PROPERTY

ARTICLES 430 - 434

Art. 430.
Every owner may enclose or
fence his land or tenements
by means of walls, ditches,
live or dead hedges, or by
any other means without
detriment to servitudes
constituted thereon.

Art. 430.
Every owner may enclose or
fence his land or tenements
by means of walls, ditches,
live or dead hedges, or by
any other means without
detriment to servitudes
constituted thereon.
Right to enclose or fence

Art. 430.
Every owner may enclose or
fence his land or tenements
by means of walls, ditches,
live or dead hedges, or by
any other means without
detriment to servitudes
constituted thereon.
The limitation to this right is
the right of others to existing
servitudes imposed on the

EXAMPLE

Owner A wanted to make and maintain a

fishpond within his own land

EXAMPLE

The owner created a structure which

closed the outlet to the river of water
on Bs property

EXAMPLE

Other houses (including Bs) were

flooded.

Whether or not A has the right to close the

outlet to the river of the water on Bs property?
No, A had no right to prevent the outflow of
the
water from Bs estate. While he had the right to
fence his estate, still he should not impair the
servitudes or burdens constituted thereon.

Art. 431.
The owner of a thing
cannot make use thereof in
such manner as to injure
the rights of a third person.

Art. 431.
The owner of a thing
cannot make use thereof in
such manner as to injure
the rights of a third person.
Obligation to respect the rights of
others

Art. 431.
The owner of a thing
cannot make use thereof in
such manner as to injure
the rights of a third person.
Just restriction on the right of
ownership

EXAMPLE

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.

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.
State of
Necessity

Paragraph 4 of Article 11
of the REVISED PENAL
CODE

Art. 11. Justifying

circumstances. The
following do not incur
criminal liability:
xxxxxxxxx
4. Any person who, in order
to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes
damage to another,
provided that the following
requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to
be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury
feared be greater than that
done to avoid it;

Article 432 of the

NEW CIVIL CODE
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.

Paragraph 4 of Article 11
of the REVISED PENAL
CODE

Art. 11. Justifying

circumstances. The
following do not incur
criminal liability:
xxxxxxxxx
4. Any person who, in order
to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes
damage to another,
provided that the following
requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to
be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury
feared be greater than that
done to avoid it;

Article 432 of the

NEW CIVIL CODE
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.

Paragraph 4 of Article 11
of the REVISED PENAL
CODE

Art. 11. Justifying

circumstances. The
following do not incur
criminal liability:
xxxxxxxxx
4. Any person who, in order
to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes
damage to another,
provided that the following
requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to
be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury
feared be greater than that
done to avoid it;

Article 432 of the

NEW CIVIL CODE
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.

Paragraph 4 of Article 11
of the REVISED PENAL
CODE

Art. 11. Justifying

circumstances. The
following do not incur
criminal liability:
xxxxxxxxx
4. Any person who, in order
to avoid an evil or injury,
does an act which causes
damage to another,
provided that the following
requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to
be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury
feared be greater than that
done to avoid it;

Article 432 of the

NEW CIVIL CODE
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.

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
forRULE:
the damage
to him.
GENERAL
a person cannot
interfere with the right of
ownership of another

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 theArt.
damage
to him.
EXCEPTION:
432 allows
interference with anothers
property under certain conditions

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
There are two
requisites
for the application
indemnity
for
the damage
to him.
of Art. 432.
(1) The interference must be necessary
to avert an imminent danger and the

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
If such interference
is disproportionate
indemnity
for the damage
to him.
to the necessity of averting the threatened
danger or damage, or to the gravity of the
danger or damage, it becomes unlawful or

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
EXAMPLE: demolishing
a house which
is
indemnity
for the damage
to him.
not in the
path of a fire

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
(2) Damage for
to another
must be greater
than
indemnity
the damage
to him.
damage to property

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
The owner
of the
the sacrificial
property
is
indemnity
for
damage
to him.

obliged to tolerate the act of destruction but

subject to reimbursement by all those who
benefitted.

General Rule: Compensation may be

demanded by the property owner.
Exception: No compensation if the
injury is caused by the property owner
and the person who intervened was
not at fault.

EXAMPLE #1

Z is drunk. Z is walking home

and singing. Z passes Js house. J
has a dog.

EXAMPLE #1

The dog attacks Z.

EXAMPLE #1

Z kills the dog.

Did Z act under Article 432?

Yes.
Does Z have to pay?
No, because the danger came from the
property itself, the dog, and it was not
Zs fault.

EXAMPLE #2

Z is drunk. Z is walking home

and singing. Z passes Js house. J
has a dog.

EXAMPLE #2

Z sees the dog sleeping. Z starts

shouting at the dog. Z kicks the
dog.

EXAMPLE #2

The dog attacks Z.

EXAMPLE #2

Z kills the dog.

Did Z act under Article 432?

Yes.
Does Z have to pay?
Yes, Z has to pay J since Z provoked
the dog.
NOTE: The law does not require a person acting
in a state of necessity to be free from
negligence or mistake.

Conflict between Art. 429(self-help)

and Art. 432(state of necessity)
In case of conflict between the exercise of the
right of self-help and a proper and licit state of
necessity, the Art. 432 prevails because there is
no unlawful aggression when a person or group
of persons acts pursuant to the right given in a
state of necessity.

Art. 433.
Actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner
must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of
the property.

Art. 433.
Actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner
must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of
the property.
Presumption of
Ownership

Art. 433.
Actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner
must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of
the property.
REQUISITES:
(1) There must be actual (physical or
material) possession of the property

Art. 433.
Actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner
must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of
the property.
REQUISITES:
(2) The possession must be under claim of
ownership

Art. 433.
Actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner
must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of
the property.
Thus, a tenant, who admits his tenancy,
cannot be
presumed to be the owner.

Art. 433.
Actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner
must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of
the
property.
The true owner has to resort to judicial
process to recover his property, only if the
possessor does not want to surrender the
property to him, after proper request or
demand has been made.

Art. 433.
Actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner
must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of
the
property.
Assuming that the possessor claiming the
ownership is illegitimate, the true owner (not
in possession) must go to court. He cannot
apply the doctrine of self-help under Article
429

Art. 433.
Actual possession under
claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner
must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of
Art. 429(self-help)
is applies when the
the property.
owner is in possession of the property.

Article 433 applies when the owner is not

in possession of the property.

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
defendants claim.
Requisites in an action to
recover:
(1) Identity of the property

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
defendants claim.
IDENTITY OF THE LAND - by describing the
location, area and boundaries thereof

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
defendants claim.
Sufficient identification of land. If a party fails
to
identify sufficiently and satisfactorily the land
which he

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
defendants claim.
Doubt as to identity of land. In cases of doubt
as to the lands identity, the court may conduct
an investigation in the form of hearing or an
ocular inspection, or both, to enable it to know

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
GENERAL
RULE: When there claim.
is a conflict
defendants

between the area and the boundaries of a

land, the latter prevails. An area delimited by
boundaries properly identifies a parcel of land.
EXCEPTION: In cases, where there appears to
be an overlapping of boundaries, the actual size

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
defendants claim.
Requisites in an action to
recover:
(2) Strength of plaintiffs title

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
defendants claim.
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of
ownership raises a disputable presumption
of ownership.

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
defendants claim.
Action founded on positive rights. The
action of the plaintiff must be founded on
positive rights and not merely on negative
ones

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
defendants claim.
Therefore, where the claims of both plaintiff
and defendants are weak, the plaintiff
cannot recover.

Evidence to prove ownership.

Ownership may be shown by any evidence,
written or oral,
admissible in law, such as:
(1) a Torrens title
(2) title from the Spanish government
(3) Long and actual possession.
(4) Occupation of a building for a long time
without paying rentals therefor.
(5) Testimony of adverse and exclusive
possession of
ownership corroborated by tax declaration of
properties, payment of taxes, and deeds of

SUMMARY:
Articles 430-432: Limitations of the right of ownership
Art. 430: right of others to existing servitudes imposed on
the land or tenement
Art. 431: cannot make use thereof in such manner as to
injure the rights of a third person
Art. 432: State of Necessity
Articles 433-434:
Art. 433: Possessor of property has the presumption of title
in his favor
Art. 434: The person claiming better right must prove:
identity of the property and strength of title