POSSESSION

ART. 523-561

PREPARED BY:

JD2A
CRUZ, Vanessa Evans
EPLER, Jephryll Jallen
VIZCARA, Mickee

JD2B
GUILENG, Marie Antoneitte Lyka
MAINES, Julianne
PAYOYO, Michael

JD2C
ABERIN, Mae Frances
SANCULI, Miel Ysabel
YANG-ED, Marvin Jr.

SY: 2022-2023
 POSSESSION

What is the definition of possession under the law?

Art. 523. Possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.
Note however that not all “holding” is considered legal possession. Some holding of a
thing can only be considered material possession and not legal possession.
Ex. When a robber steals my cellphone, he has no legal possession over the
phone. He is not considered in possession of my phone as contemplated by
law. He is, however, actually holding my phone.

Viewpoints of Possession:
(a) Right TO Possession (jus possidendi) - This is a right or incident of ownership.
Example: Caryl owns a house; therefore she possesses it.
(b) Right OF possession (jus possessionis) - This is an independent right of itself,
independent of ownership.
Example: Caryl is renting a house from Josh. Although Caryl is not the owner,
still by virtue of the lease agreement, she is entitled to possess the house for
the period of the lease.

Every owner has the right to possess the thing owned. But not all rightful possessors own the
thing possessed. Note that the possessor owns the right to possess.

Degrees of Possession:
(a) Grammatical Degree - Mere holding or having without any right whatsoever.
Ex. Possession by a thief
(b) Juridical Possession - Possession with a juridical title, but not that of an owner.
Ex. Depositary
(c) Real Possessory Right - Possession with a just title but not from the true owner.
(d) Ownership or Possession that springs from ownership - Possession with a title of
dominium that is, with a just title from the owner.
Classes of Possession:
1. According to the name used to its existence
a. in one’s own name
b. in the name of another
2. According to the concept of possession
a. in the concept of owner
b. in the concept of holder
3. According to the condition of the mind
a. good faith
b. bad faith

Object of Possession:

General Rule
All things and rights susceptible of being appropriated

Exceptions
1. Property of public dominion
2. Res communes
3. Easement
4. Prohibited by law

Elements of Possession:

(a) There must be a holding or control of a thing or right - this means there is
occupancy, or taking apprehension and the holding may be actual or constructive
(b) There must be a deliberate intention to possess
(c) The possession must be by virtue of one’s own right.
Is constructive possession recognized under our laws?

Yes. The holding of the thing may either be actual or constructive. If a person
assumes control over a big tract of land although he actually possesses only 1/4th of
it, he is said to be in constructive possession of the rest.

But note that the property under constructive possession must not be in the adverse
possession of another. (In this case, the property cannot be said to be under the
control of the constructive possessor.)

Ownership vs. Possession:

Ownership is different from possession. A person may be declared the owner but he
may not be entitled to possession. The possession may be in the hands of another, such as
lessee or tenant. A person may have introduced improvements thereon of which he may not
be deprived without due hearing. He may have other valid defenses to resist surrender of
possession. Hence, a judgment for ownership does NOT necessarily include possession as a
necessary incident. (Jabon v. Alo L-5094, Aug 7, 1952). This is moreover true only if there
is a possibility that the actual possessor has some rights which must be respected and
defined. Where the actual possessor has no valid right over the property enforceable even
against the owner thereof, the surrender of the possession to the adjudged owner should
be considered included in the judgment (Perez, et al. v. Evite, et al., L-16003, March 29,
1961)

Physical Possession:

The law does not require one in possession of a house to reside in the house to maintain his
possession. For possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his
feet on every square meter of the ground before he is deemed in possession. ( Dela Rosa v.
Carlos 414 SCRA 226, 2003)
Art. 524. Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or in that of another.

When is there possession in one’s own name?

- If the person in actual possession is the same person who is exercising the right
of possession.

When is there possession in another’s name?

- If the person in actual possession is not the same as the person who is exercising
the right to possess. (Possession by an agent.)

Examples:
1. A is the owner of a parcel of land leased to B. B is using the land as a farm. Is B
possessing the land in his own name or in the name of A?
- B is possessing the land in his own name. B is in actual possession of the land,
and he is the one exercising the right to possess.

2. Suppose B is in Australia and C, his brother is the one using the land as a farm. Is
C possessing the land in his own name?
- No, C is not possessing the land in his own name. C is in actual possession but the
right to possess is granted to B. C is only acting as an agent of B, thus he is
possessing the property in the name of B.

Possession in Another’s Name may be:

(a) Voluntary - as when an agent possesses for the principal by virtue of an agreement.
(b) Necessary - as when a mother possesses for a child still in the maternal womb.
(c) Unauthorized - as when an agent possesses without authority a property meant for
the principal. This will become the principal’s possession only after there has been a
ratification without prejudice to the effects of negotiorium gestio.
Art. 525. The possession of things or rights may be had in one of two concepts: in the
concept of owner, or in that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the
ownership pertaining to another person.

(a) In the concept of owner – possessor of the thing or right, by his actions, is
considered or is believed by other people as the owner, regardless of the good or bad
faith of the possessor.
(b) In the concept of holder – possessor holds it merely to keep or enjoy it, the
ownership pertaining to another person; possessor acknowledges in another a
superior right which he believes to be ownership.

Some examples of possession in the concept of a holder: (possession over the

physical thing, and not of the rights involved)
- Possession of a tenant
- Possession of a usufructuary
- Possession of the depositary
- Possession of a bailee in commodatum

Question:

If a tenant is ousted by an intruder, the tenant is undoubtedly given the right to bring an
action for forcible entry. Now then, suppose it is the landlord himself who institutes the suit
against the intruder, would the action prosper?

Answer:

YES, for after all the landowner was really in actual possession, through the tenant.
Moreover, unless he would be allowed this right, there is a danger he may eventually lose
his possession over the same and suffer serious inconvenience.

Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in
his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.
He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the
foregoing.

Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.

Art. 527. Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the
part of a possessor rests the burden of proof.

Art. 528. Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character except in the
case and from the moment facts exist which show that the possessor is not unaware
that he possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully.

GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH

ART. 526 A possessor in good faith is one who, A possessor in bad faith is one,
having a defect in his title or mode of having a defect in his title or
acquisition over the property, is not mode of acquisition, is aware that
aware of the existence of the defect or such defect exists.
flaw in his title or mode of acquisition.
Note that if there is any
The determination whether a possessor indication that will require a
is in good faith is only relevant if there is prudent man to investigate as to
actually a defect in his title or mode of the validity of the title of the
acquisition. An actual owner of a transferor, and the transferee
property possessing the same IS NOT a failed to investigate, he will be
possessor in good faith, because there is considered in bad faith.
no flaw in his title.
In one case, the Supreme Court
Note that the belief must be reasonable. held that before one purchases
There must be some sort of justification real property, he must make
as to how the thing came into the inquiries regarding the rights if
possession of the person any of those in possession
thereof.

ART. 527 Always presumed Burden of proof on bad faith rests

upon the person who alleges it.
 ART. 528 When Possession in Good Faith is Converted to Possession in Bad Faith:

From the moment facts exist showing the possessor is not unaware that he
possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully

Existence of bad faith may begin either from the receipt of judicial summons
or from receipt of a letter from the true owner asking the possessor to vacate
the premises.

The possessor who is notified must investigate facts regarding his title, and if
he does not, and he is later on defeated, his possession is converted to bad
faith from the moment he received the notification and not from the time he
is judicially summoned.

Question:

Sharon bought from Gabby several properties. Marites then told Sharon that Gabby's titles
were defective. Sharon refused to believe Marites and made no further investigation
regarding the matter. She proceeded to buy the properties from Gabby. After payment, it
was later found out that indeed, the titles were defective.

Can Sharon allege that she was a purchaser in good faith?

Answer:

No. A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a responsible man upon his
guard, and then claim that he acted in good faith under the belief that there was no defect in
the title of the vendor. A party's mere refusal to believe that a defect exists or his willful
closing of his eyes to the possibility of the existence of a defect in his vendor's title will not
make him an innocent purchaser for value if it afterwards develops that the title was in fact
defective. Lee v. Strong, 37 Phil. 644 RFC v. Javillonar, L-14224

Other examples:

1. A, not knowing that he has illegitimate co-heirs, occupied the estate of his
deceased father. Is A a possessor in good faith?
 - Yes. A is not the owner of the entire property because he owns the property
together with his co-heirs. Because A is not aware that he has co-heirs, he is a
possessor in good faith. He is not aware of the defect in his title.

2. A is the sole heir of his father. When A’s father died, he inherited a parcel of land.
A then possessed that parcel of land. Is A a possessor in good faith?

- No, there is no defect in his title. A is neither a possessor in good faith nor in bad
faith. Art. 526 is irrelevant in this case.

Presumptions Regarding Possession:

(a) Continuity of Character of Possession - Art. 529. It is presumed that possession

continues to be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired, until the
contrary is proved.
(b) Non-Interruption of Possession - Art. 533. The possession of hereditary property is
deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption and from the moment of the
death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted.

One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the
same.

Presumptions in favor of possessor:

1. of good faith

2. of continuity of initial good faith

3. of enjoyment in the same character in which possession was acquired until the
contrary is proved

4. of non-interruption in favor of the present possessor

 5. of continuous possession by the one who recovers possession of which he was
wrongfully deprived

6. of extension of possession of real property to all movables contained therein

Question:

A Father before his death possessed in good faith X's land for three years. His Son accepted
inheritance and believed in good faith that the father was the owner of the land. Nine years
after the father's death, X comes around and wants to recover the property from the son.
Will X's action prosper?

Answer:

No. X's action will not prosper, because the possession of the child for nine years must be
added to the possession of the predecessor, the father for three years, giving the son a total
of 12 years of uninterrupted possession - there being just title and good faith - ten years
would be enough to give ownership to the son.

Acquisition of Possession (Arts. 531 – 538)

How is possession acquired?

Art. 531. Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the

exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the
proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.

Possession is acquired by:

- Material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right. This will include the
concept of constitutum possessorium and traditio brevi manu.
- Subjection to our will. This will include the concept of traditio longa manu and
traditio symbolica. This mode of acquiring possession does not require actual
physical detention or seizure.
- Constructive possession or proper acts and legal formalities such as succession,
donation, execution of public instruments, or through possession by a sheriff by
virtue of a court order.
What is Constitutum Possessorium?
- It is a mode of delivery whereby the person in possession of the property as an
owner will now possess the property in some capacity such as a lessee or a
depositary.
What is Traditio Brevi Manu?
- It is a mode of delivery whereby the person in possession of the property not as
an owner will now possess the property as an owner.
What is Traditio Longa Manu?
- Delivery by pointing.

Essential Requirements for Possession:

(a) Corpus - the thing physically detained

(b) Animus - intent to possess whether evidenced expressly or impliedly

Note: Possession is not acquired in law in the absence of intent to possess it although there is
physical holding of the thing.

Doctrine of Constructive Possession:

The doctrine of constructive possession applies when the possession is under title calling
for the whole. As a rule, the possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract under a claim
of ownership of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse
possession of another.

Stated otherwise, the actual possession of part of the property is deemed to extend to the
whole because possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his
feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession.

Requisites for Doctrine of Constructive Possession

1. The alleged possessor must be in actual possession of a portion or part of the
property;
 2. He is claiming ownership of the whole area;
3. The remainder of the area must not be in the adverse possession of another person;
and
4. The area claimed must be reasonable.
This is not gained by mere nominal claim. Mere planting of a sign or symbol
of possession cannot justify claim of dominion over an immense tract of land.
Its application is relative, depending on the size of the land with reference to
the portion actually possessed by the claimant.

In a case decided by the supreme court, it was noted that mere fact of declaring
uncultivated land for taxation

Who may acquire possession?

Art. 532. Possession may be acquired by the same person who is to enjoy it, by
his legal representative, by his agent, or by any person without any power
whatever: but in the last case, the possession shall not be considered as
acquired until the person in whose name the act of possession was executed
has ratified the same, without prejudice to the juridical consequences of
negotiorum gestio in a proper case.

In the same way that possession may be exercised by the owner or holder either personally
or through an agent, its acquisition may likewise be made personally by the person who is
to enjoy it or through his agent or legal representative. It may even be acquired by any
person, for and on behalf of the person who is to enjoy it, even in the absence of any
authority from the latter.

The agent referred in this provision must be someone authorized to acquire possession by
the person who is to enjoy it. Acquiring possession not for himself but for his principal. If
not authorized, but acquired it in representation of the principal, the principal may ratify it.
Acquisition of Possession from the Viewpoint of Who Possesses and Essential
Requisites:

(a) Personal Acquisition

(i) Intent to possess
(ii) Capacity to possess
(iii) Object must be capable of being possessed
(b) Authorized Person
(i) Intent to possess for principal (agent or legal representative)
(ii) Authority or capacity to possess (for another)
(iii) Principal has intent and capacity to possess
(c) Through an Unauthorized Person
(i) Intent to possess for another
(ii) Capacity of principal to possess
(iii) Ratification by principal

ARTICLE 533. The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the

heir without interruption and from the moment of death of the decedent, in case the
inheritance is accepted. One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never
to have possessed the same.

❖ When is an heir considered in possession of inherited property?

- The heir is considered to possess the property from the moment of death of the
decedent, if he accepts his inheritance. There is no interruption in the possession
from the decedent to the accepting heir.
- If he validly renounces his inheritance, he is deemed to have never possessed the
same.
- Note that in the absence of any indication to the contrary, an heir is deemed to
have accepted his inheritance.
- Note that even if in the meantime, an administrator is in actual possession of an
estate, the heir is still deemed to possess the same. The heir is considered to be a
 possessor in the concept of an owner, while the administrator is considered a
holder.
❖ Examples:
1. A died on January 1, 2018, leaving X, Y, and Z as compulsory heirs. On January 25,
2018, X, Y and Z accepted the inheritance. When did X possess the inheritance?
- X is deemed to possess the inheritance from the death of the decedent A without
interruption. Thus, X is deemed to possess the property from January 1, 2018.

2. Suppose Z renounces his share on January 25, 2018. Is Z in possession of the

property from January 1, 2018, until January 25, 2018?
- No, Z is deemed to not have possessed the property at all. One who validly
renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same.

❖ Note also: Art. 1138: In the computation of time necessary for prescription, the
present possessor may complete the period necessary for prescription by tacking
his possession to that of his grantor or predecessor-in-interest.
❖ In relation to prescription, the possession of the decedent in good faith, is computed
with the possession of the heir who must also be in good faith. Thus, it is relevant to
know that their possession is considered to be without interruption. (If the
possession is interrupted, it will not be counted in favor of prescription)
❖ But note that this is applicable if both parties are in good faith or both in bad faith. If
the predecessor is in bad faith and the successor is in good faith, the rule is a bit
different.

ARTICLE 534. One who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the consequences
of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is shown that he was aware of the
flaws affecting it; but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him
except from the date of the death of the decedent.
If possession of property is effected by way of succession, whether testate or intestate, such
possession is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption from the moment of the
death of the decedent but only if the heir accepts the inheritance.

If the heir, on the other hand, validly renounces the inheritance he will be deemed never to
have possessed the same even if he is in actual physical possession of the property.

The foregoing rule especially finds application in the acquisition of property through
prescription.

Let us take this example: “A” had been in open, peaceful and adverse possession of a parcel
of land formed through accretion on the land owned by “X” for an uninterrupted period of
twenty-eight years under claim of ownership. Upon his death, this property was included in
the proceedings for the settlement of the estate of “A” and placed under the administration
of “B,” one of A’s two heirs who continued to cultivate the subject property.

Assuming that the settlement proceedings lasted four years, during which “B” validly
renounced his inheritance while “C” (the other heir) accepted the inheritance, the former
shall be deemed never to have possessed the property while the latter shall be deemed its
possessor from the moment of the death of A, even if he was not in actual physical
possession of the property from the time of “A’s” death up to his acceptance of the
inheritance. Further, such transfer of possession from “A” to “C” is deemed continuous and
uninterrupted. Hence, “C” will acquire ownership over the property through prescription
upon his acceptance of the inheritance since the period required for extraordinary
prescription is thirty years.

❖ Is possession in bad faith inherited by an heir?

- No. One who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the consequence of the
wrongful possession of the decedent.
 - The existence of bad faith on the part of one possessor does not prejudice his
successors-in-interest. The rule in this jurisdiction is that only personal
knowledge of the flaw in one’s title or mode of acquisition can make him a
possessor in bad faith, for bad faith is not transmissible from one person to
another, not even to an heir.

- The reason for the above-quoted article is that bad faith is personal and
intransmissible. Its effects must, therefore, be suffered only by the person who
acted in bad faith; his heir should not be saddled with such consequences.

- The heir shall be considered a possessor in good faith because good faith is
always presumed. However, the effects of possession in good faith shall not
benefit the heir except from the date of death of the decedent

When does an heir suffer the consequence of wrongful possession by the decedent?

- If the heir is aware of the flaws affecting the possession of the decedent. If the
heir was also in bad faith.
❖ If the predecessor is a possessor in bad faith and the successor is in good faith, when
will the effect of possession in good faith benefit the successor?
- The benefits of possession in good faith will take effect from the death of the
decedent or from the time the heir gains possession of the inheritance.
Obviously, Art. 534 is not applicable if the heir validly renounces the inheritance.
❖ Note that if the predecessor is in good faith and the successor is in good faith then
Art. 534 does not apply. Also, if the predecessor is in good faith and the successor is
in bad faith, Art. 534 does not apply.
❖ In relation to prescription, if the decedent is in bad faith, the 30-year period for
acquisitive prescription is applied. If the heir is in good faith, then the 10-year
period is applied. If the decedent dies in the middle of the period, his possession will
still be counted for the purpose of acquisitive prescription. It will be added to the
possession of the heir. The ratio is 3 is to 1. 3 years of possession in bad faith is
equivalent to 1 year of possession in good faith.
Art. 535. Minors and incapacitated persons may acquire the possession of things; but
they need the assistance of their legal representatives in order to exercise the rights
which from the possession arise in their favor.

Acquisition of Possession by Minors and Incapacitated Persons

Possession by them is allowed only in those matters where they have capacity to act and
NOT possession where juridical acts are imperative like the possession of land the
ownership of which he desires to test in court, for in such case, and similar ones, the
intervention of the legal representatives or guardians is needed.

This pertains to possession over things but not over rights, the modes in acquiring
possession of rights requires capacity to act, hence minors and incapacitated persons
cannot acquire such.

Capacity to act is necessary for the acquisition of possession of rights. It is the power to do
acts with legal effect, acquired upon attainment of the age of majority.

Exception: In donations and successions.

Art. 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long
as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or
a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the
competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.

Forcible Entry Unlawful Detainer

 One is deprived of the physical One illegally withholds possession after the
possession of real property by means of expiration or termination of his right to hold
force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or possession under any contract, express or
stealth implied.

Can possession be acquired through force or intimidation?

- No, provided that there is a possessor who objects to the acquisition of

possession through force or intimidation. In this case, even if the person who
used force is in actual possession of the property, the rightful possessor is still
considered the possessor in fact.

- If there is no objection, then POSSESSION IN FACT is lost. The current possessor

will be considered in possession of the property as a fact. (There is still no legal
possession in this case)

- The law does not countenance the commission of unlawful acts for the purpose
of acquiring possession. Hence, while “material occupation” is a recognized mode
of acquiring possession, the law does not recognize the acquisition of possession
through force, violence or intimidation.

- A person in possession cannot be ejected by force, violence or terror, not even by

the owners, and notwithstanding the actual condition of the title to the property
He must resort to availment of legal remedies as discussed in recovery of
possession. This is premised on the rule that one must not take the law in their
own hands, they should go to the court and seek judicial vindication.

How can one object to the acquisition of possession through force or intimidation?

- File an action for forcible entry within one year from the dispossession. Failure
to file this action within one year will result in the conclusion that there are no
objections to the possession acquired through force or intimidation. Thus, the
possession de facto is lost.
ARTICLE 537.

Acts which are merely tolerated, and those executed clandestinely and without the
knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession. Hence,
possession in these cases cannot ripen into ownership.

● Tolerance- there is a permission

● Clandestinely without knowledge of the possessor of the thing- this is secretly
done without the owner's knowledge. Hence if it was clandestine but with the
knowledge of the possessor it will not fall under this category.
● Violence- exertion of force

Examples:

1. Tolerance: X owned a parcel of land which was occupied by Y and Z. X knowing this,
tolerated their presence and did not compel them to pay rentals. Later a land tax
was imposed, X asked them to pay rentals. Y and Z promised to pay them. After a
period of years Y and Z claims that they have acquired ownership by prescription.
Are they correct?

Answer: No, their stay was merely by tolerance and even recognized the ownership
of X over the property. They cannot now claim that their possession was adverse.

❖ Possession by an illegal settler (squatter) is considered merely tolerated by the

rightful possessor, thus it will not affect the possession of the rightful possessor.

❖ In possession by mere tolerance, there is an implied agreement between the parties

that the tolerated possessor will vacate the premises upon demand by the rightful
possessor.
 ❖ Note that if the rightful possessor makes a demand to vacate to the tolerated
possessor, the possession is thus no longer by mere tolerance. If the person
continues to possess the property, it can affect the possession of the rightful
possessor because it is no longer an act which is merely tolerated by the rightful
possessor.

2. Clandestinely: X and Y are siblings. Y went to Norway to work as a nurse leaving

her box of jewelry at home as she did not want to lose it while working in Norway.
One day, X was cleaning Y's room when she saw the jewelry box with gold earrings.
Since that day she has been using it without the knowledge of her sister. After 9
years, Y came home looking for her gold earrings but X claimed that she has
acquired ownership over the movable because she learned in class that possession
of a movable without any condition is prescribed after 8 years. Is she correct?

Answer: No, the possession of the thing was done secretly and without the
knowledge of the owner.

3. Violence: Y saw Z walking along Session Rd when he threatened Z that if he entered

Z's premises, Y would pepper them with bullets. Is mere threat considered as
"force"?

Answer: Yes, force may be actual or threatened as long as he is prevented from

entering into the premises and is excluded from being the lawful possessor property
implies the exertion of force such property.

❖ What does the phrase “do not affect possession” mean?

- The intruder does not acquire any right to possession. There is no legal
possession
 - The ousted possessor is still the possessor under the law
- He is still entitled to the benefits of prescription
- He is still entitled to the fruits
- He is still entitled as possessor for all purposes favorable to his possession
❖ The intruder cannot acquire the property by prescription.

Article 538. Possession by two different personalities

General Rule: Possession as a fact cannot be in two different personalities.

- Note that this talks about possession in the same capacity and in the same
degree. Because obviously, possession in the concept of an owner and in the
concept of a holder can be recognized as a fact in two different personalities,
even if they are not co-possessors.

Exception: Co-ownership or possession in different degrees.

Example:

The Owner and tenant are both possessors as a fact at the same time. The first as a concept
of owner while the second is in the concept of the holder. Other examples: principal and
agent, owner and administrator.

Q: What is the rule in case of conflict or dispute regarding two different possessors at the
same time?

A: The rules are as follow:

1. Present possessor shall be preferred

2. If both are present possessors, the one longer in possession
3. If both began to possess at the same time, the one who has a title
4. If both has a title, the court will determine
Example:

1. While X was vacationing in Norway, Y occupied her city lot, and when X returned, Y
repelled X by force. Who is the possessor as a fact of my property?

Answer: Although apparently Y is the present possessor, he actually cannot be said to be in

possession since he is possessing it by force. Therefore, since X is the present possessor,
and the intruder is NOT in possession, X will be considered the actual possessor and X's
right is preferred.

2. A began to possess a parcel of land in 2003; B began to do the same in 2007 and
both are actually there. Whose possession will be recognized?

Answer: A’s possession as a fact will be recognized since his possession is longer.

3. On March 15, 2007, both A and B, at exactly the same hour, began to possess my
land, A without any right whatsoever, B as my tenant or because he purchased the
land from me. Who should be preferred?

Answer: B, because he has a title

NOTE: Art. 538 applies to preference of POSSESSION. It talks about legal possession, for as
a matter of fact, two persons can materially possess a thing. Under the law, there can only
be one possessor of a thing, save those exceptions discussed. Preference of Ownership (not
Possession) applies to preference of OWNERSHIP in case of DOUBLE SALE (Art. 1544) or a
DOUBLE DONATION. (Art. 744).

EFFECTS OF POSSESSION

RIGHT TO PROTECTION OF POSSESSORS

Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be
disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means
established by the  laws and the Rules of Court.

A possessor deprived of his possession though forcible entry may within ten days from the
filing of the complaint present a motion to secure from the competent court, in the action for
forcible entry, a  writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to restore him in his  possession.
The court shall decide the motion within thirty days from the filing thereof.

What are the rights of a possessor under Art. 539?

● To be respected in his possession
● To be protected and, should he be disturbed in his possession, to be restored to said
possession through the means established in the Rules of Court.
● To the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction pending an action for
forcible entry.
o Requisites for the Issuance of the Writ: 
1.  in forcible entry cases (in the original court) — file within 10
days from the time the complaint for forcible entry is filed (not from
the time the dispossession took place). (Art. 538). 
2. in ejectment (unlawful detainer cases) in the CFI (RTC) or appellate
court (Court of Appeals) — file within 10 days from the time the
appeal is perfected (that is, from the time the attorneys are notified by
the Court of the perfection of the appeal), only if: 
● the lessee’s appeal is frivolous or dilatory; or 
● the lessor’s appeal is prima facie meritorious. (Art. 1674). 
Pursuant to the afore-quoted provisions, the remedy of writ of preliminary
injunction can be availed of at the start of the action only in cases of forcible
entry for the purpose of restoring the plaintiff in possession but not in
unlawful detainer. However, in cases of unlawful detainer, the issuance of a
preliminary writ of mandatory action can be availed of on appeal to the
higher court in case the appeal of the lessee is frivolous or dilatory or the
appeal of the lessor is prima facie meritorious.

A possessor has a right to be respected in possession and if his right is violated, how will he
protect his right?

Answer: He has a right to restore possession thru legal means

Illustration:
X and Y sued O the landowner of a rice plantation in Tarlac. O was allegedly threatening to
eject them from his land where X and Y are tenants. To prevent their ouster, they asked for a
restraining order pendente lite. This restraining order was granted. Should the court order
be allowed to continue?

Answer: Yes, PD 316 supplements PD 27 providing the prohibition of the ejectment of

tenants until their respective rights as tenant and landowner are determined in accordance
with the rules and regulations implementing PD 27. (Villanueva, et al. vs Court of Appeals,
et al. L-37653, June 28, 1974)

POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF AN OWNER

Art. 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of owner can serve as title
for acquiring dominion.

A possessor merely in the concept of holder cannot acquire property by acquisitive

prescription. This is because here the possession, far from being adverse, recognizes the
right of ownership in others.

Art. 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 be obliged to show or prove it. 

The following are the effects of possession in the concept of owner: 

1. It raises a disputable presumption of ownership (Art. 433, NCC).
2. It creates a disputable presumption that the possessor has just title and he cannot
be obliged to show it. (Art. 541, NCC)
3.  It can ripen into ownership through acquisitive prescription (Art. 540, NCC), subject
to the additional requirements under Article 1118 of the Civil Code.

There are two requirements to raise the disputable presumption of ownership (of a thing
or a right):
1. One must be in possession (actual or constructive)
2. The possession must be in the concept of owner (not mere holder).

A tenant cannot avail himself of the presumption of just title because he is not a possessor
in the concept of owner.

Kinds of titles under the law

1. True and valid title
- There is no flow whatsoever in the title
2. Colorable title
- There is a flaw in the mode of acquisition. It can be that the  seller of a property
is not the true owner of the thing. Note that in this case, there is still a mode of
transfer of ownership.
3. Putative title
- The person believes he is the owner but in fact he is not, there is no mode of
transferring ownership to him. There is no mode of acquisition in reality.
Example: A person believes he inherited a parcel of land where in truth he is not
an heir to that parcel of land.

Differences with Respect to ‘Just Title’ in the Chapter on POSSESSION and ‘Just Title’ in the
Chapter on PRESCRIPTION 
 
IN POSSESSION IN PRESCRIPTION

a) just title here is presumed. (Title refers

either to document or right). (4 Manresa a) just title here must be proved.
245). (The term “show’’ evidently refers to (Title refers either to document or right). (4
a document; while the term “prove’’ refers to Manresa 245). 
the right.)  

b) (just title here means “titulo colorado’’

b) just title here means “titulo verdadero y (merely colorable title although there was a
valido’’ (true and valid title sufficient to mode of transfer- ring ownership, the
transfer ownership).  grantor was NOT the owner). (See Doliendo
v. Biarnesa, 7 Phil. 232). 

A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he
possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it.

Reasons for the Presumption:

a. presumption that one is in good faith
b. inconvenience of carrying proofs of ownership around.

Example: X possesses a key to a car over which he claims ownership, he can be presumed to
be the owner. But such presumption may be overcome by documentary evidence
concerning the car’s ownership

Art. 542. The possession of real property presumes that of the movables therein, so long as it is
not shown or proved that they should be excluded.

Illustration:
If I possess a house (real property), it is presumed that I also possess the furniture
(personal property) therein.

Applicability of presumption:
a. whether the possessor be in good faith or bad faith
b. whether the possession be in one’s own name or in another’s
c. whether the possession be in the concept of owner or in the concept of holder.

Thus, the lessee of a building is presumed to be the possessor of the movables found
therein, for he who needs them is supposed to have been the one who introduced the
movables into the building.
CO-POSSESSION

Art. 543. Each one of the participants of a thing possessed in common shall be deemed to have
exclusively possessed the part which may be allotted to him upon the division thereof, for the
entire period during which the co-possession lasted. Interruption in the possession of the
whole or a part of a thing possessed in common shall be to the prejudice of all the possessors.
However, in case of civil interruption, the Rules of Court shall apply.

Co-possession: Each one of the co-possessors shall be deemed to have exclusively

possessed the part which may be allotted to him upon the division thereof, for the entire
period during which the co-possession lasted. Interruption in the possession of the whole
or a part of a thing possessed in common shall be to the prejudice of all the possessors.

Illustration:
a. Exclusive Possession by a previous co-owner:
A and B have been co-possessors of a piece of land in Greenhills since 2002. If in
2006, there is a partition, A is deemed to have possessed exclusively the portion
given him, not since 2002, but since 2006. (This is useful in case of acquisition by
prescription.)

b. Interruption in the possession of the WHOLE of a thing:

A and B have been co-possessors of a piece of land in Greenhills since 2002. If in
2006, there is a partition, A is deemed to have possessed exclusively the portion
given him, not since 2002, but since 2006. [NOTE: If in the above example A,
B, and C exercised their possession thru a mutual agent X, the same rule applies.]

c. Interruption in Possession of PART of the Thing

A and B have been co-possessors of a piece of land since 2002 through a mutual
agent X. In 2006, X lost possession of one-fifth of the land. A’s and B’s possession
over the remaining four-fifth continues, the interruption being limited only to
one-fifth. [NOTE: If A and B had co-possessed the land in equal shares, the
co-possession of the remaining four-fifths will also be in equal shares. If A and B had
co-possessed in the proportion of 3 to 1, their shares in the remaining four-fifths
would also be in the proportion of 3 to 1. In other words, there is a
PROPORTIONATE losing in the area possessed.]

RIGHT TO FRUITS

Art. 544. A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received before the possession is
legally interrupted.
Natural and industrial fruits are considered received from the time they are gathered or
severed.

Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily and belong to the possessor in good faith in that
proportion.

Art. 545. If at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any natural or industrial fruits,
the possessor shall have a right to a part of the expenses of cultivation, and to a part of the net
harvest, both in proportion to the time of the possession.

The charges shall be divided on the same basis by the two possessors.

The owner of the thing may, should he so desires, give the possessor in good faith the right to
finish the cultivation and gathering of the growing fruits, as an indemnity for his part of the
expenses of cultivation and the net proceeds; the possessor in good faith who for any reason
whatever should refuse to accept this concession, shall lose the right to be indemnified in any
other manner.

  GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH

GATHERED/SEVERED A possessor in good faith is The possessor in bad faith

FRUITS (Art. 544) entitled to the fruits shall reimburse the fruits
received before the possession is received and those which the
legally interrupted. legitimate possessor (or
owner) could have
received. (Art 549)
 
MINUS necessary expenses for
cultivation, gathering, and
harvesting, to prevent the
owner from being unjustly
enriched 
 
PENDING FRUITS (ART. (in proportion to the time of It is not Article 549 that will
545) possession) apply but Article 449 of the
  New Civil Code.
At the option of the owner:  
1. right part of the net No rights at all, not even to
harvest; OR expenses for cultivation
2. give the possessor in good because by accession, all should
faith the right to finish the
belong to the owner, without
cultivation and gathering of
indemnity
 the growing fruits, as an
indemnity for his part of the
expenses of cultivation and
the net proceeds 

Note on Option 2:
The possessor in good faith who
for any reason whatever should
refuse to accept this concession,
shall lose the right to be
indemnified in any other
manner 
 
Expenses and Charges:
• Right to a part of the expenses
of cultivation 
• Right to a part of the charges
 
Improvements Caused Neither the possessor in good faith nor in bad faith is entitled to:
by Nature or Time 1. improvements caused by NATURE (like alluvium, etc.). (See 4
Manresa 275-276).
2. improvements caused by TIME (like the improved flavor of
wine).
 
Examples for Gathered or Severed:
 
• Calma v. Calma 56 Phil. 102 
FACTS: A in good faith possessed land and received the fruits. In 1927, he was
summoned to court. But in the meantime, he collected fruits. Should he return the
value of said fruits? 
 
HELD: He should return only the value of the fruits he had collected after 1927, but
not that prior to said date, since before said date, he was a possessor in good
faith. (See also Alunen v. Tilan, 66 Phil. 463). 
 
• Aquino v. Tañedo 39 Phil. 517 
FACTS: A bought and possessed land from B. Later, they mutually agreed to cancel or
rescind the sale. A then returned the land, and B returned the price. Does A also have
to return the fruits, considering the fact that under Art. 1385, rescission ordinarily
requires return of the fruits? 
 
 HELD: No, since his possession of the land prior to the rescission was in good faith. 
 
• Cleto v. Salvador 11 Phil. 416 
FACTS: A bought land from B who turned out to be not the owner. C, the true owner,
sued A for recovery of the land and the fruits. A in good faith had believed that he had
purchased the land from the owner. 

ISSUE: Should A return the fruits? 

HELD: Yes, but only the fruits received after C had instituted the action and A had
received the summons. 

Examples on Pending fruits:

 
• Right part of the net harvest: 
 
A possessed in good faith a parcel of land. At the time he received judicial summons to
answer a complaint filed by B, the crops still growing had been there for 2 months.
Harvest was made only after 4 more months (For his crop needed a total of 6 months
from planting to harvesting). How should said crops be divided between A and B?
 
ANS.: In the proportion of 2 to 4 (or 1 to 2), 2 for A and 4 for B. This is what the law
means when it says that the net harvest shall be divided in proportion to the time of
possession.

RIGHT TO EXPENSES

Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in
good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.

Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of
retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding
the amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have
acquired by reason thereof.

Art. 547. If the useful improvements can be removed without damage to the principal thing,
the possessor in good faith may remove them, unless the person who recovers the possession
exercises the option under paragraph 2 of the preceding article.

Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in
good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal
thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor in the possession does not prefer to
refund the amount expended.

Art. 549. The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the
legitimate possessor could have received and shall have a right only to the expenses
mentioned in paragraph 1 of Art. 546 and in Art. 443. The expenses incurred in
improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in bad
faith; but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been incurred, provided
that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain
them by paying the value they may have at the time he enters into possession.

  Necessary Expenses Useful Expenses Luxury Expenses

(Gastos Necesarios) 
Definitio They are those without They are those that: Those which add value
n which the thing would • add value to the property  to the thing only for
physically deteriorate • or increase the object’s certain determinate
or be lost; hence, those productivity persons in view of their
• or useful for the
made for whims. They are neither
satisfaction of spiritual and
the preservation of the religious yearnings  essential for
thing  • or give rise to all kinds preservation nor useful
of fruits.  to everybody in general.
Examples 1. Those incurred for • Those incurred for an • Hand paintings on the
cultivation, irrigation system.  wall of a house
production, and • Those incurred for the
upkeep.  erection of a chapel,  • Garage made of
2. Those made for • Those incurred for the platinum
necessary repairs of a construction of additional
house.  rooms in a house, for use as • Water fountains in
kitchen, bathroom, stable, gardens
etc.
• Those incurred for
clearing up land formerly
thickly covered with trees
and shrubbery. 
 

Rights of a Possessor (in the Concept of Owner) on the Expenses

 
  Good Faith Bad Faith
Necessary If in good faith — entitled to:  If in bad faith — entitled ONLY to
Expenses 1) refund  a refund (no right of RETENTION, as
 2) retain premises till paid (Right penalty). (Dir. of Lands v. Abagat, 53
of Retention) Phil. 147) 
   
Useful Expenses Right to REIMBURSEMENT (of The possessor in BAD faith is NOT
either the amount spent or the ENTITLED to any right regarding the
increase in value — “plus value” — useful expenses. 
at OWNER’S OPTION). (Art. 546)  
(See also Arts. 449, 450, 451).
Luxurious In general, no right of refund or In general, no right of refund or
or Ornamental retention but can remove if no retention but can remove if no
Expenses substantial injury is caused. substantial injury is caused.
 
However, owner has OPTION to However, owner has OPTION to
allow: allow:
1. possessor to remove 1. possessor to remove
2. or retain for himself (the 2. or retain for himself (the owner)
owner) the ornament by the ornament by REFUNDING the
REFUNDING the AMOUNT VALUE it has at the TIME owner
SPENT. (Art. 548) ENTERS INTO POSSESSION. (Art.
549).

Art. 550. The costs of litigation over the property shall be borne by every possessor.

Every possessor in this case refers to one in good faith or bad faith, in the concept of owner or
holder, in one’s own name or in that of another. This does not refer to the person who
successfully recovers possession.
Liabilities for Loss or Deterioration of Thing
 

  GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH

BEFORE receipt of Not liable Whether before or after judicial

judicial summons summons, and whether due to
fortuitous event or not, such
possessor is LIABLE.
AFTER judicial a) loss or deterioration thru
summons  fortuitous event — not
  Liable.
 b) thru fraudulent intent or
negligence — liable
[NOTE: The possessor may become
negligent or indifferent for he may
sense that after all, he may lose the
case.].

Art. 551. Improvements caused by nature or time shall always inure to the benefit of the
person who has succeeded in recovering possession.

Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the deterioration or loss of the thing
possessed, except in cases in which it is proved that he has acted with fraudulent intent or
negligence, after the judicial summons.

A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in every case, even if caused by
a fortuitous event.

● Is a possessor in good faith liable for loss or deterioration of the thing possessed?

No. A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the deterioration or loss of
the thing possessed.

● When is a possessor in good faith liable to the loss or deterioration of the thing

possessed?
He is liable in cases in which it is proved that he has acted with fraudulent intent or
negligence, after judicial summons.

● Is a possessor in good faith liable for loss or deterioration if he was negligent before

he received judicial summons?
No. The law says that he shall be liable after he receives judicial summons.

● Is a possessor in good faith liable for the loss or deterioration of the thing possessed
through a fortuitous event, after he received judicial summons?
No. the possessor in good faith is only liable for the loss or deterioration of
the object after judicial summons if it can be proved that he has acted with
fraudulent intent or negligence.

● When is a possessor in bad faith liable for loss or deterioration of the

thing possessed?
He is liable in all cases. A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or
loss in every case, even if caused by a fortuitous event.

Illustrative Examples:
 a. Possessor in good faith burnt a house. Later, he received judicial summons to answer
a complaint filed by the lawful owner. Is the possessor liable? 
ANS.: No, and therefore he need not reimburse anything.

b. Possessor in bad faith occupied a house. Before judicial summons, the house was
destroyed by a fortuitous event. Is the possessor liable?
ANS.: Yes, in view of his bad faith, even if a fortuitous event had caused the loss or
destruction.
 
Art. 553. One who recovers possession shall not be obliged to pay for improvements which
have ceased to exist at the time he takes possession of the thing.

Example: Even there had been an agreement prior to repossession that the improvements
should be paid for.

Art. 554. A present possessor who shows his possession at some previous time, is presumed to
have held possession also during the intermediate period, in the absence of proof to the
contrary.

This simple establishes a presumption under the law that possession is held continuously.
This is a disputable presumption. If a person can show that there was an interruption in the
possession, then the possession is considered interrupted.

In cases of succession by hereditary title, his possession is also deemed continuous and
without any interruption from the moment of the death of the decedent, it applies even
when he did not have actual possession at the time of death of the decedent prior his
acceptance. Presumption of continuity of possession is conclusive and may not be
overthrown by proof to the contrary.

Proof of the contrary

Example: ...that the applicant corporation and its predecessor-in-interest have been in
open, continuous, exclusive, notorious and undisturbed possession of the land, subject of
this application for registration of title…

Proof of the contrary is when there is no tax receipts/ years of unpaid estate tax or other
documents showing the same, no improvements, no local acquaintance, supervised only by
a caretaker, the person applying is not one who actually occupied the said land such that of
a relative, etc

MODES OF LOSING POSSESSION

Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:

(1) By the abandonment of the thing;
(2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or gratuitous title;
(3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing, or because it goes out of commerce;
(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of article 537, if the new possession
has lasted longer than one year. But the real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of
ten years.

Modes of Losing Possession:

A. Thru the Possessor’s Voluntary Will and Intent
a. Abandonment. (Art. 555). 
b. Assignment (onerous or gratuitous conveyance). (Art. 555). 
B. Against the Possessor’s Will 
a. possession of another for more than one year. (Art. 555). 
b. final judgment in favor of another (with a better right).
c. expropriation. 
d. prescription in favor of another. 
e. recovery or reivindication by the legitimate owner or possessor. 
C. Because of the Object
a. destruction or total loss of the thing. (Art. 555).
b. going out of commerce. (Art. 555).
c. escaping from possessor’s control of wild animals. (Art. 560).
 
Modes Definition Requisites
Abandonment Abandonment is the voluntary 1) The abandoner must have
  renunciation of a thing.  been a possessor in the
concept of owner (either an
owner or mere possessor
may respectively abandon
either ownership or pos-
session). (See 4 Manresa
315).

2) The abandoner must have

the capacity to renounce or
to alienate (for
abandonment is the
repudiation of a property
right). (See 4 Manresa
315).

3) There must be a physical

relinquishment of the thing
or object. (Yu v. De Lara,
L-16084, Nov. 30, 1962).
 4) There must be no more
spes recuperandi
(expectation to recover)
and no more animus
revertendi (intent to return
or get back). (U.S. v. Rey, 8
Phil. 500; Yu v. De Lara,
L-16084, Nov. 30, 1962).

Assignment The complete (not merely a limited)  

transmission of ownership rights to
another person, onerously (as when a
thing is sold and delivered) or
gratuitously (as in the case of a
donation).
Possession of 1. If a person is not in possession for  
another more than one year (but less than
10 years), he loses possession de
facto (pos- session as a fact). This
means that he can no longer bring
an action of forcible entry or
unlawful detainer, since the
prescriptive period is one year for
such actions. 

2. If a person loses possession for

more than 10 years, he loses
possession de jure, or the real right
of possession. (See Art. 555). An
accion publiciana or reivindicatoria
is still possible unless prescription,
either ordinary or ex- traordinary,
has set in.

Destruction, • A thing is lost when it perishes, or goes  

Total Loss, and out of commerce, or disappears in
Withdrawal from such a way that its existence is
unknown, or it cannot be recovered.
Commerce
(Art. 1189)

• A thing is lost when it perishes, or goes

out of commerce, or disappears in
such a way that its existence is
 unknown, or it cannot be recovered.
(Art. 1189) 
 
Art. 556. The possession of movables is not deemed lost so long as they remain under the
control of the possessor, even though for the time being he may not know their whereabouts.

Note: if the possessor has no idea at all about the whereabouts of the movable, then
possession is lost. But if he does not know the exact location but knows the general
location of the movable, then possession is not lost.

Art. 557. The possession of immovables and of real rights is not deemed lost or transferred for
purposes of prescription to the prejudice of third persons, except in accordance with the
provisions of the Mortgage Law and the Land Registration laws.

Loss of Immovables with Respect to Third Person The first thought refers to possession of
real property, and other real rights over real property (like easement or usufruct).

There can be no prescription as long as the usufructuary receives the rents from the lease
of the property, or he enjoys the price of the sale of his right. (Tolentino)

Example: I bought a parcel of land (without a Torrens Title) and registered the deed
of sale in the Registry of Property. If I leave my land and another possesses the same
for the required period, I have lost my possession and ownership over the same,
insofar as the occupier is concerned, but not insofar as other people (strangers) are
concerned. For said strangers, relying on the Registry, are still privileged to consider
me possessor and owner.

Art. 558. Acts relating to possession, executed or agreed to by one who possesses a thing
belonging to another as a mere holder to enjoy or keep it, in any character, do not bind or
prejudice the owner, unless he gave said holder express authority to do such acts, or ratifies
them subsequently.

When do acts relating to possession executed by a possessor in the concept of a

holder bind the owner of the property?

If the act is under the authority of the owner OR if the owner subsequently ratifies
the same.

Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to a title.
Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof, may
recover it from the person in possession of the same. If the possessor of a movable lost or
which the owner has been unlawfully deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale,
the owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor.
 Possession of Movable Equivalent to Title
 
Good Faith Bad Faith
General Rule: Possession is equivalent to title. (Hence, the owner if he is never
wants to get it back, must REIMBURSE) equivalent to title
 
XPN: when the owner had LOST it or had been UNLAWFULLY DEPRIVED
of it (as when it has been stolen)
 
XPN to the XPN: the possessor had acquired it in good faith at a “public
sale” (an auction sale, where the public had properly been notified).

Recovery and Non-Recovery of Lost Thing

 
   
Owner MAY RECOVER 1. from possessor in bad faith.
WITHOUT REIMBURSEMENT 2. from possessor in good faith (if owner had LOST the
property or been unlawfully deprived of it) (the
acquisition being from a private person). (Art. 559).
Owner MAY RECOVER but if possessor acquired the object in good faith at a PUBLIC
should REIMBURSE SALE or AUCTION. (Art. 559). 
 
Owner CANNOT RECOVER, even 1. if possessor had acquired it in good faith by purchase
if he offers to REIMBURSE from a merchant’s store, or in fairs, or markets in
(whether the owner had lost or accordance with the Code of Commerce and special
laws. (Art. 1505, Civil Code, see also Arts. 85, 86, Code
been unlawfully deprived)
of Commerce). 
2. if owner “is by his conduct precluded from denying the
seller’s authority to sell.” (ESTOPPEL). (Art. 1505). 
3. if possessor had obtained the goods because he was
an innocent purchaser for value and holder of a
NEGOTIABLE document of title to the goods. (See Art.
1518).

Examples:
 
1. If I am in possession of a Rolls Royce automobile, having acquired it in good faith from the
seller (who thought he owned it), I am considered entitled to said automobile, with
an actual title that can be defeated only by the true owner. The true owner can get the car
back only if he will reimburse me the price I had paid for the car. 
 
NOTE:
1) My title is not that of an absolute owner but one that can be defeated only by the true
owner who gives reimbursement.
2) While I am not yet the absolute owner, my possession may eventually ripen into full
ownership thru acquisitive prescription (4 years in this case for I have GOOD FAITH, and
my just title is given by Art. 559, unlike in the case of REAL PROPERTY, where my just title
must be proved for purposes of prescription). (See Sotto v. Enage, 43 O.G. 5057; Manresa).
Should I acquire ownership by prescription, I cannot be compelled to give up the car’s
ownership, even if a refund is offered to me. (Sotto v. Enage, supra).
3) It is necessary of course that my possession be in the concept of owner (4 Manresa 339),
and that the true owner had not lost the property nor been unlawfully deprived of it. (Art.
559, see also 4 Manresa 339).].
 
2. I purchased in good faith a stolen automobile. The owner now wants to get it back but does
not want to reimburse me the price I had paid. Will the owner prevail? 
 
ANS.: Yes, because although my possession was in good faith, still it is not
equivalent to title for the owner had been unlawfully deprived of his car. Hence, the
owner can get it back without reimbursing me. (See Tuason and Sampedro, Inc. v.
Geminea, [CA] 46 O.G. 1113, Mar., 1950). 
 
3. I purchased in good faith at an auction sale a stolen automobile. Can the owner get it back
without reimbursing me for the price I paid? 
 
ANS.: The owner can get it back, but I should first be refunded the price I paid since
my purchase had been made in good faith, at a public auction or sale. (Art. 559, 2nd
paragraph).

Art. 560. Wild animals are possessed only while they are under one’s control; domesticated or
tamed animals are considered domestic or tame, if they retain the habit of returning to the
premises of the possessor.

There are three kinds of animals: (1) wild, (2) domesticated or tamed, and (3) domestic or
tame.
1.Wild animals- those which are found in their natural freedom, such as wild boars
and lions roaming the forest.

2.Domesticated or tamed animals- are those which were formerly wild, but which
have been subdued and retained the habit of returning to the premises of the
possessor or owner.
3.Domestic or tame-Domestic or tame animals are those which are born or reared
under the control and care of man.

Why classify? Which rule applies to the right to recover.

Wild animals, once they recover their natural freedom or once they are restored to their
original state of being free, they ceased to be under one’s possession

As a consequence, they immediately regain their status of being res nullius and may thus be
acquired by occupation.

However, if the habit of returning does not cease, possession is not immediately lost by the
simple fact that the animals are no longer under the control of the possessor.

In Article 716, the possessor or owner of domesticated animals has a period of twenty (20)
days counted from the occupation by another person within which to reclaim them. After
the expiration of this period, the animals can no longer be recovered from its present
possessor.

Domestic or tame animals are considered personal property. If they are lost, the owners, as
a rule, can recover them from the present possessors without need of indemnifying the
latter. They are not subject to occupation unless there has been abandonment, but they can
be acquired by another person through acquisitive prescription — the period of
prescription being four years if the possessor is in good faith or eight years if the possessor
is in bad faith.

Art. 561. One who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly lost, shall be deemed for all
purposes which may redound to his benefit, to have enjoyed it without interruption.

Applicability of Article only if Beneficial

Art. 561 applies to BOTH possessors in GOOD and in BAD faith, but only if BENEFICIAL to
them. Thus, a possessor in GOOD faith, for the purpose of prescription can make use of this
article. But a possessor in BAD faith is not required to return the fruits which the owner
could have received during the period of interruption, for to impose this duty would
prejudice,not benefit, said possessor. (4 Manresa 356).

Lawful Recovery of Possession that Had Been Unjustly Lost

Example: If on Mar. 1, 2002, I bought a diamond ring, and the ring was subsequently stolen
Apr. 1, 2002 but I was able to lawfully recover it on May 1, 2003, then I am supposed to
have possessed the ring continuously from Mar. 1, 2002 up to now, for all purposes that
may redound to my benefit (as in the case of acquisitive prescription).