-
Vena V. Verga
PROPERTY REVIEWERPROPERTY REVIEWER Midterms, First Semester, Ay
2005Midterms, First Semester, Ay 2005--20062006
Atty. E. RoblesAtty. E. Robles PROPERTYPROPERTY The right and
interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion
of others The role and despotic dominion which one man claims
and exercises over the
external things of the world in total exclusion of the right of
any other individual in the universe
The right to possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of a thing The
free use and enjoyment by a person of all his acquisitions, without
any
control or diminution, save only by the law of the land It means
the thing possessed but it may include the right to use and enjoy
it It is a thing owned, that to which a person has or may have a
legal title It is an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and
protected by the
government, and, in the ordinary sense, indicates the thing
itself, rather than the rights attached to it
It embraces every species of valuable right and interest,
including real and
personal property, easements, franchises, and hereditaments; it
includes money, credits, a debt;
All things are not the subject of property; the sea, the air and
the like cannot
be appropriated, every one may enjoy them, but he has no
exclusive right in them. When things are fully our own, or when all
others are excluded from meddling with them or from interfering
about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who
has the exclusive right, can have any claim either to use them, or
to hinder him from disposing of them as he pleases: so that
property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not
only a right to use those things, but a right to dispose of them,
either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving them away
to any other person without any consideration, or even throwing
them away
Property is also said to be, when it relates to goods and
chattels, ABSOLUTE or QUALIFIED. Absolute property is that which is
our own without any qualification whatever. Qualified property
consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they
have reduced to their own possession, and which are kept subject to
their power; as a deer, a buffalo, and the like, which are his own
while he has possession of them, but as soon as his possession is
lost his property is gone, unless the animals go animo revertendi.
But property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified without
any relation to the nature of the subject-matter, but simply
because more persons than one have an interest in it, or because
the right of property is separated from the possession. A bailee of
goods, though not the owner, has a qualified property in them;
while the owner has the absolute property
Property is lost by the act of man by:
1. Alienation; but in order to do this, the owner must have a
legal capacity to make a contract
2. Voluntary abandonment of the thing; but unless the
abandonment be purely voluntary the title to the property is not
lost; as if things be thrown into the sea to save the ship, the
right is not lost. But even a voluntary abandonment does not
deprive the former owner from taking possession of the thing
abandoned at any time before another takes possession of it
Property is lost by operation of law by:
1. The forced sale, under a lawful process, of the property of a
debtor to satisfy a judgment, sentence, or decree rendered against
them, to compel him to fulfill his obligations
2. Confiscation, or sentence of a criminal court 3. Prescription
4. Civil death 5. Capture by a public enemy
Property is lost by the act of God It is proper to observe that,
in some cases, the moment that the owner loses
his possession, he also loses his property or right in the
thing; animals ferae naturae belong to the owner only while he
retains the possession of
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
them. But, in general, the loss of possession does not impair
the right of property, for the owner may recover it within a
certain time allowed by law
referring to the historical development of the law relating to
chattels, it is said
that possession is prima facie evidence of ownership. The man
with the better right to possession has the property.
CODAL and NOTES:CODAL and NOTES: Art. 414. All things which are
or may be the object of appropriation are considered either:
(1) Immovable or real property; or (2) Movable or personal
property.
Why is it important to distinguish:
The government has a continuous effort to collect taxes against
real properties
In the field of criminal law, the distinction is also important.
Example: the definition of theft: Article 308, the taking of
personal property. If you got real property, then the crime is not
theft. Usurpation of property can take place only with respect to
real property.
In procedure, actions concerning real property are brought to
the RTC where the property or any part thereof lies. Actions
involving personal property are brought in the court were the
defendant or any of its defendants reside or may be found or where
the plaintiffs reside at the election of the plaintiff.
In recovering properties: real property an action for forcible
entry and unlawful
detainer. Personal property provisional remedy of replevin or
manual
delivery of personal property. In prescription the determination
of the prescriptive period depends on
whether the property is real or personal. Real properties has a
longer period.
Generally, transactions involving real property must be recorded
in the registry or property to affect third persons. This is not
required with respect to personal property except in the case of
chattel mortgage.
In contract, real properties must be in writing, Art. 1358, the
necessary solemnities and forms must be observed.
Real properties: must be in writing and in a public instrument
and registered so that it will be known to the whole world.
Art. 415. The following are immovable property:
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds
adhered to the soil;
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached
to the land or form an integral part of an immovable;
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in
such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking
the material or deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or
ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the
immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach
them permanently to the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended
by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be
carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend
directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or
breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed
them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently
attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the
animals in these places are included;
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof
forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant;
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by
their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river,
lake, or coast;
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real
rights over immovable property. (334a)
Note: 1. Those in paragraph 1 and 2 and immovable BY NATURE. 2.
Those in paragraph 3 are immovable BY INCORPORATION 3. Those in
paragraph 4-9 are immovable BY DESTINATION/INTENTION 4. those in
paragraph 10 are immovable BY ANALOGY, classified by express
provision of law its regarded as limited to the immovable
property. Art. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of
private ownership.
1. Public dominion or property owned by the State (or its
practical subdivision) in its public or sovereign capacity.
2. Private ownership or property owned by: (a) the state in its
private capacity, and is known as patrimonial
property (b) private persons.
What distinguishes public domain from the rest?
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
Property of public domain is: 1. outside the commerce of man 2.
cannot be a lawful object of a contract 3. cannot be a subject of
debt 4. cannot be subject of attachment or sold at public auction
5. cannot be burdened with easement 6. cannot be registered.
Other properties of the state: Patrimonial property 1. Public
dominion: land used by the state for public use 2. That which the
state has in its private character: patrimonial property
more specifically: properties of the state owned by it in its
private or proprietary capacity (e.g. cemeteries, slaughter
houses).
Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities, and municipalities
is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property.
(ex. zoos, parks etc.). PUBLIC LAND VS. PRIVATE LAND PUBLIC LAND
Public dominion; cannot be sold PATRIMONIAL LAND A part of public
dominion but not public land;
can be sold DOCTRINES AND CASEDOCTRINES AND CASE
DIGESTSDIGESTS::
SOULARD VS. US 7 L.Ed. 938 (1830)
Doctrine: Property as applied to lands, comprehends every
species of title inchoate or complete. It is supposed to embrace
those rights, which lie in contract; those, which are executory; as
well as those which are executed. Facts: Titles to lands in
Lousiana were incomplete when the state was transferred to the
United States. The practice under the Old Spanish government was
for the deputy governor to place individuals in possession of small
tracts of lands and thereafter protect that possession without
further proceeding. If there are any intrusions in these
possessions, a complaint is filed to the supervising officers who
adjudicated the disputes. These titles remained incomplete under
the new colonial government. It was said that the new government
lacked funds thus, it remunerated services rendered by the citizens
with land instead of money. Appellants filed the complaints in
order to try the validity of their claims to certain lands in
Missouri, which they claimed to have been granted to them under the
former Spanish government. The court, in resolving the present case
defined property in lands as used in the Louisiana Treaty. Issue:
What is property as defined in the Louisiana Treaty? Decision: The
court was not able to form judgment. Nonetheless, it defined the
term property as follows: Property as applied to lands, comprehends
every species of title inchoate or complete. It is supposed to
embrace those rights, which lie in contract; those, which are
executory; as well as those which are executed.
In this respect the relation of the inhabitants to their
government is not changed. The new government takes the place of
that which has passed away.
STEVENS VS. STATE 35 Am. Dec. 72
Doctrine: Property is defined as consisting in the free use,
enjoyment and disposition by a person of all his acquisitions.
Without control or diminution save only by the laws of the land.
The right of every person to acquire, possess and protect property
cannot be questioned. Facts: Plaintiffs were taxed one thousand
dollars for keeping two billiard tables for a period of six months.
They now question the validity of such enactment stating that the
billiard table should be viewed as a property which under the law,
every person has an indefeasible right of acquiring, possessing and
protecting. The billiard table should have been taxed only
according to its value. Issue: W/N the enactment prohibiting a
person from making or keeping a billiard table without first paying
tax for the privilege of keeping it is unconstitutional. Decision:
Property is defined as consisting in the free use, enjoyment and
disposition by a person of all his acquisitions. Without control or
diminution save only by the laws of the land. The right of every
person to acquire, possess and protect property cannot be
questioned. However, the said property may only be taxed based on
its proportionate value. The state is only allowed to regulate the
use of property as far as they may be necessary to prevent the
destruction or injury of the property of others or a detriment to
the public morals or public good. The state may not prevent the
plaintiffs from keeping the billiard table through imposing taxes.
The right to keep any species of property cannot by the legislature
be converted into and taxed as a privilege.
MAYO VS. CARRINGTON
2 Am. Dec. 580 (17910 Facts: Before Joseph Mayo died, he devised
several schemes in his last will and testament whereby he said that
he wanted to emancipate the slaves who served him during his
lifetime. He instructed the executioner of his estate to endeavor
to procure an act of emancipation from the legislature, but if the
attempt failed due to fact that the law does not permit
emancipation of slaves, he said that he wanted his slaves and ALL
HIS PROPERTIES to go to his legatees. Paul Carington took
administration of the testators estate and sold the personality
(except for the slaves) and applied the proceeds towards payment of
Josephs debts. The personal estate was exhausted by the debts.
After which, the administrators hired the slaves and applied the
profits to pay the unsatisfied creditors. Only after doing this did
Carrington procured an act from the Legislative Assembly in order
to emancipate the slaves. William Mayo, the heir at law of the
testator questions the acts of Carrington saying that the whole
device must be contingent upon the failure of the attempt to
emancipate the slaves for if that did not succeed, the slaves as
well as the estate
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
shall go to Josephs legatees. If it succeeded, no disposition
should be made. Since the slaves were not emancipated, the
undevised lands should all go William Mayo as heir at law of the
testator. Key to this case is how the word property is used in the
will of the testator. Issue: W/N the term property should only mean
those things that were disposed. Decision: The word property in the
will includes both real and personal. The word property comprehends
everything that had not been disposed of. Generally speaking, it is
applicable to land as to personalities. There was nothing in the
will to confine it to personal estate. Including the slaves in the
device did not have the effect of limiting it to personal property.
It was a bequest of the residue of the property followed by an
enumeration of personal articles. But the parts of the devise are
kept separate and distinct, the slaves being mentioned first and
the other property afterwards, Thus, leaving the word property
unrestrained and to operate according to the usual sense of the
term. Since the will provides that should the executioners fail to
emancipate the slaves, said slave and ALL HIS PROPERTY would be
given to certain relations. Therefore, the absolute disposition of
all his properties was a correct move on the part of Carington.
WELLS FARGO VS. MAYOR AND ALDERMEN OF JERSEY CITY 207 Fed. 871
(1913)
Facts: In conducting its business, the plaintiff used a pier on
the Jersey City side of the Hudson river, a terminal of the Erie
railroad, as receiving and distributing point. At this terminal, it
received not only the merchandise arriving on the trains but such
as was collected in its metropolitan district, embracing city of
New York. In making such collections and distributions, the
plaintiff employed a large number of men, horses and wagons. Mob
interference with the passage of such wagons and horses in the
streets of Jersey City from October 26 to November 14, 1910
occasioned the business losses, which the jury verdict fixed at
$43,000. Whether the business losses sustained by the plaintiff may
be recovered would depend on the construction of the New jersey act
entitled An act to prevent routs, riots and tumultuous assemblies
Section 5 of such Ac provides that whenever any building or other
real or personal property shall be destroyed or injured, in
consequence of any mob or riot, the city in which the same shall
occur, or if not in a city, then the county in which such property
was situated shall be held liable to an action for the damages
sustained by reason thereof. It is the contention of the plaintiff
that it is the location of the mob violence and not the property
destroyed or injured which is the deciding factor of the citys
liability. Issue: W/N it is the place where the mob originated or
operated and not the property destroyed which is the deciding
factor of the citys liability. Decision: It is the property
destroyed which is the deciding factor of the citys liability.
However, such liability for destruction or injury of property by
rioters should be limited to tangible properties. The word property
as ordinarily used means the thing possessed, but it may include
the right to use and enjoy it. The more comprehensive meaning is
presumed to have been interceded by the use of such a word in a
constitution. Property embraces business and as such has a situs,
which ordinarily is at the place of the domicile of the owner,
unless an
express statutory declaration or unmistakable implication fixes
it at the place where the tangible property from the use of which
it arises is situated.
MARABELLA VS. REYES
12 Phil 1 (1908) Doctrine: The delivery of title deeds of the
property is equivalent in its effects to a delivery of the property
itself.
WALKER VS. OLD COLONY AND NEWPORT RAILWAY COMPANY 4 Am. Rep 509
(1869)
Facts: Petitioner Walker owned half an acre of land with a house
and other building, of which, around 1/15 was taken by the Railway
company for construction of a railroad. Walker claimed for damages
because of depreciation of his estate due to the proximity of the
railroad to his estate and its incidental effects. Issue: W/N
damages should be awarded W/N incidental effects may be a basis for
damages Decision: The owner is entitled to compensation for the
injury to the value of his whole lot as is occasioned by the
appropriation of a part of it. One of the valuable incidents of the
ownership of land is the right and power of exclusion. Compensation
for the abridgement of this right should be included in the
damages. However, incidental effects which are the natural and
inevitable consequences of the exercise of the legislative
franchise which cannot be made a ground for the recovery if damages
as for a private injury.
EATON vs. BOSTON 12 Am. Rep. 147 (1871)
Facts: Boston Concord and Montreal Road built their road across
plaintiffs farms. They already paid damages that were assessed thus
said corporations were already released from all claim of damages
on account of the construction of the road across said farms.
However, as the corporation constructed their project road, they
made a deep cut through a ridge of land which protected the meadow
farms from freshets or a sudden rise in the level of stream or a
flooding which was caused by heavy rains or the rapid melting of
snow and ice. As a consequence, waters if the barriers frequently
overflowed and carried sand, debris etc to plaintiffs land. Issue:
W/N plaintiffs can still recover damages considering one has
already been paid. Decision: Yes. Land is not property but the
subject of property. The term property although commonly applied to
a tract of land or chattel, may mean only the rights of the owner
in relation to it. It denotes a right over a determinate thing.
Property is the right of any person to possess, enjoy, and dispose
of a thing. So partial, but substantial restriction of the right of
the user, although it may not annihilate all of his rights, may as
well be considered as taking of his
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
property. If the public can take part of a mans property without
compensation, they can, by successive taking of the different
parts, soon acquire the whole.
PRITCHARD vs. NORTON 27 L.Ed. 104 (1882)
Doctrine: A vested right of action is property in the same sense
in which tangible things are property, and is equally protected
against arbitrary interference. Whether it springs from contract or
from the principles of common law, it is not competent for the
legislature to take it away. A vested right to an existing defense
is equally protected, saving only those which are based on
informalities not affecting substantial right, which do not touch
the substance of the contract and are not based on equity and
justice. OWNERSHIPOWNERSHIP That independent right of a person to
the exclusive enjoyment and control of
a thing including it disposition and recovery subject only to
the restrictions established by law and the rights of others
Limitations upon the right of ownership
1. General limitations imposed by the State for its benefit such
as the power of eminent domain, the police power, and the power of
taxation
2. Specific limitations imposed y law, such as legal servitudes
3. Limitations imposed by the party transmitting the property
either by
contract or by will 4. Limitation imposed by the owner himself
such as voluntary servitudes,
mortgages, lease rights and pledges 5. Inherent limitations
arising from conflict with other rights, such as those
caused by contiguity of property. the right by which a thing
belongs to someone in particular, to the exclusion
of all others the entirety of the powers of use and disposal
allowed by law. It implies that
there is some power of disposal; but the owner of a thing is not
necessarily the person at a given time has the whole power of use
and disposal. Ownership is broader than possession
CODAL and NOTES:CODAL and NOTES: Art. 427. Ownership may be
exercised over things or rights Rights of a person over his
property:
To enjoy the property To dispose of the property
To recover the property from any holder or possessor To exclude
any person from the enjoyment an disposal of the property To
enclose or fence his land or tenement To just compensation in case
of eminent domain To construct any works or make any plantation or
excavation on the
surface or subsurface or his land To the ownership of all or
part of hidden treasures found in his property To the ownership of
all accessions to his property.
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a
thing, without other limitations than those established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against the holder and
possessor of the thing in order to recover it.
Traditional attributes or elements of ownership: 1. The right to
enjoy, which includes:
a. jus utendi, or the right to use; b. jus fruendi, or the right
to enjoy the fruits; c. jus abutendi, or the right to consume the
thing by its use,
2. The right to dispose (jus disponendi), or the right to
alienate or destroy the property.
The right to vindicate (jus vindicandi) or the right of action
available to the owner to recover the property against the holder
or possessor. Remedies available to owners:
1. Replevin for movable properties under Rule 60 of the Revised
Rules of Court that is available upon the concurrence of the
following requisites:
a. affidavit of entitled ownership b. wrongful detainer of
adverse party c. no seizure or attachment have been issued d. the
actual market value of the property.
2. Remedies for immovables a. action for forcible entry (Rule
90) in case of use of force
without the consent of the owner b. an action for unlawful
detainer -- in cases where the property
was unlawfully withheld after termination of contract; entry was
lawful because there was a consent from the owner but since the
property was withheld, there is unlawful detainer.
c. accion publiciana real action for recovery after a year of
possession
d. accion reivindicatoria real action for recovery of ownership
after 10 years.
Article 429: the owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the
right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal
thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be
reasonable necessary to repel an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
Note: This is the Doctrine Of Self Help where the law has given
a person a right to counter force with force. Requisites:
1. the force must be employed by the owner or lawful possessor
of the property
2. there must be an actual or threatened physical invasion or
usurpation of the property.
3. the invasion or usurpation must be unlawful and 4. the force
employed must be reasonably necessary to repeal the invasion
or usurpation. Art. 432. The owner of a thing has no right to
prohibit the interference of another with the same, if the
interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the
threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from
the interference, is much greater. The owner may demand from the
person benefited indemnity for the damage to him. Note: Difference
between Article 429 and Article 432:
1. The law states that you can use force to repel a person from
unlawfully possession your property. But once possession has been
taken away from the owner, he can no longer use force; he must use
lawful means to recover his property.
2. the law will never sanction force as a means of acquiring
property. Force is only used in repelling a person. Lawful means
must b used in recovering the property.
3. In using Article 432, there should e no malice, law allows
the owner to protect his property and if necessary, he may destroy
the property of others so long as the damage done is less than what
should have been of not so for the acts (PRINCIPLE OF NECESSITY).
Civil code allows compensation for property that was destroyed in
order to prevent further damage.
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises
disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to
judicial process for the recovery of the property. Note: since this
is only a presumption, it is not conclusive and can still be
challenged. The possessor can enjoy ownership until it has been
proven that he is not the owner. The real owner cannot use for or
violence to regain the property because no one is justified to take
the law into his own hands. This presumption is not true with
things that are personal where ownership is conclusively presumed.
If the thing needs a title, mere possession does not establish
ownership.
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by
competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of
just compensation.
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts
shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his
possession. (349a)
Art. 436. When any property is condemned or seized by competent
authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner
thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show
that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. OWNER More
superior than possessor because
1. The owner reports to no one; possessor reports to the owner
2. Possession is effectively equivalent to ownership.
He who has dominion of a thing, real or personal, corporeal or
incorporeal,
which he has a right to enjoy and do with as he pleases, even to
spoil or destroy it, as far as the law permits, unless he be
prevented by some agreement or covenant which restrains his
right
Although there can be but one absolute owner of a thing, there
may be a
qualified ownership of the same thing by many. Thus, a bailor
has the general ownership of the thing bailed, the bailee has the
special ownership. The right of the absolute owner is more extended
than that of him who has only a qualified ownership: as, for
example, the use of the thing. Thus, the absolute owner of an
estate, that is, an owner in fee, may at the wood, demolish the
buildings, build new ones, and dig wherever he may deem proper for
minerals, stone, plaster and similar things, which would be
considered waste and would not be allowed in a qualified owner of
the estate, as a lessee or a tenant for life
The owner continues to have the same right although he performs
no acts of
ownership or be disabled from performing them, and although
another performs such acts without the knowledge or against the
will of the owner. But the owner may lose his right in a thing if
he permits it to remain in the possession of a third person for a
sufficient time to enable the latter to acquire title to it by
prescription or under the statute of limitations
CASES AND DOCTRINESCASES AND DOCTRINES PHILIPPINE
CASESPHILIPPINE CASES TAYAG vs. YUSECO Facts: Joaquin Yuseco, an
attorney leased the land of Maria Lim who was the latters client.
To show her appreciation, Maria Lim offered to Joaquin and his wife
to build a house in Hacienda San Lazaro so long as she (Maria)
lives. Joaquin constructed a big house on the land thinking he had
a righ to do so in view of the intended donation. Just before Maria
died, she sold the land to her daughter Belen Tayag who in turn
demanded from Yuseco either to remove his house or pay a rent. When
Yuseco failed to pay, Tayag brought an action in the court.
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
Issues:
W/N there was an intended donation. W/N Yuseco should pay the
rent. W/N Yuseco is a builder in good faith of the house W/N the
case should prosper.
Decision:
1. No, there was no public instrument executed between Yuseco
and Lim, thus the formalities of a donation was not complied
with.
2. Yuseco should pay the rent from the time Lim sold the
property to Tayag because insofar as Lim was concerned, the lease
was gratuitous.
3. Yes, Yuseco was a builder in good faith since he though that
the land was already his by donation.
4. Yes, for non-payment of rental, without prejudice to the
determination of the right of each, particularly regarding the
building.
REPUBLIC VS. LARA 50 OG 5778 (1954)
Facts: Lara owned a parcel of land, which the Japanese took over
during the occupation and over which they built a concrete
airstrip, runway and taxiway. After the war, the government decided
to expropriate the lands. Issue: W/N the government should pay the
improvements to the owner. Decision: No, because said improvements
really belong to the republic, which as victor in the last war
should be considered as the legitimate successor to the properties,
owned by the Japanese in the Philippines. It is wrong to say that
the Japanese army was a possessor in bad faith, and that therefore
constructions by them belong to the owner of the land by industrial
accession. This is because in the first place, the rule of Civil
Code concerning industrial accession are not designed to regulate
relations between private persons and a sovereign belligerent, nor
intended to apply to construction made exclusively for prosecuting
a war, when military necessity is temporarily paramount. In the
second place, international law allows the temporary use by the
enemy occupant of private land and buildings for all kinds of
purposes demanded by necessities of war. The owner of the land
expropriated by the government is entitled to recover legal
interest on the amount awarded from the time the state takes
possession of the land.
MIRANDA vs. FADULLON 51 OG 5778
Facts: In the year 1939, one Lucio Tio was the owner of a parcel
of land at the Banilad Estate in Cebu. Lucio executed a power of
attorney in favor of Esteban Fadullon. Such was annotated at the
back of the transfer certificate title. On the same date, the deed
of mortgage in favor of the Cebu Mutual Building and Loan
Association was also annotated on the same certificate of title. In
1946, on the strength of said power of attorney, Fadullon sold the
property to spouses Dionisio and Clemencia Segarra with right to
repurchase within 30 days. Fadullon failed to
repurchased. 10 days after the expiration of the period,
Segarras filed a petition for the consolidation of their ownership
and registered said petition with the register of deeds. Lucio
filed a complaint with the CFI asking it to annul the sale. It
turned out that the Segarras introduced improvements in the
property. They are now contending that they were possessors in good
faith of the lot in question and that they introduced improvements
also in good faith thus, if the plaintiff would not pay the amount
of the improvements which was pegged at Php 5,3000.00, they should
be allowed to buy the land. Issue: W/N the possessor were in good
faith. Decision: The spouses were in bad faith for they very well
knew of the encumbrance in the TCT. They should have at least
inquired as to the authority of Fadullon to sell the property. They
did not even require Fadullon to show his power of attorney. This
together with the fact that there was a very short period of time
for repurchase are indications that there might be collusion
between the Segerras and Fadullon. A builder in good faith my no be
required to pay rentals. He has a right to retain the land on which
he has built in good faith until he is reimbursed the expenses
incurred by him. Possibly, he might be required to pay rental only
when the owner of the land choose not to appropriate the
improvement and required the builder in good faith to pay the land.
But in case the builder is unwilling or unable to buy the land, the
landowner decides to leave things as they are and assumes the
relation of lessor and lessee, then they might go to court to fix
the amount of the rental if they cannot agree on it. The very fact
that the courts sentenced the defendants to pay rentals is an
indication, even proof that they were considered possessors and
builders in bad faith, or at least that they were not possessors
and builders in good faith.
SAN DIEGO VS. MONTESA G.R. L-177985 29 September 1962
Facts: Complainant Jose, Maria and Urbano de la Cruz filed a
complaint to recover their land plus damages against Gil and Rufina
San Diego. The said land was sold by the mother of the complainants
to the San Diegos. The lower court held that the parcel of land
belonged to the plaintiffs through hereditary succession and that
the defendants built a house on said land in good faith. The court
however voided the sale on the ground that that the mother had no
right to the land. However, it upheld the defense of the defendants
as builder in good faith. It ordered the San Diegos vacate the land
while the complainants were ordered to pay Php 3,500 within 30 days
after the decision becomes final. Issue: W/N the decision of the
court that the San Diegos should vacate the land is valid.
Decision: the right of retention granted to possessor in good faith
by Article 546 of the civil code, which is applicable to builder in
good faith (Article 448) is merely a security for their right to be
indemnified for the improvements made on the land. Hence they are
not bound to pay the rent during the period of retention. Although
normally the landowner has the option to either appropriate the
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
improvement or to sell the land to the possessor in good faith,
this option is no longer open to the landowners in the present
case, because the judgment in question, which limits them to the
first alternative, is already final. US CASESUS CASES
TURNER VS. CROSS 18 S.W. 578
Doctrine: The owner is said to be the one who has dominion of a
thing, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, which he has
aright to enjoy and to do with as he pleases, even to spoil or
destroy it. so far as the law permits unless he be prevented by
some agreement or covenant which restrains his rights. Both words
convey the idea of property in the thing is right of the person who
is said to be the proprietor or owner.
FLEMMING vs. SHERWOOD 139 N.W. 101
Doctrine: The owner of the thing is said to be one who has a
dominion over a thing real or personal. Corporeal or incorporeal,
which he has a right to enjoy and to do as he pleases, even to
spoil or destroy it as far as the law permit.
JHOHSON VS. CROOKSHANKS 29 Pac. 78
Doctrine: In an action to recover the possession of real
property, the plaintiff must have legal estate in the property,
which it is sought to be recovered, and a present right of
possession thereof and this complaint must tender an issue as to
title. The word owner is a person who has dominion over a thing,
which he may use as he pleases except a restrained by aw or by an
agreement. ACCESSIONACCESSION ACCESSIO Modes of acquiring
things:
Accession continua (original mode) the right pertaining to the
owner of a thing over everything which is incorporated or attached
thereto either naturally or artificially.
Accession discreta (derivative mode) right pertaining to the
owner of a thing over everything which is produced thereby
An increase or addition; that which lies next to a thing, and is
supplementary
and necessary to the principal thing; that which arises or is
produced from the principal thing
A manner of acquiring the property in a thing which becomes
united with that which a person already possesses
In the Roman Law, accessio is of six kinds:
1. that which assigns to the owner of a thing its products, as
the fruit of trees, the young of animals
2. that which makes a man the owner of a thing which is made of
anothers property, upon payment of the value of the material
taken
3. that which gives the owner of law new land formed by gradual
deposit
4. that which gives the owner of a thing the property in what is
added to it by way of adoring or completing it
5. that which gives islands formed in a stream to the owner of
the adjacent lands on either side
6. that which gives a person the property in things added to his
own so that they cannot be separated without damage
CODAL and NOTESCODAL and NOTES: Art. 440. The ownership of
property gives the right by accession to everything which is
produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto,
either naturally or artificially. the right to all which ones own
property produces, whether that property be
movable or immovable, and the right to that which is united to
it by accessory, either naturally or artificially
Art. 441. To the owner belongs: (1) The natural fruits; (2) The
industrial fruits; (3) The civil fruits. Note: Applying this
provision and the principle of partus sequitur ventrem, the
offspring belongs to the owner of the demale. Every building is an
accession to the ground upon which it stands. The owner
of the land is the owner of the building (General Rule).
Exception to this rule: Owner of the land upon which a building is
constructed shall no be considered as the principle. Thus the owner
of the building shall be the owner of the land. If a man hath
raised a building upon his own ground with the material of
another, or if a man shall have built with his own materials
upon the ground of another, in either case, the edifice becomes the
property of him to whom the ground belongs. And the owner of the
ground, if liable at all is only liable to the owner of the
materials for the value of them
When the fruits of the property will not belong to the owner
(exception to the rule that the owner of thing the natural,
industrial and civil fruits provided in Article 441):
1. A possessor of a property in good faith may claim the fruits
of such property;
2. A usufructuary is entitled to the fruits of the property held
in usufruct;
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
3. If the thing is in the possession of an antichretic creditor
in which case such creditor is entitled to the fruits with the
obligation of applying them to the interest and principal.
4. If the thing is leased, in which case, the lessee is entitled
to the fruits of the thing, although such lessee must pay the owner
rentals which are in the nature of civil fruits.
Basic principles or characteristics that underlie accession
continua:
1. That to the owner of a thing belongs the extension or
increase of such thing
2. Accessory follows the principal. 3. The nature of the
incorporation is in such a way that separation
would injure or destroy either or both of the properties
incorporated
4. No punitive liability shall be suffered by the person who
acts in good faith; the person who acts in bad faith is punished
by, among others, requiring him to pay damages
Spanish Civil Code
1. If the materials of one person are united by labor to the
materials of another, so as to form a single article, the property
in the joint product is, in the absence of any agreement, in the
owner of the principal part of the materials by accession
2. Where, by agreement, an article is manufactured for another,
the property in the article, while making and when finished, vests
in him who furnished the whole or the principal part of the
materials; and the maker, if he did not furnish the same, has
simply a lien upon the article for his pay
American Courts
1. The increase of an animal, as a general thing, belongs to the
owner of the dam or mother
2. If, by the labor of one man, the property of another has been
converted into a thing of different species, so that its identity
is destroyed, the original owner can only recover the value of the
property in its unconverted state, and the article itself will
belong to the person who wrought the conversion, if he wrought it
believing the material to be his own.
3. If there be a mere change of form or value, which does not
destroy the identity of the materials, the original owner may still
reclaim them or recover their value as thus improved
4. If the change has been wrought by a willful trespasser, or by
one who knew that the materials were not his own; in such case,
however radical the change may have been, the owner may reclaim
them, or recover their value in their new shape
ADJUNCTION the attachment or union permanently of a thing
belonging to one person to
that belonging to another. This union can be caused by
INCLUSION, as if one mans diamond be set in anothers ring; by
SOLDERING, as if ones guard be soldered or anothers sword; by
SEWING, as by employing the silk
of one to make the coat of another; by CONSTRUCTION, as by
building on anothers land; by WRITING, as when one writes on
anothers parchment; or by PAINTING, as when one paints a picture on
anothers canvass
in these cases, as a general rule, the accessory follows the
principal; hence
those things which are attached to the things of another become
the property of the latter. The only exception which the civilians
made was in the case of a picture, which, although an accession,
drew to itself the canvas, on account of the importance which was
attached to it
APPURTENANCES things belonging to another thing as principal,
and which pass as incident to
the principal thing the thing appurtenant must be of an inferior
nature to the thing to which it is
appurtenant to constitute an appurtenance, there must exist a
propriety of relation
between the principal or dominant subject and the accessory or
adjunct, which is to be ascertained by considering whether they so
agree in nature or quality as to be capable of union without
incongruity
thus, if a house and land be conveyed, everything passes which
is necessary
to the full enjoyment thereof and which is in use as incident or
appurtenant thereto
appurtenance of a ship include whatever is on board a ship for
the objects of
the voyage and adventure in which she is engaged, belonging to
her owner the word appurtenances in a deed will not usually pass
any corporeal real
property, but only incorporeal easements or rights and
privileges OUTLINE OF ACCESSION INDUSTRIALOUTLINE OF ACCESSION
INDUSTRIAL A owner of the land B Builder, planter or sower C owner
of materials Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon,
personally or through another, plantings, constructions or works
with the materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if he
acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of
damages. The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove
them only in case he can do so without injury to the work
constructed, or without the plantings, constructions or works being
destroyed. However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner
of the materials may remove them in any event, with a right to be
indemnified for damages. RULES:
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
1. ABC are all in good faith AB has a right of appropriation C
has (1) a right of reimbursement and (2) limited right of removal.
2. AB are in good faith; C is in good faith AB has no right C has:
(1) right of reimbursement plus damages and (2) absolute
right of removal plus damages.
Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been
built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to
appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment
of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige
the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the
one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter
cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more
than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay
reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The
parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of
disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. RULES:
1. If ABC are in good faith A has (1) right of appropriation and
(2) right to demand price of land or
rent BC has (1) right of reimbursement or necessary and useful
expenses and
(2) right of retention if A elects first option 2. A is passive
while B is in good faith A can appropriate but should reimburse
necessary/useful expenses
to possessor in good faith and good faith B can remove ornaments
provided that there is no injury.
A can oblige B to pay price of the land or rent but B cannot be
obliged when land is considerably higher than building, etc. He
shall pay rent instead when owner does not appropriate
(indemnity)
3. A is passive while B is in bad faith A need not pay (there is
no unjust enrichment for such applies only
to quasi contractu) 4. The only by which B can get his materials
for value is when A and B
are in bad faith 5. If both A and C are in good faith, only B in
bad faith, Article 455 shall
apply
Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third
person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall
answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the
one who made use of them has no property with which to pay.
This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the
right granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants
or seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter
may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and
labor.
RULE: 1. A in good or bad faith; B in good faith or bad faith; C
in good faith.
(a) determine rights of A and B (b) then C can hold B primarily
liable and A subsidiarily liable
except under Art. 450. 2. A in good or bad faith; B in good
faith or bad faith; C in bad faith.
(a) Determine rights of A and B (b) Apply 449-452 to C since B
shall be considered agent of C.
Note: Art. 448 is not applicable in the following instances:
1. In cases of co-ownership since in co-ownership, ownership is
vested in two or more persons. It is revolting to reprive a
co-owner of his property.
2. In cases of usufruct 3. In cases of lease 4. In case a person
who owns a house and lot sells only the lot but not
the house 5. In relations between private persons and sovereign
belligerent 6. Constructions made exclusively for prosecuting a
war, when military
necessity is temporarily paramount 7. When the parties concerned
(landowner builder, etc), agree on
terms and conditions not contemplated by the said article, it
not being mandatory
An action to quiet title of real property not in the possession
of another does not prescribe. If the real property is in the
possession of another, it may be acquired by acquisitive
prescription
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land
of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to
indemnity.
Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been
built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of
the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to
replace things in their former condition at the expense of the
person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or
planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper
rent.
Rules: 1. A is passive and B is in bad faith A may (1) demand
demolition/removal so that there is restoration at
the expense of B or (2) compel payment of price of kind from B
(builder and planter), rent from B (sower).
A entitled to damages from B 2. A is bad faith; B is good faith,
447 will apply.
Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the
landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or
sower.
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled
to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the
land.
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
Rules:
1. A is in good faith; BC is in bad faith A has (1) right of
appropriation plus damages, (b) right to demand
removal or demolition plus damages, (3) right to demand price of
land or rent plus damages
B and C have no right except reimbursement of necessary expenses
for preservation of the land.
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the
person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also
on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the
other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith.
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the
landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without
opposition on his part. Rule: A, B and C are in Bad Faith, Article
448 will apply.
Art. 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder,
planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of article
447 shall apply. (n)
Rule: A in bad faith; BC in good faith, Art. 447 will apply.
ALLUVION that increase of the earth on a bank of a river, or on the
shore of the sea, by
the force of the water, or by a current or by waves, or by its
recession in a navigable lake, which is so gradual that no one can
judge how much is added at each moment of time. Conversely, where
land is submerged by the gradual advance of the sea, the sovereign
acquires the title to the part thereby covered and it ceases to
belong to the former owner
Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers
belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects
of the current of the waters. Note: This being regarded as the
equivalent for the loss he may sustain from the encroachment of the
waters upon his land AVULSION Accretion which takes place whenever
the current of a river, creek, torrent or
lake segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of
land and trans it to another estate.
Art. 459. Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent
segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and
transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the
segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided
that he removes the same within two years.
Art. 458. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do
not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the
waters, or lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods.
alluvion differs from avulsion in that the latter is sudden and
perceptible CASES AND DOCTRINESCASES AND DOCTRINES
BERNARDO VS. BATACLAN 66 Phil. 590
Issue: W/N the indemnity should be paid by a vendee who brought
a land from the owner who alienated said land after improvements
were made. Doctrine: Although the obligation to pay the required
indemnity may be directed by the builder, planter, or sower against
the transferee, ultimately, the obligation must be borne by the
party who has profited from the accession. The reason for this is
that in purchases of land and the improvements thereon, the
purchaser may have already paid the vendor the value of the
improvements and it would be unjust to make him pay again to the
builder, planter and sower. Consequently, it the purchaser had
already paid to the vendor the value of the improvement, the latter
must pay the required indemnity, if not, the former must be the one
who shall pay.
MENDOZA vs. DE GUZMAN 52 Phil 164
Issue: W/N the owner of the land is entitled with the natural,
industrial and civil fruits during a period of retention. Doctrine:
The natural industrial and civil fruits pertain to the owner of the
land and not to the builder, planter or sower. The reason is
obvious. Only a possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits
of the property as provided in Articles 544 and 545. In the case at
bar, the builder, sower and planter is no longer in good faith; he
is already aware of the fact that he is in possession of said
property improperly or wrongfully. CO-OWNERSHIP.
SAN DIEGO vs. MONTEZA 6 SCRA 207
Issue: W/N builder, planter or sower be compelled to pay
rentals.
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
Doctrine: The period of retention, the builder, planter or sower
cannot be compelled to pay rentals. It is evident that the right of
retention is a security for the payment of the required indemnity.
To require him to pay rentals during such period would result in
the impairment of said security.
FILIPINAS COLLEGES INC. VS, TIMBANG 106 Phil 247
Issue: W/N the owner automatically becomes the owner of the
improvements if the builder in good faith fails to pay after the
former compelled latter by virtue of Art. 448. W/N there is remedy
left to the owner in case he does not automatically become the
owner of the land. Doctrine: Under Article 448 and 546 of the Civil
Code, the owner of the land has the right to choose between
appropriating the building by reimbursing the builder the value
thereof or compelling the builder to pay for his land. Even this
second right cannot be exercised if the value of the land s
considerable more than that of the building. In addition to the
right of the builder to be paid the value of his improvement,
Article 546 gives him the corollary right of retention of the
property until he is indemnified by the owner of the land. There is
nothing in the language of these articles which would justify the
conclusion that upon failure of the builder to pay the value of the
land, when such is demanded by the landowner, the latter becomes
the automatically the owner of the improvement. The Code is silent
however on the other remedies available to the owner. In Miranda
vs. Fadullan, the court said that the parties may decided to leave
things as they are and assume the relation of lessor and lessee,
and should they disagree as to the amount of rental, them they can
g to the court to have the amount fixed. Likewise, in Ignacio vs.
Hilario, the SC ruled that the owner if the land is entitled to
have the improvement removed when after having chosen to sell his
land the builder in good faith fails to pay for the same. In
Bernardo vs. Bataclan, the SC approved the sale of the land and
improvement in a public auction, applying the proceeds thereof
first to the payment of the value of the land and the excess, if
any to be delivered to the owner of the house in payment
thereof.
GRANA and TORALBA vs. CA 109 Phil 260
Facts: The petitioner brought an action for recovery of a lot
after the private respondents unknowingly built a portion of their
house on a lot owned by the petitioner. The trial court, after
trial ordered the former to vacate the land and to pay a monthly
rental of Php 10.00 from the filing of the complaint. Issue: W/N
the order of the court is correct. Decision: The respondents are in
good faith, consequently under, Article 448 of the Civil Code, the
petitioners have the choice of either appropriating the portion of
the house of respondents which is on their land upon payment of the
proper indemnity, or selling to the respondent that part of the
land on which the
improvements stands. The second option is more practical
however, the parties must come into agreement as to the condition
of the lease and should they fail to do so, the court shall fix the
same (Article 448). Thus, the order for rental payment is
erroneous. A builder in good faith has a right to retain the land
on which he has built in good faith until he is reimbursed the
expenses incurred by him.
BAKER vs. MERSCH 45 NW 685
Doctrine: The doctrine of accession of property applies where
one has willfully, as a trespasser, taken the property of another,
and altered it, in substance or form, by his own labor. Where
however, the appropriation was through a mistake of fact, and labor
has been expended upon it which converts it into something very
different from the original article, and greatly increases its
value, and the value of the original is very insignificant in
comparison with the new product, the title of the property in its
converted form will pass to the person who has thus expended labor;
the original owner to recover the value of the original article.
Art. 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to different owners
are, without bad faith, united in such a way that they form a
single object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the
accessory, indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value.
MERRIT VS. JOHNSON 5 AM Dec (1811)
Doctrine: The principle of law when the materials of another are
united to material of mine, by my labor or by labor of another and
mine are the principal materials, and those of the other are only
accessory, I acquire the right of property in the whole by right of
accession. The accessory follows the principal and not the other
way around.
FOSTER vs. WARNER 14 NW 673
Doctrine: Whatever he might have had against Farmer as a
consequence of his wrongful intermixture or confusion of the
shingles, in case there was any, to seize and hold the required
quantity out of the common mass, he had no such right against the
plaintiffs, who according to this record were innocent purchasers
from Farmer because it was due to the defendants trust in farmer
that he was enabled to deal with them as he did and obtain money as
through he was the sole and absolute proprietor of the
property.
Art. 470. Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made the
incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose the thing incorporated
and shall have the obligation to indemnify the owner of the
principal thing for the damages he may have suffered.
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the
principal thing, the owner of the accessory thing shall have a
right to choose between the former paying him its value or that the
thing belonging to him be separated, even though for this purpose
it be necessary to destroy the principal thing; and in both cases,
furthermore, there shall be indemnity for damages.
WILLIARD vs. RICE 45 AM DEC 226
Doctrine: A mortgagor entrusted with the possession of goods has
the duty to keep them separately and preserve the mortgagors
property. His intermixing them purposely or through want of proper
care, was a violation of his duty, and is unlawful. As his own
could not be distinguished, he could take none of the mixed parcel
without taking the plaintiffs which he had no right to do; and as
against his consignees, the plaintiff must hold the whole. QUIETING
OF TITLEQUIETING OF TITLE The best way to quiet a title is through
a good title An action may be brought to remove the clout or to
quiet a title provided the
following requisites are present: 1. The plaintiff must have a
legal or equitable title to, or interest in, the real
property which is the subject matter of the action (Article 477,
CC) 2. There must be cloud on the title (Article 476) 3. Such cloud
must be due to some instrument, record, claim, encumbrance
or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in
truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable and is prejudicial
to the plaintiffs title
4. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he
may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses
that may have redounded to the plaintiffs benefit.
WATERCODEWATERCODE Underlying Principles of the Water Code
All waters belong to the state. Such cannot be subject to
acquisitive prescription The state may allow the use or development
of waters by administrative
concession The utilization, exploitation, development,
conversion and protection of water
resources shall be subject to the control and regulation of the
government through the National Water resource council
Preference in the use and development of waters shall consider
current usages and be responsive to the changing needs of the
country (Article 3, PD 1067, Watercode)
Definition of Water in the Watercode Water refers to water under
the ground, water above the ground, water in the atmosphere, and
the water of the sea within the territorial jurisdiction (Art 4, PD
1067, Watercode)
Article 58 of the Watercode already superceded article 461:
Article 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural
change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners
whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the
area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed
shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value
thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area
occupied by the new bed. Article 58. (Watercode) When a river or
stream suddenly changes its course to traverse private lands, the
owners or the affected lands may not compel the government to
restore the river to its former bed; nor can they restrain the
government from taking steps to revert the river or stream to its
former course. The owners of the lands thus affected are not
entitled to compensation for any damage sustained thereby. However,
the former owners of the new bed shall be the owners of the
abandoned bed proportion to the area lost by each. The owners of
the affected lands may undertake to return the river or stream to
its old bed at their own expense; provided that a permit therefore
s secured from the Secretary of Public Works, Transportation and
Communication and work pertaining thereto are commenced within two
years from the changes in the course of the river or stream. The
following provisions has a counterpart on the water code: Art. 457.
To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of the waters Watercode version (Article 51) The banks or
rovers and streams and the shore of the seas and lakes throughout
their entire length and within a zone of three meters in urban
areas and 20 meters in agricultural areas and 40 meters in forest
areas, along their margins, are subject to the easement of public
us in the interest of recreation, navigation, flotage, fishing and
salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer
than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, flotage, fishing
or salvage or to build structures of any kind. Art. 502. The
following are of public dominion:
(1) Rivers and their natural beds;
(2) Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks
running in their natural beds and the beds themselves;
(3) Waters rising continuously or intermittently on lands of
public dominion;
(4) Lakes and lagoons formed by Nature on public lands, and
their beds;
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
(5) Rain waters running through ravines or sand beds, which are
also of public dominion;
(6) Subterranean waters on public lands;
(7) Waters found within the zone of operation of public works,
even if constructed by a contractor;
(8) Waters rising continuously or intermittently on lands
belonging to private persons, to the State, to a province, or to a
city or a municipality from the moment they leave such lands;
(9) The waste waters of fountains, sewers and public
establishments.
Watercode version (Article 5) The following belong to the
state:
1. Rivers and their natural beds; 2. Continuous or intermittent
waters of springs and brooks
running in their natural beds and the bed themselves; 3. Natural
lakes and lagoons; 4. All other categories of surface waters such
as water flowing
over lands, water form rainfall whether natural or artificial,
and water from agriculture runoff, seepage and drainage
5. Atmospheric water 6. Subterranean or ground water; and 7. Sea
water
GENERAL RULE: No person including the government
instrumentalities or government owned or controlled corporation
shall appropriate water without a water right, which shall be
evidence by a document known as a water permit. However, any person
may appropriate or use natural bodies of water without securing a
water permit.
Logs floating in the river may be legal provided they are not
placed there permanently (there is a need for permit if the logs
are to be placed in the river permanently) Article 60 of the
watercode provides that the rafting of logs and other objects on
rivers and lakes which are floatable may be controlled or
prohibited during designated season of the year with due regard to
the needs of irrigation and domestic water supply and other uses of
water. COCO--OWNERSHIPOWNERSHIP How co-ownership created:
by contracts
by law as in conjugal partnership by will by chance as in
confusion or commotion
Requisites of co-ownership:
1. plurality of subjects 2. unity of object (absence of
division) 3. proportionate shares of such subjects
Kinds of co-ownership:
1. ordinary (where right of partition exists) 2. compulsory (no
right of partition; e.g. party wall)
Art. 490. Whenever the different stories of a house belong to
different owners, if the titles of ownership do not specify the
terms under which they should contribute to the necessary expenses
and there exists no agreement on the subject, the following rules
shall be observed:
(1) The main and party walls, the roof and the other things used
in common, shall be preserved at the expense of all the owners in
proportion to the value of the story belonging to each;
(2) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor of
his story; the floor of the entrance, front door, common yard and
sanitary works common to all, shall be maintained at the expense of
all the owners pro rata;
(3) The stairs from the entrance to the first story shall be
maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata, with the
exception of the owner of the ground floor; the stairs from the
first to the second story shall be preserved at the expense of all,
except the owner of the ground floor and the owner of the first
story; and so on successively.
Note: a party wall cannot be divided while two parties remain
co-owners of said wall. The only solution is to buy said party
wall, and destroy it. You may not destroy a party wall unless its
yours.
3. legal (created by law) 4. contractual (created by contract)
5. universal (over universal things; e.g. co-heirs in inheritance)
6. singular or particular (over a particular or specific thing) 7.
incidental (exists independent of the will of the parties)
Characteristics of co-ownership:
the co-owners share in the property, although definite in amount
or size, is not physically and actually identified, it being merely
an ideal;
a co-owners share is absolutely owned by him and he may dispose
of it as he pleases
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
in regard to the use, enjoyment and preservation of the
property, the co-owners observe mutual respect
Ordinary partnership distinguished from co-ownership:
DISTINCTION CO-OWNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP As to creation Created by law,
contract,
succession, fortuitous event
Created by the agreement of parties/contract
As to personality
No juridical personality There is a juridical personality
distinct from the partners.
Duration There is limitation No limitation upon duration of
partnership
Power of the members
No power to represent the co-ownership unless there is an
agreement to that effect
Partners has the power to represent the partners, unless there
is a stipulation to the contrary
Disposition of shares
A co-owner may ordinarily sell to a third person his interest in
the co-ownership without the consent of the other co-owners which
in turn would make a buyer a co-owner
Transfer of shares to a third person do not make that person a
partner automatically unless agreed upon by the partners
Division of profits
Division of benefits is fixed by law
Division of profits and losses may be subject to agreement of
the parties
Effect of death Death of a co-owner does not dissolve the
co-ownership
Death of a partner dissolves the partnership
Joint tenancy and co-ownership distinguished:
1. Disability (like minority) in joint tenancy inures to the
benefit of the others which is not true in co-ownership
2. In case of death of a joint tenant, the survivor is
subrogated to the rights of the decedent which is not true in
co-ownership where the death of a co-owner transfers his share to
his heirs
3. A joint tenant may transfer or dispose of his share only with
the consent of the others, but no such consent is required in
co-ownership.
Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as
in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective
interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be
void.
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership
shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.
Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common,
provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is
intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the
co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according
to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by
agreement, express or implied. The law does not specify the nature
of consent to alternative in a property owned
in common. It may be made expressly or impliedly If a co-owner
makes an unauthorized alteration, the other co-owners may
demand
that the alteration be removed at the expense of the guilty
co-owner Distinguish act of administration (resolution of
majority)
vs. Act of alienation (consent of all) In co-ownership, each
co-owner is owner of the whole, and over the whole he
exercises rights of dominion, but at the same time he is owner
of a part which is truly abstract, because until division is
effected such part is not physically determined
Each co-owner has the right to sell, assign or dispose of hi
share or part unless
personal rights are involved and, therefore, he may lose said
rights to others, as by prescription thereof by a co-owner
A co-owner may, irrevocably, dispose of his right to the
undivided share he is
entitled to, subject only to the outcome of final partition,
insofar as all the co-owners are concerned. Each co-owner, or his
successor, is entitled to his lawful share only
It is elemental that until a partition is made, among the
co-owners, no one of
them can claim any particular portion of an undivided property
as exclusively his own
The remedy of a co-owner who desires that his share be
adjudicated to him in
severalty is by an action for partition (does not prescribe and
may be passed to the heir)
Benefits derived from property owned in common are divided in
proportion to co-
owners interests; if it (property) suffers diminution, they
shall have to share, too, the charges in accordance with their
interests
A co-owner cannot legally dispose of a specific portion of the
property owned in
common without the consent and approval of the other co-owners,
his right being only to sell and convey his undivided share
Shares of co-owners are equal in the absence of stipulation
Generally, co-heir cannot acquire community property be
prescription. Art 494. No prescription shall run in favor of a
co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
However, there are instances when a co-owner can acquire through
prescription the share of another but the requirements are strict.
There must be open and hostile repudiation of ownership. Possessor
held by a co-owner is generally not adverse against his co-owners
Co-owners are not privies inter se as to property owned in common
(see 14 Am
Jur, p.169) Facts of the Am Jur case: There were four siblings,
A, B, C and D. A filed an action against D for annulment of sale of
properties. He won. B and C cannot benefit from the case for they
are merely fence sitters. Since co-owners are not privies inter se,
B and C must file their own cases in order to benefit from the
judgment. Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in
ejectment. Co-owners are not privies for if there is benefit t one,
it does not necessarily
mean that it shall also redound to other co-owners. Rule on
privities: Under the rules on agency, when an agency does a
thing,
the principal will necessarily be bound. It is clear from the
judgment in the case at car that the such judgment
rendered in a suit affecting the common property, brought by
only one of the co-owners is not binding upon the associates nor
can be invoked by the,/ Thus, where a suit set a side a decedents
deed conveying all his property to a single son is brought only by
one of the disinherited children, such judgment declaring the deed
to be void cannot be availed of in a subsequent partition
proceeding by any of the others.
Co-owner may redeem community property sold under pacto de retro
by another
co-owner See Oclarit vs. Oclarit (CA - G.R. No. 16066-R,
11-17-58), where adverse
possession of community property by co-owner was proven Art.
494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership.
Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing
owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned. One cannot be
compelled to remain as co-owner Co-owner with bigger share has
preferential right of pre-emption (see Robel vs.
Robel, CA G.R. No. 20934-R, Sept. 27,1958) CASES and
DOCTRINESCASES and DOCTRINES
PARDELL VS. BARTOLOME 23 Phil 450
Facts: A house was co-owned by the sister (A) and the husband
(B) of the other sister (C). The upper floor was used as a dwelling
and the lower was available for rent by stores. B used one of the
rooms in the upper floor and another room in the lower flower as an
office.
Issue: W/N the co-owner sister A can demand rent from B and C.
Decision: (1) No rent for the upper floor can be demanded for the C
is merely exercising her right as co-owner without prejudicing A
who, had she wanted, could have also lived in another room of said
floor, and who therefore could not have been prejudiced. (2) Half
rental may be demanded for the use of the lower floor. Rent could
be asked because others could have rented the same, but only half
should be given since B was a co-owner. TREESTREES Part of the real
estate while growing and before they are recovered from the
freehold; but as soon as they are cut down, they are personal
property trees belong to the owner of the land where they grow.
When the roots grow into
the adjoining land, the owner of such land may lawfully claim a
right to hold the tree in common with the owner of the land where
it was planted; but if the branches only overshadow the adjoining
land, and the roots do not enter it, the tree wholly belongs to the
owner of the estate where the roots grow. When the tree grows
directly on the boundary line, so that the line passes through it,
it is the property of both owners, whether it be marked as a
boundary or not
the owner of trees in a highway is held to have the right of
action for the necessary trimming of them for the installation of
an electric lighting system for the municipality
where the branches of a tree growing upon the land of one person
overhang that of his neighbor, one may, without notice, cut off so
much of a tree as overhangs his land, if he can do so without going
upon the land of the owner, and such owner cannot acquire, either
by prescription or the statute of limitations, the right to
overhang his neighbors land; and where a tree stands on the
dividing line between adjoining lots, either owner may cut off
branches or roots extending over his own land.
the owner of land on which a partially decayed tree is permitted
to stand in such position that by falling it would damage the house
of another, is liable for damages caused by its falling after he
has been notified that it was dangerous
WATERSWATERS water when reduced to possession is property, and
it may be bought and sold and
have a market value; but it must be in actual possession,
subject to control and management. When stored in an artificial
appliance or water-course, it is personal property
the most essential element of an appropriation of water is
application to a beneficial use
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005
a riparian owner may construct a dam. It is not per se an
improper structure as to lower owners. But a dam may not be
constructed of such a height that it will back the water upon the
lands of others
the doctrine of the CIVIL LAW is that the owner of the upper or
dominant estate has a natural easement or servitude in the lower or
servient one, to discharge all waters falling or accumulating upon
his land, which is higher, upon the land of the servient owner, as
in a state of nature; and that such natural flow or passage of the
water cannot be interrupted or prevented by the servient owner to
the detriment or injury of the estate of the dominant or any
proprietor
the doctrine of the COMMON LAW is that there exists no such
natural easement or servitude in favor of the superior or higher
ground or fields as to mere surface water, or such as falls or
accumulates by rain or the melting of snow, and that the proprietor
of the inferior or lower tenement or estate may, if he choose,
lawfully obstruct or hinder the natural flow of such water thereon,
and in so doing may turn the same back upon or over the lands of
other proprietors, without liability for injuries ensuing from such
obstruction or diversion
water is a movable, wandering thing, and must of necessity
continue common by the law of nature
no one has any property in the water itself, except in that
particular portion which he might have abstracted from the stream
and of which he had the possession
flowing water is publici juris, not in the sense that it is
bonum vacans, to which the first occupant may acquire an exclusive
right, but that it is public and common in this sense only, that
none can have any property in the water itself, except in the
particular portion which he may choose to abstract from the stream
and take into his possession, and that during the time of his
possession only. But each proprietor of the adjacent land has the
right to the usufruct of the stream which flows through it.
US VS. INV CO
156 Fed. 123 Doctrine: The US as the owner of the lands, though
having appropriated them or reserved them already has the right to
the continued flow of the waters of such stream so fast as may be
necessary for the beneficial use of the government property, and
the Blackfeet Indian reservation is in a sense government property.
Though Conrad, the respondent, could rightfully divert water from
the streams and the construction of the dam. the right of the
riparian owner in the water is usufructuary, and consists not
so
much in the fluid itself as in its uses. The law does not
recognize a riparian property right in the corpus of the water; the
riparian proprietor does not own the water. He has the right only
to enjoy the advantage of a responsible use of the stream as it
flows through the land, subject to a like right belonging to all
other riparian proprietors
SIDEWALKSSIDEWALKS that part of a public street or highway
designed for the use of pedestrians
generally the sidewalk is included with the gutters and roadway
in the general term street
it is the duty of a municipal corporation to keep the sidewalk,
as well as the roadbed of the street, in repair
a municipal corporation which permits a walk to be used for
public travel is liable for an injury wrongfully caused by an
obstruction thereon, no matter how the walk came into existence
a property owner who negligently maintains a pipe from the roof
of a building so as to discharge water upon the sidewalk, will be
liable for injury to pedestrians caused thereby
depressions in a sidewalk, into which water flows from adjoining
property, may constitute a defect, for injury by which the
municipality may be liable
even if the city were negligent, a person injured by a defective
sidewalk cannot recover unless he show himself in the exercise of
due care and if the accident occurred by reason of the plaintiffs
being intoxicated, he cannot recover
where the sidewalk is manifestly dangerous, it is the duty of
the pedestrian to walk on the roadway, and he cannot recover for an
injury which his own observation, prudently exercised, ought to
have enabled him to avoid
the temporary obstruction of a street or sidewalk for the
purpose of loading or unloading vehicles may be justified on the
ground of necessity
during building operations, materials may be placed in the
street one injured by defective conditions of the street who has no
knowledge of the
defect, cannot be charged with contributory negligence
POSSESSIONPOSSESSION The detention or enjoyment of a thing which a
man holds by himself, or by
another who keeps or exercises it in his name (Louisiana
American Jurisprudence);
It expresses the closest relation that can exist between a
corporeal thing and the
person who possesses it, implying an actual, physical contact,
as by sitting or standing upon a thing
Actual possession exists where the thing is in the immediate
occupancy of the
party. Actual possession must be coupled with intent to possess.
Constructive possession is that which exists in contemplation or
eyes of law,
without actual personal occupation It is the occupation of
anything with the intention of exercising the rights of
ownership in respect to it Natural possession implies mere
physical contact with a thing, apart from all
attempted exercise of rights with respect to it. The lower
degree of control was known to the later civilians as detentio
In order to complete a possession, two things are required: that
there be an
occupation, apprehension, or taking; that the taking be with an
intent to possess (anmus possidendi): hence, persons have no legal
wills, as children
-
Property Midterms Reviewer with Senors Notes
Vena V. Verga August 2005