Você está na página 1de 15

1

Bishop of Cebu v. Mangabon (1906)


Facts:
1. Mariano Mangabons parents and brothers had been in possession of a tract
of land in the district of Ermita until about the year 1877 (possession of at
least 20 years)
2. In 1878, they vacated the land by virtue of an order from the municipality
which declared that the land was included within the zone of materiales
Fuertes (fire zone) and the houses in which they lived upon were of light
materials
3. They vacated said land without objection
4. After the land was vacated, Parish Priests of Ermita Church fenced the land
and cleaned the same without any objection on the part of anyone
5. In 1898, Mangabons entered upon the land in question and built thereon a
nipa house and continued to live thereon without the consent of the parish
priest of Ermita Church or the Bishop of Cebu
6. Roman Catholic Church, represented by the Bishop of Cebu filed an action
to recover possession of said land; amended complaint for said land to be
declared property of the Catholic Church and that it be restored to the latter
- Property had belonged to the Catholic Church from time immemorial
- Mangabons occupied apart thereof by the mere tolerance of the
Catholic Church
7. Mangabon:
- Claims to be the owner of the land by inheritance
- He was the legal owner when he was unlawfully ejected by the Bishop of
Cebu in 1879
- He had a right to re-enter; time for prescription has not yet expired since
he was ejected

TC: Ruled in favor of Bishop of Cebu and ordered Mangabons to vacate the
land
- Occupation of the land by Mangabon in the year 1898 was illegal
- If he thought he had a right to the land, he should have filed an action
with the court to recover possession and not proceed to occupy the
property
- If the Church acceded and voluntarily returned possession and
acknowledged that the property belonged to him, there would be no
necessity to file an action; but in this case, Church has objected to the
occupation which necessitates a filing of a proper action
- The possession held by Mangabon in 1898 cannot be added to the
former possession which was interrupted in 1877 by the order of the
municipality
o Art. 466 CC: a person who recovers possession according to law,
which is improperly lost, is considered as having enjoyed it without
interruption for all the purposes which may redound to his benefit
o It cannot be ascertained that the possession enjoyed by Mangabon
was improperly lost
o It has been lost by virtue of an order from the municipality and no
proof to the contrary was presented
2

o Impossible to say what was the nature of possession prior to the year
1877whether it was held by right or by the mere tolerance of the
Church
Acts of violence or secrecy or mere tolerance cannot affect the
right of possession
Mangabon could not have lawfully done what he didto re-enter
upon the land from which he had been ejected by the city of
Manila
If the order of the municipality was illegal, and that the
possession was improperly lost, Mangabon SHOULD HAVE
REQUESTED ASSISTANCE OF COMPETENT AUTHORITIES
to recover it PLENARY ACTION
8. Mangabon filed petition. SC resolved a relevant question of law in deciding
whether to affirm the decision of the TC availability of accion publiciana

Issue:
Whether after the promulgation of the CC, accion publiciana, which had for its
object the recovery of possession in a plenary action before an action for the
recovery of title could be instituted, still existed (YES)

Ratio:
- Available actions:
o Accion interdictal recovery of physical possession within 1 year from
the time of dispossession
o Accion publiciana better right to such possession brought after lapse
of 1 year
o Recovery of ownership action for title
- If Mangabon instituted the accion interdictal within 1 year from
dispossession, he would have been restored to the possession
o 1 year period has already elapsed so such summary action for
possession could not be maintained
- But even after the lapse of 1 year, he still could have brought an accion
publiciana involved the right to possess; based upon the fact the he,
having been in possession for 20 years, could not lose the same until he
had been given opportunity to be heard and had been defeated in an action
in court by another with a better right





- DOUBT ARISES whether accion publiciana is still available from Art. 460
CC
o Possessor may lose possession:
(1) Abandonment
(2) Transfer to another for a good or valuable consideration
(3) Destruction or total loss of the thing or by the thing becoming
unkmarketable
3

(4) By the possession of another, even against the will of the former
possessor, if the new possession has lasted more than one year
o Questions: Which is lost, possession de facto or also possession de
jure? In the first three, both may be lost, so it would be strange if the
fourth merely referred to possession de jure. However, ownership
cannot be lost under the fourth; owner may recover ownership, and is
only barred by statute of limitations
- Evidence that accion publiciana still exists:
o Possession constitutes a right, a right in rem, whenever it is exercised
over real property or property rights
o Where there is a right, there is a cause of action
o It is sufficient that the right existing, there should be an action to protect
it. No necessity of any special declaration in CC
o It is impossible to conceive that a person has a right which need not be
respected by others, and such respect cannot be exacted unless the
law provides a remedy for its enforcement
o If a person has a right over any kind of property, such right would not be
complete unles sit could be enforced as against the whole world
o The action is a recognition of the right; it is a weapon for its protection
o The right does not arise from the action; but vice versa
o Accion publiciana exists, nor for the sake of equity, but because it must
necessarily exist or can exist as provided in Art. 445
- Action brought by Catholic Church to recover the possession which was
unlawfully deprived by the defendant can be properly maintained













Chacon v. CA (1983)
Facts:
1. Ramon Chacon granted a fishpond lease agreement by Director of
Forestry to construct and maintain a fishpond over a mangrove swamp in
Barrio Lapasan, municipality of Cagayan, Oriental Misamis
2. Chacon developed the area into a fishpond, clearing its shrubby growths
and enclosing the same with perimetric dikes
3. Upon his death, his heirs succeeded him in possession, and were issued a
transfer ordinary fishpond permit
4. Heirs entered into a partnership agreement, under the name Chacon
Enterprises for the purpose of acquiring title over the fishpond
4

5. Partnership applied for the purchase not only of the 15-hectare fishpond, but
also the adjoining eastern portion with an area of 4 hectares
6. Sales application alleged: area applied for had no indication of settlement,
occupation or improvement, except the dikes and concrete gates owned by
the heirs of Ramon Chacon
7. Sales application was approved; an Order Award was issued in favor of
partnership (19 hectares, 11 ares, 14 centares); OCT issued.
8. Chacon Enterprises filed an ejectment suit against Florentino Galasino and
several other persons who were in actual possession of an area of 43, 792
sqm. Of the eastern portion of the land

TC: Dismissed action. Ocular inspection revealed: defendants houses
constructed in the premises are already very old and in a dilapidated condition
defendants were staying and living in the premises for more than one year

9. Chacon Enterprises commenced an action to recover possession of the said
eastern portion
- Defendants, under claim of ownership, have succeeded in occupying
certain portions of its registered land without their consent; refused to
vacate
10. Defendants:
- Assert absolute ownership
- They inherited the same from Santiago Ebora who had been in
continuous, public and exclusive possession, as owner thereof, since
time immemorial
- Upon death, the succeeded in possession as exclusive owners; have
planted coconuts thereon
- Chacon Enterprises title is null and void
11. Galasino et al. instituted case against Chacon Enterprises for annulment of
OCT and reconveyance of eastern portion of its titled land
12. At pre-trial, parties agreed that the land in litigation has an area of 43,792
sqm.


CFI on Galasinos action for annulment of OCT: dismissed.

CFI on Chacon Enterprises action for recovery of possession: ruled in
favor of Chacon; ordered Galasino et al. to vacate and surrender possession

13. Galasino et al. filed an appeal with CA.
- Basic issue: who between the parties has a better right and title

CA: reversed decision of CFI
- OCT of Chacon Enterprises null and void insofar as it covered the
portion in litigation
- Declared Galasino et al. as owners; ordered Chacon Enterprises to
reconvey the portion
14. Chacon Enterprises filed MR
5

- Action filed by Galasino et al. was barred by prescription/laches

CA: denied motion
- Action instituted by Galasino et al. although denominated as one for
reconveyance, is in essence an action to quiet title; imprescriptible

15. Chacon enterprises files instant petition for review

Issues:
1. WON Galasino et al.s action is barred by prescription (NO)
2. WON action is barred by laches (NO)
3. WON OCT issued in favor of Chacon Enterprises should be cancelled (YES)

Ratio:
1. Although action was denominated as one for annulment of title/
reconveyance, from the averments in the complaint, it is actually one for
quieting of title, hence imprescriptible, Galasino et al. having actual
possession
- Chacon Enterprises: more than 12 years had elapsed from the date its
title was transcribed in the registration book of Register of Deeds up to
the time Galasino et al. filed action for annulment and reconveyance
o If they anchored their action o the alleged fraud cause of action
prescribed after 4 years from registration
o If it I based on implied or constructive trust, prescribed after 10
years from registration
o In either case, BARRED
- Galasino et al: real cause of action is actually for quieting of title;
prescription does not lie


- SC:
o While owner in fee continues liable to an action, proceeding, or suit
upon the adverse claim, he has a continuing right to the aid of a
court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of such claim
and its effects on his title, or to assert any superior equity in his
favor
o He may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked
before taking steps to vindicate his rights
o Reason: his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to
seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the
nature of the adverse claim
o Galasino et al. were in actual possession at the time they filed
action for annulment/reconveyance
Deduced form the fact that Chacon Enterprises filed an
ejectment suit and an action to recover possession
tantamount to an admission that they were not in actual
possession
6

o Galasino et al. have been in possession in concept of owners since
1920 (coconut trees were 20-40 years old)
2. Not barred by laches
- Requisites:
(1) Conduct on the part of defendant for which complainant seeks
remedy
(2) Delay in asserting right; complainant having knowledge or notice of
defendants conduct and having been afforded opportunity to
institute a suit
(3) Lack of notice or knowledge that complainant would assert his right
(4) Injury or prejudice on the part of defendant if relief be granted to
complainant
- 2
nd
req. missing: records do not show that Galasino et al. had knowledge
of Chacon Enterprises title prior to the ejectment suit filed by the latter.
Former also immediately filed actions to assert their rights
3. Yes, it should be cancelled. Its fraudulent misrepresentations in its
application gives grounds for cancellation under Sec. 91 CA 141
- Chacon Enterprises stated in their application that the area had no
indication of settlement, occupation or improvement
- Sec. 91: statements made in the application are considered essential
conditions and parts of any title issued on the basis of such application;
any false statements therein shall ipso facto produce the cancellation of
the title.
o Director of Lands tasked to conduct investigations: existence of bad
faith, fraud, etc. shall be presumed if the grantee of the land shall
refuse to give direct and specific answers to pertinent questions in
the investigation
o On the basis of said presumption title shall be cancelled without
further proceedings
- Sec. 90 requires that applicant state under oath whether land is not
occupied, improved, or cultivated

DISPOSITIVE: Judgment appealed from AFFIRMED.


German Management v. CA (1989)
Facts:
1. Spouses Jose, residents of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia USA, are owners of
a percel of land in Sitio Inarawan, San Isidro Antipolo, Rizal pursuant to
Homestead Patent granted to them in 1948
2. 1982 Sps. Jose executed SPA athorizing German Management Services
to develop their property into a residential subdivision
3. German Management obtained Development Permit
- Finding that part of property was occupied by Villeza, Gernale, and 20
others, it advised occupants to vacate premises but they refused
- GM proceeded with the development which included portions occupied
and cultivated by Villeza et al.
4. Villeza et al. filed action for forcible entry
7

- They are mountainside farmers of Sitio Inarawan; they have occupied
and tilled their farmholdings some 12 to 15 years from promulgation of
PD 27
- GM, under a permit from Office of Provincial Governor of Rizal, was
allowed to improve the Barangay Road at Sitio Inarawan at its expense,
subject to the condition that it shall secure the needed right of way from
the owners of the lot to be affected
- Instead, it forcibly removed and destroyed the barbed wire fence
enclosing their farmholdings without notice; bulldozed the rice, corn, fruit
bearing trees, and other crops by means of force, violence, and
intimidation; it trespassed, coerced, and threatened to harass, remove,
and eject them from their farmholdings

MTC: dismissed complaind for forcible entry

RTC: sustained dismissal

5. Villeza et al. filed petition for review with CA

CA: reversed decisions of MTC and RTC
- Since Villeza et al. were in actual possession at the time they were
forcibly ejected, they have a right to commence an action for forcible
entry regardless of the legality or illegality of possession

6. GM filed MR denied.
7. Hence, instant petition.

Issues:
WON Villeza et al. are entitled to file a forcible entry case (YES)

Ratio:
Villeza et al. as actual possessors, can commence a forcible entry case
because ownership is not an issue
- It is merely a quieting process and never determines the actual title to an
estate
- At the time GM entered property, they were already in possession
- No evidence that Sps. Jose were ever in possession of subject property
- Villeza et al.s peacable possession was manifested by the fact that they
even planted rice, corn and fruit bearing trees 12 to 15 years prior to GMs
act of destroying their crops
- Although GM may validly claim ownership based on title it presented,
evidence does not address issue of prior actual possession raised in forcible
entry case
- Party who can prove prior possession can recover such possession even
against the owner himself
- Whatever may be the character of his prior possession, if he has in his favor
priority in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the
8

property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right by
accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria
- Doctrine of self-help cannot be made the basis of GMs act of destroying
crops
o Can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession
which is absent in the case at bar
- When possession had already been lost, owner must resort to judicial
process for the recovery
- In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long
as there is a possessor who objects thereto










3) Right to Accession

Article 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an individual declaration, the
expression "immovable things or property," or "movable things or property," is
used, it shall be deemed to include, respectively, the things enumerated in
Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.
Whenever the word "muebles," or "furniture," is used alone, it shall not be
deemed to include money, credits, commercial securities, stocks and bonds,
jewelry, scientific or artistic collections, books, medals, arms, clothing, horses
or carriages and their accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or other
things which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or ornamenting
of a building, except where from the context of the law, or the individual
declaration, the contrary clearly appears. (346a)

IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

a) Discreta

Article 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. (353)

Article 441. To the owner belongs:
(1) The natural fruits;
(2) The industrial fruits;
(3) The civil fruits. (354)
9


De Leon:
- Accession discrete right of the owner of the property by accession to
everything which is produced by property
- Exceptions:
1) Possession in good faith possessor in good faith entitled to fruits
received before possession legally interrupted
2) Usufruct
3) Lease of rural lands
4) Pledge
5) Antichresis creditor acquires right to receive fruits of an immovable of
his debtor


i) Natural

Article 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil, and the
young and other products of animals.
Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or
labor.
Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other
property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income.
(355a)

Article 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses
made by a third person in their production, gathering, and preservation. (356)
De Leon:
- Article applies where owner of property recovers the same from a
possessor and possessor has not yet received the fruits, although they
may have already been harvested; or possessor had already received
fruits but is ordered to return the same to owner
- Owner is obliged to reimburse expenses incurred for production,
gathering, and preservation
- Reason: expenses incurred by another inures to the benefit of owner
unjust enrichment
- Effect of bad faith:
o Owner still has to reimburse even if possessor is in BF
o If fruits already harvestedpossessor returns fruits, but entitled to
reimbursement of expenses
o If fruits have not been harvestedno reimbursement; but possessor
in BF entitled to necessary expenses for preservation
- Owner may free himself of the expenses by permitting possessor to
complete harvesting of fruits himself
10


Article 444. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as natural or
industrial fruits.
With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb of the mother,
although unborn. (357)



ii) Industrial Art. 442, supra.

iii) Civil Art. 442, supra.

b) Continua

i) Naturally incorporated

Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the
improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject
to the provisions of the following articles. (358)

Article 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by the owner
and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved. (359)

ii) Artificially incorporated

Article 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. (336)
De Leon:
- Alluvion accretion which the banks of rivers gradually receive from the
effects of the current of the waters and which belong to the owners of lands
adjoining to said banks
- Accretion act or process by which a riparian (river bank) land gradually
receives addition made by the water to which the land is contiguous; alluvion
is brought about by accretion
- But the provision gives meaning to accretion as addition or increase
received by land; used synonymously with alluvion
- Requisites:
o Deposit or accumulation of soil or sediment must be gradual and
imperceptible
o Accretion results from the effects or action of the current of the water or
river
o Land where accretion takes place must ne adjacent to the bank of river

11

Article 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. (367)
De Leon:
- Pond body of stagnant water without an outlet, larger than a puddle and
smaller than a lake, or like a body of water with a small outlet
- Lagoon small lake, fresh water, not very deep, fed by floods, hollow bed of
which is bounded by elevations of land
- Lake body of water formed in depressions of the earth, fresh water,
coming from rivers, brooks or springs, connected with the sea by them

Article 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.
(368a)
De Leon:
- Avulsion accretion which takes place when the current of a river, creek, or
torrent, segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion and transfers
it to another estate; owner of the estate to which the segregated portion
belonged, retains the ownership thereof
- Distinguished from Alluvion:

Alluvion Avulsion
Deposit of soil gradual Sudden or abrupt
Deposit of soil belongs to the
owner of the property where the
same was deposited
Owner of the property from which a
part was detached retains
ownership thereof
Soil cannot be identified Detached portion can be identified

- Requisites:
o Segregation and transfer must be caused by the current of a river, creek,
or torrent
River natural surface stream of water of considerable volume and
permanent or seasonal flow
Creek small islet extending further into the land; a natural stream
of water normally smaller than and often tributary to a river
Torrent violent stream of water as a flooded river or one suddenly
raised by a heavy rain and descending a steep incline; raging flood
or rushing stream of water
Current continuous movement of a body of water, often
horizontal, in a certain direction
o Segregation and transfer must be sudden or abrupt
o Portion of land transported must be known or identifiable

12

Article 460. Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the waters
belong to the owner of the land upon which they may be cast, if the owners do
not claim them within six months. If such owners claim them, they shall pay the
expenses incurred in gathering them or putting them in a safe place. (369a)
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. (370a)
De Leon:
- Requisites:
o There must be a natural change in the course of the waters of the river
o Change must be abrupt or sudden

Article 462. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes, opens
a new bed through a private estate, this bed shall become of public
dominion. (372a)
Article 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving
a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his
ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by
the current. (374)
Article 464. Islands which may be formed on the seas within the
jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or floatable rivers
belong to the State. (371a)
Article 465. Islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial deposits
are formed in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers, belong to the owners of
the margins or banks nearest to each of them, or to the owners of both margins
if the island is in the middle of the river, in which case it shall be divided
longitudinally in halves. If a single island thus formed be more distant from one
margin than from the other, the owner of the nearer margin shall be the sole
owner thereof. (373a)





MOVABLE PROPERTY

a) Conjunction/adjunction

13

Article 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. (375)
Article 467. The principal thing, as between two things incorporated, is deemed
to be that to which the other has been united as an ornament, or for its use or
perfection. (376)
Article 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the preceding article
which of the two things incorporated is the principal one, the thing of the greater
value shall be so considered, and as between two things of equal value, that of
the greater volume.
In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and lithographs,
the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment shall be deemed the
accessory thing. (377)
Article 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without injury, their
respective owners may demand their separation.
Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment or perfection
of the other, is much more precious than the principal thing, the owner of the
former may demand its separation, even though the thing to which it has been
incorporated may suffer some injury. (378)

Article 475. In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be duly
appreciated. (n)

b) Commixtion/confusion

Article 472. If by the will of their owners two things of the same or different
kinds are mixed, or if the mixture occurs by chance, and in the latter case the
things are not separable without injury, each owner shall acquire a right
proportional to the part belonging to him, bearing in mind the value of the things
mixed or confused. (381)

Article 473. If by the will of only one owner, but in good faith, two things of the
same or different kinds are mixed or confused, the rights of the owners shall be
determined by the provisions of the preceding article.
If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith, he shall lose
the thing belonging to him thus mixed or confused, besides being obliged to
pay indemnity for the damages caused to the owner of the other thing with
which his own was mixed. (382)

14

Article 475. Supra.

c) Specification

Article 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another in whole
or in part in order to make a thing of a different kind, shall appropriate the
thing thus transformed as his own, indemnifying the owner of the material for
its value.
If the material is more precious than the transformed thing or is of more value,
its owner may, at his option, appropriate the new thing to himself, after first
paying indemnity for the value of the work, or demand indemnity for the
material.
If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the material
shall have the right to appropriate the work to himself without paying anything
to the maker, or to demand of the latter that he indemnify him for the value of
the material and the damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of
the material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for
artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than that of the material.
(383a)

Article 475. Supra.


EXCEPTIONS: FC

Art. 119. Whenever an amount or credit payable within a period of time belongs
to one of the spouses, the sums which may be collected during the marriage in
partial payments or by installments on the principal shall be the exclusive
property of the spouse. However, interests falling due during the marriage on
the principal shall belong to the conjugal partnership. (156a, 157a)

Art. 120. The ownership of improvements, whether for utility or adornment,
made on the separate property of the spouses at the expense of the partnership
or through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses shall pertain to the
conjugal partnership, or to the original owner-spouse, subject to the following
rules:
When the cost of the improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any
resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of
the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the
conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of
the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall
be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to
reimbursement of the cost of the improvement.
15

In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the
reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the
conjugal partnership. (158a)