Civ 01 - Property

CIVIL LAW

HANDOUT NO. 001

P Page 2 of 30

CIVIL LAW

RECOLETOS LAW CENTER

IMPORTANT REMINDERS IN PROPERTY

I. DEFINITION OF TERMS

Property vs. Thing

Thing

It refers to any object that exists and is capable of satisfying some human needs. It includes both objects that are already possessed or owned (res alicujus) and those that are susceptible of appropriation, and also which are not or may not be subject thereof (Manresa).

Property

On the other hand property refers to any physical and real, or juridical and legal, entity capable of becoming the subject matter, or objective terminus, of a juridical relation (Sanchez Roman). For a thing to be a property, it must have (a) Utility; (b) Substantivity or has a separate and autonomous existence; and, (c) Susceptibility to appropriation.

Movable vs. Immovable

Immovable or Real Properties (Art. 415)

By NATURE (Art. 415, Nos. 1, 8) – It is immovable by their intrinsic quality and it has no utility except in a fixed place.

By INCORPORATION (Art. 415, Nos. 2, 3, 7) – It must be substantial and not provisional. Separation from the immovable may cause damage or deterioration. The only criterion is union.

By DESTINATION (Art. 415, Nos. 4, 5, 6, 9) – It should be placed by the owner in an immovable for the full utilization of the same.

By ANALOGY (Art. 415, No. 10) – It is immovable by law such as administrative contracts for public works vesting real rights over an immovable.

A building is an immovable even if not erected by the owner of the land. The only criterion is union or incorporation with the soil. (LADERA VS. HODGES, [CA] 48 O.G. 4374])

In the enumeration of properties under Article 415 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, it is obvious that the inclusion of 'building' separate and distinct from the land, in said provision of law can only mean that a building is by itself an immovable property. (LOPEZ VS OROSA, L-10817-18, February 28, 1958)

P Page 3 of 30

CIVIL LAW


While a mortgage of land necessarily includes, in the absence of stipulation of the improvements thereon, buildings; still a building by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has been built. Such a mortgage would be still a real estate mortgage for the building would still be considered immovable property even if dealt with separately and apart from the land. (LEUNG YEE VS. STRONG MACHINERY CO., 37 Phil. 644)

Even if the house is mortgaged as a chattel, it is real property for purposes of Rule 39, Sec. 16, on execution sales and insofar as third persons are concerned. But the parties to the contract may be bound thereto under the principle of “estoppel.” (MANARANG VS. OFILADA, L-8133, May 18, 1956)

Contracting parties may validly stipulate that machineries deemed immovable real property by destination shall still be considered as movable personal property. After agreeing to such stipulation, they are consequently estopped from claiming otherwise. Under the principle of estoppel, a party to a contract is ordinarily precluded from denying the truth of any material fact found therein. Thus, said machines are proper subjects of the Writ of Seizure. (SERG’S PRODUCTS, INC. VS. PCI LEASING AND FINANCE, INC., 338 SCRA 504)

In order that fixtures and ornaments may be considered as realty, they should be placed by the owner, or by a tenant as agent of the owner with the intention of attaching them permanently, even if adherence will not involve breakage or injury. (VALDEZ VS. CENTRAL ALTAGRACIA, 225 U.S. 58)

Machineries and equipment can be considered immovable if placed by the owner or a tenant, acting as an agent of the owner, and adopted to the needs of the industry or work carried on. (DAVAO SAW MILL VS. CASTILLO, 61 Phil. 709)

Article 415 (9) of the New Civil Code provides that “[d]ocks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast” are considered immovable property. Thus, power barges are categorized as immovable property by destination, being in the nature of machinery and other implements intended by the owner for an industry or work which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land and which tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or work. (FELS ENERGY, INC. VS. THE PROVINCE OF BATANGAS, G.R. 168557, February 16, 2007)

A mortgage of a vessel is in the nature of a chattel mortgage which should be entered in the records of the Collector of Customs of the port of entry. (MCMICKING VS. BAN

OL FILIPINO, 13 Phil. 429, See also PHIL. REFINING CO. INC. vs. JARQUE, 61 PHIL. 229)

Chattel mortgage over real property binds the parties thereto but not third persons acting in good faith. (MAKATI LEASING & FINANCE CORP. VS. WEAREVER TEXTILE, 122 SCRA 296)

Movables or Personal Property

1. By NATURE – Art. 416

2. By ANALOGY – Art. 417

P Page 4 of 30

CIVIL LAW


A dismantled house shall cease to be immovable and shall be legally considered personal property. (BICERRA vs. TENEZA, L-16218, November 29, 1962)

Ships or vessels, whether moved by steam or by sail, are personal property because they are not included in the enumeration of immovables under Art. 415 CC and also, they can be transported from one place to another without injury to the immovable where they are attached. However, they partake, to a certain extent, of the nature and conditions of real property as to its registration requirements, on account of their value and importance in the world commerce. (RUBISO VS. RIVERA, 37 Phil. 72)

Cash registers and typewriters usually found in hotels and restaurants are merely incidentals and should not be considered immobilized by destination, for these businesses can continue or carry on their functions without these pieces of equipment. (MINDANAO BUS CO., vs. CITY ASSESSOR, L-17870, Sept. 29, 1962).

A person’s “one half interest in business” is personal property. (INVOLUNTARY INSOLVENCY OF STROCHKER VS. RAMIREZ, 44 PHIL. 933)

For purposes of attachment, execution, and the Chattel Mortgage law, growing crops or fruits or ungathered products or fruits have the nature of personal property. (SIBAL VS. VALDEZ, 50 PHIL. 512)

Movable property: Fungible vs. Consumable

Fungible things are replaceable by equal quantity either by nature or by agreement.

Consumable things cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their nature without being consumed.

Property of Public Dominion vs. Patrimonial Property

Property of public dominion is held in trust for the interest of the community. It is inalienable, cannot be acquired by adverse possession and not subject to attachment or execution. (Art. 420 CC)

Property of public dominion is outside the commerce of man. (HARTY VS. VICTORIA, 13 PHIL. 152)

Patrimonial property serves as a means for the State’s subsistence. It can be alienated.

Land devoted to public use by the Department of Foreign Affairs, when no longer needed for public use, may be declared patrimonial property for sale to private parties provided there is a law authorizing such act. This declaration requires executive and legislative concurrence. (LAUREL VS. GARCIA, 187 SCRA 797)

Alienable public land may be acquired by prescription. (DE OCSIO VS. CA, 170 SCRA 729)

There are two kinds of prescription by which patrimonial property may be acquired, one ordinary and other extraordinary. Under ordinary acquisitive prescription, a person acquires ownership of a patrimonial property through possession for at least ten (10) years, in good faith and with just title. Under extraordinary acquisitive prescription, a person’s uninterrupted

P Page 5 of 30

CIVIL LAW


adverse possession of patrimonial property for at least thirty (30) years, regardless of good faith or just title, ripens into ownership. (Malabanan v. Republic, G.R. No. 179987, April 29, 2009)

Regalian Doctrine (Jura Regalia) states that all lands of public domain and all natural resources are owned by the State.

Property for Public Use vs. Property for Public Service

A property for public use may be used by anyone indiscriminately, whereas a property for public service may be used only by authorized persons.

Property for public use and for public service are outside the commerce of man. (MUN. OF ANTIPOLO VS. ZAPANTA, 133 SCRA 820)

Res Nullius, Res Communes, Res Derelicta, Res Alicujus

a. Res Nullius – not yet appropriated but susceptible of appropriation

b. Res Communes – object beyond human control which in law are things

c. Res Derelicta – abandoned property

d. Res Alicujus – property already possessed or owned

Builder /Possessor in Good Faith

“in Good Faith”– the belief that the person from whom he received the thing was its owner, and could transfer valid title thereto.

A purchaser of a property cannot be in good faith if his title shows that it was reconstituted. (PREMIERE DEV’T BANK VS. CA, 453 SCRA 630, March 18, 2005)

Real Right vs. Personal Right

Real Right is one that confers upon its holder an autonomous power to derive directly from an appropriate thing certain economic advantages, independently of whoever should be the possessor of the thing (De Buen).

Personal Right is the power belonging to one person to demand of another as a definite passive subject the fulfillment of a prestation to give, to do, or not to do.

CLASSIFICATION OF REAL RIGHTS:

1.) Of full control:

(2.b.i) Ownership

(2.b.ii) Possession

P Page 6 of 30

CIVIL LAW


2.) Of Enjoyment

(2.b.i) Usufruct

(2.b.ii) Servitude

(2.b.iii) Lease record.

3.) Of Guaranty

(2.b.i) Mortgage

(2.b.ii) Pledge

(2.b.iii) Antichresis

(2.b.iv) Retention

4.) Of Acquisition

(2.b.i) Preemption

(2.b.ii) Redemption

Ownership vs. Possession

Ownership is the right to enjoy, dispose and recover a thing without further limitations than those established by law or the will of the owner. (TS Jan. 22, 19440).

Possession is defined as the material holding or control of a thing (possession proper) or the exercise of a right (quasi possession).

RIGHTS OF AN OWNER

Jus possidendi – right to possess

Jus fruendi – right to enjoy the fruits

Jus utendi – right to use.

Jus abutendi – right to abuse.

Jus disponendi – right to dispose.

Jus vindicandi – right to recover or to pursue.

Jus accessiones – right to accessory

DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP

The owner has the right to use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. (Taken from the German Civil Code. 9Art. 429)

P Page 7 of 30

CIVIL LAW


Requisites of self-help: (a) Owner must be lawful possessor; (b) Owner must use only reasonable force; (c) There must be actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation; and, (d) Can only be exercised at the time of an actual or threatened dispossession or

immediately after the dispossession has taken place.

DOCTRINE OF INCOMPLETE PRIVILEGE

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 if 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. 423).

LIMITATIONS TO ONE’S OWNERSHIP:

Eminent Domain

Police Power

Taxation Power

Limitations imposed by law (e.g. legal easements, legitime in succession)

Limitations imposed by the owner himself (e.g. lease, mortgage, pledge, etc.)

Limitations imposed by the grantor or transferor either by contract or will

Inherent limitations arising from conflict with other rights (e.g. accession continua, Contiguity of property)

Prohibition against the acquisition of private lands by aliens (e.g. Sec. 7, Art. XII, 1987 Constitution)

Eminent Domain vs. Abatement of Nuisance

Eminent Domain – property is preserved and devoted to public use.

Abatement of Nuisance – the property is destroyed in the interest of health, safety or security.

Necessary Expenses, Useful Expenses, Ornamental/ Luxurious Expenses

Necessary Expenses refer to those without which the thing would physically deteriorate or perish.

Useful Expenses refer to those which increase the productivity or raise the value for every subsequent possessor.

Ornamental Expenses refer to those which add to the value of the thing only for certain determinate persons.

P Page 8 of 30

CIVIL LAW


II. HIDDEN TREASURE

Any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear. (Art. 439).

“BY CHANCE” means “good luck”. This does not preclude a finder who purposely hunts for hidden treasure.

Who is the owner of the hidden treasure

1. To the owner of the land, building or property where it is found;

2. (½) one half to the finder who is not a trespasser provided that discovery is by chance.

NOTE:

• If the precious metals are in their raw state, it will be owned by the State by virtue of the Regalian doctrine.

• If the finder is hired, then compensation or salary or fixed fee will be given to him.

• If finder is married, his half share as owner belongs to the community (Art. 154).

• If the hidden treasure is of interest to science and arts, the State acquires it upon payment of just compensation. (Art. 438)

III. ACCESSION

Extension of ownership over a thing to whatever is incorporated thereto naturally or artificially (with or without human labor).

This is not a mode of acquiring ownership.

NOTE: Accession exists if the incorporation is such that separation would seriously damage either thing or diminish its value (Art. 447, second par.).

Accession vs. Accessory

Accessions are the fruits of, or additions to, or improvements upon, the principal.

Accessories are those things joined to, or included with the principal for the latter’s embellishment, better use or completion.

NOTE: While accessions are not necessary to the principal thing, the accessory and the principal must go together.

KINDS OF ACCESSION:

A. Accession Discreta – by internal forces (fruits)

KINDS OF FRUITS:

P Page 9 of 30

CIVIL LAW


1. Natural fruits – spontaneous products of soil and young of animal.

2. Industrial fruits – produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor.

3. Civil fruits – rents of buildings, rents of land, amount of perpetual or life annuities.

TO WHOM DO FRUITS BELONG:

General Rule: Fruits go to the owner of the principal.

Exceptions:

a) To the possessor in good faith; (Art. 544)

b) To the usufructuary; (Art. 566)

c) To the lessee; (Art. 1654) and,

d) To the creditor in antichresis (Art. 2132)

Art. 443 – Obligation of recipient of fruits to reimburse necessary expenses of a third person.

B. Accession Continua – by external forces (building, alluvium, etc.)

(2.a) With respect to real property

(2.a.i) Accession industrial – by the work of man

e.g. building, planting, sowing

PRINCIPLES TO BE FOLLOWED:

• Accessory follows the principal.

• Whoever is in bad faith will always be liable for damages.

• Principle of unjust enrichment is generally applicable.

The right to choose between appropriating the improvement or selling the land on which improvement stands is given to the owner of the land under Art. 448. If landowner opted to purchase, he cannot demand for rental from planter/sower since the latter is given the right of retention. The right of retention is a security for the required indemnity. (BALLATAN VS. CA, 304 SCRA 34)

A lessee cannot be a builder in good faith. Article 448 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 546 of the same Code, which allows full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, applies only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof. It does not apply where one's only interest is that of a lessee under a rental contract. (GEMINIANO VS. CA, G.R. No. 120303, July 24, 1996)

Persons whose occupation of a realty is by sheer tolerance of its owners are not possessors in good faith. Neither did the promise of the landowners that they were going to

P Page 10 of 30

CIVIL LAW


donate the premises to occupants convert them into builders in good faith for at the time the improvements were built on the premises, such promise was not yet fulfilled. As such, occupants cannot be said to be entitled to the value of the improvements that they built on the said lot. (PADA-KILARIO VS. CA, G.R. No. 134329, January 19, 2000)

RIGHTS WHERE THE LAND OWNER MAKES USE OF THE MATERIALS BELONGING TO ANOTHER IN PLANTING, CONSTRUCTING OR WORKING (ART. 447)

Both parties in good faith: The land owner becomes the owner of the materials but shall pay their value; however, the owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them but only in case he can do so without injury to the plantings, constructions or work.

Land owner in bad faith and owner of the materials in good faith: He becomes the owner of the materials but he shall be obliged to pay their value plus reparation for damages; however, the owner of the materials may remove them even if the removal may cause injury to the plantings, constructions or work.

Landowner in good faith and the owner of materials in bad faith: The latter would be liable for any consequential damages, without right of removal. Both parties in bad faith: They shall both be treated as being in good faith.

NOTE: The owner cannot offer to return the materials instead of paying their value. If the materials have not been damaged or transformed and can be returned in their original condition, the landowner may do so at his expense, even without the consent of the owner of the materials.

RIGHTS OF BUILDER, SOWER OR PLANTER (BSP) WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION, PLANTING OR SOWING IS MADE IN A LAND BELONGING TO ANOTHER (ART. 448) Both parties in good faith: The landowner is given an option, either: a. To appropriate the improvement as his own upon payment of the required indemnity

only as regards to necessary and useful expenses; or NOTE: Luxurious expenses shall not be refunded but may be removed if the same can be

done without injury to the principal, unless the land owner gives refund thereof; Right of retention: Only the BSP in good faith may retain both the land and the improvements thereon, even against the real owner, until the indemnity has been paid in full by the landowner who has elected to appropriate the improvements. Consequently, the land owner has no right to demand payment of rents for the occupation of the land.

NOTE: Where the improvements have been destroyed by a fortuitous event without the fault of the landowner, the right of retention is extinguished; hence, there is no

P Page 11 of 30

CIVIL LAW


other recourse for him but to vacate the premises and deliver the land to its owner.

During the period of retention, the BSP is not necessarily a possessor in good faith. Hence, if he receives fruits from the property, he is obliged to account for such fruits, so that the amount thereof may be deducted from the amount of indemnity to be paid to him by the owner of the land.

b. To oblige the sower to pay the proper rent, and the builder or planter to pay the price of

the land unless the value of the land is considerably more than what has been built or planted. In the latter case, the builder or planter shall pay reasonable rent, unless the owner appropriates the improvement.

NOTE: In the event of the failure of the builder or planter to pay after the land owner

opted to sell the land, the latter is entitled to removal of the improvement. c. In case the BSP is required to pay reasonable rent, a lease relationship is created. In case

the parties cannot agree on the terms of the lease, the Court shall fix such terms. NOTE:

• The improvements herein must be of a permanent character. Otherwise, there is no accession and the builder or planter must remove the construction.

• In case of eminent domain, land owner cannot exercise option (a). BSP in bad faith and land owner in good faith: BSP loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity (Art. 449). Nonetheless, BSP is entitled to reimbursement for necessary expenses of preservation of the land incurred by him but without the right of retention (Art. 452). ALTERNATIVE RIGHTS OF LANDOWNER: (Art. 450)

1) To appropriate what has been built, sown, or planted in bad faith without any obligation to

pay any indemnity except for necessary expenses for the preservation of the land, plus damages;

2) To ask the removal or demolition of what has been built, planted or sown in order to replace things in their former condition at the BSP’s expense, plus damages; or,

3) To compel the sower to pay the proper rent, and the builder or planter to pay the value of the land, whether or not the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the improvements, plus damages.

Both parties in bad faith: Their rights shall be determined as if both acted in good faith. (Art. 453) Land owner in bad faith but BSP in good faith: The land owner is considered as having made the building, sowing or planting, and the BSP shall be considered as the owner of the materials. Hence, the land owner shall pay the value of the materials plus damages because of his bad

P Page 12 of 30

CIVIL LAW


faith. However, the owner of the materials may remove them even if the removal may cause injury to the plantings, constructions or work. (Art. 454)

WHERE LANDOWNER, BSP AND OWNER OF MATERIALS ARE DIFFERENT PERSONS

Owner of materials acted in good faith regardless of the good or bad faith of the land owner or BSP: The owner of the materials is entitled to reimbursement for the value of the materials, principally from the BSP because he is the one who made use of the same, and subsidiarily from the land owner in the event the BSP has no property with which to pay. (Art. 455)

Owner of materials acted in bad faith but the land owner and the BSP are in good faith: The owner of the materials forfeits his rights thereto without the right to be indemnified as if he himself built, planted, or sowed in bad faith. (Art. 449 & 451) BSP acted in bad faith but Land owner and owner of the materials acted in good faith: 1) If the land owner appropriates the accession, BSP shall be principally liable to the owner of

the materials for their value plus damages. In case of insolvency of the BSP, the land owner shall be subsidiarily liable to the owner of the materials for their value but NOT for damages for he acted in good faith. BSP is also liable to the owner of the land for damages.

2) If the land owner elects to have the improvement removed, the materials will revert to their owner. The latter will be entitled to damages from the BSP.

Land owner acted in good faith but owner of the materials and BSP acted in bad faith: 1) The land owner can exercise his alternative rights. 2) Since both the owner of the materials and BSP acted in bad faith, they are treated as having

both acted in good faith. Hence, the owner of the materials is entitled to be reimbursed by the BSP.

All acted in bad faith: Their rights shall be the same as though all of them acted in good faith.

(2.a.ii) Accession natural - by the forces of nature.

e.g. alluvium, avulsion.

Alluvium is the gradual deposit of sediment by the natural action of a current of fresh water (not sea water), the original identity of the deposit being lost. Where the deposit is by sea water, it belongs to the State (GOV’T. OF P.I. , 53 Phil. 112) - Art. 457.

Accretion is the process whereby the soil is deposited, while alluvium is the soil deposited on the estate fronting the river bank; the owner of such estate is called the riparian owner.

As a mode of acquiring property under Article 457 of the Civil Code, accretion requires the concurrence of these requisites: (1) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and (3) that

P Page 13 of 30

CIVIL LAW


the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks or rivers (or the sea coast). (MENESES VS. CA, 246 SCRA 162)

The requirement that the deposit should be due to the effect of the current of the river is indispensable, otherwise it shall be deemed a man-made accretion and, as such, part of the public domain. (REPUBLIC VS. CA, 132 SCRA 514; TIONGCO VS. DIRECTOR OF LANDS, 16 CA Rep. 211; VDA. DE NAZARENO VS. CA, GR 98045, 26 June 1996)

Avulsion is the deposit of known (identifiable) portion of land caused by a sudden and abrupt accretion. It is characterized by a detachment of a segregated known portion of land and attachment of the same to another estate. The original owner retains the title, except in case of abandonment or expiration of 2 years. It is a case of “delayed accession.” (Art. 459).

With regard to uprooted trees, such must be claimed within 6 months (Art. 460).

River beds abandoned through natural change in course of the waters – (Art. 461) Gives ownership of the abandoned river bed to the owner of the land occupied by the new course in proportion to area lost. New river bed shall become public domain. The owner of the invaded land automatically acquires ownership of the same without the necessity of any formal act on his part; however, the owners of land adjoining the old bed are given preferential right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof.

Formation of Islands (Art. 464):

Formed by the sea – (a) Within territorial waters – to the STATE (Art. 464).

(b) Outside territorial waters – to the first OCCUPANT.

Formed in lakes or navigable or floatable rivers – to the STATE (Art. 464).

By non-navigable or non-floatable rivers:

(a) Equidistant from both banks (measured from the island’s margins) – to the riparian owners, by halves.

(b) Nearer one margin or bank – to the nearer riparian owner (Art. 465).

(2.b) Accession Continua: With respect to personal property

(2.b.i) Conjunction or adjunction

(2.b.ii) Commixtion or confusion

(2.b.iii) Specification

ACCESSION IN MOVABLE PROPERTY exists ONLY if separation is not possible (Art. 469)

P Page 14 of 30

CIVIL LAW


1. Adjunction – the union of materials belonging to different owners making up a new thing (separation being impossible without injury) Arts. 466, 469. Each component retains its own nature.

Kinds of adjunction: (Manresa)

a) Inclusion or engraftment (e.g. Diamond is set on a gold ring) b) Soldadura or soldering (e.g. Lead is united or fused to an object made of lead; it

is ferruminacion if both the accessory and principal objects are of the same metal; and plumbatura if they are of different metals)

c) Escritura or writing (e.g. when a person writes on paper belonging to another) d) Pintura or painting (e.g. when a person paints on canvas belonging to another) e) Tejido or weaving (e.g. when threads belonging to different owners are used in

making textile)

TESTS TO DETERMINE PRINCIPAL IN ADJUNCTION:

Rule of importance and purpose – the principal is that to which the other (accessory) has been united as an ornament or for its use or perfection.

Rule of greater value – if they are of unequal values.

Rule of greater volume – if they are of equal value.

Rule of greater merits – that of greater merits taking into consideration all the pertinent legal provisions (Art. 475).

Rule if there is good faith by either owner:

General Rule: Accessory follows the principal (Art. 469), EXCEPT when the accessory is much more precious than the principal, in which case the owner of the accessory may demand the separation even if the principal suffers some injury, not destruction (Art. 469, par. 2).

Rule if owner of principal is in bad faith:

Owner of the accessory has the option: (a) to recover value + damages; or, (b) to demand separation even to extent of destroying principal + damages (Art. 470, par. 2).

Rule if owner of accessory is in bad faith:

Loses accessory and liable for damages (Art. 470).

P Page 15 of 30

CIVIL LAW


2. Mixture (Commixtion or confusion) – union of materials where the components lose their identity.

Rule if things are mixed by accident or by one in good faith:

Each acquires an interest in proportion to the value of his material, resulting in co-ownership.

If one is in bad faith, he loses all rights to his own materials and becomes answerable for damages.

3. Specification – it is the transformation of another’s material by the application of labor. The material becomes a thing of a different kind. The human labor is deemed to be the principal (Art. 474).

Rule if owner of principal is in good faith:

The maker acquires the new thing and indemnifies the owner of material EXCEPT if the material is more valuable then the owner of material has the option to acquire work, indemnifying for labor OR to demand indemnity for the material.

Rule if owner of principal is in bad faith:

The owner of material has the option to acquire the result without indemnity (due to impossibility of separation) OR indemnity for the material plus damages.

Rule if owner of material is in bad faith:

Loses material and must pay for damages.

IV. QUIETING OF TITLE

- An equitable action in rem to determine the condition of the ownership or the rights to immovable property and remove doubts thereon.

- A cloud on title is a semblance of title.

- A cloud on title exists when there is an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective; such instrument is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable or has been extinguished by prescription.

- Action does not prescribe if property is in the possession of plaintiff (SAPTO VS. FABIANA, 103 PHIL. 683).

- Plaintiff must have legal or equitable title, or an interest therein, but need not be in possession of the property (Art. 477).

P Page 16 of 30

CIVIL LAW


CO-OWNERSHIP vs. PARTNERSHIP

Action for reconveyance prescribes in ten (10) years if claimant is NOT IN POSSESSION. If in possession, action does not prescribe because being in possession, he may wait until possession is disturbed. Registration cannot be used as a shield for fraud. (LEYSON VS. BONTUYAN, 452 SCRA 94, February 18, 2005)

Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least constructive possession."34 Such realty tax payments constitute proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. (CUENCO VS. CUENCO, G.R. No. 149844, October 13, 2004)

Action to quiet title vs. Action to remove a cloud

- In the first, the purpose is to put an end to troublesome litigation in respect to the property involved; while in the second, the purpose is the removal of a possible foundation for a future hostile action.

- The first is a remedial action involving a present adverse claim; while the second is a preventive action to prevent a future cloud on the title.

V. CO-OWNERSHIP

- The right of common dominion which two or more persons have in a spiritual part of a thing which is not physically divided (Sanchez Roman).

- Its requisites/characteristics are plurality of subjects, unity of object or material indivision, and recognition of ideal or intellectual shares of co-owners which determine their rights and obligations (Castan).

CO-OWNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP

Created by other sources besides contract.

Created by contract except conjugal partnership.

No juridical personality. Has a juridical personality.

Purpose is common enjoyment.

Purpose is profit.

May not stipulate indivision for more than 10 yrs., but 20 yrs. If imposed by testator/donor.

May be for more than 10 years.

There is no mutual representation by the

There is mutual representation by the

P Page 17 of 30

CIVIL LAW


LIMITATIONS ON CO–OWNER’S RIGHT OF USE: (Art. 486)

1. To the purpose for which the co–ownership is intended.

2. Without prejudice to the interests of the co–ownership.

3. Without preventing the other co–owners from using it according to their rights.

Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in

common and to the taxes in proportion to their interest therein. (Art. 488)

For NECESSARY EXPENSES, a co-owner may advance the expenses for preservation. If practicable, he is required to give notice to his co-owners of the necessity of such repairs but consent is NOT required. For EMBELLISHMENT AND IMPROVEMENT, the consent of the majority of the co–owners is required. (Art. 489)

A co-owner has the right to freely sell and dispose of his undivided interest but no right to sell a divided/definite part of the real estate owned in common (LOPEZ VS. ILUSTRE, 5 Phil. 568)

The sale of the subject property made by a co-owner mother in favor of a third person is limited to the portion which may be allotted to her upon the termination of co-ownership over the subject property with her children. (CORONEL VS. CONSTANTINO, 397 SCRA 128)

No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership and that each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned. (AGUILAR VS. CA, 227 SCRA 472)

Co-ownership is terminated upon judicial or extra-judicial partition of the properties owned in common. (CRUZ VS. CA, 456 SCRA 165, April 15, 2005)

The registration in the names of petitioners of the titles to the properties is not an act of repudiation of the co-ownership. (MARIATEGUI VS. CA, 205 SCRA 337)

Any co-owner may file an action for ejectment under Art. 487 not only against a third person but also against a co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of the property. (DE GUIA VS. CA, 413 SCRA 114)

Any co-owner may bring an action for ejectment. (RESUENA VS. CA, March 18, 2005) Nonetheless, the action should be dismissed if the suit is for the plaintiff alone who claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the property. (ADLAWAN VS. ADLAWAN, G.R. No. 161916, January 20, 2006)

Regime of co-ownership exists when ownership of an undivided thing/right belongs to different persons. Any act intended to put an end to division is deemed to be partition. Heirs took possession of respective share and constructed respective houses. Co-ownership is legally dissolved and right of redemption cannot anymore be exercised. (AVILA VS. SPS. ARABAT, March 17, 2006)

co–owners. partners.

There is freedom of disposition of a co-owner’s share.

A partner cannot transfer his rights to 3rd persons without the consent of the others.

Distribution of charges and benefits is proportional and is fixed by law.

Distribution of profits is subject to stipulations.

Not dissolved by death of co-owner.

Dissolved by death of partner.

P Page 18 of 30

CIVIL LAW


SOURCES OF CO-OWNERSHIP:

1. Law

2. Contract

3. Succession

4. Chance (commixtion, hidden treasure)

5. Occupation (hunting, fishing).

A majority of interest in a co-ownership is necessary in the following:

1. Management;

2. Enjoyment

3. Improvement or embellishment (Art. 489).

Unanimous consent of all co-owners is necessary in:

1. Alteration of thing owned in common. (Art. 491)

2. Disposition of entire property

3. Encumbrance

Causes for extinction of co-ownership:

1. Total destruction of the thing;

2. Merger of all interests;

3. Prescription (adverse possession) – by a third person or one co-owner (open and adverse); and

4. Partition – may be asked for at any time EXCEPT when:

a. there is stipulation against it;

b. condition is imposed by transferor;

c. legal nature prevents partition; prohibited by law; and

d. partition would render thing unserviceable.

Note: Read the Condominium Act or R.A No. 4726, approved on June 19, 1966.

Condominium

It is the interest in real property which consists of a separate interest in the unit and an undivided interest in common directly or indirectly, in the land where unit is located and common areas in the building. Holders of separate interest shall automatically be members of the condominium corporation.

P Page 19 of 30

CIVIL LAW


VI. POSSESSION

It is defined as the material holding or control of a thing (possession proper) or the exercise of a right (quasi possession).

Possession, to constitute the foundation of a prescriptive right, must be possession under claim of title, that is, it must be adverse. Mere material possession of land is not adverse possession as against the owner and is insufficient to vest title, unless such possession is accompanied by the intent to possess as an owner. There should be a hostile use of such a nature and exercised under such circumstance as to manifest and give notice that the possession is under a claim of right. (OLEGARIO VS. MARI, G.R. No. 147951, December 14, 2009)

Objects of Possession

Only things and rights susceptible of appropriation (Art. 530). Excluded are res communes, property of public dominion, discontinuous servitudes, and non-apparent servitudes.

Ways of acquiring possession

1. Material occupancy – includes constructive delivery (traditio brevi manu and constitutum possessorium).

Traditio brevi manu– transferee already had it in his possession for any other reason.

Example: possession in the concept of lessee/usufructuary to possession in concept of owner.

Constitutum Possessorium – takes place when the owner of the thing alienates it but continues in possession in the concept of a tenant or other subordinate right.

2. By the subjection to the action of our will according to law even without physical seizure (as in tradicion simbolica and traditio longa manu)

Tradicion Simbolica- delivery of the keys of the place or depository where the thing is stored or kept.

Traditio Longa Manu– thing cannot be manually transferred to the transfereee at the time of agreement but there is no legal obstacle to the transfer of possession.

3. By proper acts and legal formalities.

Clandestine Possession– hidden or disguised, as distinguished from open or public possession.

NOTE: Acts merely tolerated and those executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession (Art. 537).

P Page 20 of 30

CIVIL LAW


Right of Possession vs. Right to Possession

Jus possessionis – right of possession is independent and apart from ownership.

Jus possidendi – right to possession is a mere incident of ownership.

Under the law, jus possidendi is a necessary incident of ownership. However, the owner cannot exercise this right to the prejudice of a party whose possession is predicated on a contract like agency, trust, pledge or lease, as in this case. Under the Lease Purchase Agreement between MMTC and DMCI, the latter, as lessee, had a right of possession over the buses and it may be deprived of said right only if it failed to pay its dues for three consecutive months. (MMTC VS. DMCI, GR No. 147594, March 7, 2007)

Possession with a juridical title vs. Possession with a just title

Possession with a juridical title – predicated on a juridical relation existing between the possessor and the owner of the thing but not in the concept of owner such as that of lessee, usufructuary, depositary, etc.

Possession with a just title – possession of an adverse claimant whose title is sufficient to transfer ownership but is defective as when the seller is not the true owner.

Who is preferred in case of dispute over right of possession:

1. preference shall be given to actual possessor (in fact);

2. If there are two or more possessors, to the oldest;

3. If the dates are the same, to the one who exhibits title;

4. If all conditions are equal, owner-ship/possession is determined in proper proceedings (Art. 538).

Different kinds of action to recover possession of real property:

1. Summary (Accion interdictal) – Forcible entry or unlawful detainer.

2. Accion publiciana – based on superior right of plaintiff to possession.

3. Accion reivindicatoria – based on ownership.

4. Injunction, against continuation of trespass.

Replevin – proper action for the recovery of personal property. Rule 60, Rules of Court.

Principle of Irreinvindicability (Art. 559)

Possession of a movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title, EXCEPT (a) when the owner had lost it or (b) when the owner has been illegally deprived of it. The owner can recover possession after reimbursement of the price paid by buyer in good faith in the public auction.

P Page 21 of 30

CIVIL LAW


Article 546 provides that a builder in good faith is entitled to full reimbursement for all the necessary and useful expenses incurred; It also gives him right of retention until full reimbursement is made. Right of retention is a measure devised by law for the protection of builders in good faith, to guarantee full and prompt reimbursement. Thus, a builder in good faith cannot be compelled to pay rentals during period of retention.(SPS. NUGUID VS. CA, G.R. NO. 151815, FEB. 23, 2005)

In an action for forcible entry, plaintiff must prove that he was in prior possession of the land/building and that he was deprived thereof by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. Absence of prior physical possession by plaintiff warrants the dismissal of his complaint. (SAMPAYAN VS. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL., G.R. No. 156360, Jan. 14, 2005 ,Also see DELA ROSA VS. CARLOS, 414 SCRA 226).

The elements to be proved in unlawful detainer are fact of lease/usufruct, and expiration or violation of its terms. Issue of ownership should be settled in an appropriate action. (OCAMPO VS. TIRONA, April 6, 2005)

Interpleader is the proper remedy if lessee does not know to whom rentals should be paid.

Lessees, much less sub-lessees, are not possessors or builders in good faith over rented land because they know that their occupancy of the premises continues only during the life of the lease or sublease; and they cannot as a matter of right recover the value of their improvements from the lessor, much less retain the premises until they are reimbursed. Instead, their rights are governed by Art. 1678 of the Civil Code which allows reimbursement of lessees up to (½) one-half of the value of their improvements if the lessor elects. (JIMENEZ VS. PATRICIA INC., G.R. NO. 134651, Sept,. 18, 2000)

SOTTO VS. ENAGE, 43 O.G. 5057 – bad faith is not transmissible (Art. 534).

VII. USUFRUCT

It is the right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides. It is a real right and involve real or personal property. Its attributes are only jus utendi and jus fruendi.

Usufruct vs. Lease vs. Commodatum

NHA VS. CA, 456 SCRA 17 (April 13, 2005) – usufructuary may lease the object in usufruct.

ALUNAN VS. VELOSO, 52 PHIL. 545 – money may be the object of usufruct (art. 574).

Abnormal Usufruct involves consumable things or movable property. A usufructuary does not have the obligation to preserve the form and the substance of property. The obligation is to pay appraised value,i.e., current price at time usufruct ceases.

Obligations of usufructuary before entering upon the enjoyment of property:

P Page 22 of 30

CIVIL LAW


1. To make an inventory of all the property;

2. To give a security.

Caucion Juratoria – Bond by oath if usufructuary cannot give a security.

Obligations of usufructuary during existence of usufruct:

1. To take care of thing as good father of the family.

2. To make ordinary repairs at his expense. Extraordinary repairs are for the account of owner.

3. To pay taxes and charges.

4. Must notify owner of urgent need for extraordinary repairs (art. 593) and acts detrimental to ownership (Art. 601).

5. Bears the cost of litigation over the usufruct (Art. 602).

6. Answers for the fault or negligence of lessee or agent (Art. 590).

Causes for extinguishment of usufruct:

1. Death except in multiple usufruct, period is fixed or there is resolutory condition, contrary intention appears;

2. Expiration of period or fulfillment of resolutory condition;

3. Merger;

4. Waiver;

5. Expiration or loss of property;

A life usufruct constituted on the rentals of the building located on a certain place includes the rentals on both the building and on the land on which it is erected, because the building cannot exist without the land. Hence, the usufruct isn’t extinguished by the destruction of the building, for under the law, usufruct is extinguished only by the total loss of the thing subject of the encumbrance. (VDA. DE ALBAR VS. CARANGDANG, 106 Phil 855)

6. Expropriation;

7. Resolution or termination of the right to constitute the usufruct; and

8. Prescription.

Obligations of usufructuary at the expiration of usufruct:

1. To return thing unless there is right of retention for extraordinary expenses.

2. To pay interest on the amount spent by the owner for extraordinary repairs (Art. 594) or taxes on the capital (Art. 597).

P Page 23 of 30

CIVIL LAW


3. To indemnify owner for losses due to the negligence of usufructuary or transferee (Arts. 589-590).

VIII. EASEMENT/SERVITUDE

It is a real right constituted on another’s tenement (immovable property) where the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or must allow something to be done on his property, for the benefit of another person or another tenement (Sanchez Roman). The parties are the owner of dominant estate and owner of servient estate.

An easement is a real right on another’s property, corporeal and immovable, whereby the owner of the latter must refrain from doing or allowing somebody else to do or something to be done on his property, for the benefit of another person or tenement. Easements are established either by law or by the will of the owner. The former are called legal, and the latter, voluntary easements. (UNISOURCE COMMERCIAL AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION VS. JOSEPH CHUNG, et al., G.R. No. 173252, July 17, 2009)

Easement vs. Lease

Easement involves rightful use WITHOUT possession and ownership. Lease involves rightful possession AND use without ownership.

Common kinds of easement:

EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY - it is the right granted to the owner of an estate which is surrounded by other estates belonging to other persons and without an adequate outlet to public highway to demand that he be allowed a passage way throughout such neighboring estates after payment of proper indemnity. (Art. 649)

EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT - this is the right arising from a forced easement by virtue of which the owner of an estate who desires to avail himself of water for the use of said estate may make such waters pass thru the intermediate estate with the obligation of indemnifying the owner of the same and also the owner of the estate to which the water may filter or flow. (Art. 642)

EASEMENT OF A PARTY WALL - refers to all those mass of rights and obligations emanating from the existence and common enjoyment of wall, fence, enclosures or hedges, by the owners of adjacent buildings and estates separated by such objects. (Art. 658)

EASEMENT OF LIGHT - it is the right to admit light from the neighboring estate by virtue of the opening of a window or the making of certain openings (Art. 667)

EASEMENT OF VIEW - it is the right to make openings or windows, to enjoy the view through the estate of another and the power to prevent all constructions or works which would obstruct such view or make the same difficult. (Art. 667) It necessarily includes the easement of light. It is possible to have light only without view.

P Page 24 of 30

CIVIL LAW


EASEMENT OF DRAINAGE OF BUILDINGS - is the right to divert or empty the rain waters from one’s own roof or shed to the neighbor’s estate either drop by drop or through conduits (Art. 674)

EASEMENT TO RECEIVE FALLING RAIN WATERS - the article deals not with a legal or compulsory easement, but with a voluntary easement to receive rain water falling from the roof of an adjoining building. (Art. 675) It is an application of art. 629.

Modes of acquiring easement:

1. By Title

(a) Continuous, non-apparent;

(b) Discontinuous whether apparent or not.

2. By Prescription of 10 years – applicable only to Continuous and Apparent easements.

An easement of right of way may only be acquired by title, not prescription. (RONQUILLO VS. ROCO, L-10619, Feb. 28, 1958 – Also see ABELLA VS. CA, 208 SCRA 316).

Formal requirement to affect 3rd persons

Voluntary easements must be recorded in the Registry of Property but recording is not necessary for legal easements. (VALDEZ VS. TABISULA, GR No. 175510, July 28, 2008)

Article 637 of the Civil Code and Article 50 of the Water Code impose a natural easement upon the lower estate to receive the waters which naturally and without the intervention of man descend from the higher estates. However, where the waters which flow from a higher estate are those which are artificially collected in man-made lagoons, any damage occasioned thereby entitles the owner of the lower estate to compensation. (REMMAN ENTERPRISES, INC. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 125018, April 6, 2000)

The conferment of a legal easement of a right of way under Art. 649 is subject to proof of the following requisites: (1) it is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a public highway; (2) payment of proper indemnity; (3) isolation is not the result of its own acts; (4) the right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate; and (5) to the extent consistent with the foregoing rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to the public highway may be the shortest. (SPS. DELA CRUZ VS. RAMISCAL, G.R. NO. 137882, Feb. 4, 2005) The onus of proving the existence of these prerequisites lies on the owner of the dominant estate. (COSTABELLA CORP. V. COURT OF APPEALS, 193 SCRA 333, 334)

Expropriation is not limited to the acquisition of real property with a corresponding transfer of title or possession. The right-of-way easement resulting in a restriction or limitation on property rights over the land traversed by transmission lines also falls within the ambit of the term expropriation. (NAPOCOR VS. IBRAHIM, G.R. No. 183297, December 23, 2009)

Extinguishment of easement: (Art. 631)

1. by merger;

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/183297.htm�

P Page 25 of 30

CIVIL LAW


2. by non – user for ten years; 3. impossibility of use; 4. by renunciation; 5. by redemption; 6. other causes

The mere fact that respondents subdivided the property does not extinguish the easement. Article 618 of the Civil Code provides that if the dominant estate is divided between two or more persons, each of them may use the easement in its entirety, without changing the place of its use, or making it more burdensome in any other way. (Unisource Commercial and Development Corporation vs. Joseph Chung, et al., G.R. No. 173252, July 17, 2009)

IX. NUISANCE – Art. 694 – An act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything else which:

a. injures or endangers the health or safety of others;

b. annoys or offends the senses;

c. shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality;

d. obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any public highways, streets or any body of water; and

e. hinders or impairs the use of property.

A noise may constitute an actionable nuisance, but it must be a noise which affects injuriously the health or comfort of ordinary people in the vicinity to an unreasonable extent. Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position of or specially sensitive characteristics will not render the noise an actionable nuisance. (VELASCO VS. MANILA ELECTRIC CO., 40 SCRA 342, Citing TORTERELLA VS TRAISER & CO., INC., 90 ALR 1206)

PUBLIC NUISANCE vs. PRIVATE NUISANCE:

1. the former affects the public at large or such of them as may come in contact with it, while the latter affects the individual or a limited number of individuals only;

2. public nuisances are indictable, whereas private nuisances are actionable, either for their abatement or for damages, or both

NUISANCE PER SE vs. NUISANCE PER ACCIDENS:

1. In the case of a nuisance per se, the thing becomes a nuisance as a matter of law and its existence need only be proved in any locality, without showing of specific damages, and the right relief is established by averment and proof of the mere act; but in the case of a nuisance per accidens or in fact, it becomes a nuisance depending upon its location and surroundings, the manner of its conduct or other circumstances, and in such cases, proof of the act and its consequence is necessary. Furthermore, the act or thing complained of must be shown by evidence to be a nuisance under the law, and whether it is a nuisance or not is generally a question of fact;

P Page 26 of 30

CIVIL LAW


2. A nuisance per se may be summarily abated under the undefined law of necessity; but if the nuisance be per accidens it has to be decided before a tribunal authorized to decide whether a thing or act does constitute a nuisance.

Doctrine of Attractive Nuisance

One who maintains on his premises dangerous instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play and who fails to exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises.

HIDALGO ENTERPRISES VS. BALANDAN, 48 O.G. 2641 – a swimming pool or water tank is not an attractive nuisance.

Bus terminals are not public nuisance because their operation is a legitimate business. At most, they are nuisance per accidens, not per se and cannot be abated via an ordinance without judicial proceedings. (LUCENA GRAND CENTRAL TERMINAL VS. JAC LINER, 452 SCRA 174, Feb. 23, 2005)

Remedies against public nuisance:

1.) Criminal prosecution;

2.) Civil action (injunction, abatement, damages);

3.) Abatement w/o judicial proceedings.

Remedies against private nuisance:

1.) Civil action;

2.) Extrajudicial abatement.

NOTE: Abatement of nuisance does not prescribe (Art. 1143). It may be commenced by the mayor or by a private individual.

X. MODES OF ACQURING OWNERSHIP

Title vs. Mode

Title is the juridical justification for the acquisition or a transfer of ownership or real right; while Mode is the actual process of acquisition or transfer of ownership or real rights.

• mode directly and immediately produces a real right, while title serves merely to give the occasion for its acquisition or existence;

• mode is the cause, while title is the means; • mode is the proximate cause, while title may be regarded as the remote cause;

P Page 27 of 30

CIVIL LAW


• mode is the essence of the right which is to be created or transmitted, while title is the means whereby that essence is transmitted

Various Modes of acquiring ownership:

1. Original Modes:

(a) Occupation – acquisition of ownership through seizure of corporeal things that have no owner, made with intent to acquire them and done according to rules laid down by law (Partidas);

Wild animals – those roaming free in their natural state, suffering contact with man only by compulsion.

Tamed animals – those wild by nature but have become accustomed to man. Belong to the tamer but upon recovering freedom are susceptible to occupation unless claimed within 20 days from seizure by another. (Art. 716).

ART. 719 – not a finder’s keeper.

(b) Acquisitive Prescription;

(c) Law (by operation of law) Example: estoppel under Art. 1434.

(d) Intellectual creation.

2. Derivative Modes:

(a) Succession mortis causa;

(b) Tradition (Real or Constructive) as a result of sales, barter, donation, assignment, mutuum.

XI. DONATION

It is the act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it. (Art. 725).

who may donate? All persons who may contract and dispose their property (Art. 735).

Requiisites of donation:

(a) Donor must have the capacity to make the donation of a thing or right; (b) He must have the donative intent or intent to make the donation out of liberality to

benefit the donee; (c) There must be delivery, whether actual or constructive, of the thing or right donated;

and (d) The donee must accept or consent to the donation.

Kinds of donation:

P Page 28 of 30

CIVIL LAW


(a) as to taking effect: i. inter vivos;

ii. mortis causa; iii. propter nuptias;

(b) as to consideration:

i. simple; ii. remuneratory of compensatory;

iii. modal; iv. onerous

(c) as to effectivity or extinguishment:

i. pure; ii. conditional;

iii. with a term

Object of donation: All present property of donor provided he reserves, in full ownership or in usufruct sufficient means for the support of himself and relatives who by law are entitled to support. It cannot comprehend future property (Art. 751).

Effect of non-reservation: Donation is not void (ANDRADA VS. SEVILLA, 19 PHIL. 441), but may be reduced on petition of the person affected (Art. 750).

Perfection: Takes place not from the time of acceptance by the donee but from the time it is made known, actually or constructively to the donor.

Void donations (Art. 739)

MATABUENA VS. CERVANTES, 38 SCRA 284 – Donations between common-law spouses are prohibited.

REYES V. MOSQUEDA, 187 SCRA 661 - One of the decisive characteristics of a donation mortis causa is that the transfer should be considered void if the donor should survive the donee.

SUMIPAT V. BANGA, G.R. No. 155810, August 13, 2004 -Where the deed of donation fails to show the acceptance, or where the formal notice of the acceptance, made in a separate instrument, is either not given to the donor or else not noted in the deed of donation and in the separate acceptance, the donation is null and void.

Grounds for revocation of donation (Arts. 760, 764, 765).

1. Birth, appearance or adoption of a child (Art. 760) 2. Non-fulfillment of resolutory condition imposed by the donor (Art. 764). 3. Ingratitude of the donee (Art. 765).

P Page 29 of 30

CIVIL LAW


Grounds for reduction:

1. Failure of donor to reserve sufficient means for support of himself or dependent relatives (Art. 750).

2. Failure to reserve sufficient property to pay off his existing debts (Art. 759). 3. Inofficious, donation exceeds that which donor can give by will (Arts. 752, 771). 4. Birth, appearance or adoption of a child (Art. 760).

Donee was burdened with the obligation to utilize the land donated for school purposes. A donation with an onerous cause is essentially a contract. (SEC. OF EDUCATION VS. HEIRS OF DULAY, G.R. NO. 16478, Jan. 27, 2006)

Double donation (Art. 744) – apply the rule on double sale under Art. 1544, which are the following:

1. First in possession in good faith (movable property). 2. If immovable property, one who has registered it in the Registry of Property in good

faith. 3. One who presents the oldest title.

Formal requirements in Donation

1. Movable property:

1.a. Less than P5,000.00 – oral, simultaneous delivery. 1.b. P5,000 or more – donation and acceptance in writing, otherwise donation is void.

(Art. 748) 2. Immovable property – public instrument. Acceptance may be in the same instrument or in a

separate public instrument.

As the donation is in the nature of a mortis causa disposition, the formalities of a will should have been complied with under Article 728 of the Civil Code, otherwise, the donation is void and would produce no effect. (MAGLASANG VS. HEIRS OF CABATINGAN, G.R. No. 131953, June 5, 2002)

Title to immovable property does not pass from the donor to the donee by virtue of a deed of donation until and unless it has been accepted in a public instrument and the donor duly notified thereof. The acceptance may be made in the very same instrument of donation. If the acceptance does not appear in the same document, it must be made in another. (SUMIPAT V. BANGA, G.R. No. 155810, August 13, 2004)

Art. 729 – Fruits of property donated from the time of acceptance pertain to the donee unless otherwise provided by the donor.

XII. PRESCRIPTION

Prescription vs. Laches vs. Estoppel

P Page 30 of 30

CIVIL LAW


1. Acquisitive Prescription

2. Extinctive Prescription.

Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring (or losing) ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted and adverse. Acquisitive prescription is either ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. Without good faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in character which requires uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years. (HEIRS OF MANINGDING VS. CA, G.R. No. 121157. July 31, 1997)

Laches means the negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. It does not involve mere lapse or passage of time, but is principally an impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right, which has become under the circumstances inequitable or unfair to permit. (SPOUSES CARPO VS. AYALA LAND, INC., G.R. No. 166577, February 3, 2010)

--- 0 ---

Documents

Civ 01 - Property