PROPERTY 2C

ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)

MARIANA LOPA

PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS

Classifications of Property
1. Immovable vs. Movable
Title I. - CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY 2. Movable Property classified into:
a. Consumable
b. Non-Consumable
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
3. Property of Public Dominion vs. Private Ownership

Art. 414. All things which are or may be the object of Importance of Distinction between Movable and Immovable:
appropriation are considered either: 1. Rules of Acquisitive Prescription
a. Movables
(1) Immovable or real property; or
 4 years in good faith
(2) Movable or personal property.  8 years without need of any other condition
b. Immmovable
 10 years in good faith
 30 years without need of any other condition
Persons vs. Things
• Persons are regarded as the subject or the holder of the rights
2. Propriety of object of contracts of pledge, chattel mortgage and real estate
• Things are the object
mortgage
• Actions of persons may likewise be the object of rights
a. Movables = object of pledge and chattel mortgage
b. Immovables = object of real estate mortgage
Concept of things covers:
1. Material Objects
3. Formalities of a Donation
2. Rights
a. Value of movables donated exceeds P5,000 – donation and
acceptance must be in writing
Concept of Property
b. All donations and acceptance of immovable must be made in a
• Not confined to things which are already appropriated or possessed by man
public document
but also extends to those susceptible of such appropriation, although not
yet appropriated
4. Theft, Robbery, Usurpation
• Essential that a thing must be susceptible of appropriation before it can be
a. Movables = object of theft and robbery
considered a property
b. Immovables = real property
Examples of things that cannot be appropriated:
5. Venue in Remedial Law
1. Thing which, because of their distance, their depth or their immensity are
a. Real Action over Immovables – filed in the proper court wherein
not capable of human control (sun, stars, ocean)
the real property involved or a portion thereof is situated
2. Forces of nature because of impossibility of appropriation in their diffused
b. Personal Action – commenced and tried where the plaintiff or the
state (lightning, rain)
defendant resides, at the election of the plaintiff
• EXCEPTION: When brought under human control through the help of
science (electricity)
xxx
Vs. Things Outside the Commerce of Man
• While they cannot be the object of contracts, they are not necessarily
disqualified from being considered property (properties of public
dominion pertaining to the state, while being outside the commerce of
man, cannot be the object of contracts but they are considered
property)

Requisites to Consider a Thing a Property (SUSI)

1. Susceptible to appropriation
2. Utility – serve to satisfy human needs
3. Substantivity/Individuality – autonomous and separate existence
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
CHAPTER 1
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
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
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.
Four General Classes or Kinds of Immovable Property
1. Immovable by Nature
o By their essense and nature are immovable or cannot be
moved from one place to another
o Lands and roads in (1)
o Mines, Quarries and Slug Dumps in (8)
2. Immovable by Incorporation
o By reason of their attachment or incorporation to an
immovable in such manner as to be an integral part thereof
o Building and construction of all kinds adhered to the soil in
(1)
o Trees, plants and growing fruits in (2) while they are still
attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable
o attached to an immovable in the manner provided for in (3)
3. Immovable by Destination
o essentially movable but by the purpose for which they have
been placed in an immovable, partake of the nature of the
latter because of the added utility derived therefrom
o paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9
4. Immovable by analogy or by law
o paragraph 10
or
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;
Lands and Roads are Always Immovable
Building is Immovable By Incorporation
• Bicerra v. Teneza – A house (or a building) is classified as
immovable property by reason of its adherence to the soil on which it
is built. Thus, a building which is merely superimposed on the soil is
not a real property.
• Ladera v. CN Hodges – Building referred to by law is a “true
building” or not one merely superimposed on the soil. Once the house
is demolished it ceases to exist as [a true building] and hence its
character as an immovable likewise ceases.
Rule is not affected by the fact that the building is treated separately from
the land
• A building treated separately from the land on which it stood is immovable
property and the mere fact that the parties to a contract seem to have
dealt with it separate and apart from the land on which it stood in no wise
changed its character as immovable property.
• Prudential Bank v. Panis – A mortgage of land necessarily includes, in
the absence of stipulation, the improvements thereon, still a building by
itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
Rule is not affected by the fact that a building is erected on a land owned
by another person
• Building is an immovable property regardless of whether or not said
structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner
or whether it is erected by the owner of the land or by a usufructuary or
lessee.
General Rule as established in Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery: Nature of a
building does not depend on the way the parties deal with it. The classification of
property into real or personal is provided for by law and may not, therefore, be
changed by the agreement of the parties.
• Exception: Doctrine of Estoppel
o The parties to a contract may by agreement treat as personal
property that which by nature would be a real property is
predicated on statements by the owner declaring his house to be a
chattel, a conduct that may conceivably estop him from
subsequently claiming otherwise.
o Doctrine of Estoppel not only prohibits a party from assuming
inconsistent positions but also precludes him from repudiating an
obligation voluntarily assumed after having accepted benefits
therefrom.
o Navarro v. Pineda and Tumalad v. Vicencio – Court did not
rule that the subject chattel mortgage was valid and that the
house or building subject matter of the cases was a personal
property. Applied the Doctrine of Estoppel in that since the parties
agreed that the building is a personal property and a proper
subject of the contract of chattel mortgage, they are estopped
from denying the existence of the chattel mortgage which, as
between them, must be upheld.
• Associated Ins. & Surety Co v. Iya, Evangelista v. Alto Surety & Ins.
Co., Inc, Manarang v. Ofilada and Pinasay v. David – No other way of
resolving these cases except with a precise ruling on the character of the
house or building subject thereof
Classification of property into real or personal property is a QUESTION OF
LAW
• Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Jaramillo – Register of Deed may not
refuse the registration of a chattel mortgage on the pretext that the
subject matter thereof is not a personal property. Duties of the register of
deeds in respect to the registration of chattel mortgages are of purely
ministerial in character. In refusing the registration of a chattel mortgage
on the ground that the subject matter thereof is not a personal property,
the register of deeds is engaging itself in the interpretation of the law –
which is the exclusive province of the courts.
• Associated Ins & Surety Co. Inc. vs. Iya (Effect of Registration) –
registration of a chattel mortgage covering a building in the Chattel
Mortgage Registry produces no effect whatsoever, for where the interest
conveyed is in the nature of a real property, the registration of the
document in the registry of chattels is merely a futile act. Produces no
effect as far as the building is concerned. As between the parties to said
chattel mortgage, they are not allowed to assail the validity of said
agreement under the principle of estoppel.
Construction of All Kinds Adhered to the Soil
• Must be attached permanently to the land
• Immovable by incorporation
• BoAA v. Manila Electric Co - Steel towers not real property because they
were removable and merely attached to a square metal frame by means of
bolts, which when unscrewed could easily be dismantled and moved from
place to place
• Meralco Securities Industrial Corporation v. CBAA – Pipeline system is
a construction adhered to the soil. It is attached to the land in such a way
that it cannot be separated therefrom without dismantling the steel pipes
which were welded to form the pipeline.
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or
form an integral part of an immovable;
Trees and Plants
• Immovable by reason of their incorporation to the soil or because they
form an integral part of the immovable
• General Rule: When the trees or plants are cut or uprooted for purposes
of making them firewood or timber they become movable property
o Exception: When the timber constitutes the natural product of
the tenement and, therefore, forms an integral part of the
immovable
Growing Fruit
• Real property so long as they are still attached to the soil
• Exception: Article 416 (2)
o Ungathered fruits are considered personal property for the
purpose of sale of the whole or part of the crops
o Ungathered fruits have the nature of personal property for
purposes of attachment and execution and in applying the
provisions of the Chattel Mortgage law
(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;
Attachment must be in a FIXED MANNER
• Immovable by Incorporation
• Cannot be separated from the immovable without breaking the material or
deterioration of the object
• BoAA v. Manila Electric Co – Steel towers not attached to an immovable
in a fixed manner because they could be separated without breaking the
material or causing deterioration upon the object to which they were
attached
• Need NOT be attached by the owner
Principle of Estoppel applied to Art 415 (3)
• If the parties treat the machinery as chattels, they are bound by their
agreement under the principle of estoppel
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

(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;
Requisites for Art 415 (4)
1. Placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable or by his
agent
2. Attachment must be intended to be permanent
Art 415 (3) Art 415 (4)
Immaterial who makes the incorporation Incorporation must be made by the
owner of the immovable either
personally or through an agent
Incorporation must be such that Separation is possible without
separation is impossible deterioration of the immovable or
destruction of the material
(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;
• Properties are essentially movable but by reason of their purpose – they
being destined for use in the industry or work in the tenement – they are
converted into real properties
Requisites for Art 415 (5)
1. Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements (MRII)
2. Placed by the owner of the tenement or by his agent
3. There must be an industry or work carried in such building or on
the piece of land
4. Tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or work
2nd Requisite: Placed by the owner of the tenement or by his agent
• Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo – Machinery which is movable by nature
becomes immobilized when placed by the owner of the tenement, property
or plant, but not so when placed by tenant, usufructuary, or any other
person having only a temporary right, unless such person acted as the
agent of the owner. If the MRII are NOT placed by the owner of the
tenement or by his agent, these properties remain as movables and are
not converted into real properties.
• EXCEPTION: If in the contract of lease it is stipulated that such MRII
placed there by the lessee will become, at the termination of the lease, the
property of the lessor for in that case they will be considered as immovable
property since in placing them the lessee will just be merely acting as an
agent of the lessor
o Valdez v. Central Altagracia, Inc – When the tenant places it
there pursuant to a contract that it shall belong to the owner, it
then becomes immobilized as to that tenant and even as against
his assignees and creditors who had sufficient notice of such
stipulation.
3rd Requisite: There must be an industry or work carried in such building or
on the piece of land
• Mindanao Bus Co v. City Assessor and Treasurer - Equipment not
deemed real property because the transportation business is not carried on
in a building or permanently on a piece of land
• BoAA v. Manila Electric Co – Steel towers do not fall under Art 415 (5)
because they are not MRII, and even if they were, they are not intended
for industry or works on the land since the Manila Electric Co. is not
engaged in an industry or works on the land in which the steel supports or
towers are constructed
4th Requisite: Tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or work
• Converted into real properties by reason of their purpose, not by reason of
their attachment to an immovable
• Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng e Hijos – It cannot be said that their
incorporation therewith was not permanent in character because, as
essential and principal elemtns of a sugar central, without them the sugar
central would be unable to function or carry on the industrial purpose for
which it was established. Inasmuch as the central is permanent in
character, the necessary machinery and equipment installed for carrying n
the sugar industry for which it has been established must necessarily be
permanent
• Ago v. CA – By the installation of the sawmill machineries in the building
of the Golden Pacific Sawmill Inc. for use in the sawing of logs carried on in
said building, the same became a necessary and permanent part of the
building or real estate on which the same was constructed, converting the
said machineries and equipment into real estate
• Property must be ESSENTIAL and PRINCIPAL Elements of the Industry or
Works without which such industry or works would be unable to function or
carry on the industrial purpose for which it was established
Essential and Principle Merely Incidental
• Machineries of breweries used • Cash Registers
in the manufacture of liquor • Typewriter
and softdrinks • Forklifts
• Jeep wagons
• Pressure Pumps
• IBM machines
• Delivery trucks
Doctrine of Estoppel in Art 415 (5)
• Applied with respect to properties which are considered immobilized by
reason of its destination or purpose under Art 415 (5)
• Serg’s Products, Inc. v. PCI Leasing and Finance Inc. – Under Rules
of Court, writs of replevin are issued for the recovery of personal property
only. Machines herein are proper subjects of writs of replevin although they
are essential and principal elements of the industry because the parties
have treated the same as personal property. Lease Agreement of which SPI
is a party, clearly provides that the machines in question are personal
property, hence, SPI is estopped from denying the characterization of the
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
subject machineries as personal property. Ruling is good only insofar as
the contracting parties are concerned.
• Ago v. CA – Doctrine of estoppel was not applied because the interest of a
third party would be prejudiced. Golden Pacific was not a party to the
chattel contract, hence, it was not bound by the agreement of the parties
therein treating the machines as personal property.
(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;
Animal Houses and Pigeon Houses, Etc.
• Immovable by destination
• Requires that they be placed by the owner of land
• Even if not placed by owner, they may still fall under Art 415 (1) being a
construction attached to the soil, provided that such attachment must be of
a permanent character
Animals Included
• Exception: When they fall under Art 416 (2) – “real property which by any
special provision of law is considered as personal property”
o Example: Fish in fishponds will be considered as personal
property for purposes of theft under the RPC
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
• Immovables by destination
• Must actually be used on the land because it is only then that the intention
of the owner to use them on the tenement is beyond doubt
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of
the bed, and waters either running or stagnant;
Mines, Quarries and Slag Dumps
• Immovable property while the matter thereof forms part of the bed
• Unsevered from the soil
• Once separated they are no longer mines but minerals and are considered
as personal property
Waters
• Found in their natural beds as such flowing streams, rivers or canals
(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;
• Immovables though floating as long as they 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.
• Concept of Property extends to rights provided that the same is patrimonial
in nature
Rights are Either:
1. Real – power belonging to a person over a specific thing, without a passive
subject individually determined against whom such right may be personally
exercised; enforceable against the whole world
2. Personal – Power belonging to one person to demand of another, as a
definite passive subject, the fulfillment of a prestation to give, to od or not
to do
Whether a right is personal or real property shall depend on:
1. Whether it is a personal or real right
2. Whether the subject matter thereof is a personal or real property
o Subject matter of the real right is real property – real right is a
real property
o Subject matter of the real right is a personal property (ex: chattel
mortgage) – real right is a personal property
General Rule: All personal rights will fall under personal property regardless of the
subject matter thereof
• Exception: Rights arising from contracts of public works which are
classified as real property under Art 415 (10)
Definition of Real Property in Real Estate Taxation – Which law shall govern
the classification of property for taxation purposes – the provisions of the Civil Code
or the Provisions of Tax laws?
Benguet Corp. v. Central BoAA and BoAA v. Manila Electric Co. – Tax law did
not provide for a definition of real property
Mindanao Bus Case, BoAA case, Meralco Sec. Industrial Corp. v. CBAA –
Taxed or did not tax based on the enumeration of real property in Art 415 of the
civil code
Manila Electric Co. v. CBAA – Borderline case which could not be decided solely
on the basis of Art 415 but by the pertinent provisions of the Assessment Law and
the Real Property Tax Code
Caltex v. CBAA – Used the provisions of the Assessment Law and the Real Property
Tax Code to decide w/n equipment and machinery were subject to realty tax.
Conclusion: Classification of property for taxation purposes is not the exclusive
domain of the Civil Code, especially in borderline cases such as that of Manila
Electric Co and Caltex where the provisions of existing tax laws were primarily
applied.
Definition of Machinery for Taxation Purposes
• What is important is that the same must be essential and necessary to the
operation of the business or industry. Other requirements of Art 415 (5)
may not be present
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
Definition of Improvement for Taxation Purposes
• Depends on the degree of permanence intended in its construction and use
• Does not imply that the improvement must be used perpetually but only
until the purpose to which the principal realty is devoted has been
accomplished.
• It must enhance the value and utility of the property to which it is annexed
• Benguet Corp v. CBAA – Court held that the dam falls within the
definition of an improvement because it is permanent in character and it
enhances the value and utility of the petitioner’s mind
Manila Electric Co. v. CBAA – Storage tanks, which while not embedded
•
in the land were nonetheless considered as improvements on the land
because
o they enhanced its utility and rendered it useful to the oil industry
o they have been installed with some degree of permanence as
receptacles for the considerable quantities of oil needed by
MERALCO for its operations
xxx
CHAPTER 2
MOVABLE PROPERTY
Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal
property:
(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation
which are not included in the preceding article;
(2) Real property which by any special provision of
law is considered as personal property;
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control
by science; and
(4) In general, all things which can be transported
from place to place without impairment of the real
property to which they are fixed. (335a)
Art. 417. The following are also considered as personal
property:
(1) Obligations and actions which have for their
object movables or demandable sums; and
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and
industrial entities, although they may have real
estate.
All properties which are not real are personal.
Example: If certain machineries for use in an industry or works are placed on the
tenement not by the owner of the tenement and they are not attached to the
tenement in a fixed manner but can, in fact, be separated therefrom without
causing substantial injury, they are considered as movable property.
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as
personal property;
• For the crime of theft in the RPC, animals in the animal houses referred to
in Art 415 (6) will be considered as personal property
• For purposes of attachment, execution and the Chattel Mortgage Law,
ungathered fruits referred to in Art 415 (2) shall be treated as personal
property
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science;
• Forces of nature in their original state are not, ordinarily, subject to
appropriation because of the degree of difficulty in appropriating them
• If these forces are brought under the control of man through the help of
science, thereby becoming appropriable, they are not considered as
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

property and classified as personal property

• Example: Gas and Electricity

Chose in Action – a thing in action, and is the right of bringing an action, or a right CHAPTER 3
to recover a debt or money, or a right or proceeding in a court of law to procure the PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON TO WHOM IT
payment of a sum of money, or a right to recover personal chatter or a sum of BELONGS
money by action. Personal right = personal property

Obligations in General Art. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private

• The right to demand for the performance of the obligation is, by itself, a ownership. (338)
property
• Right to demand the performance of an obligation is simply a personal
right on the part of the creditor, such right is classified as personal
property Those properties of the State which are called “patrimonial” are in equal footing with
xxx properties of private ownership.

Classification of Property from the POV of Ownership

1. In relation to the state
a. Public Dominion
Art. 418. Movable property is either consumable or b. Patrimonial Properties
nonconsumable. To the first class belong those movables 2. In relation to the political subdivisions (provinces, cities,
which cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their municipalities)
nature without their being consumed; to the second class a. Public Dominion (for public use)
b. Patrimonial Properties
belong all the others. (337) 3. In relation to persons and entities other than the State and its political
subdivisions - Properties of Private Ownership
Classification only finds application to movable property which are
corporeal in nature.
xxx
Consumable – cannot be used in a manner appropriate to its nature without itself
being consumed (cigarette) Art. 420. The following things are property of public
dominion:
Non- Consumable – movable which can be used in a manner appropriate to its
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads,
nature without itself being consumed (table)
canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed
Consumable v. Non-Consumable Fungible v. Non-Fungible by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of
• Basis of Classification is the • Basis is the intention of the similar character;
very nature of the corporeal parties (2) Those which belong to the State, without being
object itself • Fungible – by intention of the
parties, it can be replaced by for public use, and are intended for some public
another of the same kind. service or for the development of the national wealth.
Otherwise, non-fungible.

3 Kinds of Property of Public Dominion: (USD)

1. For Public Use
2. For some Public Service
3. Development of National Wealth
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
PUBLIC DOMINION
• Ownership by the public in general or “public ownership”
• Special collective ownership for the general use and enjoyment, an
application to the satisfaction of collective needs, and resides in the social
group.
• State is the juridical representative of the social group, and as such it takes
care of them, preserves them and regulates their use for the general
welfare
• Since the ownership of these properties belong to the public in general and
not to the state, the latter may not make them the object of commerce
unless they are properly converted into patrimonial properties pursuant to
the provisions of Art 422
Public Dominion as Referring to “State Ownership”
• Properties or things held by the State by regalian right (jura regalia)
• Chavez v. Public Estates Authority – Submerged lands are part of the
state’s inalienable natural resources and classified as property of public
dominion
Public Ownership vs. State Ownership
• In public ownership, not even the state may make the property the object
of commerce (cannot be leased, sold, donated or the object of any
contract)
• Constitution allows the state to enter into co-production, join venture or
production-sharing agreements with private individuals or corporations for
their exploration, development and utilization.
• RA 8550 “The Philippine Fisheries Code of 1998” - public lands such
as tidal swamps mangroves, marshes, foreshore lands and ponds suitable
for fishery operations shall not be disposed or alienated but they may be
the subject matter of a fishpond lease agreement
For a property of the State to fall under public dominion, it is not necessary
that the same be actually used for some public use or for some public
service.
• Manila Lodge No 761 v. CA – In order to be property of public dominion
an intention to devote it to public use is sufficient and it is not necessary
that it must actually be used as such. If the property has been intended for
such use or service, and it has not been devoted to other uses and no
measures have been adopted which amount to a withdrawal thereof from
public use or service, the same remains property of public dominion, the
fact that it is not actually devoted for public use or service notwithstanding.
Public Use vs. Public Service (Villarico v. Sarmiento)
• Public use – use which is not confined to privileged individuals, but is open
to the indefinite public
• Public Service – used for the benefit of the public but cannot be used
indiscriminately by anyone but only by those that are authorized by proper
authority
1. Property of Public Dominion for PUBLIC USE
• Roads
• canals
• rivers
• torrents
• ports
• bridges constructed by the state
• banks
• shores
• roadsteads
• others of similar character
• Those that fall under Art 5 and 6 of PD 1067 (The Water Code of
the Philippines)
Art 5 and 6 of PD 1067
Article 5. The following belong to the State:
(a) Rivers and their natural beds;
(b) Continuous or intermittent waters of springs and brooks running in
their natural beds and the beds themselves;
(c) Natural lakes and lagoons;
(d) All other categories of surface waters such as water flowing over lands,
water from rainfall whether natural, or artificial, and water from agriculture
runoff, seepage and drainage;
(e) Atmospheric water;
(f) Subterranean or ground waters; and,
(g) Seawater.
Article 6. The following waters found on private lands belong to the State:
(a) Continuous or intermittent waters rising on such lands;
(b) Lakes and lagoons naturally occuring on such lands;
(c) Rain water falling on such lands;
(d) Subterranean or ground waters; and,
(e) Water in swamps and marshes.
The owner of the land where the water is found may use the same for domestic
purposes without securing a permit, provided that such use shall be registered,
when required by the Council. The Council, however, may regulate such when there
is wastage, or in times of emergency.
Roads – national highways and roads constructed and maintained by the national
government through the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH)
Canal – artificial waterway, drainage, irrigation or navigation
• Santos v. Moreno – Canals constructed by the state and devoted to public
use are of public ownership (public dominion). Canals constructed by
private persons within their private lands and devoted exclusively for
private use must be of private ownership.
• Mercado v. Municipal President of Macabebe – While the canal was
originally dug by the estate’s owner, the SC held that he had lost any right
over it by prescription since he allowed said canal to be used by the public
for navigation and fishing purposes for a period of 22 years
• Bautista v. Alarcon – No private person has a right to usurp possession
of a watercourse, branch of a river, or lake of the public dominion and use,
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
unless it shall have been proved that he constructed the same within
property of his exclusive ownership, and such usurpation constitutes a
violation of the legal provisions which explicitly exclude such waterways
from the exclusive use or possession of a private property.
• General Rule: If a canal is constructed by private person within his private
land and devoted it exclusively for private use, the same is of private
ownership.
o Exception: If the canal is situated within a public property or the
same is constructed by the state and devoted to public use, such
canal is property of public dominion.
River
• Composite terms which includes
• running waters
• bed
• banks
• Since rivers are of public ownership, it is implicit that all the three
component elements be of the same nature also
• Laws that make all three elements properties of public dominion:
o Art 420 of the Civil Code
o Art 5 (a) of the Water Code of the Philippines
Natural Bed of the River
• The ground covered by its waters during the highest floods (Binalay v.
Manalo)
Banks of Rivers
• Lateral strips or zones of its beds which are washed by the stream only
during such high floods as do not cause inundations
• Lateral lines or strips reach by the waters when the river is at high tide
Accretions on Riverbanks belong to the owner of the lands adjoining the banks,
provided that the deposit is due to the effects of the current of the river.
Ports
• Includes seaports and airports
Shores
• Space which is alternately covered and uncovered by water with the
movements of the tides
• Interior/Terrestrial Limits – line reached by the highest equinoctial
tides
• Cagampang v. Morano – Subject property is part of the shore and public
property as the same is covered by the highest tides from May to July and
there is no showing that these tides are due to abnormal conditions
• Government of the Philippine Islands v. Cabangis - When the sea
advances and private properties are permanently invaded by the waves,
the properties so invaded become part of the shore or beach and they then
pass to public dominion. De facto case of eminent domain, and not subject
to indemnity.
• Natural Expropriation – Process whereby private property is converted
into property for public use through the natural action of the sea and the
abandonment by the owner
Accretions on Seashore
• Art 4 of Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 – Lands added to the shores
by accretions and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea, form
part of the public domain
Foreshore Lands
• That part of the land immediately in front of the shore; the part which is
between high and low water marks, and alternately covered with water and
left dry by the flux and reflux of the tides. It is indicated by a middle line
between the highest and lowest tides. (Hacut v. Director of Lands)
• Ponce v. Gomez, Ponce v. Cebu – RA 1899 authorizes municipalities and
chartered cities to undertake and carry out at their own expense the
reclamation by dredging, filling or other means, of any foreshore lands
bordering their respective territories.
• Republic v. CA – SC declared as invalid the oridnances passed by the
Pasay City and the reclamation agreements it entered into with Republic
Real Estate Corporation on the ground that the subject matter thereof were
submerged lands and not foreshore lands.
• Chavez v. PEA – Submerged lands, like the waters above them, are part
of the state’s inalienable natural resources. Submerged lands are property
of public dominion, absolutely inalienable and outside the commerce of
man. This is also true with respect to foreshore lands. Any sale of
submerged or foreshore lands is void being contrary to the Constitution.
Lakes
• Natural lakes and lagoons and their beds belong to the state and are part
of public dominion
• Lakes and lagoons naturally occurring on private lands also belong to the
state
• Lakes and lagoons developed by a private person on private lands are of
private ownership
• The Water Code of the Philippines – Prohibits any person from
developing a lake, stream or spring for recreational purposes without first
obtaining a permit from the National Water Resources Council
Natural Bed of Lakes
• Republic v. CA - The natural bed or basin of lakes, ponds, or pools is the
ground covered by their waters when at their highest ordinary depth. Since
the rise in the water level which causes the submersion of the land occurs
during a shorter period than the level of the water at which the land is
completely dry, the latter should be considered as the highest ordinary
depth.
• Republic v. Alagad – Highest ordinary depth of the waters of the waters
of the Laguna de Bay is the highest depth of the waters during the dry
season or such depth being the regular, common, natural, which occurs
always or most of the time during the year
“Others of Similar Character”
• Creeks – Recess or arm extending from a river and participating in the ebb
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
and flow of the sea. Not susceptible to private appropriation – cannot be
registered under the Torrens System in the name of any individual.
2. Property of Public Dominion: For PUBLIC SERVICE
• All properties of the state that are devoted or intended for some public
service are likewise part of the public dominion
• Cannot be used indiscriminately by anyone but only by those that are
unauthorized by proper authority
• Laurel v. Garcia – Example of Property of Public Dominion for Public
Service is the Roppongi property designated to house the Philippine
Embassy. It is outside the commerce of men and cannot be alienated.
3. Property of Public Dominion for the DEVELOPMENT OF NATIONAL
WEALTH
• Property of public dominion although employed for some economic or
commercial activity to increase the national wealth
Regalian Doctrine and State Ownership of Natural Resources
• All lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within private ownership are
presumed to belong to the state
Evolution of Laws of Regalian Doctrine and State Ownership of Natural
Resources
1. Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas
o All lands that were not acquired from the government, either by
purchase or by grant, belong to the public domain
2. Mortgage Law of 1893
o systematic registration of titles and deeds as well as possessory
claims
3. Royal Decree of 1894 or “Maura Law”
o last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines
o Required the adjustment or registration of all agricultural lands,
otherwise the lands would never revert to the State
4. 1935, 1973, 1987 Constitution
o State, in lieu of the Kind, as the owner of all lands and waters of
public domain
LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAIN
• Classified into: (MFAN) (Sec 3 Art XII 1987 Phil. Constitution)
o Mineral
o Forest or timber
o Agricultural
o National Parks
• Only agricultural are allowed to be alienated
Agricultural Public Lands
• Alienable portions of lands of the public domain which are not forest or
timber, mineral or national parks
• Commonwealth Act 141 – Only the president, upon the recommendation
of the proper department head, has the authority to classify the lands of
the public domain into alienable or disposable, timber and mineral lands.
o Classification of public lands is an exclusive prerogative of the
Executive Department of the Government and not of the courts
o It is only after the government has declared the land to be
alienable and disposable agricultural lands that the year of entry,
cultivation and exclusive and adverse possession can be counted
for purposes of an imperfect title
• All lands not appearing to be clearly within private ownership are presumed
to belong to the State
o To overcome this presumption, incontrovertible evidence must be
established that the land subject of application is alienable or
disposable
Characteristics of Properties of Public Dominion
1. They are outside the commerce of men
2. Not susceptible to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription
3. Not subject to attachment and execution
4. Cannot be burdened with voluntary easements
They are outside the commerce of men
• Cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise be the subject matter of
contracts
• Dacanay v. Asistio – Leases were null and void since a public street is
property for public use hence outside the commerce of man. Being outside
the commerce of man, it may not be the subject of lease or other contract
• Moneclang v. IAC – Compromise agreement null and void since the
stipulations contained therein partake of the nature of an adjudication of
ownership of in favor of one of the parties of the fishpond in dispute which
was found to be originally a creek forming a tributary of the Agno River.
• Exceptions:
o With respect to natural resources, the Constitution allows the
state to enter into co-production, joint venture or production
sharing agreements with private individuals or corporations for
their exploration, development and utilization.
o With respect to fishponds which are likewise owned by the State
they may be leased although they may be leased although they
may not be alienated.
Not susceptible to private appropriation and acquisitive prescription
• Celestial v. Cachopero – claim of ownership over parcel of land which is
a dried-up bed of the Salunayan Creek based on her alleged long term
adverse possession must necessarily fail since the same is a property of
public dominion
• Palomo v. CA – adverse possession which may be the basis of a grant of
title in confirmation of imperfect title cases applies only to alienable lands
of the public domain
• Not subject to private appropriation – cannot be registered under the Land
Registration Law and be the subject of a Torrens Title
• Republic v. CA – portions of the Meycauayan river and are therefore
classified as property of public domain cannot be registered in the names
of private respondents
• Republic v. IAC - subject parcel of land, being part of a forest reserve,
cannot be registered
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

specific public use may subsequently be withdrawn by Congress

Not subject to attachment and execution
• Properties of public dominion, being for public use, are not subject to levy,
encumbrance or disposition through public or private sale. Any
encumbrance, levy on execution or auction sale of any property of public
dominion is void for being contrary to public policy
• Vda. de Tan Toco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo – Property of a
municipality, whether real or personal, necessary for governmental
purposes cannot be attached and sold at public auction to satisfy a
judgment against the municipality
• Tufexis v. Olaguera – Usufruct of the public market was not subject to
attachment on account of its being of a public character
Cannot be burdened with voluntary easements
• Villarico v. Sarmiento – Since the lot is a property of public dominion
devoted to public use, it cannot be burdened by a voluntary easement or
right of way in favor of Villarico
xxx
Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the
character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial
property.
Patrimonial Property of the State
• Property of the state in what may be called the private sense
• State has the same rights and has the same power of disposition as private
individuals subject to existing rules and regulations
• Chavez v. PEA – government owned lands, as long as they are
patrimonial property, can be sold to private parties, whether Filipino
citizens or qualified private corporations
Examples of Patrimonial Property
1. Friar Lands
• Friar Lands Act
• Friar Lands – lands acquired by the government from religious
corporations or orders (during the Taft administration in 1903)
• Friar lands over which the government holds title are not public
lands but private or patrimonial property of the state. They can be
alienated only upon proper compliance with the requirements of
the Friar Lands Act
2. Alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
• State properties available for private ownership except that their
appropriation is qualified by Sec 2 and 3 of Art XII of the
Constitution and the Public Land Laws
3. Lands Covered by RA 7227
• Public land granted to an end-user government agency for a
from public use and declared patrimonial property to be sold to
private parties
• RA 7227 Creating the BCDA – Declares specific military
reservations no longer needed for defense or military purposes
and reclassifies such lands as patrimonial property for sale to
private parties.
Disposition of Patrimonial Property
Sec. 48, Book I, Administrative Code of 1987
Sec. 48. Official Authorized to Convey Real Property. - Whenever real property
of the Government is authorized by law to be conveyed, the deed of conveyance
shall be executed in behalf of the government by the following:
(1) For property belonging to and titled in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines, by the President, unless the authority therefor is expressly vested by
law in another officer.chanrobles virtual law library
(2) For property belonging to the Republic of the Philippines but titled in the
name of any political subdivision or of any corporate agency or instrumentality,
by the executive head of the agency or instrumentality.chanrobles virtual law
library
Not Susceptible to Acquisitive Prescription
• Art 1113 Civil Code – All things which are within the commerce of men
are susceptible of prescription unless otherwise provided. Property of the
State or any of its subdivisions not patrimonial in character shall not be the
object of prescription.
• Prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, does not run against the state
and its subdivisions
• Property of the state or any of its subdivisions shall not be the object of
prescription
• Statutes of Limitation do not run against the state, unless therein expressly
provided. Forbids that the public interest should be prejudiced by the
negligence of the officers or agents to whose care they are confided.
• Alfonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc. – Possession of patrimonial property
of the government, whether spanning decades or centuries, cannot ipso
facto ripen into ownership
• Exception: When the law expressly provides that patrimonial property is
subject to acquisitive prescription
o Example: Commonwealth Act 141 – Adverse possession which
may be the basis of a grant of title in confirmation of imperfect
title cases, however, applies only to alienable lands of the public
domain – which falls under the patrimonial properties of the State
xxx
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer
intended for public use or for public service, shall form part
of the patrimonial property of the State. (341a)
Development of Jurisprudence on the issue of the formula or procedure of
conversion from public dominion to patrimonial property.
The character of the property, and any change occurring therein, depends
on the actual use to which it is dedicated. (Old Jurisprudence, superceded by
Laurel v. Garcia)
• Municipality of Oas v. Roa – Property of the public dominion, a public
plaza in this instance, becomes patrimonial property upon use thereof for
purposes other than a plaza
• Municipality of Hinunangan v. Director of Lands – When a fortress
ceases to be used for the purposes for which it was constructed, it
becomes patrimonial property of the state
Ignacio v. Director of Lands – Property continues to be part of the public
domain, not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal
declaration on the part of the government, either through the Executive department
or the Legislative, to the effect that the property is no longer needed for public
service. Either the executive department or the legislative department may
convert property of the State of public dominion into patrimonial property
of the State.
Cebu Oxygen Acetylene v. Bercilles – Withdrawal of the property in question
from public use and its subsequent sale valid.
Laurel v. Garcia (landmark case) – Abandonment of the intention to use the
Roponggi property for public service and to make it a patrimonial property cannot
be inferred from the non-use alone specially if the non-use was attributable not to
the government’s own deliberate and indubitable will but to a lack of financial
support to repair and improve the property. There must be an affirmative act,
either on the part of the executive or the legislative, to reclassify property
of the public dominion into patrimonial. The intention to reclassify must be
clear, definite and must be based on correct legal premises.
xxx
Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities, and
municipalities is divided into property for public use and
patrimonial property. (343)
Property of Provinces, Cities, Municipalities is divided into:
1. Public Use
• Provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, squares,
fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public
service paid for by said provinces, cities or municipalities
2. Patrimonial Property
• All other property possessed by provinces, cities or municipalities
Nature of property owned by cities (municipalities and provinces) is
determined by the character of the use or service for which they are
intended or devoted.
• Doesn’t matter that the property is not actually devoted for public
use or for some public service
• If it has been intended for such use or service, and the city has
not devoted it to other uses, or adopted any measure which
amounted to a withdrawal of the property from public use and
service, the same remains property for public use, the fact that it
is not actually devoted for public use or service notwithstanding.
xxx
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities,
and municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city
streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public
waters, promenades, and public works for public service
paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities.
All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial
and shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the
provisions of special laws.
Principles applicable to Properties of Political Subdivisions for public use:
1. Outside the commerce of man. Cannot be alienated or leased or otherwise
be the subject matter of contracts.
2. Cannot be acquired by prescription
3. Not subject to attachment and execution
4. Cannot be burdened by any voluntary easement
Provincial Roads, City Streets and Municipal Streets
• Local governments have no authority whatsoever to control or regulate the
use of public properties, like roads and streets, unless specific authority is
vested upon them by Congress
• Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene Co. Inc v. Bercilles – Withdrawal of an
existing road from public use was valid thereby converting the withdrawn
property into patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary
contract.
• Favis v. City of Baguio – The city council is the authority competent to
determine whether or not a property is still necessary for public use.
• Macasiano v. Diokno – Court clarified the authority of the local
governments to close roads, streets and other similar public places. The
closure should be for the sole purpose of withdrawing the road or other
public property from public use when circumstances show that such
property is no longer intended or necessary for public use or public service.
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
When it is already withdrawn from public use, the property then becomes
patrimonial property of the local government unit concerned.
• Dacanay v. Asistio – Subject streets were properties for public use hence
outside of the commerce of man and may not therefore be subjected to
lease or other contract. The right of the public to use the city streets may
not be bargained away through contract.
Squares, Fountains, Public Waters, Promenades, Etc.
• Municipality of Cavite v. Rojas – SC declared as null and void the lease
of a public plaza of the said municipality in favor of a private person. In
leasing a portion of said plaza or public place to the defendant for private
use the plaintiff municipality exceeded its authority in the exercise of its
powers by executing a contract over a thing which it could not dispose of,
nor is it empowered to do so.
• Espiritu v. Municipal Council of Pozorrubio – Town plaza cannot be
used for the construction of market stalls, specially of residences, and that
such structures constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to
law.
• Muyot v. De La Fuente – City of Manila could not lease a portion of public
sidewalk on Plaza Sta. Cruz, being likewise beyond the commerce of man.
Permit was not legal because the City of Manila does not have any
authority at all to lease a portion of a public sidewalk. Any contract entered
into by the City of Manila in connection with the sidewalk, is ipso facto null
and ultra vires.
Patrimonial Property of Political Subdivisions
• Unlike in the classification regarding State properties, properties for public
service in the provinces, cities and municipalities are not classified as
public. However, they are not in the same category as ordinary private
property – cannot be levied and attached, and they cant be acquired
through adverse possession.
• Agripino Capitulo v. Alejo Aquino – Properties which are intended for
public use or for some public service are properties for public use. All
others are patrimonial properties.
Reclaimed Lands Belonging to Political Subdivisions
• The right to reclaim is a function of the sovereign who owns title to all the
lands and waters of the public domain.
• Unless the State, through Congress, grants this rigt, it is only the National
Government that can undertake reclamation work and assert title to
reclaimed land
• In some cases, the state delegated to specific municipalities the right to
reclaim land
• No person, public or private, could undertake reclamation work and own
the land they reclaimed without a specific grant from Congress
• RA 1899 – Congress granted to chartered cities and municipalities a
general authority to reclaim foreshore lands bordering their respective
territories
• RA 7160 Local Government Code – empowers local government units to
undertake reclamation projects by themselves or through contractors
o Sec 302 – Lands reclaimed by local governments are patrimonial
in character unless said local government reserves certain
portions of the reclaimed area for public use such as for plazas,
schools or hospitals, in which case the reclaimed land is
characterized as land of the public domain
• Chavez v. PEA – reclaimed alienable lands of the public domain if sold or
transferred to a public of municipal corporation for a monetary
consideration became patrimonial property in the hands of the public or
municipal corporation. Once converted to patrimonial property, the land
may be sold by the public or municipal corporation to private parties,
whether Filipino citizens or qualified private corporations.
Other Classification
• Classification of properties other than those for public use in the provinces,
cities and municipalities as patrimonial under Art 424 is “without
prejudice to the provisions of special laws”
• Law of Municipal Corporation can be considered as “special laws”
• Province of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of Zamboanga –
Classification of municipal property devoted for distinctly governmental
purposes as public should prevail over the Civil Code classification.
• Vda. de Tantoco v. Municipal Council of Iloilo – Municipal properties
necessary for governmental purposes are public in nature
• Properties of the political subdivisions are classified in accordance
with the use to which they are intended or devoted
• Capitulo v. Aquino – The nature of properties owned by cities in this
country is determined by the character of the use or service for which they
are intended or devoted. Properties which are intended for public use or for
some public service are properties for public use.
xxx
Art. 425. Property of private ownership, besides the
patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities, and
municipalities, consists of all property belonging to private
persons, either individually or collectively. (345a)
Private Property
• Private properties may belong to the State, to provinces, cities and
municipalities (patrimonial properties) or may belong to the private
individuals either individually or collectively (properties of private
ownership)
• Sec 7 Art XII of the Constitution – No private lands shall be transferred
or conveyed except to individuals, corporations or associations qualified to
acquire or hold lands of the public domain, save in cases of hereditary
succession.
• JG Summit Holdings Inc v. CA – Prohibition in the Constitution applies
only to ownership of lands and it does not extend to other real property as
defined in Art 415.
xxx
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
PROVISIONS COMMON TO THE THREE PRECEDING
CHAPTERS
Art. 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)
Title II. - OWNERSHIP
CHAPTER 1
OWNERSHIP IN GENERAL
Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights.
(n)
Property v. Ownership
• Property refers to those things which are susceptible of appropriation
• Ownership refers to the mass or bundle of rights that may be exercised
over a property
Rights Included in Ownership:
1. Right to ENJOY
2. Right to DISPOSE
3. Right to RECOVER the property from any holder or possessor
4. Right to EXCLUDE any person from enjoyment and disposal of the property
5. The right to ENCLOSE or FENCE the land or tenement
6. Right to DEMAND INDEMNITY for damages suffered due to lawful
interference by a third person to avert an imminent danger
7. Right to JUST COMPENSATION in case of eminent domain
8. Right to CONSTRUCT any works or make any PLANTATIONS and
EXCAVATIONS on the surface or subsurface of the land
9. Right to HIDDEN TREASURE found in the owner’s property
10. Right to Accession
Ownership – an independent right of exclusive enjoyment and control of the thing
for the purpose of deriving therefrom all advantages required by the reasonable
needs of the owner (holder of the right) and the promotion of the general welfare
but subject to the restrictions imposed by law and the right of others
Ownership is a Real Right
• Personal Right/Jus in Personam – imposes an obligation on a definite
person. Right of obligation is the power belonging to one person to demand
from another, as a definite passive subject, the fulfillment of a prestation
to give, to do or not to do
• Real Right/Jus in Re – Power belonging to a person over a specific thing
without a definite passive subject against whom such right may be
personally enforced
• Right in Rem – One which imposes an obligation on persons generally,
i.e., either on all the world or on all the world except certain determinate
persons
• Real right creates a direct relation between the specific thing and its holder
• Real rights permit the holder to exclude others from the enjoyment of the
thing. Creates an obligation on the part of third persons not to interfere in
such enjoyment.
2 General Categories of Real Rights
1. Real rights over one’s own property (jus in re propria)
• Ownership is an independent real right because it can exist
without the necessity of other rights
2. Real rights over the property of another (jus in re aliena)
• Lesser rights than the right of ownership yet they make inroads
upon and curtail the rights of the owner
• Cannot exist independently of ownership. Dependent because they
presuppose the existence of ownership.
Subject Matter of Ownership may either be THINGS or RIGHTS.
xxx
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. (348a)
Attributes of Ownership (Under Roman Law) (UFDAPR)
1. Jus Utendi - Right to Use property without destroying its substance
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

2. Jus Fruendi – Right to the Fruits ownership (Contemplated by Art 428)

3. Jus Dispodendi – Right to Dispose or Alienate o Jus Possessionis – Right independent and apart from ownership
4. Jus Abutendi – Right to Abuse or to Consume the thing by its use (Discussed in Title V Book II of Civil Code)
5. Jus Possidendi – Right to Possess • The owner is entitled to the exclusive possession of his property.
6. Jus Vindicandi – Right to Recover • In the event that the possessor is unlawfully deprived of possession he is
not justified to take the law into his own hands. He is required to resort to
the proper legal processes for the purpose of obtaining recovery of
Rights in Art 428: possession.
1. Enjoy o Art. 433 of the New Civil Code – Directs the true owner to resort
• Includes the right to use, right to the fruits, right to possess and to judicial process for the recovery of the property
the right to abuse o Art 536 of the New Civil Code – “In no case may possession be
2. Dispose acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a
3. Recover possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an
action or a right to deprive another the holding of a thing, must
1. Right to Enjoy invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse
• The essence of ownership is the right of the owner to freely enjoy either to deliver the thing”
the property itself or the benefits derived therefrom
• Enjoyment may consist of: 3 Kinds of Actions Available to Recover Possession of Real Property
o possession 1. Accion Interdictal
o consumption 2. Accion Publiciana
o use 3. Accion Reivindicatoria
o enjoyment of products/fruits
o enjoyment of anything attached or incorporated to it Accion Interdictal
either naturally or artificially • 2 Distinct Causes of Action:
1. Forcible Entry – summary action to recover material or physical
Right to Use and Abuse possession of real property when the person who originally held
• Right to Use – Employing it for the purpose for which it is fit, without it was deprived of possession by “force, intimidation, threat,
destroying it, and which employment can therefore be repeated strategy or stealth”
• Right to Abuse – Consumption of the thing by its use. Use that 2. Unlawful Detainer – filed when possession by a lessor, vendor,
extinguishes, that consumes, by acts of the owner, things which are vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any
consumable. land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any
2. Right to Dispose contract, express or implied.
• Power of the owner to dispose of his property includes the power to • Jurisdiction: Metropolitan or Municipal Trial Court.
o alienate – right of the owner to transmit either by onerous or • Required to be brought within 1 year from the date of actual entry, in the
gratuitous title his right to another by any act inter vivos or mortis case of forcible entry, and from the date of the last demand, in case of
causa. Based on the principle that “one cannot own what he does unlawful detainer.
not have” o Pursuant to Art 554 (4) of the Civil Code – Possession de facto
o encumber or limit – power of the owner to deprive himself of is lost if the possession by another person has lasted for more
several of the rights included in ownership and transfer them to than 1 year
another. Example: Contracts of lease and commodatum • Sole question for resolution is the physical or material possession
o transform -power to change the nature of the thing, or its form (possession de facto) of the property in question and neither a claim of
or destination juridical possession (possession de jure) nor an averment of ownership by
o destroy – power to render useless or to abandon or annihilate the the defendant can outrightly deprive the court from taking due cognizance
thing of the case.
o merge • All the trial court may do is to make an initial determination of who is the
owner of the property so that it can resolve who is entitled to its
3. Right to Recover possession absent other evidence to resolve the latter. Such determination
of ownership is not clothed with finality.
Right to Possession
• Jus Possidendi/Right to Possession vs. Jus Possessionis/ Right of
Possession
o Jus Possidendi – Incident of ownership or a right included in
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

• Suit which has for its object the recovery of possession over the real
property as owner
• Plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its
full possession
• Plaintiff has been deprived of the exercise of all the rights included in
ownership and what he seeks to recover by filing such an action is, in
reality, only the exercise of the rights included in ownership
Forcible Entry Unlawful Detainer • Jurisdiction:
• Possession by the defendant is • Possession is originally lawful o Metro Manila
unlawful ab initio because he but becomes illegal by reason  Assessed value less than P50,000 – Metropolitan Trial
acquires possession by force, of the termination of his right of Court
intimidation, threat, strategy or possession under his contract  Assessed value exceeds P50,000 – Regional Trial Court
stealth with the plaintiff o Outside Metro Manila
• Plaintiff must allege and prove • Plaintiff need not have been in  Assessed value less than P20,000 – Municipal Trial Court
that he was in prior physical prior physical possession  Assessed value exceeds P50,000 – Regional Trial Court
possession of the premises until • Defendant unlawfully withholds
deprived thereof. possession of the property after Accion Publiciana Accion Reivindicatoria
• Plaintiff has prior possession of the expiration or termination of Basis of the recovery of possession is Basis of the action for recovery of
the property and is deprived his right thereto under any the plaintiff’s real right of possession or possession is ownership itself. Involves
thereof by the defendant contract, express or implied jus possessionis – right to the the recovery of possession as an
through force, intimidation, possession of the real estate incident or attribute of ownership – jus
threat, strategy or stealth independent of ownership. possidendi.
• General Rule: One year period • One year period counted from
counted from the date of actual the date of last demand
entry on the land, • Plaintiff must first make such Replevin – Recovery of possession of a personal property
• Exception: Entry made through demand, which is jurisdictional
stealth, one year period in nature xxx
counted from the time the
plaintiff learned thereof Art. 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the
right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and
Accion Publiciana
• Action for recovery of the right to possess and is a plenary action in an
disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as
ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual
realty independent of the title or ownership of the property or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
• Ejectment suit filed after the expiration of the one year from the accrual of his property. (n)
the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the
realty
Doctrine of Self Help
• Jurisdiction:
• The right of the owner is so important that the law deems it appropriate to
o Metro Manila
allow him to use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or
 Assessed value less than P50,000 – Metropolitan Trial
prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of
Court
his property
 Assessed value exceeds P50,000 – Regional Trial Court
• Who may invoke the doctrine?
o Outside Metro Manila
o Owners of the Property
 Assessed value less than P20,000 – Municipal Trial Court
o Any of the property’s lawful possessors
 Assessed value exceeds P50,000 – Regional Trial Court
• When may the doctrine be invoked?
o Purpose to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of the said property
Accion Publiciana Accion Interdictal
o Repel – Actual unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of the
Issue is the determination of the better Issue is limited to the question of
property
right of possession or possession de jure possession de facto
o Prevent – Threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation
o Can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened
Accion Reivindicatoria
dispossession
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

• Owner of the lower tenement cannot block or impede the

servitude and the owner of the higher tenement cannot
construct works to increase the burden of the servitude

xxx

Defense of Property as Justifying Circumstance (Art. 11 (1) of the RPC) Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in
People v. Narvaez – Credited the accused with the special mitigating
•
such manner as to injure the rights of a third person. (n)
circumstance of incomplete defense of property even if such defense is not
coupled with an attack upon the person of the accused. Even if the
aggression was directed not on the person of the accused-appellant but Limitations on Ownership
only on his property, the Court nonetheless considered such unlawful 1. Restrictions imposed by law
aggression for the purpose of crediting him with the special mitigating 2. Exercise of the inherent powers of the state
circumstance of incomplete self-defense. When appellant fired his shotgun 3. Rights of others
from his window, killing his two victims, his resistance was disproportionate 4. Limitations imposed by the owner himself
to the attack. Hence, he was credited only with the special mitigating
circumstance of incomplete self-defense of property. Limitations imposed by Law
• Necessary that the means employed to prevent or repel the aggression 1. Legal easements which can be enforced by law
must also be reasonable 2. Thoughtless extravagance at a period of acute public want or emergency
can be stopped by order of the courts
xxx 3. Lands acquired under free patent or homestead cannot be subject to
encumbrance or alienation within 5 years from the issuance of the patent
Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or Limitations pursuant to the Exercise of Inherent Powers of the State
tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, 1. Police Power
or by any other means without detriment to servitudes • Power of promoting the public welfare by restraining and
constituted thereon. (388) regulating the use of liberty and property
• Based on the ff. maxims:
o So use your own as not to injure another’s property
Right to Enclose or Fence
o The welfare of the people is the supreme law
• Effectively giving notice to everybody that they are not welcome in his
• General Rule: Doesn’t involve the taking or confiscation of
property without his consent and he may, therefore, validly consider any
Property
unauthorized intrusion into his property as an act of unlawful aggression
o Exception: Where there is a necessity to confiscate
which will authorize him to resort to self-help
private property in order to destroy it for the purpose of
• Required that the right to enclose or fence must be legitimately exercised
protecting the peace and order and of promoting the
and must not be attended with bad faith
general welfare
• Limitation: Should not work detriment to the servitudes constituted
• Owner does NOT recover from the government for injury
therein
sustained in consequence thereof
o Easement/Servitude – real right constituted in another person’s
o Art 436 of the Civil Code – When any property is
property, corporeal and immovable, by virtue of which the owner
condemned or seized by competent authority in the
of the same has to abstain from doing or to allow somebody else
interest of health, safety or security, the owner thereof
to do something in his property for the benefit of another thing or
shall not be entitled to compensation unless he can show
person
that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified.
o Example: Art 637 of the New Civil Code
 Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which
2. Power of Eminent Domain
naturally and without the intervention of man descend
• Enables the state to forcibly acquire private lands intended for
from the higher estates, as well as the stones or earth
public use upon payment of just compensation to the owner
which they carry with them.
• No need to expropriate where the owner is willing to sell under
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works
terms also acceptable to the purchaser, in which case an ordinary
which will impede this easement; neither can the owner
deed of sale may be agreed upon by the parties
of the higher estate make works which will increase the
• Constrained by two constitutional provisions:
burden. (552)
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

o private property shall not be taken for public use without 2. At the time that he continues to be the owner of the property
just compensation
o no person shall be deprived of his life, liberty or property At the time that he continues to be the owner of the property
without due process of law • Owner may, for the time being part with some of the attributes of
ownership thereby restricting and abridging his right
• Examples:
o Commodatum – grants to another person the just utendi over the
property during the effectivity of the contract
o Usufruct – parts with the right of free enjoyment of his property
3. Power of Taxation and the right to receive the fruits thereof
• Power of the government to raise revenue in order to support its o Lease – owner parts with the right to the possession of the
existence and carry out its legitimate objectives property
• Unlimited in range
• Only security is the responsibility of the legislature At the time that he transmits the property to another person
• Constitution provides that the rule of taxation must be uniform • Right of the owner to impose reasonable restrictions or limitations on the
and equitable and Congress shall evolve a progressive system of right of ownership may even affect the property even after it has ceased to
taxation belong to the person imposing the limitation
• Destructive power which interferes with the personal and property • Donor/Testator may prohibit partition of the subject property but such
rights of the people and takes from them a portion of their prohibition cannot exceed 20 years
property for the support of the government
• Construed strictly against the government and liberally in favor of Prohibition to Alienate
the taxpayer • General Rule: Prohibition to alienate imposed by the will of the
transmitting owner are generally valid
Inherent Limitations Arising from Conflicts with Other Similar Rights o Exception: When they are forbidden by law or contrary to public
• Implied liability that use of title shall not be injurious to the equal policy
enjoyment of others having an equal right to the enjoyment of their • Prohibition to alienate must not exceed 20 years whether the transmission
property, nor injurious to the rights of the community of ownership is done gratuitously or onerously
• Limitations on Owners Right to Use • Leal v. CA – A perpetual prohibition against alienation is void for being
o Art 19 – Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and in contrary to public policy. When the vendee of a parcel of land was
the performance of his duties, act with justice, give everyone his prohibited from selling the subject property except to the vendor or to the
due, and observe honesty and good faith latter’s heirs or successors, the Court hheld that such prohibition to sell to
o Art 431 – The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a third parties is contrary to public policy because the same virtually
manner as to injure the rights of 3rd persons amounts to perpetual restriction to the right of ownership, specially the
o Grant indemnity for damages in cases where there is an abuse of owner’s right to freely dispose of his properties
right, even when the act is not illicit
o Person only exempted when he acts with prudence and in good Validity of Stipulations in the Deed of Restrictions (Jurisprudence)
faith
o The damage resulting from the legitimate exercise of a person’s Bel Air Village Association Inc v. Dionisio
right is a loss without injury – damnum absque injuria • An annotation to the effect that the lot owner becomes an automatic
member of the village association and must abide by such rules and
Villafuerte v. CA Sps. Custodio and Sps. Santos v. CA regulations laid down by said association was a valid restraint on one’s
Lot owners liable to pay damages Petitioners not liable to pay for their act ownership over the property as the same was for the interest of the
because the exercise of the right was of constructing a fence within their sanitation, security and the general welfare of the community
attended with bad faith – it was resorted property since at the time of such
to for the purpose of evicting the construction, the lot of the petitioners South Pachem Dev’t Inc v. CA
occupants whose lease contract had was not subjected yet to any servitude • Stipulation in the deed of restrictions requiring purchasers of land from
already expired and there was no easement of way Ayala Corporation to pay association dues to MACEA for a period of 47
existing in favor of private respondents, years from date of purchase
either by law or contract. • Court upheld the validity of the deed of restrictions because a contract
becomes the law between the parties and each one is bound to comply
Limitations Imposed by the Owner Himself therewith
• Contemplates 2 situations
1. At the time that he transmits the property to another person Cariday Investment Corp. v. CA
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
• Residents and lot owners in the subdivision automatically become members
of the Forbes Park Association and are bound by its rules and regulations
stipulated in the “deed of restrictions”
• Required the owner to use his lot for residential purposes and stated that
not more than one single family residential building will be constructed
thereon
• Purpose of the restriction is valid because it avoids overcrowding both in
the houses and in the subdivision.
xxx
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.
(n)
Limitations on the Right of Excluding others
• Such right is unavailing if the interference by a third person is borne out of
a state of necessity
• Interference by a third person with another’s property is justified and
cannot be prevented by the latter if such 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
Requisites:
1. Situation of grave peril, an actual or imminent danger, either upon the
person of the actor or a third person or their property
2. Interference is necessary to avert such danger
3. Threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the oenwer from
the interference, is much greater
4. State of necessity must not be brought about by the intentional
provocation of the party invoking the same
State of Necessity as a Justifying Circumstance (Art 11 (4) RPC)
• Not civilly and criminally liable
• Art 11 Justifying circumstance – the following do not incur any criminal
liability… (4) Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an
act which causes damage to another provided the following requisites are
present:
o First, that the evil sought to be avoided actually exists
o Second, that the injury sought to be avoided actually exists
o Third, that there be no other practical and less harmful means of
preventing it
Indemnity for damages
• The persons benefited by such interference are duty bound to indemnify
the owner for the damage suffered by the latter
• If the danger comes from another’s property, the case is one of defense
against danger, in which case, there is no obligation to indemnify the
owner for the damage cause d if the latter himself was responsible for
such damage.
• If another’s property is used to avert danger not arising from it, the act is
essentially one in a state of necessity, which will entitle the owner to the
indemnity provided in Art 432
Self-Help State of Necessity
Invoked by the owner or lawful Availed of by another person against
possessor in protection of his right to someone else’s property for the purpose
prevent other persons from interfering of averting an imminent danger to
with the property himself or to another person or to their
property
Doctrine of Self-Help vs. State of Necessity
• If the application of one doctrine is proper, it necessarily follows that the
application of the other is not proper
• The interference made in the state of necessity is not considered as an
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of another’s property, which is a
requisite for the proper application of self-help
xxx
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.
(n)
Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be
identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his
title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. (n)
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
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
compensation, unless he can show that such condemnation
or seizure is unjustified. (n)
Presumption of Ownership
• Possession is viewed as presumed ownership as a necessary consequence
of the existence of presumption in favor of the innocence of a person from
any wrongdoing and of his good faith
• Only a disputable presumption and may be overthrown by proof to the
contrary
• Must be respected until it is shown that another person has a better right
over the property (expressly recognized in Art 539)
o Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his
possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be
protected in or restored to said possession by the means
established by the laws and the Rules of Court.
A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible
entry may within ten days from the filing of the complaint present
a motion to secure from the competent court, in the action for
forcible entry, a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction to
restore him in his possession. The court shall decide the motion
within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof. (446a)
• Even a true owner is required by law to resort to judicial process in order
to recover his property
Requisites of Accion Reivindicatoria
• Person who claims a better right must prove 2 things:
o Identity of the Land Claimed
o Title thereto
• Plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title, not on the weakness of the
defendant’s title. Based on:
o It is possible that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is the true
owner of the property in dispute
o Burden of proof lies on the party who substantially asserts the
affirmative of an issue for he who relies upon the existence of a
fact should be called upon to prove it
Proof of Identity
• Bordalba v. CA – When the record does not show that the land subject
matter of the action has been exactly determined, the action cannot
prosper, inasmuch as the plaintiff’s ownership rights in the land claimed do
not appear satisfactorily and conclusively proven at the trial
• Walroop v. Castaxda – What really defines a piece of land is the
boundaries therein laid down, which may either be natural or artificial.
Natural if they are permanent landmarks established by nature (river, lake,
stream). Artificial if it is through concrete monuments established by the
Bureau of Lands or it consists in the property of neighbors. Evidence as to
natural lands must be clear and convincing. Must be of such character as to
definitely and accurately segregate the land in question from the adjoining
property.
• Intestate of F. Bayot v. DoL – It is only when the boundaries given are
sufficiently certain and the identity of the land clearly proved by the
boundaries thus indicated that an erroneous statement concerning the area
can be disregarded or ignored.
Proof of Title
• A certificate of title is considered as conclusive evidence of ownership of
the land described therein, the validity of which is not subject to collateral
attack
• If a person or entity obtains a title which includes by mistake or oversight
land which cannot be registered under the Torrens System or over which
the buyer has no legal right, said buyer does not, by virtue of said
certificate alone, become the owner of the land illegally or erroneously
included
• Where there is such an error, the courts may decree that the certificate of
title be cancelled and a correct one issued to the buyer
• Heirs of Fabela v. CA – Tax declarations and receipts are mere prima
facie proof of ownership or possession of the property for which taxes have
been paid. When coupled with proof of actual possession, they are strong
evidence of ownership. Thus, where it was shown that plaintiff has never
paid the land tax, while the defendant has faithfully done so for many
years, there being no explanation offered, it was held that such payment of
taxes should be taken into consideration in favor of defendant.
xxx
Art. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its
surface and of everything under it, and he can construct
thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations
which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes
and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot
complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial
navigation. (350a)
Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land,
building, or other property on which it is found.
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property
of another, or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by
chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If
the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any
share of the treasure.
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

If the things found be of interest to science of the arts, the hidden or unknown
o lawful ownership of which must not appear
State may acquire them at their just price, which shall be
divided in conformity with the rule stated. (351a)

Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any

hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other
precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not
appear. (352)

Right to Sub-Surface and Airspace Laws on Treasure Hunting

• Owner of piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to • RA 8492 – National Museum Act of 1998
everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height • DENR Admin Order 2002-04 as amended by DENR AO 2004-2003 in
• Cujust est solum, ejus est usque ad coelom ad infernos – to whomsoever relation to EO 35.
the soil belongs, he owns also to the sky and to the depths o Function to issue licenses and permits for treasure hunting and
• Full and complete ownership of land and the right to whatever shipwreck recovery has been transferred from the Office of the
superadjacent airspace was necessary or convenient to the enjoyment of President to the Department of Environment and Natural
the land Resources
• Limitations: o In case of treasure hunting for treasures which are not of cultural
o It cannot work detriment to servitudes and historical values, the same shall require the issuance of a
o It is subject to special laws and ordinances permit for treasure hunting or shipwreck/sunken vessel recovery
o Subject to reasonable requirements of aerial navigation to be issued by the DENR.
o In the event that the items are considered to have historical and
Rights over land are INDIVISIBLE cultural value, it shall be turned over to the National Museum for
• Republic of the Phil. v. CA - Rights over lands are indivisible and, appropriate action.
consequently, require a definitive and categorical classification. Land itself
cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The land must be either Sharing of Net Proceeds in Treasure Hunting:
completely mineral or completely agricultural. The land which was
originally classified as forest land ceased to be so and became mineral – Government Holder
completely mineral – once the mining claims were perfected Public Land 75% 25%
Private Land 30% 70%
Extent of Rights over the Sub-Surface Shipwreck 50% 50%
• National Power Corporation v. Ibrahim – Pursuant to Art 437, the
ownership of the land extends to the surface as well as to the subsoil under Right to Airspace
it. Landowners’ right extends to such height or depth where it is possible • The air, like the sea, is by nature incapable of private ownership except
for them to obtain some benefit or enjoyment, and it is extinguished insofar as one may actually use it
beyond such limit as there would be no more interest protected by law. • The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as he
can occupy or use in connection with the land
Right to Hidden Treasure • US v. Causby – Repeated flights at low levels directly over private land
• Since the owner of the land is likewise the owner of its sub-surface or sub- may amount to a taking for which just compensation must be paid to the
soil, any hidden treasure on the sub-surface also belongs to him landowner
• Same rule applies if the hidden treasure is located on a building
• Discovery made by stranger who is NOT a trespasser and the discovery is
by chance – finder entitled to ½ of the treasure
• Discovery by trespasser – not entitle to any share of the treasure

Hidden Treasure
• Any hidden and unknown deposits of money, jewelry or other precious
objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear
• Art 438 applies only to discovery of hidden treasure by chance
• Requisites:
o deposit of money, jewelry or other precious objects must be
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
CHAPTER 3
RIGHT OF ACCESSION
GENERAL PROVISIONS
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. (353)
SECTION 1. - Right of Accession with Respect to
What is Produced by Property
Art. 441. To the owner belongs:
(1) The natural fruits;
(2) The industrial fruits;
(3) The civil fruits. (354)
Art. 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)
Art. 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)
Art. 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)
SECTION 2. - Right of Accession with Respect
to Immovable Property
Art. 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)
Art. 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed
made by the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary
is proved. (359)
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. (360a)
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. (361a)
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

right granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials,

Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the plants or seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or
land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without sower, the latter may demand from the landowner the value
right to indemnity. (362) of the materials and labor. (365a)

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 Accession
he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the
land, and the sower the proper rent. (363a)

Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the

landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter
or sower. (n)

Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is

entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of
preservation of the land. (n)

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. (354a)

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)

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
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

Owner of Material in Good Owner of Material in Bad Faith

Faith
Landowner • Landowner must • Landowner must pay
in Good pay value of value of materials.
Faith materials. • Owner of material can
• Owner of material remove provided no
can remove injury is caused to the
provided no injury planting or works. (Paras ,
is caused to the De Leon, opines no right of
planting or works. removal)
• Owner of materials liable
to pay damages.
Landowner • Landowner must • As if both are in good
in Bad Faith pay value of faith.
materials plus
damages.
• Owner of materials
can remove even if
injury will result to
the planting or
works plus damages. Accession on Immovable Property
Whatever is B-S-P on land belongs to the owner OF THE LAND.
Disputable presumption is that B-S-P on land was made by the
owner.
Article 447

When To Apply Article 448

• A person builds on land belonging to another.
• The builder, planter, or sower believes that he is the owner of
the land – He is in GOOD FAITH.

Good Faith/ Bad Faith

• Good Faith – honest belief of the builder, planter or sower
that the land on which he is building, planting, or sowing is
his and is ignorant of any defect or title.
• Bad Faith – the builder, planter, or sower, is aware that he is
not the owner of the land or that his title is defective.

Art. 448 - Good Faith

• This Court has ruled that this provision covers only cases in
which the builders, sowers or planters believe themselves to
be owners of the land or, at least, to have a claim of title
thereto. It does not apply when the interest is merely that
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

of a holder, such as a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. rent. (363a)

From these pronouncements, good faith is identified by the • Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the
belief that the land is owned; or that -- by some title -- one landowner is entitled to damages from the builder,
has the right to build, plant, or sow thereon. planter or sower. (n)
• Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled
to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of
Options of Landowner - If the builder, planter, sower is in Good preservation of the land. (n)
Faith
1. To appropriate the improvement Effect – BPS in Bad Faith
• Must pay NECESSARY EXPENSES • As to cost of what was Built, Planted, Sowed - No
o expenses made for the preservation of the thing or reimbursement due to builder, planter, sower (Art. 449)
those which seek to prevent the waste, deterioration
or loss of the thing (Manresa) • Remedies of the owner of land
 Example: expenses for cultivation, production o Demand demolition of the work
and upkeep; ordinary repairs required by o Removal of what was planted or sowed
natural wear and tear; o Require the builder or planter to buy the land
o Must pay USEFUL EXPENSES o Require sower to pay the proper rent (Art. 450)
 Those which add value to the thing or • Builder, Planter, Sower – liable for damages to the owner of
augment its income. the land (Art. 451)
 Example: levelling/ clearing of the ground, • Builder, Planter, Sower – entitled to payment for expenses to
introduction of improvements to the house,
construction of fishpond or irrigation system. PRESERVE the land.
o Must pay ORNAMENTAL/ LUXURIOUS EXPENSES
2. Oblige builder or planter to pay the price of the land or
the one who sowed the proper rent
o Not available if the price of the land is considerably
Builder in Good Faith Builder in Bad Faith
more than the building or trees. In this case he must
Landowner in • L.O. can appropriate the • B-P-S loses what was built,
pay the proper rent Good Faith works but must pay planted or sown without
o The parties shall agree on the terms of the lease and necessary & useful right to any indemnity. (Art.
if they fail to agree, the courts shall fix the terms. expense and ornamental 449)
expense. (Art. 448) • Landowner may demand
• L.O. can oblige the builder demolition of work or
The Landowner Exercises the Option or planter to pay for the removal of what was
• Why is Option given to the landowner? land (unless the value of planted or sowed. (Art. 450)
o He is the owner of the principal and therefore the land is considerably • May compel the B-P-S to
applying the principles of accession, he is the one more) or the sower to pay pay for the price of the land
rent. or compel sower to pay the
who benefits from it. proper rent. (Art. 450)
• The B-P-S in bad faith is
When Builder Planter Sower in BAD FAITH entitled to reimbursement
• Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the for the preservation of the
land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown land. (Art. 452)
without right to indemnity. (362) • L.O. is entitled to damages.
• Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been Landowner in Apply Art. 447 (Art. 454) • Apply the rule as if both
built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the Bad Faith parties are in good faith.
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 Jurisprudence:
pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper Pacific Farms v. Garcia
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
• Why Art. 447 was applied by analogy
o the SC made a finding that Insular Farms and Pacific
Farms are owned the one and the same beneficial
owners.
• Pacific Farms in BAD FAITH as it knows of the claim of Carried
Lumber against its predecessor Insular Farms
• Why applied by analogy
o ordinarily Art. 447 applies only when a landowner
builds on his land using the materials of another
• in this case Insular Farms built using materials of another but
Art. 447 was applied with respect to the rights of the buyer
(Pacific Farms)
Macasaet v. Macasaet
Technogas v. CA
• General Rule. – Art. 448 applies to builders, sowers or
planters who believe themselves to be owners of the land
or, at least, to have a claim of title thereto. It does not
apply when the interest is merely that of a holder, such as a
mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. From these
pronouncements, good faith is identified by the belief that
the land is owned; or that -- by some title -- one has the
right to build, plant, or sow thereon.
• Exceptions: However, in some special cases, this Court has
used Article 448 by recognizing good faith beyond this
limited definition. Thus, in Del Campo v. Abesia, this
provision was applied to one whose house -- despite having
been built at the time he was still co-owner -- overlapped
with the land of another. This article was also applied to
cases wherein a builder had constructed improvements with
the consent of the owner. The Court ruled that the law
deemed the builder to be in good faith. In Sarmiento v.
Agana, the builders were found to be in good faith despite
their reliance on the consent of another, whom they had
mistakenly believed to be the owner of the land.
• Based on the aforecited special cases, Article 448 applies to
the present factual milieu. The established facts of this case
show that respondents fully consented to the improvements
introduced by petitioners. In fact, because the children
occupied the lots upon their invitation, the parents certainly
knew and approved of the construction of the improvements
introduced thereon. Thus, petitioners may be deemed to
have been in good faith when they built the structures on
those lots.
• Observations
o the stay of the children was NOT by mere tolerance
but by contract
o the “term” of the stay is for so long as the parties
“mutually benefitted” until there is a change in
condition – “unresolved conflict” that terminates the
agreement
• Can the successor-in-interest of the BPS benefit from Art.
448?
o Yes, provided the successor did not know of the
encroachment.
• Is Technogas in bad faith?
o No, good faith is presumed under Art. 527
• When Technogas purchased the land, the buildings which
encroached were already existing. Technogas had no way of
knowing about the encroachment. In fact, the owner of the
land encroached also became aware only after he had his
land surveyed.
• Since Technogas became aware of the encroachment
subsequent to its purchase, will this not preclude resorting
to Art. 448?
o No, a reading of Art. 448 will show that the
landowner’s exercise of the option can only take
place AFTER the builder shall have come to know of
the intrusion – in short, when both parties became
aware of it.
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
Del Campo vs. Abesia
• Facts:
o A co-owner built on land owned in common.
o The court appointed commissioner prepared a sketch
plan and it was discovered that the house of one co-
owner encroached on the part belonging to the other
co-owner.
• The court ruled that Art. 448 cannot be applied since a co-
owner is not a third party. The court applied the rules on
co-ownership.
• The court ordered the builder who encroached to remove the
encroachment.
Del Campo vs. Abesia
• Held:
o The SC agreed with the ruling of the lower court.
o However, when the co-ownership is terminated by
the partition and there is encroachment of 5 sq.
meters obviously made in good faith, Art. 448 may
be applied citing Manresa and Amandi.
Sarmiento vs. Agana
• Facts:
o Mother allowed her daughter and latter’s husband to
build their house on a parcel of land.
o Believing that the mother owns the land, couple built
their house thereon.
o It turns out the mother is not the owner. It is titled
to another who sold the same to Sarmiento.
o Sarmiento filed ejectment case against the couple.
o Lower court ruled that couple is in good faith. It
ordered the couple to vacate the land after
Sarmiento pays them the value of the house.
o On appeal to RTC, decision modified:
o Sarmiento was given the ff. options exercisable
within 60 days
o Reimburse the couple the value of the house, or
o Require the couple to pay the value of the land
o Sarmiento refused to exercise either option
o RTC required couple to deposit the sum equal to the
value of land – Hence, the appeal.
• Held:
o Lower court did not err in requiring landowner to
exercise the 2 options under Art. 448
o Note: Since the landowner refused to exercise any of
the 2 options, is it proper for the court to decide for
them?
Javier v. Javier
• The son built on land belonging to the father and with the
latter’s consent.
• Father sold land to another.
• The son eventually purchased the lot.
• Son considered a builder in good faith and court applied Art.
448.
PNB v. De Jesus
• Facts
o Ignacio built on land adjoining its property belonging
to De Jesus.
o When PNB acquired the property from Ignacio,
Ignacio offered to sell the portion encroached upon
to PNB but the sale did not materialize.
o Lower court ruled that PNB is not a builder in good
faith and ordered the removal of the encroachment.
• Held:
o PNB was made aware that part of the building
encroached upon the land of De Jesus – PNB is in
bad faith.
o Article 448 does not apply if the builder is also the
owner of the land which he subsequently loses by
sale or other mode of transfer citing Pecson vs. CA,
244 SCRA 407. (??)
Rosales v. Castelltort
• Castelltort purchased Lot 16 from Lina.
• The engineer of Lina pointed to Lot 17 by mistke and
Catelltort built a house on Lot 17 instead of Lot 16.
• Court concluded that Castelltort is in good faith and applied
Art. 448.
Depra v. Dumlao
• The trial Court shall determine
o the present fair price of DEPRA's 34 square meter
area of land;
o the amount of the expenses spent by DUMLAO for
the building of the kitchen;
o the increase in value ("plus value") which the said
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
area of 34 square meters may have acquired by
reason thereof, and
o whether the value of said area of land is considerably
more than that of the kitchen built thereon.
• After said amounts shall have been determined by competent
evidence, the Regional, Trial Court shall render judgment,
as follows:
o The trial Court shall grant DEPRA a period of fifteen
(15) days within which to exercise his option under
the law (Article 448, Civil Code), whether to
appropriate the kitchen as his own by paying to
DUMLAO either the amount of tile expenses spent by
DUMLAO f or the building of the kitchen, or the
increase in value ("plus value") which the said area
of 34 square meters may have acquired by reason
thereof, or to oblige DUMLAO to pay the price of said
area. The amounts to be respectively paid by
DUMLAO and DEPRA, in accordance with the option
thus exercised by written notice of the other party
and to the Court, shall be paid by the obligor within
fifteen (15) days from such notice of the option by
tendering the amount to the Court in favor of the
party entitled to receive it;
o The trial Court shall further order that if DEPRA
exercises the option to oblige DUMLAO to pay the
price of the land but the latter rejects such purchase
because, as found by the trial Court, the value of the
land is considerably more than that of the kitchen,
DUMLAO shall give written notice of such rejection to
DEPRA and to the Court within fifteen (15) days from
notice of DEPRA's option to sell the land. In that
event, the parties shall be given a period of fifteen
(15) days from such notice of rejection within which
to agree upon the terms of the lease, and give the
Court formal written notice of such agreement and
its provisos. If no agreement is reached by the
parties, the trial Court, within fifteen (15) days from
and after the termination of the said period fixed for
negotiation, shall then fix the terms of the lease,
provided that the monthly rental to be fixed by the
Court shall not be less than Ten Pesos (P10.00) per
month, payable within the first five (5) days of each
calendar month. The period for the forced lease shall
not be more than two (2) years, counted from the
finality of the judgment, considering the long period
of time since 1952 that DUMLAO has occupied the
subject area. The rental thus fixed shall be increased
by ten percent (10%) for the second year of the
forced lease. DUMLAO shall not make any further
constructions or improvements on the kitchen. Upon
expiration of the two-year period, or upon default by
DUMLAO in the payment of rentals for two (2)
consecutive months, DEPRA shall be entitled to
terminate the forced lease, to recover his land, and
to have the kitchen removed by DUMLAO or at the
latter's expense. The rentals herein provided shall be
tendered by DUMLAO to the Court for payment to
DEPRA, and such tender shall constitute evidence of
whether or not compliance was made within the
period fixed by the Court.
o In any event, DUMLAO shall pay DEPRA an amount
computed at Ten Pesos (P10.00) per month as
reasonable compensation for the occupancy of
DEPRA's land for the period counted from 1952, the
year DUMLAO occupied the subject area, up to the
commencement date of the forced lease referred to
in the preceding paragraph;
o The periods to be fixed by the trial Court in its
Precision shall be inextendible, and upon failure of
the party obliged to tender to the trial Court the
amount due to the obligee, the party entitled to such
payment shall be entitled to an order of execution for
the enforcement of payment of the amount due and
for compliance with such other acts as may be
required by the prestation due the obligee.
Accession
• General Rule: Accessory follows the principal. (Art. 445)
• Exception: 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.
• 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)
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
Good Faith – Illustrative Case (Technogas vs. CA)
• One cannot be presumed to know the metes and bounds of
his property simply based on the technical description on his
title unless he is well versed in the science of surveying.
• Hence, one who holds title and builds beyond his property
line cannot be presumed to be in bad faith.
Application of Art. 448 Beyond Limited Definition Good Faith
• Art. 448 applied to the following cases:
o Where children, upon invitation of their parents, built
a house on a lot owned by their parents. (Macasaet
case)
o Where a co-owner builds a house on land owned in
common which, after partition, is found to
overlapped with the land partitioned to another. (Del
Campo vs. Abesia, 160 SCRA 379)
o Where a party obtains permission to build on land
from one whom they mistakenly believed to be the
owner thereof. (Sarmiento vs. Agana, 129 SCRA
122)
o Where a son builds on a lot belonging to his father
with the latter’s consent. (Javier vs. Javier, 7 Phil
261)
Transferability of Benefits Under Art. 448
• Technogas case
o A buyer of a property from a builder in good faith
enjoys the same if it can be shown that at the time
of acquisition, he is not aware of any flaw in the
property he is acquiring.
• Grant To Of Option to Landowner is Preclusive
• The grant of the option is “preclusive” (PNB vs. De Jesus, 411
SCRA 557) – the landowner cannot refuse to exercise either
option and compel instead the owner of the building to
remove it from the land. (Technogas vs. CA, 28 SCRA 5)
Why Is Grant Preclusive?
• Where the builder, planter or sower has acted in good faith, a
conflict of rights arises between the owners, and it becomes
necessary to protect the owner of the improvements
without causing injustice to the owner of the land. In view
of the impracticability of creating a state of forced co-
ownership, the law has provided a just solution by giving
the owner of the land the option to acquire the
improvements after payment of the proper indemnity, or to
oblige the builder or planter to pay for the land and the
sower the proper rent. He cannot refuse to exercise either
option. It is the owner of the land who is authorized to
exercise the option, because his right is older, and because,
by the principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership
of the accessory thing. (Rosales vs. Castelltort, 472 SCRA
144)
Can Landowner Demand Removal/ Demolition If BPS in
Good Faith?
• When the landowner opts to sell the land and payment is
refused without justifiable cause.
• Justifiable cause means the value of the property is
considerably more than the building.
• When the landowner opts to lease the land to the builder but
the latter defaults in the payment of 2 consecutive monthly
rent or when the lease expires. (Technogas case)
How Will the Trial Court Apply Art. 448
• First, determine the values of the properties
o Determine the fair price of the property encroached
upon;
o Determine the increase in value (plus value) which
the encroached property may have enjoyed by
reason of the existence of the portion of the building
on the area;
o Determine the encroaching value of the building;
o Determine whether the value of the said area of land
is considerably more than the fair market value of
the portion of the building thereon.
• After determining the respective values, the court shall
render judgment, as follows –
o Give the landowner 15 days within which to exercise
the option to appropriate the encroaching portion of
the building upon payment of its fair market value or
to oblige the builder after paying the price of the
area encroached.
• If landowner chooses to appropriate – pay the value of the
building or the plus value.
• If the landowner opts to sell the portion of land encroached
upon, builder must pay the fair value of the land
encroached upon.
• If purchase of land is rejected because the value of the land
is considerably more than the value of the building –
• Advise the landowner and the court w/in 15 days from notice
of landowner’s exercise of the option.
• give the parties 15 days from notice of rejection to agree on
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA
the terms of the lease.
• If no agreement, the court fixes the terms of the lease within
15 days from expiry of the period for negotiation.
• The term of the lease as fixed by the court should not exceed
2 years. (Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475)
Right of Retention
• Builder Planter or Sower in Good Faith may Retain
Possession of the Land
o If Landowner chooses to appropriate
o Indemnity is not yet paid in full
• Purpose of right of retention – to ensure full and prompt
reimbursement.
• During the period of retention, builder cannot be forced to
pay rent. (Nuguid vs. Court of Appeals, 452 SCRA 243)
• Destruction of the improvement due to fortuitous events and
without fault of the landowner negates the right to be paid
for the expenses and the right to retain. (Manotok Realty
vs. Tecson, 164 SCRA 587)
Builder/Planter/Sower in Bad Faith
• General Rule: What is built, planted, or sown is lost without
right of indemnity. (Art. 449)
• Exception: If the improvement has already been harvested,
there is no accession and Art. 449 will not apply.
• Consequently, if fruits have been gathered and the sower/
planter is ordered to give the fruits to the landowner – Art.
443 applies and the sower/planter must be paid for the
expenses cultivation, harvesting, and preservation.
When Both BPS Acted in Good Faith Landowner in Bad Faith
• Article 454 – Apply provisions of Article 447
o Landowner considered having made the building,
planting or sowing thru the BPS using the materials
of another.
o Consequently, the landowner should pay the value of
the materials plus damages.
o The owner can remove the materials, even if damage
is caused, and still demand payment of damages.
BPS Builds/Plants/Sows on Land of Another Using Materials
of a Third Person Not in Bad Faith
• Art. 455 – landowner makes use of the materials, he pays if
the BPS has no property with which to pay.
• the landowner “makes use” of the materials only if he
appropriates the construction AND NOT if he compels
builder to purchase the land or to demolish the
construction.
• If landowner demolishes what was built/ planted/ sown Art.
455 DOES NOT apply.
• If BPS paid the owner of the materials the BPS, the BPS may
demand from landowner the value of the materials and
labor. This assumes that the landowner chooses to
appropriate the materials.
BPS Builds/Plants/Sows on Land of Another Using
Materials of a Third Person Not in Bad Faith
• What if the owner of the materials is in bad faith?
o He loses the right to be indemnified
o He is liable for damages
Good Faith & Negligence
• A party may be in good faith even if he was negligent.
• the presence of negligence does not necessarily produce bad
faith.
• however, negligence gives rise to the obligation to pay
damages.
Pacific farms, Inc., vs. Simplicio G. Esguerra, et al., G.R. No.
L-21783 November 29, 1969
• Can we apply Article 447 in a case where a party builds on
land belonging to a third party using the materials of
PROPERTY 2C
ATTY. CERTEZA (Based on “Property” by Elmer Rabuya)
MARIANA LOPA

another?
o Yes, by analogy, the building is considered the
principal and the building is the accessory.
• Applying Art. 447 if a building constructed using the materials
of another is sold to a third party, who should pay for the
materials?
• If the buyer is in bad faith, he should pay for the materials.
Well-established in jurisprudence is the rule that
compensation should be borne by the person who has been
benefited by the accession.