Property PRE-FINALS (EH 408) Sakto ba? No. (“wronggg!

” in the voice of marquez) because as co-

owner, you have the right to use the entire property. You are the
owner of the whole thing as well as a part. However, the part thing is
August 15, 2016 spiritual, something abstract. Owner ka sa entire lot pero owner pud
ka ug portion lang for example one- fifth. Ang pangutana karun, asa
I had a question in the midterm exam about the change in man na ang one- fifth? Kung mu ana sila na owner lagi kas whole,
river course. The owner of the land traversed by the river course pero 1/5 ra pud imong pwede gamitun maski wtition. Sakto sila? No.
immediately went to the predecessor of the old river bed and that is not correct because as an owner, pwede ka mu gamit sa
started constructing a fence. Contending that under the New Civil entire portion. Kung pwede ka mu gamit, sila sad! Nay violation sa
Code, the owner of the land of the new river course may assert co- ownership? walaaaa! Basta kay gi taga.an nimo silag chance na
ownership on the proportionate portion of the old river bed. mu gamit, pero wa man sila. So wala juy violation sa co-ownership.
However, a suit for injunction was filed by the government
contending that he has no right because the government has not Another thing, owner man kaha kas whole lot ug a part, pwede nimo
deemed to have abandoned the old river bed by the mere fact alone ma baligya ang entire? What will be the status of the sale? In what
of the change of river course. Is the government correct? extent? Only the one-fifth. Ang problema, naa bay buyer na ganahan
mu palit ug something na wa siya kibaw asa. Kay kung wa pay
Paul: Yes. Sir: There was a case that triggered Dean partition wa siya kibaw asa sa whole iyang palitun. I am not saying
Capistrano to put the phrase “ipso facto” on the provision. Of that the sale is invalid. The sale is valid. But what you are actually
course, the other Civil Law commentators do not necessarily agree buying is the interest of the co-owner. In other words, when I say
with that. Because Dean Capistrano is of the opinion that because of interest of the co-owner, mu step in the shoes man ka, ma owner jud
the words “ipso facto” already incorporated in the provision then it gihapun ka pero subject to the results of the partition. That’s the
would now be correct for the owner of the land traversed by the essence of co-ownership.
new river course to say that my ownership of a portion of the old Another aspect of co-ownership is unsa man ang effect sa act made
river bed is now automatic because there is a phrase “ipso facto”. Is by one co-owner? Does it bind the other co-owners? It would
the government correct there? Would it be fair to say then that the depend. But the relationship by and among the co-owners is
phrase “ipso facto” in that case have been abandoned? “yes sir” so if fiduciary in character. Mao na ang general rule. Any act of the co-
yes, the government is not correct? Yes sir. Okay. So In other words, owner is presumed to be done to benefit everybody. Mao na ang
there is abandonment already by the mere fact of change in the river general rule. Para jud sa kaayuhan sa tanan. Unsa may consequence
course even if there is no affirmative act of the government. Art. ani? If nay situation…. nay co-owner nya iyang igsuon kay naa sa
461. Adjacent owner vs owner of the land traversed. Who has states. Siya nalang usa diri. Ang ither sibling ni agree for practical
preferential right? If you were the judge, how will you settle the reason na iregister ang land under his name alone. That has been the
controversy? Take note of art. 58 of the water code of the set-p for several years. Nya ig uli na nila kay nang retire na, ang
philppines. Does the govt have a legal right to file a suit for sibling nan aa diri kay ni contend na 40 years na daw siya ga stay sa
injunction? Mayang: The government is correct. A mere change of land so gi acquire na niya by prescription. That’s a very possible
the river does not equate to abandonment. Sir: Based on the Civil scenario. Ako na ni! Now the sibling cannot say that. Because what
Code, yes the government is correct. And that should be the the other siblings did was for the benefit of everyone like if nay
governing law. The government is not deemed to have abandoned transaction, siya naman jud ang naa diri, so sa iyang name nalang
their right. jud. And also because co-ownership is fiduciary in character, for the
benefit of all tu.
CO- OWNERSHIP
AUGUST 16, 2016
First of all, what is co-ownership? Land owned by your father or your
parents, and then your parents have siblings. Yuta na gi inhert sa LIMITATIONS TO THE RIGHT OF A CO-OWNER
imung papa together with his siblings. Do you see a problem there? What is the right of a co-owner with regard to the co-owned
What is the usual problem? Ang igsuon mu tukod ug balay nya mura property? If you are a co-owner together with your siblings and you
nag siya ang ga tag-iya. Lain pud, usually, tax matters. Kung naa gani and your siblings are co-owners of a property, what is your right over
bayad “ah kamo lang uy kay kamu bitaw dato. Sa sunod…. Kamo lang that property? Can you use the entire property (100% of the area)?
sah gihapun hahahaha” nya kung ibaligya na, problema napud sa pag The answer is yes. Now, are there limitations to your right to use the
bahin. (naa pay lain examples pero di gyud nako ma make-out mga entire property? One is you cannot prevent the other co-owners
bisaya words na gi ingun ni sir amsorreh) from using it. How about the manner of using the co-owned
property? Is there a limitation? Yes, when the manner of using is not
So what is co-ownership? It’s basically a right of common dominion in accordance with the purpose intended. What is meant by this?
which two or more persons have in a common thing. So we have (The coconut plantation was not a good example daw) For example:
here a scenario of one thing owned by several persons. These are A residential house which must be used for residential purposes
the characteristics: (1) plurality of subjects and (2) unity of object. So only. Can you convert that residential house into a parlor? No,
when you say plurality, one thing owned by several persons. because that’s already converting from residential purpose to
commercial purpose. This is an example of the limitation that the
What is the right of the several persons over the thing? For example, property must be used in accordance with the purpose. How do you
you happen to be one of the co- owners of the land and you want to know that there is a purpose? Ideally, there must be agreement.
plant there, you want to engage in sugar cane planting because it is
more profitable than studying law (ha ha sir), and then you are De Guia vs C.A.:
stopped by another co- owner, your sibling, telling you na “ayaw ing In the case if De Guia, the conflict was upon the two undivided
ana kay di ra ikaw ang tag-iya ana” do you have a legal ground for parcels of land used as a fishpond situated in Bulacan. It was
using the lot? Kung mu ingon sila nga kung wa paman partion, wa originally owned by Maxima Romulo and it was inherited by its heirs
say pwede maka hilabut sa yuta. Patition sah ta usa mu maka tanom. who became the co-owners. De Guia here has a lease contract with
the co-owners. He acquired the entire fishpond. And although the because it happens that one co-owner may purchase the right of the
lease contract already expired, he still continued to possess the other co-owners. For example I am one of the 5 co-owners then I
fishpond. So the Abejos, heirs of the co-owners, demanded De Guia purchased the share of my brother, I will be entitled to the extent of
to vacate. Several demands was sent to him. Abejos then filed for 2/5. Thus, because my share is 2/5, if there are profits my share is
the recovery of possession with damages against De Guia, however, also 2/5. Also, if there are expenses, my share of the expenses is also
De Guia claimed ownership over the ½ portion of the fishpond which 2/5. Remember that any stipulation contrary to this is void under
according to him was not yet adjudicated to the heirs. De Guia Art. 485.
argued that the Abejos should have filed an action for partition
rather than an action for reconveyance for the fishpond was not yet
divided among the co-owners. SC used Art. 484 of the CC in deciding RIGHT OF A CO-OWNER TO FILE AN ACTION FOR EJECTMENT
the case, that there is co-ownership whenever the thing is owned by First, we need to know what is the rule on impleading the parties to
different persons and that a certain co-owner is the owner of the an action. In Remedial Law, when a case is filed, the question will
whole and at the same time the owner of the portion which is arise kung kinsa man ang dpat nga mufile ug kinsa man ang dapat
abstract. On the other hand, SC held that there is no co-ownership nga defendant. In fact, in Civil Procedure, there are rules on the
when the different portions owned by different people are already parties in a civil action. So kinsa man dpat? All those who have
determined and parted. To discuss the point in so far as it relates to interest should be included either as parties plaintiff or parties
the rights of a co-owner, under Art. 487, a co-owner may file an defendant. Dapat ang tanan nga maapektohan sa kaso. If the case is
ejectment suit against a third person and even against a co-owner if about recovery of a co-owned property, kinsa man dpat ideally ang
such co-owner asserts exclusive ownership over the land. The right iinclude as plaintiff? Tanang co-owners. What is the consequence
to the enjoyment of the property of a co-owner is limited by the diay if you will not properly implead an individual as a party to an
similar right of a co-owner to also use the property. What is an action? The case is not supposed to proceed without their presence.
illustration of how shall this be complied? Co-owner cannot use the This is not only because the Court has no jurisdiction over the parties
common property if the exclusive use is to the prejudice of the co- not impleaded, but also to the parties impleaded. The Court has no
ownership. What is an example of an act which will prejudice jurisdiction nga mupadayon so madismiss ang kaso. Because kung
ownership? In a residential house, the co-owners has the right to naay defendant nga dapat unta giimplead nya wa nimo giapil,
reside on the property. How about if only one co-owner occupies the madismiss ang kaso ky ang defendat is an indispensable party.
house and you happened to be a co-owner who is not occupying the However, Art. 487 creates an exception. So magamit nimo ni nga Art.
property, can you ask for payment of rentals? No. The sole-occupant 487 if naay muobject saimong kaso ky wa nimo giapil ang ubang co-
co-owner has 2 available defenses. To wit, one would be because he owners (Discussion on the practicality of this provision due to the
is a co-owner and he has the right to enjoy the property and, existence of such circumstances as when the other co-owners are
secondly, that he did not prevent the other co-owners from using residing abroad). Why is it that the law allows a single co-owner to
the property. file a case for and in behalf of the others? This is because the
relationship between the co-owners is fiduciary in character and is
Pardell vs Bartollome: therefore built upon utmost trust. And not only that, what is the
This involves a house with two stories. The upper floor, occupied by effect if an act is performed by one? It will affect the interests of the
3 co-owners, was used for residential purposes while the ground others and it will be deemed as an act for and in behalf of the others.
floor was for rent. The other co-owner, not living in the co-owned This is the essence of the relationship between co-owners as
house, filed a suit against the 3 co-owners residing in the upper floor fiduciary in character. Is there a basic guideline that we have to
to compel them to pay for rents. SC held that the 3 co-owners observe when a co-owner will file a case for and in behalf of the
cannot be compelled to pay rents since they did not prevent the others?
other co-owners, in any way, from enjoying the common property
and they did not prejudice the rights of the other co-owner. In fact,
SC added that it was the husband of the suing co-owner, occupying Adlawan vs Adlawan:
an office in the lower ground, who must pay rentals corresponding Adlawan here, an illegitimate child who claims to be the sole heir of
to the share of the demanding co-owner because he is not a co- his father, filed a case for ejectment against his purported uncles. He
owner. is claiming exclusive ownership over the subject property. However,
after the death of his father, the wife of the latter was still alive.
Thus, it turned out, by virtue of intestate succession, that Adlawan
DEMAND FOR PARTITION and his father’s wife (including the wife’s legal heirs) are co-owners
In order that the demand for payment of rentals by a co-owner may of his father’s estate. So, Adlawan here is only a co-owner of the
have basis, what must you do? You must demand for partition. In subject property together with the legal heirs of the wife of his
this case, di na kapalag ang other co-owners. In other words, wa na purported father. Then, upon realizing this, Adlawan invoked Art.
silay laing mabuhat because there is no reason nganong di sila 487. According to the Supreme Court, a co-owner may file an
ganahag partition. Otherwise, from the moment that the other co- ejectment case even without impleading the other co-owners for it is
owners refused to accept the demand for partition, sugod nsad ilang presumed that it is filed for the benefit of the other co-owners.
pgkaobligado nga mubayad. Thus, the payment of rentals shall start However, if it is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, the action
to run upon formal demand for partition. should be dismissed. This is because if Adlawan’s claim would be
granted, he will be declared as the sole owner of the property. The
legal heirs of his father’s wife here are indispensable parties who
SHARE OF CO-OWNERS IN BENEFITS AND CHARGES should be impleaded. Why is there a need for them to be impleaded
To discuss this, be guided with Art. 485. It would be dependent on despite Art. 487? This is because Adlawan did not recognize at the
your interest. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the outset nga the subject property is a co-owned property. Di na
presumption is that the portions belonging to co-owners shall be puydi!!!  So what is the moral of the story here? If you can undo
presumed equal. So, if there are 5 co-owners, each own their what Adlawan did, assuming you are him, what must you do? I will
interest equivalent to 1/5 each. But it does not always follow, recognize the other co-owners. And how do you do it? You must
state in the complaint that plaintiff is a co-owner bla bla bla being an decide to close it then they can do it.
heir of so and so and he is bringing this suit for and in behalf of his The act of the 1st CO is void. Right of
co-heirs A, B, C, and D in order to show that you are recognizing the way is an encumbrance. Di man ikaw
co-ownership. tag.iya ra so di ka mag.garagara nga
magdecide
August 30, 2016 o Case of cruz vs catapang
How to answer in my easy exams  Hapit na September so wa nay orals.
Happy days napud. No more reading.
o Explikar at point of issue. Answer like sir does not know
Hehe I might use this in exam and
this so I have to explain properly. Answer what is asked
different facts same principle
o If there is a question there is a legal question asked
 Nindot ni nga caso. Ex of case where SC
o Presentation is the key said this is entry by strategy/stealth.
Maglibug ta ana. What happened is 3rd
o Believe you me person built house in co-owned
o Its how you present your faken answer property because he was given consent
bby 1 co-owner. He had the co-owner
o English stay at his house. When the other CO
o Penmanship found out they filed a suit. 3rd person
defended himself saying how can I be
o Perfect your legal & written English. guilty of forcible entry when the entry
o Find the correct basi is with consent of a co-owner. A co-
owner has the right to use the entire
property. SC said there is a cause of
action for forcible entry. Ang right of
Co-ownership
co-owner to use entire property has a
Acts of preservation limitation, that being not to prejudice
the interest of other co-owners, there
 If the sea will touch your land it will be public dominion so being no consent, respondent had no
expenses of creation of dike or sea wall may constitute right to construct her house at the co-
expense for preservation. owned property. None of the CO may
 Any owner may spend on it make without consent of all others
 If practicable he must notify the others alterations to the thing owned in
 If he fails to notify it does not mean he will lose right to common
reimbursement. He may be reimbursed but considering
failure to notify they may question necessity of the repairs o Ex of act of alteration which we must be careful.
–sale, lease, donation
 Assuming it is necessary then other co-owners may
renounce  Careful because these are acts of
alterations. We must be careful in
 Property law – the moment you renounce you can no recklessly concluding that the sale of
longer be run after one co-owner of the entire property is
 Oblicon – novation must have consent of the creditor whole is void

 These are acts which are recurring, done by general agent.  When a co-owner purports to sell the
Example: managing a building, payment of utilities. No entire property that is partially void
need to ask permission because this is recurring. Which is alone
to be decided by the majority of co-owner – controlling  Valid to the share of the co-
interest owner selling, void on the
 Instances wherein majority cannot be obtained rest.

 Remedy is the appointment of administrator or o Family law

receiver  Husband sells property without
 Act of alienation or alteration or encumbrance consent of wife – void

o Needs unanimous consent of all owners  In co-owner that is valid.

o Act that can be done only by the owner. In co-  Under 493 each CO enjoys
ownership there are many owners so there is a the part he owns so he may
need for unanimous decision assign, substitute another or
mortgage it except in
o Without this the act generally is void personal rights are involved
 Ex: CO of property grants a right of way  The effect of the alienation is
to A without informing or getting limited to the portion
consent of other CO. if other Cos allotted to him
 o Purmitan vs ca It upheld right to co-owner to sell or not to sell.
Same result ra gihapon guys. Different way of
 Sale of the entire property without
skinning the cat. SC suggested the other co-
consent of the others is not null or
owners may ask for partition. Take note that
void.
partition there are several modes of partitioning.
o Legal redemption The most common is actual partition. The other
mode is partition by sell. In instances where it is
 Brother of your father sells his share impractical to apportion a property like it is very
and there is co-ownership. He sold it to small. 100 sq meters and 10 co owners. Gahiag
3rd person. Legal redemption not ulo ninyu uy basig inyu i.partition maglisud gani
applied if sold to brother. The other co- mug tindog. Baligya and divide the proceeds.
owners has the right to buy back the Same concept. Do not compel you ask for
property within 30 days from time they partition via sale
were notified.
 In relation to selling
 If you sell a share in co-ownership you
have legal obligation to inform co- o CO sells, that is only good as so far as his share is
owners about the sale. They have the concerned. In Cruz vs. Leis. In this case this is a
right to exercise legal redemption from case where there is interplay of land titles
time they were notified. principle on what appears face of the title and
the extent of the Cos right. The widow hose
 When you become lawyers and asked name appears ton the title sold it but the truth is
to draft documents of co-owner selling. it was co-owned by widow and children. There is
The stipulation in deed of sale which is innocent buyer who relies on what appears on
notices were given to possible the face of the title. The question is can the
redemptors or to redemptorsfor the entire ownership be transferred to him. SC said
possible exercise of their right to yes tinoud na nga CO can only sell his share but
redemption. Under art 1623 of your in this case what appears on the title is only the
civil code. – Deed of sale shall not be seller the widow and the buyer can rely on what
recorded unless accompanied by appears on the title. So the share of the widow
affidavit of vendor that he has given and the other
notice to possible redemptory.
o If you are the lawyer nya nag.away na. Annotate
 It happened to me. Document of sale
as adverse claim. The moment it is annotated it
of pro indiviso sale. We went to could no longer be said that the seller is not
registry of deeds. There is an examiner. bound by anything which does not appear on the
Mangtas pana nimu. Kataw-an raka title
ana.. They will check it. He asked me
why is there not notice of legal  Termination of co-ownership
redemption. Balik sa opisina. Attorney.
o Premise in termination of CO is that no co-owner
Yes maam? SAYUP daw to imu
is obliged to remain in the CO. no CO. sturya nga
document. Muhiyum imu tuhod
dili ni ipabahin nga if bahinon gabaan ta nya ang
class(taya). Muana ka UNSAY sayop.
gastruya ang gapuyu. Di na tinoud. He has the
Defense mechanism ba. Kotikotihan
right to ask for the termination of the CO. the
walas lugar. Tan.aw dayun civil code
law frown upon the co-ownership but the law
1620. Hinay hinay matay saktu. Ana jud
likes marriage forever. Does not apply on co-
na sila maam samuk kaayu. Storya
ownership of a thing. Pwede ka. Get out of the
story ba. Pwede mani natu i-consulta
CO. one mode for termination is ask for partition.
ba. Pero samuk na maam. Comply
This right has exceptions
nalang ta. Moral of the story wa ka
naminaw, wa nibasa wa kasabut. o exceptions
 Read the case of arangulo v velasco  Agreement to keep thing undivided up
to 10 years but can extended by new
o What ordinarily happens in the common setting
agreement. (naa tuy congressmen nga
in our culture? Small property very impractical to
nahan nga ang marriage certificate kay
actually divide. What should be done is to sell it.
ma renew every 10 years)  thanks for
The problem there in ramos is if one of the co-
the idea sir
owners will not sell. Nganung mag buot man ka?
Ang ang muingun ka DI man tika igsuon. Under  Donor or testator prohibits partition
civil code. If there is act of alteration the co- for a period not exceed 20 years. No
owners may go to court and ask for appropriate such thing as perpetual prohibition to
relief. They went to court for appropriate relief partition
and the relief was to compel the unwilling co-
owner to consent. Asa ka mangita ana. The issue o partition is prohibited because the law says so
in this case was can you compel and unwilling co-
owner because his unwilling to consent is
prejudicial to others? SC said you cannot compel.
  Absolute community – not accurate  In this case the certificate of
not co-ownership really. Baligya ug title with annotation in favor
share. Not really co-ownership of the other heirs. This is
under rule 74 of rules of
 Perfect example is condominium. You
court. Extra judicial
are owner of the unit and co-owner of
settlement mainyu nang yuta
the common area. Yuta, lobby hallway.
wallay will and testament
Because you are a co-owner can ask
waay utang magexecute mug
partition any time pwede diay ka
extra judicial settlement
magpa partition sa common area.
bayad mug estate tax. If naa
There is a law prohibits that the
nana ma issuahan mug title
condominium law. If you sell your unit
with 2 year statutory lien.
it includes your co-owners share in the
Reservation in favor of heirs
common area
nga na excluded.
o Merger
 In segura gipacancel niya and
 co-owner buys the interest of the then a certificate of title was
others. You buy out the others issued with that cancelled
annotation that act of
o Prescription
canceling the annotation is
 highly contentious an act of repudiation. Which
would start the running of
 Co-owner cannot invoked prescription. prescriptive period.
No because it goes against the meaning
of the co-owners relationship between  General rule starts to run from the
and among themselves because it is issuance of new title. But in maritigue
fiduciary in character. 1 sibling is here vs ca, wa giireckon sa issuance of title
and the others are abroad and when but time of discovery of the fraudulent
they comeback he says wan-a ako nani act
dugay na.
 So what do we use? Date of
 Prescription in favor of 3rd person no discovery – what happens to
problem. Exception if it is registered constructive notice rule?
property under torrens system. No land Whereas date of issuance of
with title can be acquired via title.
prescription
 Should be reckoned time of
 Can a co-owner invoke prescription? issuance of title. Apply
Yes. Before that he first must show that maritigui cases in cases
he has repudiated the coownership where the facts are all fours
of the case. Klaru kaayu ba
 delima vs court of appeals
nga gitagu tagu ang
 Co-owned property but he fraudulent act. Sinister and
made a document wherein very evil ang motive.
he made it appear that he is Otherwise go by the general
the only heir. In other words rule.
he did not recognize the o repudiation of co-ownership
other heirs. On that basis of
the affidavit of adjudication  You refuse, reject the existence of co-
of sole heir. Once you inherit ownership. Wa nimu giila. If you are
property without will then the CO and you said nga sugud karon
this is the document you wan a nako ilha. Igkaugma ikaw na tag-
create. Ikaw ray bugtung ank iya? No prescription is needed the
nga gihimugso ngadtong mil lapse of time reckon from actual
nubesentos. Wa silay utang repudiation
so ikaw herediro. If daghan
 acts
mu extra judicial settlement.
On the strength of that title  We must know that the acts
he was able to get a title and is a valid. Because it is for
more than 10 years lapsed. there where we know the
Nawala silas passing. SC said time pf prescription
prescription has run in his
favor.  it must be expressed not
clandestine
 Segura vs segura
 example: You do not give
share of produce of land.
 When they demand you September 3, 2016
disregard their demand –
valid; when there are Termination of Co-ownership
restrictions Last time we discussed the modes of terminating ownership. The
most common one is partition. I mentioned that partition can be
o You have adverse claim, you register co-
done in two ways:
ownership right sa adverse claim. The title which
1) Can be done extra-judicially or
registers your adverse claim was cancelled and a
2) When the co-owners cannot agree as to which portion shall
new title was issued and your claim was not
belong to whom, then we have to resort to the court for that
carried over pursuant to the representations of
purpose. There is a special rule in the Rules of Court, Rule 6-
the former co-owner that is repudiation.
partition proceeding. That is the most common one.
o Acts you have to be careful this are not
necessarily a form of repudiation The right to ask for partition cannot be restricted as a general rule.
We can ask for partition anytime. The only restrictions are:
 Act of redeeming by himself a co- 1) When there is an agreement not to divide, the disagreement must
owned property in instances where co- not exceed 10 years
owners have right to redeem. 2) When the co-owners receive the property pursuant to donation or
 When you utang from a bank, you put through testate succession and the donor or testator imposes that it
up collateral in the form of real estate. must not be partitioned. In which case it must not be partitioned in
It will require you to execute real 20 years.
estate mortgage. The moment you fail 3) Condominium Law. I mentioned that when you are an owner of a
to pay the bank will foreclose your unit, you are not only an owner but a co-owner as well of the
property. it will be sold in public common areas- the land on which the building stands, the hallway.
auction. The property will be offered to You cannot ask for partition because it is prohibited by the
sell in the bank. The highest bidder will condominium law.
be issued by sheriff with a certificate of
sell at the moment. Certificate of sell Prescription and Repudiation of Co-ownership
only because at that point mortgagor The second mode of terminating co-ownership is by prescription.
has one year to redeem such property.
Now during such period the mortgagor Can one co-owner assert for his benefit prescription adverse to his
is still the owner. Once it expires. When other co-owners? The rule is he cannot because the relationship
does one year starts? From registration among the co-owners is beneficiary in character. But when one co-
of the certificate of sale this is the strict owner repudiates the co-ownership, then from the time of
meaning. If it is not registered the repudiation, prescription will immediately start to run. So the
certificate of sell will not run. During question is what are those acts/examples of repudiation of co-
the 1 year redemption period let us ownership? Just go by how repudiation is described. When you do
suppose property is co-ownership. 1 not recognize the co-ownership, this would include acts of one not
co-owner redeemed a property. Does giving the share pertaining to the other co-owner- that is
that vest on him sole ownership? repudiation.
Settled ruling is no. that is still under
co-ownership although he is entitled to Delima v. CA
be reimbursed of the amount he paid. Tthe SC had the chance to give us an example of what repudiation is.
The provision does not give to the This is a co-owned property where Delima executed an affidavit of
redeeming co-owner the right to the adjudication as a sole heir. When you inherit by intestate succession
entire property because it does not a property, in order for the property to be transferred in your name,
provide for mode of co-ownership. there are two documents which will be executed.
1) If there is one heir, you will execute an affidavit of adjudication of
 Different story is the mortgage has sole heir.
consolidated each title over the 2) If there are several heirs, the document is extra-judicial
property. The redemption period has settlement among heirs.
finished the title has been cancelled
and has been transferred to highest What should have been done here is extra-judicial settlement among
bidders. At this pont 1 of the co- heirs but instead Delima executed an affidavit of adjudication
owners is negotiating with the bank, he denying the co-ownership. And on the basis of that document, he
will say ako paliton ang yuta mr was able to secure a title in his name. This act of Delima was
manager. Done after the title is recognized by the SC as repudiation of co-ownership. Thus, from the
consolidated. This payment is after the time of the issuance of the title in his name, prescription
consolidated ang title sa highest immediately starts to run in his favor. So the moral of the story is: for
bidder? Can the other ask for co- prescription to run in favor of a co-owner, it must be preceded by
ownerhisp? No not anymore. repudiation of co-ownership. RULE: No repudiation, no prescription
in favor of a co-owner.

Problem is for you to know examples of repudiation of co-

ownership. Other example is the case of Segura v. Segura
What was done here is the certificate of title issued in favor of the In Pangan v. CA the SC ruled that there must be categorical and clear
co-owners carried an express reservation of whatever rights that assertion. According to the court there is no categorical assertion of
might pertain to the other heirs. Kana mag transfer kag title in favor the petitioners of their exclusive right to the entire property nor is
of co-owners, there is a requirement under the law para dili ma there any explanation that she had no right to a shared right. So
deprive ang other prospective co-owners sa ilang share, i.anotate remember the case of Pangan kanang mo assert kag repudiation
ang reservation nila. They are given 2 years to assert their claim as a dapat i.specify nimo ang acts of repudiation.
co-owner. Ang nahitabo diri was the certificate of title contained
that kind of annotation, but subsequent issuance in one of the co- Partition
owners did not anymore carry the reservation. In other words, gi Did I already discuss to you the effects when there is already
wala na to ang reservation. Now, suggesting from the eyes of the partition? When the co-ownership terminates, what are some of the
objective observer, kung wala na ang reservation so the impression notable effects? Naay certain rights na pwede nimo i.assert if co-
is that the property is not under co-ownership. So kung ikaw ownership still exists: legal redemption.
affectado ka nga wala sa imong panaglan pero co-owner ka, in truth,
naa kay proprietary interest over that property. What you should If its termination of co-ownership by partition, one notable effect
you do is immediately file the appropriate action to assert your right. there is when the co-owned property is burdened with servitude or
For example, settlement proceeding. Because if you sleep on your there is right of way gi constitute sa property at the time of the co-
right, then from the moment na gi cancel ang reservation in your ownership nya gi partition. It doesn’t mean gi extinguish ang right of
favor and other co-owners, the prescription will begin to run way.
because that is an example of repudiation of co-ownership.
I also mentioned that there is a duty to render mutual accounting
The problem here is we are already settled that prescription can run then there is also liability for defects of title. E.g. there is a partition
in favor of one co-owner against the other co-owners. The problem and then one co-owner received a property which cannot by
is how shall we determine the reckoning point of prescription. partitioned like forest land. Then can that specific co-owner bear
less? No, the other co-owners can have their share reduced and
In the case of Delima, the reckoning point was the date of the make up for the prejudice of that co-owner.
issuance of the title in Delima’s name because we go by what we
learned in our Land Titles of the constructive notice rule which says What are some notable effects of termination of co-ownership
that dealings with regard to registered lands (PD 59) the operative through partition? Now in relation to co-ownership, I included the
act for dealings with registered lands will commence from the time condominium law. This is RA 4726. Because ownership of a
of registration. The legal effect for whatever acts you caused to condominium as I describe it partakes of co-ownership.
register with the Register of Deeds adto gud na sa pag register nimo,
sa primary entry book. Ang registration is the operative act for a Sec 2- A condominium is an interest of real property consisting of: 1)
general rule. Therefore, kung mag mention ang reckoning point, the separate interest of a unit in a residential or commercial building; 2)
reckoning point is the date of issuance of the title whether the co- undivided interest in common directly or indirectly in the land on
owner knows or not because that is the essence of constructive which it is located.
notice. That is the rule in Delima.
What is meant by directly and indirectly? Directly- walay
But in Maritegui v. CA, the SC relaxed the harshness of the condominium corporation ang gi organize. Kung naay condo corp. na
constructive notice rule. Kanang i.notify ta di pa gani ta mubasa. Can gi organize (this is often the case) kanang common areas, gi register
you imagine that you will be bound of the legal effects whether you ni in the name of the condo organization in which automatic
know or not? Dba, very harsh. Are you expected to go to the Register shareholders or members are the condo unit owners. Provision of
of Deeds? Mao na ang Maritegui case, naay element of ilad. So the this law will only apply if recorded in the Registry of Deeds or
SC reckoned the prescriptive period from the knowledge of the registered in the city where the property lies- an enabling or master
defraudation. deed. Before ka mo deal ug corporation of condominium, icheck sa
Register of Deeds kung condo ba jud na sia. There must be an
Sa Maritegui, gi himo sia ug exception. Kang Delima case about the enabling or master deed.
constructive notice rule, the weight of the authority tends to lean on
Delima case. Kanang Maritigui case gi invoke na kung gi labas na ug Sec 5 is for me one of the important articles so far as property is
10 years from the date of issuance and how prescriptive period can concerned because it states that any transfer or conveyance of a unit
run from date of discovery. Exception ni that prescriptive period will shall include transfer or conveyance of the undivided interest in the
run from date of discovery of fraud. common areas. So for example, nag execute kag deed of sale on your
condo unit, automatic by operation of law, apil ang conveyance sa
From the case of Pangan v. CA , the rule we can derive here is that imong common interest. Remember in the rule of contracts, that law
from the view point from the co-owner nga nag assert that there is is deemed incorporated in contracts.
prescription on his favor, first he must prove that he repudiated the
co-ownership. So kung ikaw mo assert ana as a defense (resist the
case of partition) ang imong defense is there is no partition because All right, let’s talk about partition of condominium. In the condo law,
you are already the exclusive owner. The basis is prescription gi prohibit ang right to ask for partition. So are we therefore saying
because you already repudiated the co-ownership. Don’t expect that that there can be no partition sa condo owner? You can ask for
the court will accept at face value that you already repudiated the partition but only on specified grounds. In ordinary co-owned
co-ownership. You must prove and establish before the court what property, you can ask for partition. You don’t have to site a reason
specific acts you did to establish repudiation of co-ownership. Di why you are getting out of the co-ownership. That is your absolute
man pwede nga “I already repudiated co-ownership.” Dili, imo dapat right provided you don’t’ fall under the restrictions. There is a
i.specify . condominium law where an action can be brought by one or more
persons of their partition thereof by sale of the entire project. Sa Sec
8 therefore, usa ra gi allow ang mode of partition. Only partition by kung wa ka gi hold sa thing there is no possession. In ownership,
sale. pwede nga w aka nag hold and enjoy. The delivery of public
document is already transfer of ownership by tradition. Pero ang
Arambulo v. Nolasco the court ordered the sale. Usahay dili practical possession is not like that. Constructive possession- is possession of
ang partition so the court can order the sale and divide the proceeds. a part is possession of a whole. Kinahanglan ghapon nga naay
Sa condo you can ask for partition but only in partition by sale. You physical holding bisag part lang. So these are the ways where
cannot ask actual partition of property. This is the only ground material occupation is the most common way of acquiring
allowed by law. So di nimo ma apply ang partition of co-ownership possession.
that you can ask for partition anytime
But if something cannot be physically held for e.g. if it is intangible.
By the way, when you are condo owner, you are entitled to be given So subjection of a thing or subject to the right of one’s will. E.g. you
a condo certificate of title. Condo corporation is normally created are a stock holder, possession of a right of a stock holder, how will
because they constitute the management body of the project. I you take over it? It is the fact that you are exercising your right as a
mentioned condo corporation because ownership of the common stockholder with the proper act and legal formalities. Like you are a
areas is normally held by the condo corporation and not directly by buyer in an auction sale or transfer pursuant to donation. That is also
the unit owners individually. delivery of possession.

Now, this is constitutional law. A question may be raised. Can a Medina v. Greenfield Corp.
foreigner or alien own a condo unit in his name? Yes. When you are SC distinguished possession from ownership. According to the SC
a condo owner, dba you have ownership in the common areas as there are 2 different legal concepts. Just because you are not in
well. Nya pwede diay ang alien owner of the land in common? possession that is not prrof that you are an owner. And just because
It would depend. If the condo unit is organized and the common you are in possession, that is not conclusive evidence of ownership.
area is in the name of the condo organization, it is possible for an Precisely because possession and ownership are 2 different things.
alien to be a condo unit owner. But if the common area is in name of
the individual unit owners, the alien cannot buy a unit in that Exception is the case of ownership in the case of movables like
project. cellphone. Possession of a movable Is equivalent of a title.
Possession and ownership are two different concepts. Remember
the case of forcible entry- possession of a squatter v. a registered
POSESSION owner. The only issues here is material possession. But ingon ang
squatter nga material possession judge so the registered owner has
What is possession and what are cases where possession is a to file an accion reinvidictoria. Then, of course, to make the long
material issue? story short, mao na ang basis sa squatter coz mu balik man ang issue
of ownership. You have to assert how you were first able to assert
There are several kinds of possession: possession.
-Possession in the name of another, possession in one owns name.
What is a case where possession is the main issue? Forcible entry- Balik ko sa exception: Movable – possession is equivalent to
priority of possession, who has a better right. ownership. Under the Civil Code, possession of a movalbe of which a
-Possession in good faith, possession in bad faith. Kung good faith ka, cellphone is, is equivalent to a title.. So class, possession of a
you have the right of retention. movable is equivalent to a title but cannot be applied in the case of
-Possession in the concept of owner or possession in the concept of immovable.
holder. Asa ni sia ma relevant?
Material occupation includes the idea of occupation. Under the Civil
Bogo-Medellin Milling Co. Inc. v. CA Code, one of the modes of acquiring ownership, is occupation. This is
Before ka maka assert ka nga owner ka by prescription, unsay basic occupation in the grammatical sense of the term. Kato occupation as
requirements? What is the character of your possession? You must a mode of acquiring ownership, legal man to. For e.g. hunting or
be in adverse possession. If yours is possession only as a mere holder catching a fish. Mao na ang material ownership by occupation.
then it will not give rise to prescription. Kung ang character is that of Kaning possession and ownership, they are not the same kay kaning
an owner whether you are the real owner or adverse claimant, for occupation as a legal sense of the term implies ownership.
10 years, wala gi question imong posession as an adverse claimant, Possession does not imply ownership.
you can acquire ownership by prescription.

Balik ta forcible entry. Determine ta ug priority of possession. Naay Two Types of Occupation: Literal Sense; and Legal Sense
rules of possession that cannot be recognized in two different Literal Sense
personalities. Even in a criminal case. Have you heard stories of - Possession always include the idea of Occupation
OFWs nga naay magpadala ug bag then naay contraband then gi Legal Sense
kiha? This goes to the issue of malice or intent to commit which is - Occupation as a mode in acquiring ownership (e.g. hunting,
immaterial in special penal law. Your defense should be possession fishing, etc.)
involves material holding of the thing and intent to possess. In other
words, kung material holding ra and walay intent to possess, ther is Possession vs Occupation
no possession. No intent so it is not a valid prosecution for - Occupation in the legal sense of the term implies
possession of dangerous drugs. ownership whereas Possession does not.
- As to land, a land cannot be an object of Occupation
To possess means to actually and physically occupy the thing. whereas in Possession it can be an object.
Possession implies nga dunay actual or phsycial holding. Possession
However, it is not necessary that the person in possession should
is the holding of a thing and enjoyment of a right. In other words,
himself be the occupant.
 Example:
Example: You have a big lot then there are some unused portions. Then,
Mr. X is a Filipino citizen residing in USA who has landholdings in the people entered your lot so you filed a case for forcible entry (issue
Philippines. Are you in possession? Assume further, you want to file on who has priority of possession). How would you say that you have
a forcible entry case because your property was intruded by a priority of possession when the truth is the area is undeveloped? The
squatter but you are in states. Your caretaker was driven out judge will dismiss the case. Would you accept that ruling?
(Caretaker cannot file the action for lack of cause of action since he Take note: possession as a fact cannot be recognize in two different
is not the owner). The squatter may raise as a defense that you are personalities. Hence, if who is declared as the rightful possessor, he
not in possession because you are in the USA. If you are the judge, shall be the possessor of all. OF COURSE, the judge in this example is
how would you rule? Will you dismiss the case? WRRRRRONG. Under the Theory of Constructive Possession,
- The case will not be dismissed. This is because, the possession of a part is possession of a whole. Provided that the
possession of the caretaker is the possession of the owner. remainder is not in the adverse possession of another (this is the
Hence, it is not necessary that the person in possession catch).
should himself be the occupant. The occupancy can be
held by another in his name. In the preceding example, you can assert the theory of constructive
possession if purely squatter. However, if it is an adverse claimant,
Holding of the thing or Enjoyment of the right extends to both then it would be a different story and you cannot assert the theory
corporeal and incorporeal property. of constructive possession.

In Land Titles, the law states that possession “and” occupation since Who is an Adverse Claimant?
June 12, 1945. Notice that both must be present. - An Adverse Claimant is someone who is in possession of a
If you file a petition for confirmation of imperfect title based on your property in the concept of an owner.
possession on or before June 12, 1945. You have to prove aside from
possession, actual occupation. This is because, in possession, there
is a tendency that such requirement will be overlooked in cases of Right to Possession vs Right of Possession
constructive possession. However, in occupation for purposes of - Right to possession is a possession which springs from
June 12, 1945, you must be able to prove that you actually occupy ownership.
the property. Otherwise, your petition cannot be given due course. - Right of possession is possession independent of
(ONG vs REPUBLIC) ownership (e.g. lease).

That is why occupation must be continuous, exclusive and CASE: Ernesto Yu vs. Baltazar Pacleb
notorious. This case is about a registered owner vs a claimant in which the issue
is priority of possession.
Elements of Possession
1. Occupancy; and Supreme Court ruled that the one who has priority of possession is
2. Intent to Possess the registered owner because in the first place he was not deprived
of possession because the one contesting derived his possession
TAKE NOTE: If you say that you have rightful possession of the thing, from someone with no right of possession. (The spring cannot rise
you prove not only that you possess, but you also have the intent to higher than its source)
possess.
How do you prove that you are in possession?
Example: - Tax declaration is proof of possession because no one in
Mr. Kerk rode a bus who fell asleep because of too much drinking. his right mind would not pay if he is not the owner. If there
Here comes, Mr. dela Cruz (a drug trafficker) and placed his bag on is no tax declaration, then prove it by actual possession.
Mr. Kerk’s lap who even hugged such bag while sleeping. There was
a checkpoint conducted, Mr. Kerk was arrested. What should be his Example (a case handled by Atty. G):
defense? There was a piece of land covered by two different titles. So an
- The defense is that he has no intent to possess. action for quieting of title was filed.

TAKE NOTE: If possession is the gravamen of the offense, the valid Who should be given ownership considering that both are valid
legal defense would be no intent to possess. titles? The one who first registered? However, Atty’s client was the
one who registered late. Well, it boils down to whoever possess the
Animus Possidendi property first base on the theory if they are the first possessor, the
- Involves a state of mind whereby the possessor intends to title of the other has no basis. They should prove that they have
exercise a right of possession whether it be legal or not. possession before the other title’s registration. How did they prove
Example: such possession?
In possession of a theft, if you are in possession of the thing, you
cannot say that you have no intent to possess. They presented the earliest tax declaration. Hence, the other client
entered into a settlement agreement.
Constructive Possession
- This is a liberal view. Degrees of Possession (Least Strong to Most Strong)
- Possession does not mean that a man has to have his feet 1. Mere holding of possession without title (e.g. usurper of
on every square meter of ground before it can be said that land);
he is in possession. a. No assertion of ownership
 2. Possession with Juridical Title but not of Ownership; CASE:
a. Possession which you can invoke even against Bogo-Medellin Milling Co., Inc. vs CA and Heirs of Magdaleno
the owner. Valdez Sr.
b. No assertion of ownership
3. Possession with a Just Title but not from the True Owner; Facts:
a. Possession of a buyer from one who pretends to There’s a piece of land which is used as a railroad truck for several
be the owner. years. Initially there was an agreement, “Easement of a right of
way”. Later on, there was no renewal of the agreement for the use
b. Would require prescription to perfect possession
of their land so Bogo-Medellin filed a case.
and ownership.
c. With assertion of ownership Bogo-Medellin contended that they have acquired an easement of
4. Possession with a Just Title from the True Owner. right of way by prescription through the lapse of time by usage of
a. Cannot be contested. such right. Moreover, when their easement agreement expired they
b. With assertion of ownership were allowed to continue the usage of the railroad truck. Thus, they
became the owner of such land.
Types of Possession Later, when they Bogo-Medellin realized that they cannot succeed
Possession in One’s Own Name that they have acquired easement by prescription, they now claim
- You are not relying to someone else’s possession. that they are the owner of the lot in which they filed it with the
- Would also include possession even if you are not the cadastral survey.
owner but you have an independent right of possession.
- E.g. Possession of a Lessee (this is not in concept of an Issue:
owner but in the concept of one’s own name). WON they acquire the land by prescription.

Ruling:
Possession in the name of another During those times that you were using the right of way and you
- Possessor does not have an independent right signed an agreement with the owner of the land, it cannot be
- Possession of the possessor is just an extension of the possession of considered as possession in the concept of an owner for purposes of
the rightful possessor prescription. The possession in the concept of an owner started only
when Bogo-Medellin filed an adverse claim in the cadastral survey.
For Example: Hence, the prescriptive period has not been sufficient for purposes
1. Caretaker of prescription.
2. Possessor by Mere Tolerance
It is a fundamental principle of law in this jurisdiction that acts of
Hence, if the property owner wants you to vacate the property, you possessory character executed by virtue of license or tolerance of the
have no right to raise against the eviction. Moreover, you cannot owner, no matter how long, do not start the running of the period of
claim ownership by prescription. prescription.

Possession in the concept of an owner Possession of Hereditary Property

- Possession of the owner or of one who claims to be an owner (e.g. Hereditary Property – the property which you inherit.
adverse claimant)
What is the implication or consequence if you are in possession who Rule on Tacking of Possession - adding your length of possession
claims to be an owner? with the length of possession of your predecessor/s.
- If you will be able to prove that you are in possession in
Example:
the concept of an owner, then you can acquire ownership
The number of years that your predecessor (father, grandfather,
by prescription.
etc.) possessed the property will be added to your number of years
of possession. It is because possession in hereditary property is
TAKE NOTE: deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption from the
Only in possession in the concept of an owner that you can acquire moment of death of the decedent in case the inheritance is
a property through prescription. accepted. Hence, the present possessor may complete the period
necessary for prescription by tacking his possession with that of his
Possession in the concept of a mere holder predecessors-in-interest.
- The holder has an independent right of possession except that a
mere holder acknowledges that there is another with a superior right As possessor and successor, you succeed by hereditary title. You
of ownership. shall not suffer the inconsequence of the wrongful possession of the
What is the consequence if you are in possession in the concept of a decedent. This is relevant if your predecessor is in bad faith. Take
mere holder? note that bad faith possession is not transmissible because bad faith
- You cannot acquire ownership by prescription although is personal to the individual so it does not follow that the successor
you have an independent right of possession. is also in bad faith.

There are two views on this:

1st View:
Example: Bad Faith Possession – 30 years prescriptive period. If the
parent (in bad faith) died in the 10th year and the child (in good faith)
succeeded. How many years is left for prescription shall set in? 10 or Hopefully this case will serve as a precaution to prospective parties to
20 years? a contract involving titled lands for them to exercise the diligence of
- Only 10 years is required because bad faith is not a reasonably prudent person by undertaking measures to ensure the
transmissible. Good Faith starts only upon death provided, legality of the title and the accurate metes and bounds of the lot
you have no knowledge of the bad faith. embraced in the title. It is advisable that such parties (1) verify the
origin, history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office of
2nd View: the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration Authority; (2)
Assume that in the previous example on the 24th year the parent (in engage the services of a competent and reliable geodetic engineer to
bad faith) died. How many years must the child in good faith take verify the boundary, metes, and bounds of the lot subject of said title
possession for prescription to set in? Should it still require 10 years? based on the technical description in the said title and the approved
- The bad faith possession in this case will be given a credit survey plan in the Land Management Bureau; (3) conduct an actual
on the ratio of 1 credited year for every 3 years of bad faith ocular inspection of the lot; (4) inquire from the owners and
possession of the predecessor or 1:3 (10/30 years). Hence, possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the true and legal
ownership of the lot in question; (5) put up signs that said lot is being
the child must take possession for another 2 years (8 years
purchased, leased, or encumbered; and (6) undertake such other
will be credited from the 24 years of bad faith possession).
measures to make the general public aware that said lot will be
subject to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties.
Possession in Good Faith and Bad Faith
Article 448 is still applicable. Manotok Realty vs CA
Effects of Possession in Good Fatih: Buying a property not from the registered owner must compel you
- Entitled to reimbursement of necessary expenses; to make further inquiries.
- Entitled to reimbursement of useful improvements; and
- If you are not paid, you have the right of retention. TAKE NOTE:
When you buy from an agent you cannot invoke the benefit you
Whereas, if you are in bad faith, you only have the right for relied merely on the face of the title.
reimbursement of necessary expenses.

Who is a possessor in Good Faith? September 5, 2016

- He is one who believes that the person from whom he
received the thing was the owner of the same and can We are now on the topic of ways of acquiring possession. This
convey the title. The belief must be based on some title or answers the questions on how did you validly acquire possession.
mode of acquisition. Now our civil code provides for the ways of validly acquiring
possession.
Is ignorance of the law a basis of Good Faith?
- Generally, NO unless it is a mistake upon a doubtful First one is the most common form which is material occupation. To
provision of law. say material occupation class, what it means is actual physical
holding. Of course, they should be coupled with intent to possess. As
Who is a possessor in Bad Faith? I have discussed earlier, it is not enough that you physically hold the
- A person knowing that his title is defective. Moreover, just thing, there must be intent to possess on the part of the possessor.
like a purchaser in bad faith is somebody who is aware of
The second way is subjecting the action or right to the person’s will.
facts and circumstances which should have compelled him
This would apply in regard to rights so it is not only things that are
to make further inquiries on the title of his transferor who
the object of possession, rights as well, may also be object of
fails to do such. possession.

The third way of acquiring possession is proper acts and legal

formalities which is the one, for us, have a hard put at pointing out
GENERAL RULE: an example of this. An example of this is very simple, when we say
- Every person dealing with a Torrens Title may safely rely on acquisition of possession through proper acts and legal formalities
the face of the title. Only the liens and encumbrances they are basically referring to acquisition of possession as a result of
annotated may bound the purchaser. acquiring ownership through any of those recognized by law.

EXCEPTION: So there are seven modes of acquiring ownership. When we say

- If you have actual knowledge. tradition, in what transaction will there be transmission of
- If the buyer is a corporation engaged in Banking, Lending ownership by tradition? Sale. Why do we say that in sale there is
Institution who merely relied on the title for the reason transmission of ownership by tradition? Transferred through the
that there is a presumption that they have the necessary execution of a public document. When public document is delivered
personnel to check the title. to you as a result of a sale transaction and that document is
delivered to you, that is not only delivery of ownership, that is also
CASES: delivery of possession as well. That is the general rule. You are not
Domingo Realty vs CA required to established actual residence there before it can be said
The Supreme Court ruled that with the failure to make inquiries that you are in possession because there is no adverse claimant
placed the buyer in bad faith. there, the mere delivery of that public document is already delivery
of possession. That is one example of acquiring possession through of the decedent” so the implication of this is if the predecessor is in
this third way. bad faith, that does not mean that the successor is in bad faith. Bad
faith is something personal. It is not transmissible. If the predecessor
Succession is also a mode of acquiring ownership when you inherit a is in bad faith, there is a rule of presumption of good faith so the
property from a decedent, you don’t have to actually possess successor is in good faith. If we apply this strictly, his bad faith
because by the reason of law when there is succession, upon the possession will be erased and renewed for another ten years. Ang
death of the decedent, rights of ownership are transmitted to the problema ana class is when the possession in bad faith of the
successors. It is not only delivery of possession but delivery of possessor is too long and gamay nalang kaayog kulang nya namatay
ownership as well because succession is a mode of acquiring man ang predecessor. For example, 25 years na siyang pinossess sa
ownership. Other than acquiring possession through this modes of property in bad faith, kulang nalang tag 5 years class. So, ug atong i
acquiring ownership. apply nga di nato iconsider ang bad faith possession. It would not be
correct to say that the successor only needs 5 years diba? So
There are also other juridical acts which would have the effect of therefore, mu renew another 10 years diba? So mabutang ni nga
delivering possession like when you join a public auction and you situation nga mas maayo nalang diay ug bad faith nalang pud ni ang
happen to be the highest bidder, a certificate of sale is delivered to successor para 5 years nalang kaysa 10 ang possessor in good faith
you or you filed a writ of possession as a result of the fact that you diba? A theory is advanced by some civil law commentators nga how
are the highest bidder and you want to be immediately placed in do you credit? dili pud tanan, ratio and proportion in mathematics
possession of the thing which you purchased in a public auction. The ba 1 is to 3 man diba? 10 years good faith is equivalent to 30 years
issuance of a writ of possession in your favor is also delivery of bad faith. Sa 25 years kuhaon nimo ang creditable number years.
possession through proper acts and legal formalities. Let’s talk about instances where possession is not required. In other
words, even if the one who is in actual possession, he cannot validly
Let’s take up article 533 which is possession of hereditary property. say that he is in legal possession.
533 says that possession of the entire property is deemed
transmitted to the heirs without interruption and from the moment Again, I would advert to a situation nga kaning forcible entry case.
of the death of the decedent. When you inherit a property provided Kay kaning forcible entry case class, this is the best case that I can
that you accept the inheritance, there is already delivery of cite wherein we can apply the different rules and principles
possession to you. For example, the land that you inherited, there regarding possession because that case involves possession as an
are squatters there on the land that you inherited. The original issue. This will be our reference point to understand that provision. I
registered owner is already dead. So you want to get rid of these am talking about acquisition of possession by force or intimidation.
squatters. So you will be filing a case for forcible entry because So, remember that German Management case? Where the actual
normally you will be interested to avail of this summary action to occupants were bulldozed then the occupants filed a case for
recover rather than an accion reivindicatoria. forcible entry and they won in that case. Why? Well before the case
was filed, take note ha, that the one who was in possession was the
Now, remember that in forcible entry, the issue there is who has agent of the owner but how did he acquire possession class? He
prior physical possession. Normally in forcible entry, the court will acquired it by bulldozing the property, destroying the perimeter
not deal with who has legal possession much less ownership. The fence so this would fall squarely under article 536 that is acquisition
only issue there is who has prior actual possession. If the squatter of possession by force or intimidation. So, can he validly argue that
can prove that he is the one in actual possession, the judge might be before he filed the case for forcible entry he was the one in prior
tempted to dismiss your forcible entry case because you, the physical possession? He cannot because 536 is very clear. In no case
successor, has never been in actual possession of the property, you may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as
might be advised by that stupid judge to just file a case for there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believe … that he
reivindicatoria and you might be infected with this stupidity and you has an action to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must
will agree and just file an accion reivindicatoria. Now that is wrong invoke the aid of the competent court. So acquisition of possession
because the rule is, when the registered owner dies and you are the by force or intimidation, the one who successfully retake possession
successor, from the moment of death of the predecessor, the cannot claim that he has now the legal possession. The theory being
possession is also transmitted without interruption. Of course this that when this is the manner of acquiring possession, it is as if the
would presuppose that you will accept the inheritance because if possession of that possessor was never interrupted. Bisan pa in
you reject the inheritance it can never be said that you possessed actuality, nawala na siya sa premises. Sa balaod it is as if nagpadayon
the property. iyang possession. Now in relation to that, aside from acquiring
possession through force or intimidation.
Now, there are however problems that may arise with regard to
transmission of possession from the predecessor to the successor. Possession also by tolerance of the actual possessor or possession
(Asks whether na discuss na) Now, the situation may arise where the obtained by the actual possessor in a clandestine manner. Nga wala
property is possessed by the predecessor in good faith and before nakabalo ang lawful possessor, they do not also affect the legal
the perfection of the period required he died, the question may arise possession of the rightful possessor. How do we apply this? You
on how many more years the successor is required to possess the already know what a possessor by mere tolerance is right? Naa kay
property. yuta class unya naa karon nihangyo nimo nga mupuyo sa imong yuta.
Gipapuyo nimo. The rule if it is possession by mere tolerance class,
The rule is very simple if both the the predecessor and successor are the possessor has an implied obligation to vacate whenever the
in good faith, all you have to do is just to tuck the possession of the owner needs the premises. You are actually subject to the whims of
predecessor with that of the successor. The problem is when the the owner. Ug muingon ang owner hawa na diha kay di nako
predecessor is in bad faith and the successor is in good faith. That is ganahan makakita sa imong nawong you have to hawa. Di mana
the presumption because a bad faith possession cannot be inherited pariho ug lessee class nga muingon nga hawa na diha pwede mana
according to the law it says that “one who succeeds by hereditary muingon ang lessee nga di man ka pwede makapahawa nako
title shall not suffer the consequences of their wrongful possession because naas kontrata nato o i have two months to stay here. Pero
kung possessor by tolerance ka, in theory ha, pwede ka that obtaining a TCT is not a mode of acquiring ownership. So iprove
papahawaon. Just because the possessor by mere tolerance is given nimo ang antecedent transaction nga how did you secure a tax
possession it doesn’t mean nga ikaw nga nihatag ug possession na declaration. Pero when you cannot present a deed of sale, what you
interrupted ang imong possession. Nag continue imong possession. have is a tax declaration but you can prove that you are in actual
possession.
The possessor by mere tolerance is a possessor in the name of
another. How did we describe a possessor in the name of another? Remember that possession under claim of ownership raises
He has no independent right of possession. He is just an extension in disputable presumption of ownership. So ang kadtong mu question
the actual possession. What he has is only the fact of possession but mao to ang mu prove otherwise. Otherwise, if he cannot prove then
he does not have the legal possession. But even that fact of you are deemed as the owner by the mere fact that you are the one
possession if maabot to ang punto nga mag forcible entry case na dili in possession. So the one longer in possession is normally proven by
na pwede niyang ma invoke as a defense. Same with clandestine who is in possession of the oldest tax declaration or the older tax
possession and possession by violence. They do not affect declaration. If the dates of the possession are the same, the one who
possession. When the law says they do not affect possession pasabot presents a title. What is a title here? Is it required to be a certificate
class, continue ra gyud ang possessory right of the legal possessor. of title? It is not a certificate of title. It is normally, ideally, it should
Pag abot sa forcible entry di gyud siya pwede muingon nga I am in be a document just because you do not have a document then the
the one in prior physical possession your honor, therefore the law says present your title class. It means present proof of your
forcible entry case should be dismissed. No because of this article ownership through any of the modes of acquiring ownership. If it
537. We have a case there example of possessor by mere tolerance, cannot be decided in this manner then the thing shall be placed in
Kilario vs CA. You remember however the case of Macasaet ha. You judicial deposit. This is how to resolve conflict of possession.
still remember that? The invitation thing by the parents. That is not a
possession by tolerance. I don’t know what that kind of possession Now effect of possession, you have the right to be respected in your
is. Maybe that is possession by a usufructuary. possession. For you to acquire ownership on the basis of possession,
niingon man ko class nga possession and ownership are two distinct
Kaning possession sa usufructuary class, kusog kusog ni nga kind of and different legal concept right? That’s true, that is still true but
possession ha. We will discuss later on what a usufructuary is. When there are cases class where you may have to rely alone on
there is conflict as to possession class, conflict over possession de possession to prove ownership. You get that? But before you can
facto we resolve it in the basis of the standards under article 538. fully avail of possession as proof of your ownership, what must be
Now in possession because the essence of possession is actual the character of your possession? It must be a possession in the
physical holding. In resolving issues about possession is on a winner concept of an owner. Kay kanang lessee ka possessor man ka pero di
take all basis ha. Pasabot ana kinsa ang rightful possessor siya ang na pwede mahimong basis for ownership. So only the possession
possessor sa tanan. Dili pwede nga dako man kaayo ning yutaa ni acquired in the concept of an owner can serve as a title for acquiring
nganong mag lalis man mo ani. Ikaw didto kas northern ikaw adto dominion. What do we mean by possession in the concept of an
kas southern portion. Di na pwede ingon anaon pag resolve because owner? Para mahimo kang tag iya, mu claim ka nga tag iya ka kay
that is not a resolution on the basis of law except when it is a case of nag possess ka. Iprove na nimo nga ang character sa imong
co-ownership. Co-ownership class, the co-owners, pwede mana sila possession is in the concept of an owner? Imong pag possess dira
mu possess. When there is a question regarding who is in actual nga wala ka niila nga naay laing tag iya.
possession, the present possessor shall be preferred. Subject of
course to the one I discussed earlier about katong wala gyuy right. Unlike in this case of, Wolfson vs Aenlle, ang nahitabo ani class, there
Tolerance, possession by violence, di ka makaingon nga he shall be is a boundary dispute between the two of them. Adjacent owner ni
preferred because he is the present possessor. Kaning muingon ta ug sila. Ang kaning usa nga nisulod sa perimeter fence niingon siya nga
the present possessor shall be preferred, this would presuppose a sige lang bai. Akoy nag possess pero if ma determine nga kaning
situation class that, kaning duha ka tawo nga nag contest sa portion nga atong gitugian karon, if ma determine nga imoha ni
possession puro ni mga adverse claimants. Ang pangutana karon when the boundaries will be relocated, I will willingly surrender this
kinsa maning mga adverse claimants. Kani silang duha class, ug to you. So there was a relocation survey. True enough na determine
muingon ta adverse claimant ka ang pasabot ana ang imong nga nasulod to erroneously sa iyang yuta. Karon, nausab na ang
possession is in the concept of an owner. Puro mo in the concept of hangin. Niingon siya nga di nako, dugay na kaayo ko pinuyo diri unya
an owner. For example, naay yuta puro na ninyo gi applyan ug free ako isurrender nimo? So ang issue karon is did he already acquire
patent. Both of you nagpuyo mo dira puro mo adverse claimant ownership of it based on prescription? The Supreme Court said no,
dinha. If ang usa adverse claimant ang usa squatter, pilde gyud ang because kanang imong pag ingon nga kung ma determine nga imoha
squatter, wa manay right. ni ako ning isurrender nimo meaning dili categorical ang imong
assertion sa ownership. Kanang possession in the concept of an
Lowest mana ang degree sa iyang possession. If puro mo adverse owner class kanang wa ka niila. It is how you project yourself insofar
claimant, mao ning iapply ni the present possessor shall be as third persons are concerned. Dili nang murag hesitant ka ba. Dili
preferred. Kinsa ang actual possessor. How can you be an adverse na adverse possession on the strength of this case. Kanang adverse
claimant when you are not in present possession? Mag depende possession, you do not recognize that there are other persons with a
naman sad na sa ebidensya. Now if there are two possessors, which better title than you.
is often the case, the one in longer in possession. The one longer in
possession, unsay pasabot ani class? How do you prove you are the
one longer in possession class? Tax declaration. Possession under September 9, 2016
claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of ownership.
That is how to prove length of possession. You can present a tax  Usufruct is real right of temporary nature
declaration. That is the best way although that is not the only way.
o Most important concept is the use of fruits.
Obtaining a tax declaration is not a mode of acquiring ownership.
Not even a TCT class. The supreme court has been consistent with
 o Ex. I am a person with several landholdings. I do  When you vest usufructory of land over alien
not want to give to Catholic Church but I want to
help them. Not a deed of donation because it o You can do that legally
transfers ownership. I want the church to use my  Ramirez vs Ramirez
land as long as they do not change the nature of
the property. I can do usufruct incorporated in  What is transferred is
deed of donation inter vivos. Catholic church usufruct. In the constitution
cannot say they are absolute owner of property what is prohibited is transfer
they have right to use. They can have it rented or of full ownership. Here it is
planted. Income will be used for church not the case.
purposes. Or I can convey usufructory right by  Usufractory can also alienate his right
last will and testament. Me as testator naked
ownership to my heirs, usufructory right to the o You can have someone rent the land and you just
catholic church receive the rent

 Characteristics o Limit is – the one renting it must be mindful of

the limits of the usufruct
o Real right – enforceable over the whole world so
long as annotated. It is a right that attaches to a  Spring may not rise higher than the
property wherever it goes as long as annotated source

o Temporary nature/ duration – it is mere o Exception

convenience to right of use and income if it  parents are the usofractory of their
expires then it should be returned unemancipated children under family
o Limit is normal use and exploitation code
 They cannot use the
usufractory for themselves
but for their children.
o Extent
 Rights of a usufractory when he does not put up required
 It must be preserve in form and security
substance, should not be abused.
o Before he can possess the thing he has the
 Ex if agri it cannot be obligation to make and inventory wherein he will
converted to non agri. list down the immovable he received and the
movable.
 If term is 50 years and you
want to change it to o Aside from that he has the obligation to put up
memorial park that is not security.
allowed because you did not  What is purpose of the bond?
preserve form and substance
 To assure the naked owner
 Unless the contract of that he will comply with his
usufructory says you can use obligation which is to
it whatever you want preserve the form and
 Usufruct the normal object is non consumable thing substance. Because if there is
because you have obligation to preserve form and violation naked owner may
substance. The very same thing you receive must be the run after the bond
one you returned o What if there is no bond?
o What about consumable?  It does not defer the usufractory
 Allowed but it is called abnormal relation but the usufractory cannot yet
usufruct possess the property. The point is that
it is disadvantageous ion the part of the
 What will you return? usufractory because it will terminate
 The appraised value. without you enjoying it. You cannot
lease it because if you do not have
 Before he possess the thing he must right to possess you cannot convey
make an inventory, anything?
 Contents of inventory  What are the rights of usufractory who
did not put up bond
o What are the
movables received  Naked owner continues to
receive fruits but he is
 Reason so that during return
treated as administrator of
there be no controversy.
the usufractory. He will hold
 it in trust. when the  Obligations of usufractory
usufractory complies then
ihatag nana niya plus the o Take care as good father – ordinary care of good
father
fruits.
 But if there is violation of possession o Shall answer for any damage
usufractory cannot file that he was in o Obliged to make ordinary repairs
prior possession. He cannot file such
case  Extraordinary is for the account of
naked owner
 He cannot enter possession
o Obliged to notify owner of any act of 3rd owner
o Rights of naked owners that is prejudicial to the ownership
 May deliver the property  Ex. Adverse owner files case and the
 May waive right to demand the putting naked owner is in the US. You had term
10 years and did not do anything. If you
up of bond.
do this you will be held liable. Because
 May choose retention as property as you have obligation to notify the owner
administrator
 Real estate taxes
 Or go to court to appoint administrator
o Go by the position of the Supreme Courts. Go by
o Ex testator ko (buyag) catholic church as usufruct majority
id not put up bond. My heirs can say heirs can
file petition for administrator in the meantime o SC says real estate tax it is tax that burdens the
that the church has not complied with its capital
obligation o It is not burden imposed in the fruits so naked
owner must pay
 Usufractory may be exempted putting up of security
o Caucion juratoria - promise under oath in lieu of o Case of bislig bay lumber vs provincial govt of
surigao
putting up a bond in usufruct over a house for
personal use o Do not lalis supreme court.
 During the usufruct o Question what if naked owner wa nagpakabana
o The usufruct beneficial title of the property  Usufrucat will be prejudiced so he pays
naked title retained by the owner muna, he is subject to reimbursement
such as extraordinary repairs. After the
o Beneficial title
term you have right of retention till it is
 Use and enjoyment of fruits paid.
 Alienate the right of usufruct  Extinguishment
 Caveat this does not apply to o Philosophy is to benefit usufractory
all types of usufruct
o Death of usufractory
 Usufructuary may make useful improvements
 General rule is it is terminated
o No right to be indemnified
o Death of naked owner
o Difference between possessors of good faith. –
 Heirs are bound by the usufruct made
thy have right to be reimbursed usufractory does
by the naked owner
not have that right
 Obligations as well as rights are
o Usufruct has right to remove provided no
transmitted to heirs (relativity of
damage to property
contract)
o PGF – if he exercises right to remove he may be
o Exception is stipulation
stopped by owner because he will just indemnify
him. This is not present in the case of usufruct.  Ex small confusion. I am constituting a
usufruct in your favor so that you will
o If not removed by U then it becomes thank you
earn income to pay for tuition of your
 Usufruct is not a builder in good faith children. If usufruct dies then children
still at school. Ari singit ang contrary
o Nangutang then nabayran nangayu ug intention. Clear intention will play
reimbursement, SC said no reimbursement
because possession is akin to usufractory. o Case of merced moralidad vs sps pernes
o Usufractory cannot say he believe honestly that  There was aunt that was single working
he is the owner because he knows he is a as teacher in US. She was sad for his
usufruct cousins in Agdaw in davao. Marami
 sparrow units didtu. Nalouy siyas  Property of one serves that of the
paryente niya. Ingun sya pangita yuta other
and I will buy it and you put your
 Ex right of way
houses there. When she retired and
nipuyu na siyas balay sa davao. o Happens when the
Deprived nya saputun. Sige nag away. interior lot walay
Niabut sa punto nga ang aunt ni file ug kaagian padung
ejectment case against niece and highway but muagis
family. Niece said they cannot be sa us aka person
ejected. Under the document any of
my kins can live on the property and o Called easement
may availed use thereof provided it is because if the
not inimical. They must leave in an owner of outside
atmosphere of cooperation, no lot does not give he
bickering. In affidavit she said, my kins may compel him to
can live as long as they lie. It was a give easement
potestative condition. The remedy o The outside owner
matud pas neice was fix period and serves the needs of
then file for breach. Niece said ganahan the interior lot.
paman sila mu-stay so no ejectment.
Aunt must first fix period then  There is dominant and servant
ejectment. On its face sakto man.  Interior is master/ dominant
Bright ang abugado.
o Easement is not only right of way
 SC said the argument presupposes
there is only one way to terminate  Drainage/canal
usufruct. Term. There are other ways.
 Do not say to your neighbor:”
Another is fulfillment of resolutory
“ uy pagamita kus easement
condition. Sc examined the document.
of drainage under the civil
When they analyze, the condition was
code” kataw-an raka.
to maintain harmonious relationship.
Hangyua tarung
When you violated this your right to
stay was lost. This extinguishes the  Right of way
usufruct.
 Easement of party wall
 If it is extinguished then there is no
o Common wall at
right anymore
point of common
o Prescription elevation
 It is not non-use but use of third person o If sya ray nigasto
then to the other
o Fulfillment of condition
belongs the wall.
 Obligation of usufructory
o Why is it easement
o Lose the right to the possession
o Serves the needs,
o Deliver the thing as as is ,where is basis because it serves
the needs of both
o No right of retention except if you advanced owners.
taxes and extraordinary repairs.
 Easement of light and view
 Wa man jud ni lami class – gikan ni nya
wa kuy labot ani  Cannot be seen
 It is non apparent easement
Easement  The visible representation of
light and view is window or
o Encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for
openings.
the benefit of another immovable belonging to
different owner  Happens when you are
prohibited from obstructing
o This is a type of servitude
the admittance of the light to
o Requisite another’s property
 2 owners not co-owner  Sulayi ninyu class. Magbuild
mug building nya imu silingan
 Property is adjacent
nay opening nya iblock ang
opening dba mureklamu na.
 diba padad.an kag Ana Atty manok pamay naa jude.
representative of the building Speculation mana.
official.
 Characteristics of easement
 Owner cannot make
o Real right
construction that will block
the view  An be imposed only on the property of
another, never on own property
 In your minds I know you are
saying alkansi ko ana sir. Datu  Produces limitation on ownership but
gud ko pahimu kog condo di ownership of servient state is impaired
diay pwede? (mind shout =
 It is inseparable from the tenement to
PWEDE)
which it is attached
o No it means the
owner must  Exists only between neighboring
construct and set tenements
back a few meters. o Indivisibility
Setback 3 meters.
MAU RAGUD  When there is partition does not mean
GIHAPON. Pero dili easement is extinguished because
pariho.  inahak? easement is indivisible. In fact when
easement is constituted over co-owned
o Easement because property it needs unanimous consent.
it imposes Cannot be terminated by partition
limitation that this
is your boundary o May be voluntary
pero ayaw tiloka  You have contract of right of way. Okay
and boundary na sya. The governing rule is that the
o Easement there is no transfer of ownership. terms and conditions agreed by parties

 Right of way  Under property law. What we will

discuss is legal easement whether the
 Do not think that you own dominant estate likes it or not as long
the property. The owner is as the elements of easement are there
still the owner you do not then it should be applied
even have right of possession
over the said land. You only  Under my case kay ako mang kaso nya
have right to access. ako maning klase so minaw mu (minaw
mi uy, nabuang na, gawas palang nis
 Ex. Attorney client said he exam inatay)
cemented the area. When
you are given right of way  What was filed by first lawyer
you need to pay. Easement was voluntary easement. The
gives holder incorporeal right lawyer filed a case here
but grants no title thinking that it was of
voluntary easement. In the
 Acknowledgement of document there was no
easement is admission that mention of right of way over
the property belongs to lot A owned by defendant.
another How can it be voluntary?
There was no legal right .The
 READ BOGO-MEDILLIN CO vs
court denied the first TRO.
CA
 What I did class (not saying
o Benefits of burden
mayng laki ko) I amended
 Should not be so great as to be complaint and placed
inconsistent to general right of alternative cause of action
ownership. legal easement. If I can prove
later that there is no
 Being mere encumbrance then it
adequate access to public
should not impair the entirety of the
highway I may be granted
usefulness of the servient estate
compulsory legal easement. I
 This was the argument of our think I will win because I was
respondent, ang dalan naa guds tunga granted tro. (shet bilib name
sa property. He said matay di ta nimu pre, papasara name)
katukud diha judge masamuk ta ana.
 Legal easement
 o Waters  Easement not to construct to build a higher
structure
o Right of way
 Law says only continuous and apparent
o Light and view easements may be acquired

o Drainage of buildings  Bogo-medillin.

o Nuisance The issue presented was can an easement of right of way

be acquired by prescription. According to SC a right of
o Lateral and subjacent support way can never be acquired by prescription, while it is
 Excavation true that it is an apparent easement it is not continuous.

 When you excavate you must be Why? Continuous means the use does not stop. Right of
mindful of adjacent property way is it continuous? No?

 Modes of acquiring easement Ex right of way, imung silingan nga tuas sa sulud nay right
of way. Ikaw tag-iya. Ang routine sa silingan pag 10 pm di
o Law nana siya mugawas. Ikaw engage in bbq sugal, inuman.
 The requisites provided by law are present. Imu silingan suku. Ana sya nganu man kang gigamit mana
So you are entitled as a matter of law. Ex nimu akong dalan diha ug hantakan. Naa bya kuy right of
right of way 649. There you will find when way ana? Can you be stopped by injunction? Go back to
can you find declaration of right o way principle of easement your right as servient owner is
absolute so long as he is not using it. If mugawas siya alas
 Role of court is to declare. But you must 12 then imu ingnon. Oops oops paagia paagia. No
establish the following. violation. (tayas oops oops)
 No adequate outlet to public highway o Legal presumption or apparent sign
 Easement must be established at point least  My case
prejudicial to servient estate
 Happens if originally the land is owned
 The dominant estate surrounded by by one person then subdivided and this
immovable belonging to servient estate person sold it to juan and pedro. There
is a right of way traversing the portion
 If any of the requisites are not there then you
sold to juan which pedro may use.
are not entitled
Pagkatag-iya na ni juan di na niya
 Under my case: paagion si pedro perting kisikisi ni
pedro. Nganu imu mana gihimu?
 The road is nindot. Paved naba.
Question is there an easement? Yes
Nakadaut lang kay dali musalig. Way
because at the time it was sold there
basa basa gadali. Gadali for example of
was an apparent sign that there is
the compulsory easement di ta kaingun
easement and no contrary provision on
nga ari ta kay pinaka nindot.
deed of sale saying otherwise
 Law states adequate. Dili convenient.
 Valisno vs Adriano
 Read case of ramos vs gatchalian
 Siblings get water from
Pampanga River. Sister plants
in interior and there is canal.
o Prescription
Brother is servient with the
 Good thing There is only one period 10 year canal. Sister sold her land.
period Brother flattened the canal.
 Bad thing is the determination of reckoning Buyer filed a case and he was
point of prescription. granted easement of
 Bad thing applicable only to easement that drainage due to existence of
are continuous and apparent apparent sign.

 Continuous - The use is without any  If you do not want it to be

interruption. In theory, easement of imposed. Before sale you
drainage. must removed the existence
of the apparent sign. If there
 Apparent - External signs of easement. is sale and no removal plus
Ex: Septic tank; Use was cut off no contrary stipulation then
 Tanedo vs Bernard wala naka

Common septic tank wala pagamita nya abot syas o Read roncillo vs roco
supreme court.  Read concurring of jbl reyes.
 Not apparent o Mun of dumangas vs bishop of jaro
  SC tend to cite prescription as mode of  If you are in possession in the concept of an owner, you do
acquiring not recognize that there is another person who has a
better title than you.
 Peculiarity of the case
 Lessee, usufructuary, and a possessor by mere tolerance
 Tolentino says are excluded. No matter how long their possession has
been, they cannot acquire ownership over the thing they
 Why can it not be acquired have been in possession of.
when mismu ng ownership
ma-acquire man. Easement Application of Article:
of right of way is lesser right. 1. To consolidate title by prescription, the possession must be
So if a greater right be under claim of ownership and it must be peaceful, public,
acquired why not a lesser and uninterrupted.
right. 2. Acts of possessory character done by virtue of a license or
o Rule is that easement of right of way cannot be mere tolerance on the part of the real owner are not
acquired by prescription because though it is sufficient, e.g. possession by lessees, trustees, pledges,
apparent it is not discontinous. tenants.

There is a conclusive presumption that if you are a lessee, you

September 13, 2016 cannot assert a right adverse to the lessor.

Effects of Possession Article 541. A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the
legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot
Art 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; be obliged to show or prove it.
and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or
restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and Just title in Possession vs Just title as basis for prescription
the Rules of Court. xxx
Just title in prescription – The elements are: first, the possessor must
In one case involving a stolen vehicle, which was in the possession of have a just title + prescriptive period. In prescription, it needs
a purchaser in good faith, the SC held that just because you are a passage of time to perfect ownership.
buyer of a stolen property and you did know that it was a product of
theft or robbery, you have a right to be respected in your possession. Meaning of “Just Title” in possession (Article 541) – You do not have
Not even the mere filing of a criminal information would divest you to wait for passage of time. Your mere possession in the concept of
of your right of possession over the stolen property. This is what is an owner establishes a presumption that you are the owner.
meant by “every possessor has a right to be respected in his However, if your possession is that of a mere lessee, you cannot
possession.” invoke Article 541. For example, there are adverse claimants. One is
not in possession, you are in possession, both of you are adverse
In relation to this, you have to take note and remember the various claimants, meaning, both of you are asserting ownership. Based on
remedies available to a property owner or to the rightful possessor Article 541, possessor in the concept of an owner has in its favor the
to recover possession: legal presumption that he possesses with a just title. As such, pabor
nimo because you are in possession. In other words, katong ning
 If personal property, you have the remedy of REPLEVIN. claim otherwise has the burden of proof to show the contrary that
 If real property, you are not the owner. Otherwise, you will be declared as owner
 Recovery of physical possession, FORCIBLE ENTRY based on Article 541.
or UNLAWFUL DETAINER.
 Recovery of possession which is not dependent on  Just title in possession is presumed, just title in
ownership or in cases where the loss of possession prescription must be proved through any of the modes of
has already exceeded one year, ACCION acquiring ownership.
PUBLICIANA.
 Recovery of possession based on ownership,  Just title in possession means true and valid title sufficient
ACCION REINVIDICATORIA. to transfer ownership, just title in prescription means
merely colorable title although there was mode of
Art 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of transferring ownership.
owner can serve as a title for acquiring dominion.
 In just title in possession, the grantor is the owner. In just
Possession in the concept of an owner title in prescription, the grantor is not the owner, that’s
why it needs the passage of time.
 This is the only type of possession which can be the basis
of ownership. It is not necessarily possession only by the
owner himself, but also someone who believes that he is Easement (cont’d)
the owner, provided that if he asserts possession as the
basis of ownership, he must show that he acquired it Ways of acquiring easement:
through any of the modes of acquiring ownership, i.e. 7
modes of acquiring ownership: Tradition, Occupation, 1. From law – When the requisites for easement under the
Donation, Succession, Law, Prescription, and Acquisition. law are present, then you are entitled to an easement.
(Article 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a
 real right may cultivate or use any immovable, which is estate from executing an act which would be lawful
surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other without the easement.
persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway,
is entitled to demand a right of way through the For example, my neighbor made an opening in his own wall. He told
neighboring estates, after payment of the proper me, the adjacent owner, not to construct a higher structure, “ayaw
indemnity.) If you can establish and prove it, then the court blockingi akong opening diri.” So when will prescriptive period run?
will confirm that it exists. From the time you receive the prohibition. Why? Because at the
2. By prescription time he made the opening, he hasn’t imposed an encumbrance yet.
 When there is passage of time of 10 YEARS. Ang pag impose happens when you send a restriction to the other
 Only continuous and apparent easement are party. When you receive a prohibition, you can still do what is
subject to prescription. prohibited, because he has still not acquired easement of light and
view by prescription. But if 10 years from the receipt of the notarial
 Continuous easements – are those the use of which is or prohibition you did not do anything, and on the 11th year ning
may be incessant, without the invervention of any act of construct ka, pwede ka mapa stop. Why? Because he has already
man. (Way hunong hunong, i.e. aqueduct, drainage.) acquired easement of light and view through prescription.
 Discontinuous easements – are those which are used at
intervals and depend upon the acts of man. (Naay In a case, nag palit cyag balay nya naay opening. Ang window sa
interruption, i.e. right of way, kay easement will only iyang balay has been there for more than 50 years. And then, naka
happen when one actually traverses the land.) silingan siya og lain tao who constructed a structure that blocked the
 Apparent easements – are those which are made known window. Ning kiha siya Injuction to stop the construction, claiming
and are continually kept in view by external signs that he has easement of light and view. SC: WRONG. This is a negative
reveal the use and enjoyment of the same. (Maklaro, i.e. easement. It will only start to run from the service of notarial
right of way, easement of light and view) prohibition. Without which, prescription will not start to run.
 Non-apparent easements – are those which show no (Negative easement)
external indication of their existence.
However, if an opening is made on a party wall or on the wall of
In Bogo-medellin, sayop ang judge. His ruling was ma acquire by another, prescription will start to run FROM THE TIME THE OPENING
prescription ang easement of light and view. That is WAS MADE. (Positive easement)
WWWRRROOONG! Jurisprudence is clear that a right of way is a
discontinuos easement, although apparent, therefore IT CANNOT BE Art 673. Whenever by any title a right has been acquired to have
ACQUIRED BY PRESCRIPTION. direct views, balconies or belvederes overlooking an adjoining
property, the owner of the servient estate cannot build thereon at
In Escobela, gikulata sa SC ang CA. The argument of the respondent less than a distance of three meters to be measured in the manner
nga paagion sila was that dugay na kaayo, panahon pa sa gira nag agi provided in Article 671. Any stipulation permitting distances less than
nami dinhi. SC said bida oi. Kana laging easement of right of way those prescribed in Article 670 is void.
cannot be acquired by prescription. So kanang muingon ka dugay na
kay ka gaagi dinha, that’s a LEGALLY USELESS ARGUMENT!! Kay Let us say nana kay easement of light and view. Would that mean
ngano, og ni agi ka sa panahon pa ni Magellan, muingon ang that the adjacent owner cannot construct? Pwede gihapon. Set back
Supreme Court “okay rana, niagi na panahon pa ni Magellan”?? lang ka og 3 meters. You cannot construct on the boundary line
DILI!! YOU CANNOT ACQUIRE EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY because the adjacent property is already enjoying an easement.
THROUGH PRESCRIPTION BECAUSE IT IS DISCONTINUOS. (Gravi: Take However, you can construct if mu set back ka og 3 meters from the
note this will come out in the bar exam and you will remember me) boundary line.

 Example of continuous and apparent easement: Light and Extinguishment of Easement:

View.
Article 631. Easements are extinguished:
When will prescription start to run?
(1) By merger in the same person of the ownership of the dominant
1. Positive easements (e.g. drainage or aqueduct) – from the and servient estates;
day on which the owner of the dominant estate or the
person who may have made use of the easement  For example ikaw nag gamit ka sa right of way and naka
commenced to exercise it upon the servient estate. realize ka nga ang owner of the servient estate nga di na
niya magamit so he offered nimo to buy the right of way
For example, you make an opening on a wall that does not belong to and ang lot nga gigamit sa right of way, now if inana
you. Ang wall nimo gihimuan og bintana sa imong silingan. PWEDE mahitabo, di nana right of way, imoha nanang yuta. The
BA NAH?! PWEDE!!! At the time he made the opening, the period of easement is extinguished because you were formerly the
prescription will start to run. Why man at the time he made the dominant owner, but by the reason of the sale, the
opening?? Because ang wall nga iyang gi gam.an, does not belong to personality of the servient and dominant are merged into
him. So nag impose cya og encumbrance. one.

2. Negative easements (e.g. light and view) – from the day on (2) By non-use for ten years; with respect to discontinuous
which the owner of the dominant estate forbade, by an easements, this period shall be computed form the day on which they
instrument acknowledged before a notary public ceased to be used; and, with respect to continuous easements, form
(NOTARIAL PROHIBITION), by the owner of the servient the day on which an act contrary to the same took place;
(3) When either or both of the estates fall into such condition that the
easement cannot be used; but it shall revive if the subsequent
condition of the estates or either of them should again permit its use,
unless when the use becomes possible, sufficient time for prescription
has elapsed, in accordance with the provisions of the preceding
number;

 If it is continuously flooded, that is an example. Right of

way, sigeg gi flood. And pwede ra muagi, pumpboat. Di na
pwede.

(4) By the expiration of the term or the fulfillment of the condition, if

the easement is temporary or conditional;

(5) By the renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate;

(6) By the redemption agreed upon between the owners of the

dominant and servient estates.

(Solid Manila case) For example, you are a subdivision lot owner, you
are enjoying your right of way in going to and from the subdivision.
But the easement is in favor of ALL the residents of the subdivision.
This is an easement in favor of a community. Ikaw you happen to be
one of the members of that community. Then, you bought that lot
on which the right of way was constituted. Sa pag palit nimo, imong
gi close ang right of way kay imo man to. You cannot do that. That’s
what happened in the case of Solid Manila. There is no true merger
there because the title of the easement is in favor of all individuals
residing in the subdivision. But had it been an easement in favor of
your lot only, and imo gipalit ang lot where the easement was
constituted, there is merger there.