Art. 457.

To the owners of lands adjoining

the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. What is accretion? Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited. The soil is alluvium. What are the forms of accretion? 1. Allluvium 2. Avulsion 3. Change of course of rivers 4. Formation of islands What is alluvium? Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to the lands adjoining the banks of rivers, and gradually received as an effect of the current of the waters. What are the essential elements of alluvium? [CREIG] (a) The deposit should be gradual and imperceptible (as a process); (b) Cause is the current of the river and not artificial; (c) Current must be that of a river (if lake, Spanish Law of Waters applies; if sea, deposit belongs to the state); (d) The river must continue to exist; if not, Article 461 applies; (e) The increase must be comparatively little and not such that would increase he area of the riparian land by 150%. cmt Page 20 of 42 3/7/2004 It is NOT necessary that: a. The riparian owner should make an express act of possession, the accession being automatically his the moment the soil deposit can be seen; b. The riparian owner has completely paid for the value of the riparian estate, as long as he has already the beneficial or equitable title. What are the reasons why alluvium is granted the riparian owner? [CECEAU] (a) To compensate him for the loss he may suffer due to erosion or the destructive force of the water and danger from floods; (b) To compensate him because the property is subject to encumbrances and legal easements; (c) The interests of agriculture require that the soil be given to the person who is in the best position to cultivate the same; (d) It cannot be said from whom the soil

came, it may as well be given to the person who can best utilize it. Binalay v. Manalo Binalay purchased two parcels of land which were later consolidated into one title, Lot 307. The title of one of the parcels of land indicated that it included a portion which was submerged annually by the Cagayan River during the wet months. However, when the survey to consolidate the lands into 307 was conducted, the said portion was submerged and was not included in the consolidated title. During the wet months, the perennially submerged portion causes the river to have two branches, with an island formed in the middle; the strip of land is denominated as Lots 821 and 822. Binalay claims ownership of Lot 821 by accretion. ISSUE: Whether Manalo owns Lot 821 by accretion to the perennially submerged portion. HELD: Manalo does not own Lot 821. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the river; (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. Applying the rules, the land Manalo claims by accretion must be adjacent to Lot 307. However, the 821 is not adjacent to 307 but to the submerged portion claimed by Manalo. This submerged potion belongs not to him but to the State. The law of waters states that the natural bed of a river is the highest ground covered by its waters during the highest floods. Hence, the submerged portion is part of the river bed which, under the Civil Code, is property of public domain; it cannot come under private ownership. Ronquillo v. CA Estero Calubcub changed course due to dumping by the people living alongside it. Ronquillo had been occupying the lot since 1945 and Del Rosario in 1960, immediately after learning of the occupation, ordered him to vacate the lot. The Del Rosarios claim ownership over the dried up bed as riparian owners; Ronquillo claims the courts have no jurisdiction because the land is public and subject to the disposition of the Director of Lands. ISSUE: Whether the dried up bed is public or private land. HELD: The dried up bed was artificially caused; it does not fall under 307/461. Under Article 502, it is property of the public

domain. Being of public character, its sale is dependent on the Director of Lands. Since the state needs said property for drainage purposes, it cannot be the subject of a sale. Heirs of Navarro v. IAC, Heirs of Pascual Pascual sought to have land registered; which he claimed the land was an accretion to his property. Pascuals property is bounded on the west by the Bulacan River, on the east by the Talisay River, and on the north by Manila Bay. The land sought to be registered as accretion is at the tip of Pascuals property. Navarro, who had a fishpond lease of the foreshore with the Bureau of Lands, opposed Pascuals registration. cmt Page 21 of 42 3/7/2004 During the pendency of the registration case, Pascual filed a complaint for ejectment against Navarro. The CA held that the land was Pascuals by accretion and Navarro should turn over to the latter the portion of the same covered by his foreshore lease. ISSUE: Whether the land is Pascuals by accretion. HELD: No, the land is property of the public domain. There are 3 requisites for accretion: (1) the deposit should be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the river; (3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the riverbank. In this case, 2 of the 3 requisites are were not met. The accretion was a result not of the flow of the rivers but of Manila Bay. This is clear from the fact that the accretion is at the northern tip of the property, adjacent to Manila Bay. Ferrer v. Bautista Ferrer claims the land in dispute by virtue of accretion; Bautista claims it by virtue of a free patent granted by the Director of Lands. The land is immediately south of Ferrers property. ISSUE: Whether the land is Ferrers by accretion or Bautistas by virtue of a free patent. HELD: The land is Ferrers by accretion. Alluvion gives to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers or streams any accretion which is gradually received from the current of the water. The rationale if to provide some compensation to the owners because of it subjection to destructive forces and easements. When the accretion was created, its ownership passed automatically to Ferrer and the Director of Lands had no authority to

grant a free patent over it.

Art. 458. The owners of estates adjoining

ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters, or lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods. Definitions: POND a body of stagnant water without an outlet, larger than a puddle but smaller than a lake, or like a body of water with a small outlet. LAGOON a small lake, ordinarily of fresh water, and is not very deep, fed by floods, the hollow bed of which is bounded by the elevations of the land. Govt v. Colegio de San Jose The Govt and Colegio claim ownership over a parcel of land which is covered by Laguna de Bay during the wet season. Colegio had title to land up to the lakeshore. The State claims the land is part of the lakeshore and of the public domain. ISSUE: Whether the is Colegios or the States. HELD: The land is Colegios. Laguna is a lake, which is defined as a body of water formed in depressions of the earth. It is ordinarily of fresh water coming from rivers, brooks, or springs, and connected to the sea by them. THE LAND IS NOT PARTY OF LAGUNA DE BAYS BED. Undeniably, Laguna de Bay is a lake, and its bed is public. What then is its bed? The law of waters defines the bed as level of the water at the highest ordinary depth. This in turn is considered as the level during the dry season. ARTICLE 367/458 DOES NOT APPLY BEC. LDB IS A LAKE, NOT A LAGOON. The Govt also relies on Article 367/458 which provides that the owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters or lose the land inundated in extraordinary floods. However, LDB is not a lagoon or pond but a LAKE. THE LAW OF WATERS PROVIDES THAT LANDS ACCIDENTALLY INUNDATED BY LAKES, CREEKS, RIVERS SHALL CONTINUE TO REMAIN PROPERTY OF THE RESPECTIVE OWNERS. Even if the land was formed by accretion, they still belong to Colegio. cmt Page 22 of 42 3/7/2004

Art. 459. Whenever the current of a river,

creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the owner of

the land to which the segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he removes the same within two years. This article refers to avulsion, which is: 1. the process whereby the current of a river, creek or torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a know portion of land and deposits it on another. 2. The removal of a considerable quantity of earth upon or annexation to the land of another, suddenly and by the perceptible action of the water. Alluvium v. Avulsion Alluvium Avulsion Gradual Sudden or abrupt Soil cannot be identified Identifiable Belongs to owner of property to which it is attached Belongs to owner from whose property it was attached Agustin v. IAC Agustin owned the property to the east of the Cagayan river; Melad owned the property to the west. Over 49 years, the river gradually shifted from west to east, reducing Agustins property and increasing Melads. In 1968, a big flood occurred, causing the bed to river to revert to its original course, cutting into Melads land. Melad cultivated the land uncovered on the eastern portion of the river until Agustin drove them out. ISSUE: Whether Agustin or Melad owns the property uncovered by the abrupt reversion of the river to its original course. HELD: The land is Melads. Melad acquired by accretion the land which was gradually deposited on his property. This ownership was not lost by the reversion of the river to its original course; which reversion cut through Melads property. Articles 459 and 463 apply to the situation. 459 provides that when land is segregated and transferred to another estate, the owner of the segregated portion retains ownership provided he removes the same within 2 years. 463 provides that when the current of a river separates a portion of land from an estate, the owner retains possession.

QUIETING OF TITLE Article 476. Whenever there is a cloud on

title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet such title. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being case upon title to real property or any interest therein. What kinds of actions are referred to in Article 476? 1. Remedial; and 2. Preventative. What cloud is referred to? The cloud (or doubt) on title exists because: a) of an instrument or record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding; b) which is apparently valid or effective; c) but is, actually invalid, ineffective, void, unenforceable, extinguished, or barred by prescription; d) and may be prejudicial to thte title. Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land, the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only from the time the adverse claim is made known. Faja v. CA Frial claims that Faja had been illegally occupying his titled property for 30 years. He also claims that Fajas right to question the validity of the title had prescribed, more than 10 having passed since the issuance of the decree of registration. Faja claims that Frial never owned the property and his title was obtained through fraud. In her counterclaim, she prays that she be declared lawful owner of the property. cmt Page 23 of 42 3/7/2004 Summary judgment was rendered in favor of Frial. ISSUE: Whether the right of Faja to question/quiet title had already prescribed. HELD: The action had not yet prescribed; an action to quiet title to property in the possession of plaintiff is imprescriptible. The prescriptive period began to run against Faja only from the time she was served with the complaint giving her notice that the property she had been occupying was titled in Frials name. It is settled that one who is in actual possession of land claiming to be owner thereof may wait until his possession is

disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right (or to quiet title). The reason being that undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession. Where the plaintiff is in possession of the land, the prescriptive period within which to quiet title accrues only form the time the adverse claim is made known. Titong v. CA Titong sold a portion of his land to Espinosa; the latter then sold it to private respondent Laurio. Titong, however, continued cultivating and tilling the land already sold and had been doing so for 20 years, when Laurio entered the property and attempted to till it himself. Titong filed an action for quieting of title. ISSUE: Whether an action for quieting of title was proper; whether Titong has a right to the property. HELD: IMPROPER. The Civil Code provides that such action is availing only when there is a cloud on title by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding. In this case, none of the causes were present; the only possible action would have been forcible entry. The true issue is a boundary dispute. Titong has no right over the property. He cannot claim ordinary acquisitive prescription because he sold the property and yet altered the boundary line obvious bad faith. Extraordinary prescription is likewise absent, possession being less than 30 years.

CONDOMINIUM ACT
What is a condominium? It is an interest in real property consisting of: (a) a separate interest in a unit in a residential, commercial, or industrial building; and (b) an undivided interest in common directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and other common areas of the building. (c) It may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Sec. 4. Condominium act applies only if the master or enabling deed is registered in the registry of property and annotated on the certificate/s of title of the land if such was registered under the Land Registration or

Cadastral Acts. The master deed shall contain the following: 1. Description of the land 2. Description of the building 3. Description of the common areas 4. Statement of the exact nature of the interest acquired by the purchaser in the unit 5. Statement of the purposes for which the building and units will be used 6. Certificate of the registered owner of the property, if he is other than those executing the master deed 7. The following plans: a. Survey plan of the land Floor plan of the building 8. Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law on the right of the condominium owner to dispose of his condominium. Master deed may be amended, revoked, upon registration instrument executed by registered owners. Sec. 5. Any transfer of a unit shall include the transfer of the undivided interest in the common areas or the membership in the corporation PROVIDED, where the common areas are held by the unit owners as co-owners, no unit shall be transferred to non-Filipino citizens or corporations, except in cases of succession. Sec. 6. Unless otherwise provided in the master deed, the incidents of a condo grant are as follows: 1. The boundary are the interior surfaces of the walls, floors, ceilings, windows, and cmt Page 26 of 42 3/7/2004 door. Not included are utilities, heating, conduits, etc. 2. Easement shall pass as an appurtenance of the unit 3. Unless otherwise provided, common areas held in common by unit owners equal share for one unit 4. easement for ingress egress per unit 5. right to paint fix interior 6. right to mortgage, pledge, 7. right to sell unless master deed requires offer to condominium owner. What is a condominium? What is a separate interest in a unit? Interest in common in land and common areas? Can you sell unit but retain common areas? NO Directly or indirectly? Direct each unit owner own common area; indirect stockholder corporation owns What is a condominium corporation? Manages land, common areas and to hold indirect interest in the land and common areas.

If you own condo unit where there is no condo corporation, can you sell you unit to the foreigner? NO. If corporation yes provided Filipino interest remains 60% or more. Declaration of Restrictions must also be registered. Existence of condominium corporation coterminous with the building. Check out differences between regular corporation and condo Purpose hold title over land and common areas Existence 50 yrs Dissolution ordinary may be voluntarily dissolved; condo subject to conditions provided by law: project destroyed, uninhabitable, etc. Whenever you buy a unit, you are given a title (condo cert of title) but no title to the land. The sale is annotated in the title to certificate/s of title, if there is no condo corp. I fthere is a condo corp, land is in name of corp, no more annotation because you are a stockholder of the corporation. 1 vote per unit. No pay of dues, lien by corporation on units. Not every purchaser of a condominium unit is a shareholder in the corporation. The Mater Deed determines when ownership of the unit and participation in the corporation vests in the purchaser. Sunset View Condominium Corp. v. Campos Sunset View filed for the collection of assessments levied against private respondents herein. The private respondents interposed the objection that the City Court and CFI have no jurisdiction. The CFI agreed and held that pursuant to the Condominium Act, the private respondents were holders of separate interests and consequently shareholders of the Sunset View. The CFI ordered Sunset View to ventilate its grievance with the SEC, which has exclusive original jurisdiction over controversies arising between shareholders of a corporation. ISSUE: Whether the CFI or the City Courts have jurisdiction over the claims filed by Sunset View, the condominium corporation. HELD: The City Court and the CFI have jurisdiction. The private respondents are not members or shareholders in the condominium corporation. The Condominium Act leaves to the Master

Deed the determination of when the shareholding in the corporation will be transferred to the purchaser of the unit. In this case, the Master Deed provides that ownership is transferred only upon full payment of the purchase price. Private respondents have not yet fully paid the purchase price, hence they are not shareholders and the SEC has no jurisdiction over the claims. *now, special courts handle intra-corporate disputes cmt Page 27 of 42 3/7/2004 No alterations may be made without the written consent of the homeowners; upon full payment of the purchase price, title must be transferred, despite a mortgage constituted by the developer; the developer must provide parking. G.O.A.L. v. CA NHA extended a loan to GOAL for the latter to construct a condominium. Construction began but the contractor abandoned the project when it was only 60% completed. A year after the abandonment by the contractor, GOAL offered units for sale; private respondents were purchasers who had fully paid for the units. GOAL obtained an additional loan from NHA to continue construction with a condition imposed by the latter for the former to hold on to the certificate/s of title. Private respondents raise 3 complaints: (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction; (2) to deliver private respondent Tengs certificate/s of title; (3) to provide adequate parking spaces. The HLURB and the OPLA ruled in favor of the respondents. ISSUE: Whether the developer, GOAL, can be compelled (1) to stop the illegal continuation of the construction; (2) to deliver private respondent Tengs certificate/s of title; (3) to provide adequate parking spaces. HELD: Yes. PD 957 provides: (1)No developer can alter plans without the permission of the HLURB and the written conformity of the homeowners. This is an amendment of the master deed. (2)Upon full payment of the purchase price, the developer is mandated by law to deliver the certificate/s of title to the buyers. In fact, even if the unit is mortgaged by the developer, the developer must redeem the mortgaged and deliver certificate/s of title to the buyer. (3)Only street parking is excluded from what

should be given for free by the developer. Free parking may be in the basement or on the first floor. Furthermore, in a condominium, unit owners have an undivided interest over common areas and facilities, including parking spaces.

Article 491. None of the co-owners shall,

without the consent of the others, make alterations in the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all would result therefrom. However, if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate relief. *What is an alteration? (1) It is a CHANGE; (2) Which is more or less PERMANENT; (3) And changes the USE of the thing; (4) And PREJUDICES the condition of the thing or its enjoyment by others. Or, according to Manresa: It is an act of ownership, which may be material (changes nature) or metaphysical (changes use), and gives rise to a real right over the property owned in common. What are examples of an alteration? 1. Sale, donation, or mortgage of the whole property (the transaction would be void only to the extent of the co-owner who did not consent); 2. Sale, donation or mortgage of part of the property with definite boundaries (the sale is valid but subject to the result of the subsequent partition); 3. A voluntary easement; 4. Lease of real property if a. The lease is registered; b. Or the lease is for more than one year (whether recorded or not) 5. The construction of a house on a lot owned in common; 6. Any other act of strict dominion or ownership where any encumbrance or disposition was held implicitly to be an act of alteration; 7. Impliedly, contracts of long duration. When is an alteration deemed illegal? An alteration is deemed illegal when it is made without the express or implied consent of the co-owners. cmt Page 28 of 42 3/7/2004 Note that implied consent by the others will not give the one making the alteration the right to seek reimbursement. What are the effects of an illegal alteration? 1. The co-owner responsible may lose what

he has spent; 2. He would be liable for losses and damages; 3. Benefits derived by the co-ownership belong to it; 4. Demolition can be compelled; 5. In case a house is constructed on a common lot, all the co-owners will be entitled to a proportionate share of the rent. Imperial v. CA Mariano and Adela were siblings who inherited 2 lots (1052 and 1091) from their mother. To facilitate titling of the lots, A executed a waiver of rights in favor of Mariano; another document was executed where Mariano acknowledged the simulated character of the waiver and Adelas share in the inheritance. Fraudulently, M sold 1052 to a third person/s. The CA ruled that since M sold 1052 and failed to give the heirs of A their share in the proceeds, he is deemed to have waived his right to 1091. Damages were also awarded. Imperial effectively partitioned the property. The SC affirmed the CAs decision. There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. Si v. CA The Armada siblings, C, J, and S, received from their parents property in Pasay. The deeds of sale particularly described the portion conveyed to each son in metes and bounds. However, the certificate of title of the original lot remained intact. C later sold his share to Si. J and S sought to annul the sale, claiming they had a right of redemption. ISSUE: Whether the brothers have the right of redemption. HELD: No. The co-ownership has already been terminated. Article 484 provides that there is no coownership when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and separately identifiable. In this case, it is evident that the deeds of sale to each son particularly identified the conveyed portion of the master lot.

Article 492. For the administration and

better enjoyment of the thing owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners shall be binding. There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who represent the controlling interest in the object of the co-ownership. Should there be no majority, or should the

resolution of the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in common, the court, at the instance of an interested party, shall order such measures as it may deem proper, including the appointment of an administrator. Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners, and the remainder is owned in common, the preceding provisions shall apply only to the part owned in common. What are acts of administration of management? They are those: (a) that do not involve an alteration; (b) those that may be renewed from time to time; (c) those that have transitory effects, that is, do not bind the co-ownership for a long time in the future; (d) those that do not give rise to a real right over the thing owned in common; those, which even if called an alteration, do not affect the substance or nature of the thing; (e) those for the common benefit of all the co-owners and not for only one or some of them. How can we tell if the act is alteration or administration? cmt Page 29 of 42 3/7/2004 What are examples of acts of administration? (a) Lease of one year or less, if unregistered; (b) Appointment of a co-owner or a third person as administrator. What are the limitations on the right of the financial majority? (a) There must be NOTICE to the minority of resolutions; (b) Only the urgency of the case and difficulty of meeting would justify proceeding without notice; (c) The minority may appeal to the court against the majority decision when: a. There is no real majority; b. The majority refuses to correct abuse of administration or maladministration; c. The minority is made victim of fraud; d. An alteration is agreed upon. e. The resolution is SERIOUSLY PREJUDICIAL to the rights of an individual co-owner; i. Loans without sufficient security; ii. Encumbrance or

disposition is made (alteration); iii. Abusive administrator is not replaced.

Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the

full ownership of his part and the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. What is the effect of a co-owners sale of the entire property without authority of the others? The sale is valid only insofar as his share is concerned. In case a co-owner sells his share, who participates in the partition, the vendor or the vendee? It depends. If the vendee is already in possession, then he alone may participate. If, however, after the share is sold, the vendor retains a real right over it, both he and the vendee may participate. Can a co-owners share be attached even if there hasnt been partition? Yes. If A, B and C are co-owners of a residence, each owning a floor, can one of them sell his share to a third person/s who will convert the same into a factory? No. In this case, the use of the building would change and the interests of the others would be jeopardized. If A and B own a common dwelling, can one of them sell his share to a stranger? No. The interest and privacy of the other would be jeopardized. Personal right, as it is used in Article 493 should be understood to be NOT a technical term.

Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged

to remain in the co-ownership. Each coowner may demand at ANY TIME the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned. Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement. A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. Neither shall there be any partition when it is

prohibited by law. No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. *What is the reason for allowing partition at ANY TIME? The law discourages co-ownership because to remain in such an arrangement subjects a person to the desires of the rest and conflicts in management are bound to arise. cmt Page 30 of 42 3/7/2004 *When may a co-owner NOT successfully demand partition? (a) if by agreement, partition is prohibited (10 years max.); (b) if partition is prohibited by a donor or testator (20 years max.); What if all donees agree to partition then donor challenges partition? The donation may be revoked due to a violation of a condition imposed by the donor. What if heirs violate partition prohibition of testator? No one can bring an action to challenge partition. What about administrator? (c) if partition is prohibited by law (CPG); (d) if physical partition would render the property unserviceable (the property may be allotted to one who will indemnify the others or it may be sold to a third person/s); (e) if the legal nature of the common property does not allow partition (like party walls). Requirements a. Repudiation with notice b. Must be in a clear and convincing manner c. Other requirements of prescription d. Period of prescription Is a tax declaration in ones name repudiation? It is not sufficient notice of repudiation. Is registration of property in ones name repudiation? Yes, registration is sufficient repudiation. Registration of the co-owned property by a co-owner is an act of repudiation and is a constructive trust wherein the action to assail must be brought within 10 years of registration. Si v. CA Siblings Galileo, Eulalio, Juanita, and Vicente inherited a parcel of land from their brother. In 1953, Galileo caused the property to be registered in his name alone. In 1968, the heirs of the excluded siblings brought suit against the heirs of Galileo for

the partition or reconveyance of the property. ISSUE: Whether the heirs of the excluded siblings have a right of action against the heirs of Galileo. HELD: No; the action has already prescribed. Generally, prescription does not run against co-owners, as long as the one possessing recognizes the co-ownership. However, a co-owner in possession of the coowned property is deemed an implied trustee and possession adverse to the implied trust is recognized as a repudiation of the coownership. This repudiation, if made unequivocally and with knowledge to the co-owners, if proved convincingly, can cause prescription to run. When Galileo registered the property in his name, this is deemed to be a repudiation sufficient to cause the running of prescription. An action to reconvey land based on an implied trust prescribes after 10 years the action was brought 15 years after the registration. A contract providing for the nondissolution of the co-ownership until the subdivided lots are sold is valid. Tuason v. Tuason, Gregorio Araneta, Inc. One of the three Tuason siblings sold her share to GA. GA then proposed to the remaining two the subdivision of the property and its sale to the public; both assented. The terms of the contract provided that the co-ownership should subsist until all of the subdivided lots have been sold. One of the Tuason siblings decided that she wanted out of the co-ownership and filed a complaint for partition. The lower court dismissed the complaint. In her appeal, she raised the issue of: ISSUE: Whether the terms of the contract requiring co-ownership until the sale of all the lots is contrary to the Civil Code provision cmt Page 31 of 42 3/7/2004 prohibiting co-owners from being obliged to remain part of the community. HELD: The contract is perfectly valid. The contract is, in fact, designed for the ultimate end of terminating the co-ownership. At the time of the appeal, already 97.5% of the subdivision had been sold, and for a handsome profit as well. The co-owners being forced to remain in the co-ownership should be taken to be a means to an end of disposing the lots and terminating the co-ownership. Q: What it the lots arent sold within ten years? Could there be an indirect violation of Article 494? No, by agreeing to subdivide, develop, and

sell the property, the parties actually entered into an agreement for partition. Clear repudiation is required for prescription to run against co-owners. Santos v. Santos Eliseo and Ladislao Santos, brothers, inherited from their sister and father, parcels of land. Eliseo claims that Ladislao executed a Combined Deed of Partition whereby the latter conveyed the entire property to the former. When Ladislao sued for reconveyance or partition, Eliseo set up the defense of the Combined Deed of Partition and acquisitive prescription. ISSUE: Whether Ladislao has a cause of action. HELD: Yes, the co-ownership subsists. Eliseo failed to present the deed upon which his claim is based. The claim of subsisting ownership must be refuted by the best evidence obtainable. The issue more important is prescription: Did Eliseo acquire Ladislaos share through prescription? No. Prescription of an action to recover from an implied trust requires clear repudiation by the possessor of the object of the coownership. In this case, there was no such repudiation. Though Eliseos son remained on the property belonging to Ladislao, this can be considered as being assented to by the latter since the son of Eliseo had been occupying the property even before the death of the testators.

Article 495. Notwithstanding the

provisions of the preceding article, the coowners cannot demand a physical division of the thing owned in common, when to do so would render it unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. But the co-ownership may be terminated in accordance with Article 498.

Article 496. Partition may be made by

agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. What are the classifications of partition? As to CAUSE: 1. extrajudicial or conventional 2. judicial As to PERMANENCE: 1. provisional or temporary 2. permanent As to SUBJECT MATTER: 1. real property 2. personal property

As to FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES: 1. partition by judicial decree 2. partition registered in the Registry of Property 3. partition in a private instrument 4. partition in a public instrument 5. oral partition What law governs partition? a. The Civil Code b. Suppletorily, the Rules of Court. What must a person seeking partition do? He must set forth in his complaint the (1) description of the real estate, the (2) nature and extent of his title, and he must (3) join all those with an interest in the property as defendants. What must the court do if it finds that plaintiff has a right to demand partition? cmt Page 32 of 42 3/7/2004 It shall order partition of the property. The parties may partition the property among themselves. What if the parties fail to agree on the partition? The court will appoint not more than 3 disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to allocate to the parties a part of the property as the court shall order. Partition may be oral or written; in a private or public document. Pada Kilario v. CA, Pada During Jacintos lifetime, he allowed his brother, the father of petitioner herein, to occupy a portion of his property. When Jacinto died, his heirs executed an extrajudicial partition in a private document. They asked petitioner to leave the property; she refused. An action for ejectment was filed. Petitioner claims that the partition was invalid for being in a private document and that the portion she is occupying was subsequently donated to her by a number of the heirs of Jacinto. ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial partition in a private document is valid. HELD: Yes, the partition is valid. A partition may be in a public or private document or even oral. Since the partition was valid, the conveyance to petitioner is invalid because those who made the conveyance were no longer owners of the property conveyed. Where a co-owned property is titled in the name of one co-owner and there is no indication on the certificate/s of title of co-ownership, a third person may rely

on the face of the title in his purchase of the said property. Cruz v. Leis Getrudes Leis obtained a loan from Cruz; this was secured by a REM on the subject property. She failed to pay and the property was foreclosed. Her heirs now claim that the property was conjugal, having been acquired during the marriage of their parents. Being so, upon the death of their father, they became owners of one half of the property. Cruz claims that the property is paraphernal, the certificate/s of title indicating that Gertrudes is a widow and the title is in her name. Cruz also argues that when Gertrudes redeemed the property after a previous mortgage, it became hers alone. ISSUE: Whether the mortgage of the property was valid. HELD: Yes, the mortgage was valid. Though as a rule, a co-owner can dispose or encumber only his share of the co-ownership, in this case, the certificate/s of title indicated Gertrudes as the absolute owner of the property. A person dealing with registered land is not required to go beyond the certificate/s of title to determine the condition of the property. Where several properties were orally partitioned but one was inadvertently left out of the court order approving the partition, the oral partition shall be given effect. Maestrado v. CA Ramon Chavez died, leaving several heirs. An oral partition was conducted and the same was approved by the court. Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador received lot 3046. Josefa and Carmen received 4 lots, including the property in dispute, lot 5872. However, 5872 was not included in the courts order approving the partition. To set things straight, Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors) executed quitclaims confirming the existence of the oral partition. Subsequently, Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors) requested for the partition of 5872 and the distribution of their respective shares. Petitioners, Josefa and Carmen filed an action for quieting of title. cmt Page 33 of 42 3/7/2004 ISSUE: Whether private respondents, Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors), have a right to the

property. HELD: They have no right. The property was ceded to petitioners upon the execution of the oral partition which they themselves confirmed in their quitclaims.

Article 497. The creditors or assignees of

the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity. *May creditors or assignees impugn a partition already executed? Generally they may NOT, except: 1. Where there has been fraud; 2. Where a formal opposition has been previously presented. Is a mortgage sufficient security against fraud? Yes. Who are the creditors referred to in this article? All creditors who became so during the existence of the co-ownership. In case a co-owner sells his share, who participates in the partition, the vendor or the vendee? It depends. If the vendee is already in possession, then he alone may participate. If, however, after the share is sold, the vendor retains a real right over it, both he and the vendee may participate.

Article 498. Whenever the thing is

essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds distributed. What objects are included in this article? Of course, essentially indivisible objects, such as automobiles. However, essentially divisible objects, such as land, may also be covered if their division would be to the prejudice of the interests of the parties. What is the procedure in the partition of an essentially indivisible object? 1. Allot the thing to a co-owner, who shall indemnify the others; 2. If the above is not agreed upon, sell the thing and distribute the proceeds.

Article 499. The partition of a thing

owned in common shall not prejudice third

persons, who shall retain the rights of mortgage, servitude, or any other real rights belonging to them before the division was made. Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the co-ownership shall also remain in force, notwithstanding the partition. If A, B, and C, as co-owners of a lot, mortgage the same to X and then subsequently partition it, what happens to the mortgage? The mortgage would subsist over the 3 postpartition lots. Who are third person/s in this article? All those who did not participate in the partition.

POSSESSION
Article 523. Possession is the holding of a
thing or the enjoyment of a right. Why entire property to possession? Possessor may not be owner. Possession here is separate from ownership. Is possession a fact or a right? Both. It is a fact since it exists; but from the moment it exists, certain consequences follow, making it also a right. What are the viewpoints of possession? 1. Jus possidendi or right TO possession this is an incident of ownership. Ex. I own a house; I am entitled to possess it. 2. Jus possesionis or right OF possession this is a right independent of ownership. Ex. I am renting a house; I am entitled to possess it. *What are the degrees of possession? (a) Grammatical mere holding without having any right (thief) (b) Juridical possession with juridical title but not ownership (lessee, depositary, pledge) (c) Real possession with just title but not from the true owner (purchase of property not owned by seller in good faith (d) Dominium possession with a title of dominium or a just title from the owner *What are the requisites or elements of possession? (a) There must be a holding, detention or control of a thing or a right, actual or constructive; (b) There must be a deliberate intention to possess; this is a state of mind (animus possidendi); (c) The possession must be by virtue of ones own right (real or dominium; not possession because of agency) What does actual or constructive holding or detention mean? Ex. There is a large tract of land, of which the owner actually occupies only a fraction and constructively occupies the rest. It is essential in constructive possession that the property be not in the adverse possession of another. What are the classes of possession? (a) In ones own name or that of another (Article 524); (b) In the concept of owner and in the concept of holder(Article 525); (c) In good or bad faith.

Article 500. Upon partition, there shall be

a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud.

Article 501. Every co-owner shall, after

partition, be liable for defects of title and quality of the portion assigned to each of the co-owners. *What are the effects of partition? 1. mutual accounting for benefits received; 2. mutual reimbursement for expenses; 3. indemnity for damages caused by negligence or fraud; 4. reciprocal warranty for: a. defects of title cmt Page 34 of 42 3/7/2004 b. quality or hidden defects 5. each former co-owner is deemed to have had exclusive possession of the part allotted to him for the entire period during which the co-possession lasted; 6. partition confers upon each the exclusive title over his respective share. How is co-ownership extinguished? 1. judicial partition; 2. extrajudicial partition; 3. prescription by co-owner; 4. prescription by stranger; 5. merger in one co-owner; 6. loss or destruction; 7. expropriation. If A and B partitioned land co-owned by them and later, X successfully claims ownership of the land allotted to A, what happens? A and B must both bear the loss. B must give half of the land allotted to him to A.

Are ownership and possession the same? No. Ownership is different from possession. Though one owns property, the right to possess the same may be in the hands of another as a tenant or lessee.

Article 524. Possession may be exercised

in ones own name or in that of another. Who is in actual possession of a rented parcel of land? The lessor, through the tenant, is in actual possession in the concept of owner. cmt Page 35 of 42 3/7/2004 The lessee is in actual possession in the concept of holder. What are the kinds of possession in anothers name? (a) Voluntary as when the agent possesses for the principal by virtue of agreement; (b) Necessary as when a mother possesses for a child still in her womb; (c) Unauthorized this will become the principals possession only after there has been a ratification without prejudice to the effects of negotiorum gestio (officious management). Supposing a tenant is ousted by a third person, can the OWNER of the property bring an action for forcible entry? Yes. The landlord was in actual possession through the tenant and stands to lose possession and even ownership. Possession may be exercised in anothers name. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: Possession may be exercised in ones own name or that of another. De Luna v. CA De Luna filed a case of forcible entry against Dimaano, alleging that the latter entered his land, began plowing it, and erected a barbed wire fence. Dimmano raised the defense the De Luna was not the owner of the property and that the property was actually owned by Dequia. He further claims that Dequia leased the property to him. ISSUE: Whether possession may be exercised in anothers name. HELD: Yes, possession may be exercised in anothers name. Article 524 of the Civil Code provides: Possession may be exercised in ones own name or that of another. The issue of prior possession had to be resolved to determine who had a better right to possess the property the rule in ejectment cases being that the only issue to be resolved is who is entitled to physical or material possession of the premises or de

facto possession. Now, if De Luna is able to prove prior possession in himself, then he may recover possession from Dimaano. De Luna was able to prove prior possession through the testimony of his tenants who had been occupying the land for several years this is the possession exercised by De Luna in anothers name. De Luna also proved through a neighbors testimony that Dequias father delivered the property to him and his mother. However, since Dimaano alleged that Dequia, and not De Luna, owned the property, the court felt the need to look into the issue of ownership. Dimaano attempted to prove Dequias ownership through tax declarations by the latter on the property but the court held that this alone was not sufficient to prove ownership. The court held that the prior possession of De Luna beats the flimsy claim of Dimaano without prejudice to the subsequent determination of true ownership in an appropriate proceeding.

Article 525. The possession of things or

rights may be had in one of two concepts: either in the concept of owner, or in that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the ownership pertaining to another person. Whose concept? Owner - Your own and others, must act and claim to be owner. Paying taxes, getting boarders. What is the importance of this classification? If in concept of holder, the owner benefits from your possession. If in the concept of owner, the possessor may get the property through acquisitive prescription. What are the two concepts of possession? 1. In the concept of owner one who, whether in good or bad faith, claims to be, and acts as if he is the owner. 2. In the concept of holder one who recognizes another to be the owner.

Article 526. He is deemed a possessor in

good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. cmt Page 36 of 42 3/7/2004 He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. The person here is not an owner there is a

flaw or defect. What is the importance of distinguishing gf and bf? Prescription Indemnity Buyer buys title thinking the vendor is the person on the title GF. Buys the property from the widow of a deceased person, did not know she had children GF Buys land with Torrens but title is annotated lis pendens BF If you are in the business of lending money, you have to look beyond the title. Can a person in possession of a valid Torrens title be in bad faith? No. The articles on bad faith must be reconciled with the doctrine of indefeasibility of a Torrens title. It has been held by the SC that a holder of a title is in good faith until such title is declared null and void by the court. What kind of mistake may be the basis of good faith? It must be a mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable. Is bad faith transmissible to successors in interest? Not necessarily. A child or heir may be presumed to be in good faith notwithstanding the fathers bad faith.

Article 527. Good faith is always

presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of the possessor rests the burden of proof. What is the reason for presuming good faith? Presumption of innocence; everyone should be presumed honest until proven otherwise. Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. Carreon v. Agcaoili Carreon claimed that property inherited from her husband was hers along; a corresponding certificate/s of title was issued. The land was later sold to Agcaoili and a certificate/s of title was issued in his name. Carreons children filed a complaint against Agcaoili to have the deed of sale declared as a mortgage and to recover of the property their action was predicated on Agcaoilis bad faith. ISSUE: Whether Agcaoili was in bad faith. HELD: Agcaoili was in good faith. Good faith is always presumed and bad faith must be established by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, there was no showing of bad

faith on Agcaoilis part. Though he was a townmate of the Carreons, he cannot be expected to know that his vendor had children. Besides, the property was titled and the buyer had no responsibility to look beyond the title: which had an expired lien that was of no consequence to the purchase. One who purchases real property which is in the actual possession of others should, at least, make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. Republic v. CA. 102 SCRA 331. L-42856. Ramos filed a Homestead application for land in Nueva Ecija. Pending this application, Ramos went to Isabela and found a piece of land covered by a Homestead application by Lopez but clearly abandoned by the latter. Ramos filed another application over this land. Both Ramoss applications were granted and he obtained a loan from PNB with the Isabela land as REM. Subsequently, Ramos discovered that there were people occupying his Isabela land, he filed a complaint for the recovery of possession against them and won. These cmt Page 37 of 42 3/7/2004 people sent a petition to the SANR and alleged the nullity of Ramoss second Homestead application, desiring to apply for patents on the same land. ISSUE: Aside from the many Public Land Act issues, whether PNB, in accepting the REM of the Isabela property was in bad faith. HELD: PNB was in bad faith. One who purchases/accepts for REM real property which is in the actual possession of others should, at least, make some inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession. In the absence of such an inquiry, PNB cannot be considered as a good faith mortgagor as against such possessors. However, since Ramoss title over the land is valid, the REM is valid as between Ramos and PNB. There is presumptive knowledge of the existence of a Torrens Title. J.M. Tuason v. Munar J.M. Tuason, the owner of a subdivision, brought an action for ejectment against Munar. Munar claims possession in good faith and raises the defense that Tuasons certificate/s of title, which was issued more than 20 years before, was void due to fraud and that

pursuant to a compromise agreement between Tuason and Deudor (Munars predecessor in interest), Munar had a right to occupy the property. ISSUE: Whether Munar can assail Tuasons decree of registration and corresponding certificate/s of title 20 years after its issuance and whether Munar was a possessor in good faith. HELD: Munar is barred from assailing the title 20 years after its registration. He is in bad faith because there is presumptive knowledge of the issuance of the certificate/s of title to Tuason. Munar instead chose to ignore the certificate/s of title and relied on his predecessors claim of ownership. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law, provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable, can be the basis of good faith. Kasilag v. Rodriguez Ambrosia, the mother of the plaintiffs herein, mortgaged, in a public document, the improvements on the property in dispute to Rodriguez. Because of her failure to pay interests when due, the parties entered into a verbal agreement whereby Rodriguez would condone interest but take possession of the land and enjoy the fruits; he also introduced signifact improvements. However, the land was acquired by Ambrosia as a homestead and could not be subject to a real encumbrance, as a contract of antichresis is. The heirs of Ambrosia seek to recover the property from Rodriguez. ISSUE: Whether Rodriguez was a possessor in good faith entitling him to indemnity for the improvements constructed. HELD: Rodriguez is in good faith. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law, provided such ignorance is not gross and inexcusable, can be the basis of good faith. Rodriguez is not a lawyer and is not expected to know the various intricacies of a contract of antichresis. He is entitled to indemnity.

investigate and he is later defeated.

Article 529. It is presumed that

possession continues to be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired until the contrary is proved. What are the presumptions regarding possession? cmt Page 38 of 42 3/7/2004 (a) Good faith is presumed; (b) Continuity of character of possession; (c) Non-interruption of possession; (d) Presumption of just title; (e) Non-interruption of possession of property unjustly lost but legally recovered; (f) Possession during intervening period; (g) Possession of movable with real property; (h) Exclusive possession of common property.

Article 530. Only things and rights which

are susceptible of being appropriated may be the object of possession. What is res nullius and can it be possessed? It is abandoned or ownerless property. It may be possessed but it cannot be acquired through prescription, which presupposes prior ownership in another. It can be acquired through occupation.

Article 531. Possession is acquired by the

material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. How is possession acquired? (a) Material occupation or detention a. Constitutom possesorium (possessed as owner, now juridical possession) b. Tradition brevi manu (juridical possession, now possesses as owner) (b) Exercise of a right (c) Subjection to our will by mere agreement or the delivery of keys a. Tradition longa manu (delivery by consent) (d) Constructive possession or proper acts and legal formalities succession, donation, execution of public instruments, court order) What are the essential requirements for possession? (a) corpus the thing physically detained; (b) animus intent to possess

Article 528. Possession acquired in good

faith does not lose this character except in the case and from the moment facts exist which show that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully. Examples of when bad faith begins: 1. Receipt of judicial summons; 2. Receipt of a letter demanding vacation of the property, if the person does not

(express/implied); Can land adversely occupied by one be contstructively possessed by another? No. If an entire parcel is possessed under claim of ownership, there is constructive possession of the entire parcel, unless a portion thereof is adversely possessed by another.

Article 532. Possession may be acquired

by the same person who is to enjoy it, by his legal representative, by his agent, or by any person without any power whatever; but in the last case, the possession shall not be considered as acquired until the person in whose name the act of possession was executed has ratified the same, without prejudice to the consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper case. How is possession acquired from the viewpoint of who possesses and what are the essential requisites for each? (a) Personal; (a) Intent to possess (b) Capacity to possess (c) Object must be capable of possession. (b) Through an authorized person; (d) Intent to possess for a principal (e) Capacity to possess for another (f) Principal has intent and capacity to possess (c) Through an unauthorized person upon ratification (negotiorum gestio). (g) Intent to possess for another (h) Capacity of principal to possess (i) Ratification by principal (retroactive) What is negotiorum gestio? It is the voluntary taking charge of anothers business or property without any power from the owner when the property or business is neglected or abandoned. cmt Page 39 of 42 3/7/2004

to inherit he is deemed never to have possessed. Problem: Father dies on January 1; son accepts on January 30; in the meantime, an administrator manages and is in possession of the property. Who is in possession of the property from Jan. 1-30? The son is in actual possession in the concept of owner through the admininstrator, who possessed it in the concept of holder. Who may institute an action for forcible entry against an intruder? Either the son or the administrator. What happens if the son enters the property before acceptance? The administrator may file a complaint for forcible entry against him. Problem: A, B, and C inherited, in equal parts, a parcel of land. Day 1: A sold his share to X. Day 2: B repudiated his inheritance. Day 3: Partition is made. How much does X get? X gets of the property; this was really As share upon the death of the father. This is because B is deemed never to have inherited.

Article 534. One who succeeds by

hereditary title shall not suffer the consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it; but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except upon the death of the decedent. Can good faith be tacked onto bad faith? J.H. yes, JPSP, no.

Article 535. Minors and incapacitated

person may acquire the possession of things; but they need the assistance of their legal representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the possession arise in their favor. Reason for the rule? Practicality candy example. Example: A minor may acquire the possession of a fountain pen donated to him, but in a case of court action regarding ownership of the pen, his legal representatives must intervene. What type of acquisition of possession is referred to in this article? This article refers to acquisition of possession only in those matters where the incapacitated person has capacity to act such as occupation of res nullius, succession, prescription, or donation.

Article 533. The possession of hereditary

property is deemed transmitted to the heir without interruption an from the moment of the death of the decedent, in case the inheritance is accepted. One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the same. Importance is for acquisitive prescription. When does the heir acquire possession of the inherited property? 1. If the heir accepts from the moment of death, since there is no interruption; the possession of the deceased is tacked to the possession of the heir. 2. If the heir refuses or is incapacitated

Article 536. In no case may possession

be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. What are the modes through which possession may not be acquired? a. Force or Intimidation; b. Tolerance possession is with the consent of the owner and redounds to his benefit; c. Clandestine, secret possession.

Article 537. Acts merely tolerated, and

those executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession. cmt Page 40 of 42 3/7/2004 What does it mean that the actsdo not affect possession? (a) The intruder does not acquire any right to possession; (b) The legal possessor, even if ousted, is still the possessor and is: a. Entitled to the benefits of prescription; b. Entitled to the fruits; c. Entitled as possessor for all purposes favorable to his possession. (c) The intruder cannot acquire the property by prescription. You wake up in the morning and there is squatter in your yard clandestine. Caretaker on your land with understanding that he will leave when you need the land tolerance.

Article 538. Possession as a fact cannot

be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the case of co-possession. Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are two possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit appending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings. Does this mean that property can be possessed by only one?

No, property may be physically possessed by more than one but not legally possessed. Compare to rule on double sale. What is the general rule regarding possession as a fact and what are the exceptions? The general rule is that possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities. The exceptions are: (a) co-possessors there is no conflict of interest; they are co-owners; (b) possession in different concepts or degrees both owner and tenant are possessors as a fact at the same time; one in the concept of owner and the other in the concept of holder. What are the rules or criteria to be used in case of conflict or dispute regarding possession? (a) The present possessor shall be preferred; (b) If both are present, the one longer in possession; (c) If the dates of possession are the same, the one who presents a title; (d) If all conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination by the court. What are the rules in case of double sale or double donation? In this case, preference of ownership (not possession) is determined: (a) movable property a. preference to he who first possessed in good faith (b) immovable property a. first who registered his right in good faith in the registry of property b. if there was no registration, the person who first possessed in good faith c. if there was no possession, the person who presents to oldest title, provided it was acquired in good faith Execution of the deed of sale in a public document is equivalent to delivery of possession of the property . Wong v. Carpio Giger sold the property to Mercado by virtue of a deed of sale with right to repurchase; Mercado was issued a certificate/s of title. Mercado visited the property periodically, harvested coconuts, and made copra. He did not put up any signs, structures, or anything to indicate actual possession.

cmt Page 41 of 42 3/7/2004 Several years after the sale, Wong went to the land and saw that it was unoccupied; he then bought it from Giger and was issued a certificate/s of title. A few months after the sale to Wong, Mercado learned that the formers laborers built a hut were occupying the land; Mercado was pleased. Despite his initial elation, Mercado later filed a complaint for forcible entry against Wong. Wong raises the defense that Mercado has not established prior possession and that his acts of gathering coconuts and making copra were only tolerated by the true owner, Giger. ISSUE: Whether Mercado had possession of the property. HELD: Yes, Mercado had possession. Article 531 of the Civil Code provides that possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. Also, the execution of a sale through a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary. Applying the aforementioned doctrines, the execution of the deed of sale in a public document (it was notarized) was equivalent to delivery of possession of the property. Since prior possession of Mercado was proved, Wong must remove himself from the property. It seems that, in relation to Article 531, even the gathering of coconuts (enjoyment of a right to the fruits) constitutes possession. Obiters: The SC also said that entry into the property by force, intimidation, strategy, or stealth, as a cause of action in forcible entry covers all of the ways by which one can wrongfully enter a property. The act of entering the property and excluding the rightful possessor therefrom implies the exertion of force. Wong must pay rent from the time he learned of a defect in his title; in this case, from the time of service of summons. An 82 year old title is incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world. Bishop v. CA Salang filed an action for recovery of possession against Bishop, invoking their rights as registered owners of the land. Bishop raised the defense that the land was

part of the public domain and could not have been registered. ISSUE: Whether Salang claim on the land, based on a certificate/s of title, is better than Bishops. HELD: Salang has a better right. It was necessary to determine ownership in order to resolve the case for recovery of possession. Salangs title to the land is based on an OCT which was issued 82 years ago. It is now incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world. Vda. de Catchuela v. CA Diaz applied for the lot in question with the PHHC, the application was granted and title was issued. He then sold the property to Francisco, private respondent herein. Catchuela had been occupying said property for several years when Francisco filed an action for ejectment. Catchuela filed an action for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property Francisco raised the defense that Cathcuela has no cause of action. ISSUE: Whether Catchuela has a cause of action in the case for cancellation of title and reconveyance of property. HELD: Catchuela has no cause of action. She never acquired a right over the lot in question. She has no right to seek its reconveyance or continue in its possession; she is a mere squatter with the tolerance of Francisco, the rightful owner.