate the premises and deliver
the same to the former. Petronila refused to vacate the place on the
ground that the usufruct in her favor would expire only on 1 June 1998
when Manuel would have reached his 30th birthday and that the death
of Manuel before his 30th birthday did not extinguish the usufruct.
Whose contention should be accepted?
The relevant rule here is enshrined in Article 606. Kapag nakalagay “Until
June 1 1998” although merong description na the son would have reached
his 30th birthday, despite the death of the son, the usufruct is not
extinguished. So hangang June 1 1998 unless it is so clearly intended by
the parties that the death of this person even before the arrival of the date
will actually extinguish the usufruct.
• X, the owner, constituted a 10-year usufruct on his land as well as on the

building standing on it in Y’s favor. After flood totally destroyed the building
5 years later, X told Y that an act of God terminates the usufruct and that he
should vacate the land. Is X correct? (B) No, since Y still has the right to
use the land and the materials left on it.
• What is easement? Distinguish easement fro usufruct.
Easement is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit

of another immovable belonging to a different owner in which case it is
called real or predial easement, or for the benefit of a community or group
of persons in which case it is known as a personal easement.
EASEMENT USUFRUCT
Limited to a specific use Includes all uses of the property
26
and for all purposes
Constituted only on an immovable May be constituted on a movable
property and immovable property
Not extinguished by death of the Usufruct is extinguished by death
owner of the dominant estate of the usufructuary unless
contrary intention appears
Contemplates 2 estates belonging Contemplates 1 property whereby
to 2 different owners the usufructuary uses and enjoys
the property as well as its fruits,
while another owns the naked title
during the period of the usufruct
Cannot be alienated separately May be alienated separately from
from the property to which it the property to which it attaches
attaches
• Can there be (a) an easement over a usufruct? (b) a usufruct over an

easement? (c) an easement over another easement?
(a) There can be no easement over a usufruct. Since an there is a degree

of regularity to indicate continuity of easement may be constituted only on
a corporeal immovable property, no easement may be constituted on a
usufruct which is not a corporeal right
(b) There can be no usufruct over an easement. While a usufruct maybe

created over a right, such right must have an existence of its own
independent of the property. A servitude cannot be the object of a usufruct
because it has no existence independent of the property to which It
attaches.
(c) There can be no easement over another easement for the same reason
as in (a). An easement, although it is a real right over an immovable, is not
a corporeal right. There is a Roman maxim which says that: There can be
no servitude over another servitude.
• Distinguish between:  1. Continuous and discontinuous easements;

[2%J  2. Apparent and non-apparent easements; and [2%]  3. Positive
and negative easements. (1%)
1. Continuous easements are those the use of which is or maybe incessant,
27
without the Intervention of any act of man, while discontinuous easements
are those which are used at Intervals and depend upon the acts of man.
(Art. 615, Civil Code)
2. Apparent easements are those which are made known and are
continually kept in view by external signs that reveal the use and
enjoyment of the same, while non- apparent easements are those which
show no external indication of their existence. (Art. 615, Civil Code)
3. Positive easements are those which impose upon the owner of the
servient estate the obligation of allowing something to be done or of doing
it himself, while negative easements are those which prohibit the owner of
the servient estate from doing something which he could lawfully do if the
easement did not exist. (Art. 615, Civil Code)
Only continuous and apparent can be both acquired by title and

prescription. Discontinuous and non-apparent can only be acquired by
title.
• An easement that can be acquired by prescription? (A) right of way (B)

watering of an animal (C) Lateral and subjacent support (D) Light and view
• Emma bought a parcel of land from Equitable-PCI Bank, which acquired

the same from Felisa, the original owner. Thereafter, Emma discovered
that Felisa had granted a right of way over the land in favor of the land
of Georgina, which had no outlet to a public highway, but the easement
was not annotated when the servient estate was registered under the
Torrens system. Emma then filed a complaint for cancellation of the
right of way, on the ground that it had been extinguished by such failure
to annotate. How would you decide the controversy?
The complaint for cancellation of easement of right of way must fall. The
failure to annotate the easement upon the title of the servient estate is not
among the grounds for extinguishing an easement under Art. 631 of the
Civil Code. Under Article 617, easements are inseparable from the estate to
which they actively or passively belong. Once it attaches, it can only be
extinguished under Art. 631, and they exist even if they are not stated or
annotated as an encumbrance on the Torrens title of the servient estate.
28
• The owner of a thing cannot use it in a way that will injure the right of a 3 rd
person. Thus, every building or land is subject to the easement which
prohibits its proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance like noise,
jarring, offensive odor, and smoke. This principle is known as (B) Sic utere
tuo ut alienum non laedas
• In 2005, Andres built a residential house on a lot whose only access to

the national highway was a pathway crossing Brando’s property. Andres
and others have been using this pathway (pathway A) since 1980. In
2006, Brando fenced off his property, thereby blocking Andres’ access
to the national highway. Andres demanded that part of the fence be
removed to maintain his old access route to the highway (pathway A),
but Brando refused, claiming that there was another available pathway
(pathway B) for ingress and egress to the highway. Andres countered
that pathway B has defects, is circuitous, and is extremely inconvenient
to use.
The SC is consistent in ruling in favor of the least prejudicial to the servient

estate.
• A drug lord and his family reside in a small bungalow where they sell
shabu and other prohibited drugs. When the police found the illegal
trade, they immediately demolished the house because according to them,
it was a nuisance per se that should be abated. Can this demolition be
sustained? Explain. 5% (2006 Bar Question)
No, the demolition cannot be sustained. The house cannot be considered as

nuisance per se. To be considered per se, the act, occupation, or structure
must be a nuisance at all times and under any circumstances, regardless of
location or surrounding. Since the demolished house was not a nuisance
during the times that it was not being used for selling drugs, it cannot be
considered as nuisance per se. Moreover, in the abatement of a nuisance,
whether judicially or extra-judicially, the abatement should not inflict
unnecessary damage or injury. In this case, what may be considered as
nuisance per se is not the structure of the house but the use of the house for
the selling of shabu. However, the demolition of the house is not necessary
to abate the sale of shabu in that community. To demolish the house is an
29
unnecessary damage and injury.
• Distinguish illegal and impossible conditions in a simple donation v.

illegal and impossible conditions in an onerous donation.
Illegal and impossible conditions in a simple donation are considered as not

written. Such conditions shall, therefore, be disregarded but the donation
remains valid (Article 727, NCC). On the other hand, illegal and impossible
conditions imposed in an onerous donation shall annul the donation. This
is so, because onerous donations are governed by the law on contracts
• Anastacia purchased a house and lot on Installments at a housing

project in Quezon City. Subsequently, she was employed in California
and a year later, she executed a deed of donation, duly authenticated
by the Philippine Consulate in Los Angeles. California, donating the
house and lot to her friend Amanda. The latter brought the deed of
donation to the owner of the project and discovered that Anastacia left
unpaid installments and real estate taxes. Amanda paid these so that
the donation in her favor can be registered in the project owner's office.
Two months later, Anastacia died, leaving her mother Rosa as her sole
heir. Rosa filed an action to annul the donation on the ground that
Amanda did not give her consent in the deed of donation or in a separate
public instrument. Amanda replied that the donation was an onerous
one because she had to pay unpaid installments and taxes; hence her
acceptance may be implied. Who is correct? (2%) (2000 Bar Question)
Rosa is correct because the donation is void. The property donated was an
immovable. For such donation to be valid, Article 749 of the New Civil Code
requires both the donation and the acceptance to be in a public instrument.
There being no showing that Amanda’s acceptance was made in a public
instrument, the donation is void. The contention that the donation is
onerous and. therefore, need not comply with Article 749 for validity is
without merit. The donation is not onerous because it did not impose on
Amanda the obligation to pay the balance on the purchase price or the
arrears in real estate taxes. Amanda took it upon herself to pay those
amounts voluntarily. For a donation to be onerous, the burden must be
imposed by the donor on the donee. In the problem, there is no such burden
imposed by the donor on the donee. The donation not being onerous, it must
comply with the formalities of Article 749
30
• On July 27, 1997, Pedro mailed in Manila a letter to his brother, Jose,
a resident of Iloilo City, offering to donate a vintage sports car which
the latter had long been wanting to buy from the former. On August 5,
1997, Jose called Pedro by cellular phone to thank him for his
generosity and to inform him that he was sending by mail his letter of
acceptance. Pedro never received that letter because it was never
mailed. On August 14, 1997, Pedro received a telegram from Iloilo
informing him that Jose had been killed in a road accident the day
before (August 13, 1997)
1. Is there a perfected donation? [2%] 
None. There is no perfected donation. Under Article 748 of the Civil Code,
the donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing. If the value of
the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation
and the acceptance shall be made in writing. Assuming that the value of the
thing donated, a vintage sports car, exceeds P5.000.00, then the donation
and the acceptance must be in writing. In this instance, the acceptance of
Jose was not in writing, therefore, the donation is void. Upon the other
hand, assuming that the sports car costs less than P5.000.00, then the
donation may be oral, but still, the simultaneous delivery of the car is
needed and there being none, the donation was never perfected.
2. Will your answer be the same if Jose did mail his acceptance letter
but it was received by Pedro in Manila days after Jose’s death? [3%]
Yes, the answer is the same. If Jose's mail containing his acceptance of the
donation was received by Pedro after the former's death, then the donation
is still void because under Article 734 of the Civil Code, the donation is
perfected the moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee. The
death of Jose before Pedro could receive the acceptance indicates that the
donation was never perfected. Under Article 746 acceptance must be made
during the lifetime of both the donor and the donee.
• Donation is perfected from the moment… (C) The donor knows of the
donee’s acceptance even if the latter has not received the copy of the
deed of donation.
31
• X and Y were to marry in 3 months. Meantime, to express his affection, X
donated a house and lot to Y, which donation X wrote in a letter to Y. Y wrote
back, accepting the donation and took possession of the property. Before the
wedding, however, Y suddenly died of heart attack. Can Y’s heirs get the
property? (C) No, since the donation and its acceptance are not in a
public instrument.
• The Roman Catholic Church accepted a donation of a real property

located in Lipa City. A deed of donation was executed, signed by the
donor, Don Mariano, and the done, the Church, as represented by Fr.
Damian. Before the deed could be notarized, Don Mariano died. Is the
donation valid?
The answer is no, not having been notarized, it is a private instrument.
• Ernesto donated a mobile phone worth P32,000 to Hubert orally and

delivered the unit to Hubert who accepted. Which statement is most
accurate? (A) The donation is void and Ernesto may get mobile phone
back
• Jose, single, donated a house and lot to his only niece, Maria, who was
a legal age and who accepted the donation. The donation and Maria’s
acceptance thereof were evidenced by a Deed of Donation. Maria then
lived in the house and lot donated to her, religiously paying real estate
taxes thereon. 12 years later, when Jose had already passed away, a
woman claiming to be an illegitimate daughter of Jose filed a complaint
against Maria. Claiming rights as an heir, the woman prayed that Maria
be ordered to reconvey the house and lot to Jose’s estate. In her
complaint she allegd that the notary public who notarized the Deed of
Donation had an expired notarial commission when the Deed of
Donation was executed by Jose. Can Maria be made to reconvey the
property? What can she put up as a defense?
It may be true that the donation was not notarized, it’s a void donation. But
the action was filed after 12 years and therefore, Maria can be said to have
acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription. 10-year period is the only
period required since there was just title. Kaya pwede dito ang defense na
prescriptive period.
32
• Rex, a philanthropist, donated a valuable lot to the municipality on the
condition that it will build a public school on such lot within 2 years from its
acceptance of the donation. The municipality properly accepted the donation
but did not yet build the public school after 2 years. Can Rex revoke the
donation? (A) Yes, since the donation is subject to a resolutory condition
which was not fulfilled.
• When the donor gives donations without reserving sufficient funds for his
support or for the support of his dependents, his donations are: (D) reducible
to the extent that the donations impaired the support due to himself
and his dependents
This one is important in relation to different issues. Ang isang issue dito goes
into form..
Donation inter vivos Donation mortis causa

When effective During the lifetime of the Upon the death of the donor
donor but administration may be
conveyed during lifetime
Effect of the Valid Void
death of the
done before the
death of the
donor
Form Donation Will
When should be During the lifetime of the After the death of the Donor
accepted donor
Tax liability Donor’s Estate
Preference as to Preferred Not preferred
legacies/devices
Revocability No (After perfection), unless Yes
so provided
• Josefa executed a deed of donation covering a one-hectare rice land in favor

of her daughter, Jennifer. The deed specifically provides that: “For and in
consideration of the love and service Jennifer has shown and given to me, I
hereby freely, voluntarily and irrevocably donate to her my one-hectare rice
land covered by TCT No. 11550, located in San Fernando, Pampanga. This
donation shall take effect upon my death.” The deed also contained Jennifer’s
33
signed acceptance, and on attached notarized declaration by Josefa and
Jennifer that the land will remain in Josefa’s possession and cannot be
alienated, encumbered, sold or disposed of while Josefa is still alive. Advice
Jennifer on whether the Deed of Donation inter vivos or mortis causa and
explain the reasons supporting your advice.
This is donation mortis causa because she cannot alienate or encumber the
property while the donor was still alive. In other words, the donor can still revoke
the donation during her lifetime.
• In 1979, the spouses Juan and Juana dela Cruz, then Filipinos, bought a
parcel of unregistered land in the Philippines on which they built a house
which became their residence. In 1986, they migrated to Canada and became
Canadian citizens. Thereafter, in 1990, they applied, opposed by the
Republic, for the registration of the aforesaid land in their names. Should the
application of the spouses dela Cruz be granted over the Republic’s
opposition? Why?
Yes because and Constitution prohibits alien from acquiring. In the problem,
they were not aliens when they acquired the land. They were already aliens when
they registered the land. But registration is not a form of acquisition. It goes only
to the evidence of ownership.
34
Donation Inter Vivos vis-à-vis Donation Mortis Causa
Donation Inter Vivos Donation Mortis Causa
The act is immediately Nothing is conveyed to the
operative, even if the actual grantee and nothing is
execution may be deferred acquired by the latter, until
until the death of the donor the death of the grantor-
testator, the disposition
being until then ambulatory
and not final
May be revocable or Revocable
irrevocable1
The death of the donor The death of the donee

irrelevant after conveyancebefore the grantor-testator
since the thing already will render the testamentary
belongs to the donee upon disposition in donee’s favor
donation. inoperative since there is no
right of representation in
testamentary succession
except with respect to
legitimes.
**In case of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed donation inter vivos rather
than mortis causa, in order to avoid uncertainty as to the ownership of the
property subject of the deed.
 Ownership may be exercised over things and rights. An owner has the right
to enjoy and dispose the thing, as well as the right to file an action against
the holder or possessor to recover it.2
 Possession is the holding of the thing and the enjoyment of a right. It is
acquired by the material occupation of the thing or the exercise of a right, or
by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will or by the proper acts and
legal formalities established for acquiring rights.
 Actions to Recover Property:
o If movable, replevin.
o If immovable:
 To recover possession
1 The specification in a deed of the causes whereby the act may be revoked by the donor indicates that the donation is inter
vivos.
2 RED (recover, enjoy, dispose)
35
 Forcible entry – must be filed within 1 year from
dispossession or within 1 year from discovery of
dispossession if stealth was employed by defendant;
dispossession must be due to force, intimidation, stealth,
treaths, or strategy3
 Unlawful detainer – must be filed within 1 year from the
time the possession became unlawful
 Accion publiciana – must be brought within 10 years
 To claim ownership
 Accion reinvindicatoria – must be brought within 10 or 30
years, dependng on whether the other party seeks to obtain
ownership over the property through ordinary or
extraordinary prescription
 Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption
of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for th recovery
of the property. In such actions, the property must be identified and the
plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not the weakness of the
defendant’s claim.
 If an entire parcel is possessed under claim of ownership, there is constructive
possession of the entire parcel, unless a portion thereof is adversely possessed
by another.
 What are the rules or criteria to be used in case of conflict or dispute regarding
possession?
1. The present possessor should be preferred
2. If both are present possessors, the one longer in possession
3. If the dates or possession are the same, the one who presents a title
4. If all conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in juducial deposit
pending determination by the court
 What are the rules in case of double sale or double donation of an immovable?
1. First to register in good faith
2. If there is no registration, first to possess in good faith
3. If there was no possession, the person who presents the oldest title,
provided it was acquired in good faith
 What is the rule in case of double sale or double donation of a movable? First
possessed in good faith.
 Lopez v Orosa: A building is by itself is an immovable property irrespective
of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong
to the same owner.
3 FISTS
36
 Davao Saw Mill: Machinery which is movable by nature becomes immovable
only when placed by the owner of the property or plant, but not when so
placed by a usufructuary, a tenant or any person only having temporary
rights, unless such person acted as an agent of the owner.
 Extraordinary applications of Art. 448:
o Children were invited by the parents to occupy their lot (Macasaet v
Macasaet)
o The builder, planter or sower was the owner himself who subsequently
lost the land thru public auction (Pecson v CA)
37
Rules in BPS
Presumption is that landowner built whatever is built, planted or sown.
Landowner used other person’s materials
If landowner and owner of materials both in GF (also applies if both are in BF)
- landowner must pay for the materials used
- owner of materials has right to remove materials but only if if he can
do so without injury to the work constructed, or without destroying the
plantings, constructions or works
If landowner in BF but owner of materials in GF

- landowner must pay for the materials used
- plus damages
- owner of materials has right to remove materials
If landowner in GF but owner of materials in BF? Maybe same situation as

landowner in GF but BPS in BF
Builder, Planter or Sower on somebody else’s land
If landowner and BPS both in GF (also applies if they are both in BF)
- landowner has two options:
o (1) appropriate the works, plantings or sowing upon reimbursing the
BPS of necessary and useful expenses; or
o (2) compel the builder and planter to buy the land if the value of the
land is not considerably more than the value of the works or planting
or compel the sower to rent the land
- BPS has a right of retention in case landowner chooses to appropriate the
building, planting or sowing
If landowner in GF but BPS in BF

- BPS loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity but is
entitled to reimbursement of necessary expenses of preservation of the
land
- Landowner has two options:
o (1) Demolish the works or remove the planting or sowing at the
expense of the BPS
38
o (2) Compel the BP to buy the land regardless of the
disproportionality in the price of the works, planting or sowing and
of the land or compel the sower to rent the land
- In both cases, the landowner is entitled to indemnity
If landowner in BF but BPS in GF (Note: this is similar to a situation where the

landowner was in BF and used the materials of someone else who acted in GF)
- Landowner must pay for the value of the materials
- Plus damages
Owner of materials has right to remove materials
39

December 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

December 11

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

December 11

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Civil Law Review I Lyceum College of Law

Atty. Uribe Lecture Notes Juan Paolo Ollero

An action filed by a co-owner against another MAY prosper depending on the

 Possession constitutes the foundation of a prescriptive right.

False. The possession should be adverse possession. In Bogo-Medellin Milling,

 An easement is non-apparent if it is used at intervals and depends on

False. An easement is discontinuous if it is used at intervals and deoends on the

It would be an easement is discontinuous, otherwise it is non-apparent obviously

 An easement or servitude is a personal right, constituted on the

False. An easement must be constituted on an immovable property.

 Donations of an immovable property must be in writing to be valid.

False. The law further requires that donation be on a public instrument

The law requires that the donations of an immovable must be in a public

 The non-registration of a deed of donation does not affect its validity.

False. This should be lease of real property.

True. The registration should have been done in good faith.

It is to be concurred with good faith. Mere registration is not enough.

 A builder in good faith cannot be compelled to pay rentals during the

As a builder in good faith, he is entitled to the fruits BEFORE he be considered

 Legal easements are those established by the will of the owners.

 A person, as a buyer or mortgagee, is not required to go beyond what

 Where the party has knowledge of a prior existing interest which is

True. Actual knowledge has the same effect of registration.

 Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession of things in good

 The statutory period of prescription starts when a person who has

 Ownership is one of the attributes of possession.

 A co-owner of an undivided parcel of land is an owner of the whole, and

 There is still co-ownership even if the different portions owned by

False. There is no co-ownership if the property has been partitioned.

 An action to demand partition is imprescriptible and not subject to

True. A co-owner may demand partition anytime except (1) if there is an

Property is classified in so many ways. The most important classification

 Manila Petroleum Co. owned and operated a petroleum operation facility

(1) Is the platform movable or immovable property?

This is an immovable property by destination, depending on the intention

(2) Are the equipment and living quarters movable or immovable

 Salvador, a timber concessionare, built on his lot a warehouse where he

(1) How would you classify the furniture-making machinery as property

(2) Suppose the lease contract between Salvador and NARRAMIX

 The following things are property of public dominion, except:

The Code expressly includes ports and bridges as property of public

 Which of the following statements is wrong?

(3) is true. Property of provinces, cities and municipalities is divided into

(4) Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.

The relevance of distinguishing public properties from private ones is that

 Distinguish occupation from possession

 Anthony bought a piece of untitled agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in

(1) Can Anthony acquire the property through acquisitive prescription?

Yes. He can acquire the property through acquisitive prescription because

Here, this falls under the ordinary acquisitive prescription because he

(2) How many years does Anthony need?

1 year because Anthony is a possessor in good faith. Thus, the 8 years of

 The residents of a subdivision have been using an open strip of land as

 An action for conveyance of a registered piece of land may be brought

The SC would consistently would consider ung actual possession of the

 Marcelino, a treasure hunter as just a hobby, has found a map which

I would decide in favor of Marcelino since he is considered a finder by

Marcelino is not a trespasser since there is no prohibition for him to enter

(2) Is Leopoldo entitled to a share?

• Distinguish between:  1. Continuous and discontinuous easements;

1. Is there a perfected donation? [2%] 