Property

Javier vs. VeridianoFelicidad Javier vs. Regino Veridiano and Reino RoseteG.R. No. L-48050. October 10, 1994Bellosillo, J.

Doctrine: A judgment in forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue than possession and declares only who has the right of possession, but by no means constitutes a bar to an action for determination of who has the right or title of ownership.

Facts:

On January 1963, Javier filed a Miscellaneous Sales Application for Lot No. 1641, Ts 308 of Olongapo Townsite Subdivision in Olongapo City. On December 1970, Javier filed Civil Case no. 926 (CC 926) for forcible entry against Ben Babol for entering a portion of the southwestern part of Lot 1641, Ts 308. The case was dismissed since the court considered the portion outside Lot 1461. The case became final and executory on April 1973.

Subsequently, Javier was granted Miscellaneous Sales Patent and an Original Certificate of Title was issued in her favor. Meanwhile, Babol who was the defendant in CC 926 had sold the portion he was occupying to Rosete. 4 years after the finality of CC 926, Javier instituted a Civil Case No. 2203-0 (CC 2203-0) for quieting of title and recovery of possession. Rosete moved to dismiss on the ground of res judicata. The CFI of Zambales dismissed the case.

Issue: Whether res judicata is applicable in the case.

Held:

No. The following are the requisites of res judicata:

a) there is final judgment or order; b) the court have jurisdiction over the subject matter; c) former judgment is a judgment on merits; and d) identity of parties, of subject matter, and of causes of action.

The first three are present. There is identity of parties in the case. What is required is not absolute but substantial identity of parties. In the case, Rosete is a successor in interest of Babol by title.

Nevertheless, there is no identity of cause of action. CC 926 is a complaint of forcible entry or accion interdictal where the issue is physical or material possession of real property. In this case, Javier merely claimed a better right or prior possession over the land without asserting title.

CC 2203-0 is an action to recover a parcel of land or accion reivindicatori. In this case, Javier expressly alleged ownership (by virtue of the Original Certificate of Title issued) and specifically prayed that she be declared the rightful owner and be given possession of the disputed portion.

A judgment in forcible entry or detainer case disposes of no other issue than possession and declares only who has the right of possession, but by no means constitutes a bar to an action for determination of who has the right or title of ownership.

Caveat: Anyone who claims this digest as his own without proper authority shall be held liable under the law of Karma.

GERMAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES VS CA

177 SCRA 495 – Civil Law – Property – Doctrine of Self-Help

FACTS:

In February 1982, the spouses Manuel and Cynthia Jose contracted with German Management and Services, Inc. for the latter to develop their landholdings into a residential subdivision. The spouses also executed a special power of attorney to that effect.

German Management started the project in February 1983, however, German Management discovered that the land was being possessed by Ernesto Villeza et al who were the farmers tilling the said land at that time. German Management spoke with Villeza et al but the farmers refused to vacate the land as the farmers claimed that they have been occupying the land for twelve years.

Nevertheless, German Management went on to develop the property and demolished the properties of the farmers without acquiring a court order. In turn, Villeza et al filed a case of forcible entry against German Management. In its defense, German Management invoked the Doctrine of Self-help which provides that:

The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of his property. (Article 429, Civil Code)

ISSUE: Whether or not the doctrine of self-help is applicable in this case.

HELD:

No. The Doctrine of Self-help is not applicable because at the time when German Management excluded the farmers, there’s no longer an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation. That actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion by the farmers have already lapsed 12 years ago when they began occupying the said land. In fact, they were already peaceably farming the land.What should have been the remedy by German Management?

German Management should have filed either accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria to lawfully eject the farmers.

But the farmers are not the real owners and in fact, the spouses Jose have a lawful title over the land?

Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror. Further, there is now a presumption of ownership in favor of the farmers since they are the ones occupying the said property. They can only be ejected either by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoriathrough which the spouses Jose’s better right may be proven.

Felix Caisip vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. L-28716, November 18, 1970Concepcion, C.J.

Facts:

The complainant Gloria Cabalag is the wife of Marcelino Guevarra who cultivated a parcel of land known as Lot 105-A of Hacienda Palico situated in sitio Bote-bote, barrio Tampisao, Nasugbu, Batangas. The said parcel of land used to be tenanted by the deceased father of the complainant.

Hacienda Palico is owned by Roxas y Cia. and administered by Antonio Chuidian. The overseer of the said hacienda is Felix Caisip, one of the accused herein.

On May 17, 1958 Roxas y Cia filed a forcible entry case against Guevarra. The court decided in favour of Roxas y Cia and issued a writ of execution. The return of the writ showed that possession of Lot 105-A was turned over to the owner thru Caisip and that Guevarra and Cabalag were given 20 days from June 6, 1959 to vacate the premises. It also appears in the record that due to the tenacious attitude of Cabalag, Caisip sought the help of policemen Federico Villadelrey and Ignacio Rojales.

On June 17, 1959, Cabalag was seen weeding the portion of Lot 105-A which was a ricefield. Caisip approached her and bade her to leave but Cabalag refused to do so claiming that she and her husband has a right over the property. She having stuck to this attitude, even when he threatened to call the police, Caisip went to his co-defendants, Sgt. Rojales and Cpl. Villadelrey, both of the local police, who were some distance away, and brought them with him. Rojales told Gloria, who was then in a squatting position, to stop weeding.

As Gloria insisted on her right to stay in said lot, Rojales grabbed her right hand and, twisting the same, wrested therefrom the trowel she was holding. Thereupon, Villadelrey held her left hand and, together with Rojales, forcibly dragged her. The appellants maintain that the Court of Appeals erred in not finding that their acts are justified under Article 429 of the Civil Code.

Issue: Whether Article 429 of the Civil Code applies in the present case.

Held:

Article 429 is inapplicable, Cabalag was given 20 days from June 6, 1959 within which to vacate the premises. Cabalag did not, on June 17, 1959 — or within said period — invade or usurp said lot. She had merely remained in possession thereof, even though the hacienda owner may have become its

co-possessor. Appellants did not “repel or prevent in actual or threatened . . . physical invasion or usurpation.” They expelled Gloria from a property of which she and her husband were in possession.

It is urged, that, by weeding and refusing to leave Lot 105-A, Gloria had committed a crime in the presence of the policemen, despite the aforementioned 20-day period, which, appellants claim, the sheriff had no authority to grant. This contention is manifestly untenable, because:

(1) said period was granted in the presence of the hacienda owner’s representative, appellant Caisip, who, by not objecting thereto, had impliedly consented to or ratified the act performed by the sheriff; (2) Gloria and her husband were thereby allowed to remain, and had, in fact, remained, in possession of the premises, perhaps together with the owner of the hacienda or his representative, Caisip; (3) the act of removing weeds from the ricefield was beneficial to its owner and to whomsoever the crops belonged, and, even if they had not authorized it, does not constitute a criminal offense; and (4) although Gloria and her husband had been sentenced to vacate the land, the judgment against them did not necessarily imply that they, as the parties who had tilled it and planted thereon, had no rights, of any kind whatsoever, in or to the standing crops, inasmuch as “necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor,” and the cost of cultivation, production and upkeep has been held to partake of the nature of necessary expenses.

It is, accordingly, clear that appellants herein had, by means of violence, and without legal authority therefor, prevented the complainant from “doing something not prohibited by law,” (weeding and being in Lot 105-A), and compelled her “to do something against” her will (stopping the weeding and leaving said lot), “whether it be right or wrong,” thereby taking the law into their hands, in violation of Art. 286 of the Revised Penal Code.


Custodio vs Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 483

Facts:

Respondents owned a parcel of land wherein a two-door apartment was erected. Said property was surrounded by other immovables owned by petitioners, spouses Custodio and spouses Santos. As an access to P. Burgos Street from the subject property, there are two possible passageways. The first passageway is approximately one meter wide and is about 20 meters distant from Mabasa’s residence to P. Burgos Street. Such path is passing in between the previously mentioned row of houses. The second passageway is about 3 meters in width and length from plaintiff Mabasa’s residence to P. Burgos Street; it is about 26 meters. In passing thru said passageway, a less than a meter wide path through the septic tank and with 5-6 meters in length, has to be traversed.

Petitioners constructed an adobe fence in the first passageway making it narrower in width. Said adobe fence was first constructed by defendants Santoses along their property which is also along the first passageway. Defendant Morato constructed her adobe fence and even extended said fence in such a way that the entire passageway was enclosed.

As a result, the tenants left the apartment because there was no longer a permanent access to the public street. Respondents then filed an action for the grant of an easement of right of way. The trial court ordered the petitioner to give respondents a permanent access to the public street and that in turn, the respondent will pay a sum of Php 8,000.00 to the petitioner as an indemnity for the permanent use of the passageway.

On appeal by the respondent to the CA, the decision of the trial court was affirmed, such that a right of way and an award of actual, moral and exemplary damages were given to the respondents. Hence, this petition.

Issue:Whether or not the award of damages is proper?

Held:No. To warrant the recovery of damages, there must be both a right of action for a legal wrong inflicted by the defendant, and damage resulting to the plaintiff therefrom. Wrong without damage, or damage without wrong, does not constitute a cause of action, since damages are merely part of the remedy allowed for the injury caused by a breach or wrong.

There is a material distinction between damages and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right; damage is the loss, hurt, or harm which

results from the injury, and damages are the recompense or compensation awarded for the damage suffered.

Thus, there can be damage without injury in those instances in which the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. These situations are often called damnum absque injuria. In order that a plaintiff may maintain an action for the injuries of which he complains, he must establish that such injuries resulted from a breach of duty which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. There must be a concurrence of injury to the plaintiff and legal responsibility by the person causing it.

In the instant case, although there was damage, there was no legal injury. Contrary to the claim of respondents, petitioners could not be said to have violated the principle of abuse of right. In order that the principle of abuse of right provided in Article 21 of the Civil Code can be applied, it is essential that the following requisites concur:

(1) The defendant should have acted in a manner that is contrary to morals, good customs or public policy; (2) The acts should be willful; and (3) There was damage or injury to the plaintiff. The act of petitioners in constructing a fence within their lot is a valid exercise of their right as owners, hence not contrary to morals, good customs or public policy.

The law recognizes in the owner the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law. It is within the right of petitioners, as owners, to enclose and fence their property. Article 430 of the Civil Code provides that “(e)very 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.”

At the time of the construction of the fence, the lot was not subject to any servitudes. There was no easement of way existing in favor of private respondents, either by law or by contract. The fact that respondents had no existing right over the said passageway is confirmed by the very decision of the trial court granting a compulsory right of way in their favor after payment of just compensation.

It was only that decision which gave private respondents the right to use the said passageway after payment of the compensation and imposed a corresponding duty on petitioners not to interfere in the exercise of said right. The proper exercise of a lawful right cannot constitute a legal wrong for which an action will lie, although the act may result in damage to another, for no legal right has been invaded.

One may use any lawful means to accomplish a lawful purpose and though the means adopted may cause damage to another, no cause of action arises in the latter’s favor. An injury or damage occasioned thereby is damnum absque injuria. The courts can give no redress for hardship to an individual resulting from action reasonably calculated to achieve a lawful means.

Andamo vs. Intermediate Appellate CourtG.R. No. 74761 November 6, 1990Fernan, C.J.

Doctrine: It must be stressed that the use of one’s property is not without limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that “the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person.” SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.

Facts: Petitioner spouses Andamo owned a parcel of land situated in Biga Silang, Cavite which is adjacent to that of private respondent corporation, Missionaries of Our lady of La Salette, Inc. Within the land of the latter, water paths and contrivances, including an artificial lake, were constructed, which allegedly inundated and eroded petitioner’s land, caused a young man to drown, damaged petitioner’s crops and plants, washed away costly fences, endangered the lives of the petitioners and their laborers and some other destructions.

This prompted petitioner spouses to file a criminal action for destruction by means of inundation under Article 324 of the RPC and a civil action for damages.

Issue: WON petitioner spouses Andamo can claim damages for destruction caused by respondent’s waterpaths and contrivances on the basis of Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts.

Held: Yes. A careful examination of the aforequoted complaint shows that the civil action is one under Articles 2176 and 2177 of the Civil Code on quasi-delicts. All the elements of a quasi-delict are present, to wit:

(a) damages suffered by the plaintiff, (b) fault or negligence of the defendant, or some other person for whose acts he must respond; and (c) the connection of cause and effect between the fault or negligence of the defendant and the damages incurred by the plaintiff.

Clearly, from petitioner’s complaint, the water paths and contrivances built by respondent corporation are alleged to have inundated the land of petitioners. There is therefore, an assertion of a causal connection between the act of building these waterpaths and the damage sustained by petitioners. Such action if proven constitutes fault or negligence which may be the basis for the recovery of damages.

It must be stressed that the use of one’s property is not without limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that “the owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person.” SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.

Moreover, adjoining landowners have mutual and reciprocal duties which require that each must use his own land in a reasonable manner so as not to infringe upon the rights and interests of others.

Although we recognize the right of an owner to build structures on his land, such structures must be so constructed and maintained using all reasonable care so that they cannot be dangerous to adjoining landowners and can withstand the usual and expected forces of nature. If the structures cause injury or damage to an adjoining landowner or a third person, the latter can claim indemnification for the injury or damage suffered.


NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION VS IBRAHIM

FACTS:

Lucman G. Ibrahim instituted an action against the National Power Corporation (NPC) for recovery of possession of land and damages before the Regional Trial Court of Lanao del Sur on November 23, 1994. The complaint stated that in 1978 NPC used stealth and without permission took possession of the sub-terrain area of the questioned lands and therein constructed underground tunnels.

However, it was only discovered in 1992, when Omar G. Maruhom’s request to install a motorized deep well was rejected by the Marawi City Water District. However, NPC refused to vacate and / or pay damages considering that the area was prone to volcanic and tectonic activities. Instead, NPC filed an answer stating that the respondents were never in possession the sub-terrain portion because they failed to present proof of ownership and the tunnels were government projects for the benefit of all.

On August 7, 1996, The RTC denied the petition to vacate but ordered the NPC to pay the fair market value plus damages. On June 8, 2005, the Court of Appeals affirmed the original decision of the RTC.

ISSUE:Whether or not Ibrahim owns the sub-terrain properties?

HELD:

YES. The Court sustains the finding of the lower courts that the sub-terrain portion of the property similarly belongs to Ibrahim. This conclusion is drawn from Article 437 of the Civil Code, which provides:

ART. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.

Thus, the ownership of land extends to the surface as well as to the subsoil under it. In Republic of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, this principle was applied to show that rights over lands are indivisible and, consequently, require a definitive and categorical classification, thus: The Court of Appeals justified this by saying there is “no conflict of interest” between the owners of the surface rights and the owners of the sub-surface rights. This is rather strange doctrine, for it is a well-known principle that the

owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height. Under the aforesaid ruling, the land is classified as mineral underneath and agricultural on the surface, subject to separate claims of title. This is also difficult to understand, especially in its practical application. Under the theory of the respondent court, the surface owner will be planting on the land while the mining locator will be boring tunnels underneath. The farmer cannot dig a well because he may interfere with the mining operations below and the miner cannot blast a tunnel lest he destroy the crops above.

The Court feels that the rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. Registered landowners may even be ousted of ownership and possession of their properties in the event the latter are reclassified as mineral lands because real properties are characteristically indivisible. For the loss sustained by such owners, they are entitled to just compensation under the Mining Laws or in appropriate expropriation proceedings. In this regard, the trial court found that respondents could have dug upon their property motorized deep wells but were prevented from doing so by the authorities precisely because of the construction and existence of the tunnels underneath the surface of their property.

Respondents, therefore, still had a legal interest in the sub-terrain portion insofar as they could have excavated the same for the construction of the deep well. The fact that they could not was appreciated by the RTC as proof that the tunnels interfered with respondents’ enjoyment of their property and deprived them of its full use and enjoyment.

Petitioner contends that the underground tunnels in this case constitute an easement upon the property of respondents which does not involve any loss of title or possession. The manner in which the easement was created by petitioner, however, violates the due process rights of respondents as it was without notice and indemnity to them and did not go through proper expropriation proceedings.

Petitioner could have, at any time, validly exercised the power of eminent domain to acquire the easement over respondents’ property as this power encompasses not only the taking or appropriation of title to and possession of the expropriated property but likewise covers even the imposition of a mere burden upon the owner of the condemned property. Significantly, though, landowners cannot be deprived of their right over their land until

expropriation proceedings are instituted in court. The court must then see to it that the taking is for public use, that there is payment of just compensation and that there is due process of law.

In disregarding this procedure and failing to recognize respondents’ ownership of the sub-terrain portion, petitioner took a risk and exposed itself to greater liability with the passage of time. It must be emphasized that the acquisition of the easement is not without expense. The underground tunnels impose limitations on respondents’ use of the property for an indefinite period and deprive them of its ordinary use.

Based upon the foregoing, respondents are clearly entitled to the payment of just compensation. Notwithstanding the fact that petitioner only occupies the sub-terrain portion, it is liable to pay not merely an easement fee but rather the full compensation for land.

This is so because in this case, the nature of the easement practically deprives the owners of its normal beneficial use. Respondents, as the owners of the property thus expropriated, are entitled to a just compensation which should be neither more nor less, whenever it is possible to make the assessment, than the money equivalent of said property.

Republic of the Philippines, Benguet & Atok vs. Court of Appeals & De La RosaG.R. No. L-43938, April 15, 1988Cruz, J.:

Doctrine: The owner of a piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height. The rights over the land are indivisible and the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural.

Facts:

These cases arose from the application for registration of a parcel of land filed on February 11, 1965, by Jose de la Rosa on his own behalf and on behalf of his three children, Victoria, Benjamin and Eduardo. The land, situated in Tuding, Itogon, Benguet Province, was divided into 9 lots and covered by plan Psu-225009. According to the application, Lots 1-5 were sold to Jose de la Rosa and Lots 6-9 to his children by Mamaya Balbalio and Jaime Alberto, respectively, in 1964.

The application was separately opposed by Benguet Consolidated, Inc. as to Lots 1-5, Atok Big Wedge Corporation, as to Portions of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9, and by the Republic of the Philippines, through the Bureau of Forestry Development, as to lots 1-9.

In support of the application, both Balbalio and Alberto testified that they had acquired the subject land by virtue of prescription Balbalio claimed to have received Lots 1-5 from her father shortly after the Liberation.

Benguet opposed on the ground that the June Bug mineral claim covering Lots 1-5 was sold to it on September 22, 1934, by the successors-in-interest of James Kelly, who located the claim in September 1909 and recorded it on October 14, 1909. From the date of its purchase, Benguet had been in actual, continuous and exclusive possession of the land in concept of owner, as evidenced by its construction of adits, its affidavits of annual assessment, its geological mappings, geological samplings and trench side cuts, and its payment of taxes on the land.

For its part, Atok alleged that a portion of Lots 1-5 and all of Lots 6-9 were covered by the Emma and Fredia mineral claims located by Harrison and Reynolds on December 25, 1930, and recorded on January 2, 1931, in the office of the mining recorder of Baguio. These claims were purchased from these locators on November 2, 1931, by Atok, which has since then been in open, continuous and exclusive possession of the said lots as evidenced by

its annual assessment work on the claims, such as the boring of tunnels, and its payment of annual taxes thereon.

The Bureau of Forestry Development also interposed its objection, arguing that the land sought to be registered was covered by the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve under Proclamation No. 217 dated February 16, 1929. Moreover, by reason of its nature, it was not subject to alienation under the Constitutions of 1935 and 1973.

The trial court denied the application, holding that the applicants had failed to prove their claim of possession and ownership of the land sought to be registered.

The applicants appealed to the respondent court, which reversed the trial court and recognized the claims of the applicant, but subject to the rights of Benguet and Atok respecting their mining claims. In other words, the Court of Appeals affirmed the surface rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the same time reserving the sub-surface rights of Benguet and Atok by virtue of their mining claims. Both Benguet and Atok have appealed to this Court, invoking their superior right of ownership.

Issue: Whether respondent court’s decision, i.e. “the surface rights of the de la Rosas over the land while at the same time reserving the sub-surface rights of Benguet and Atok by virtue of their mining claim,” is correct.

Held:

No. Our holding is that Benguet and Atok have exclusive rights to the property in question by virtue of their respective mining claims which they validly acquired before the Constitution of 1935 prohibited the alienation of all lands of the public domain except agricultural lands, subject to vested rights existing at the time of its adoption.

The land was not and could not have been transferred to the private respondents by virtue of acquisitive prescription, nor could its use be shared simultaneously by them and the mining companies for agricultural and mineral purposes. It is true that the subject property was considered forest land and included in the Central Cordillera Forest Reserve, but this did not impair the rights already vested in Benguet and Atok at that time.

Such rights were not affected either by the stricture in the Commonwealth Constitution against the alienation of all lands of the public domain except those agricultural in nature for this was made subject to existing rights. The perfection of the mining claim converted the property to mineral land and under the laws then in force removed it from the public domain.

By such act, the locators acquired exclusive rights over the land, against even the government, without need of any further act such as the purchase of the land or the obtention of a patent over it. As the land had become the private property of the locators, they had the right to transfer the same, as they did, to Benguet and Atok.

The Court of Appeals justified this by saying there is “no conflict of interest” between the owners of the surface rights and the owners of the sub-surface rights. This is rather doctrine, for it is a well-known principle that the owner of piece of land has rights not only to its surface but also to everything underneath and the airspace above it up to a reasonable height.

Under the aforesaid ruling, the land is classified as mineral underneath and agricultural on the surface, subject to separate claims of title. This is also difficult to understand, especially in its practical application.

The Court feels that the rights over the land are indivisible and that the land itself cannot be half agricultural and half mineral. The classification must be categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. In the instant case, as already observed, the land which was originally classified as forest land ceased to be so and became mineral — and completely mineral — once the mining claims were perfected.

As long as mining operations were being undertaken thereon, or underneath, it did not cease to be so and become agricultural, even if only partly so, because it was enclosed with a fence and was cultivated by those who were unlawfully occupying the surface.

This is an application of the Regalian doctrine which, as its name implies, is intended for the benefit of the State, not of private persons. The rule simply reserves to the State all minerals that may be found in public and even private land devoted to “agricultural, industrial, commercial, residential or (for) any purpose other than mining.” Thus, if a person is the owner of agricultural land in which minerals are discovered, his ownership of such land does not give him the right to extract or utilize the said minerals without the permission of the State to which such minerals belong.

The flaw in the reasoning of the respondent court is in supposing that the rights over the land could be used for both mining and non-mining purposes simultaneously. The correct interpretation is that once minerals are discovered in the land, whatever the use to which it is being devoted at the time, such use may be discontinued by the State to enable it to extract the minerals therein in the exercise of its sovereign prerogative.

The land is thus converted to mineral land and may not be used by any private party, including the registered owner thereof, for any other purpose

that will impede the mining operations to be undertaken therein, For the loss sustained by such owner, he is of course entitled to just compensation under the Mining Laws or in appropriate expropriation proceedings.


Bachrach Motors v. Talisay-Silay Milling[G.R. No. 35223. September 17, 1931.]

En Banc, Romualdez (J): 7 concurring

Facts:

On 22 December 1923, the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., was indebted to the PNB. To secure the payment of its debt, it succeeded in inducing its planters, among whom was Mariano Lacson Ledesma, to mortgage their land to the bank. And in order to compensate those planters for the risk they were running with their property under that mortgage, the aforesaid central, by a resolution passed on the same date, and amended on 23 March 1928, undertook to credit the owners of the plantation thus mortgaged every year with a sum equal to 2% of the debt secured according to the yearly balance, the payment of the bonus being made at once, or in part from time to time, as soon as the central became free of its obligations to the bank, and of those contracted by virtue of the contract of supervision, and had funds which might be so used, or as soon as it obtained from said bank authority to make such payment.

<It seems Mariano Lacson Ledesma is indebted from Bachrach Motor; the circumstance of which is not found in the case facts.>

Bachrach Motor Co., Inc. filed a complaint against the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., for the delivery of the amount of P13,850 or promissory notes or other instruments of credit for that sum payable on 30 June 1930, as bonus in favor of Mariano Lacson Ledesma.

The complaint further prays that the sugar central be ordered to render an accounting of the amounts it owes Mariano Lacson Ledesma by way of bonus, dividends, or otherwise, and to pay Bachrach Motors a sum sufficient to satisfy the judgment mentioned in the complaint, and that the sale made by said Mariano Lacson Ledesma be declared null and void.

The PNB filed a third party claim alleging a preferential right to receive any amount which Mariano Lacson Ledesma might be entitled from Talisay-Silay Milling as bonus. Talisay-Silay answered the complaint that Mariano Lacson Ledesma’s credit (P7,500) belonged to Cesar Ledesma because he had purchase it. Cesar Ledesma claimed to be an owner by purchase in good faith.

At the trial all the parties agreed to recognize and respect the sale made in favor of Cesar Ledesma of the P7,500 part of the credit in question, for which reason the trial court dismissed the complaint and cross-complaint against Cesar Ledesma authorizing the central to deliver to him the sum of P7,500.

And upon conclusion of the hearing, the court held that the Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., had a preferred right to receive the amount of P11,076.02 which was Mariano Lacson Ledesma’s bonus, and it ordered the central to deliver said sum to Bachrach Motors. PNB appealed.

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from, as it found no merit in the appeal;, without express finding as to costs.

1. Civil Fruits under Article 355 of the Civil CodeArticle 355 of the Civil Code considers three things as civil fruits: First, the rents of buildings; second, the proceeds from leases of lands; and, third, the income from perpetual or life annuities, or other similar sources of revenue.

According to the context of the law, the phrase “u otras analogas” refers only to rents or income, for the adjectives “otras” and “analogas” agree with the noun “rentas,” as do also the other adjectives “perpetuas” and “vitalicias.” The “civil fruits” the Civil Code understands one of three and only three things, to wit: the rent of a building, the rent of land, and certain kinds of income.

2. Bonus not a civil fruit; not an income of the landThe amount of the bonus, according to the resolution of the central granting it, is not based upon the value, importance or any other circumstance of the mortgaged property, but upon the total value of the debt thereby secured, according to the annual balance, which is something quite distinct from and independent of the property referred to. As the bonus is not obtained from the land, it is not civil fruits of that land. It is neither rent of buildings, proceeds from lease of lands, or income under Article 355 of the Civil Code.

The Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., vs. Mariano Lacson Ledesma, Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., and the Philippine National BankG.R. No. 42462, August 31, 1937Imperial, J.

Doctrine: Bonus is not civil fruits as contemplated in Art. 442. It is not one of those meant by the law when it says “other similar income” since the phrase refers merely to things analogous to rents, leases and annuities. Assuming that it is income, still, it is not income obtained or derived from the land itself, but income obtained as compensation for the risk assumed by the owner.

Facts:

The Talisay- Silay Milling Co., Inc., in order to secure its indebtedness to the Philippine National Bank, induced its planters, among whom was Mariano Ledesma to mortgage their land to the creditor bank. As compensation and bonus to those planters for the risk they were running with their property under the mortgage, the aforesaid central, by a resolution passed on December 22, 1923, granted to herein respondent, Mariano Lacson Ledesma, the sum of P19,911.11, Philippine currency, which sum, however, would not be payable until the month of January, 1930.

Thereafter, or on December 20, 1929, Bachrach Motor Co., Inc., brought an action in the Court of First Instance of Iloilo against the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., to recover from it the sum of P13,850 against the bonus or dividend which, by virtue of the resolution of December 22, 1923, said Central Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., had declared in favor of the defendant Mariano Lacson Ledesma as one of the owners of the hacienda which had been mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank to secure the obligation of the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., in favor of said bank.

The Philippine National Bank, on the other hand, on February 13, 1930, filed a complaint in intervention alleging that in had a preferred right to said bonus granted by the central to the defendant Mariano Lacson Ledesma as one of the owners of the haciendas which had been mortgaged to said bank to answer for the obligations of the Central Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., basing such allegation on the fact that, as said properties were mortgaged to it by the debtor Mariano Lacson Ledesma, by virtue of the deed to secure the obligations of the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., and said bonus being a civil fruit of the mortgaged lands, said bank was entitled to it on the ground that the mortgage of August 9, 1923, had become due.

Issue: Whether the bonus in question is a civil fruit and hence should pertain to PNB on account of the mortgage of Ledesma’s land

Held: No. The bonus is not a civil fruit. The Supreme Court held that the bonus had no immediate relation to the lands in question but merely a remote and accidental one and, therefore, it was not a civil fruit of the real properties mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank to secure the obligation of the Talisay-Silay Milling Co., Inc., being a mere personal right of Mariano Lacson Ledesma.

It is not one of those meant by Art. 442 of the Civil Code when it says “other similar income” since the phrase merely refers to things analogous to rents, leases, and annuities. Assuming that it is income, still it is not income obtained or derived from the land itself, but obtained as compensation for the risk assumed by the owner.

It should, moreover, be remembered that the bonus was not based upon the value or importance of the land but upon the total value of the debt secured. Hence, the PNB does not have a preferred right with regard to the bonus as against herein petitioner.


GR L-21783 NOVEMBER 29, 1969PACIFIC FARMS, INC. VS. SIMPLICIO G. ESGUERRA, CARRIED LUMBER

COMPANY

FACTS:On several occasions, the Company sold and delivered lumber and

construction materials to the Insular Farms, Inc. which the latter used in the construction of the aforementioned six buildings at its compound in Bolinao, Pangasian. Of the total procurement price of P15,000, the sum of P4,710.18 has not been paid by the Insular Farms, Inc. The Company instituted a civil case with the CIR of Pangasinan to recover the said unpaid balance from the Insular Farms, Inc. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the Company's claim. The corresponding writ of execution was issued because there was no appeal instituted by Insular, Inc.

The Pacific Farms, Inc. filed a third-party claim asserting ownership over the levied buildings which it had acquired from the Insular Farms, Inc. by virtue of a deed of absolute sale executed about seven months before the Company filed the civil action. Shielded by an indemnity bond put up by the Company and the Cosmopolitan Insurance Company, Inc., the sheriff proceeded with the announced public auction and sold the levied buildings to the Company.

ISSUE: WON the Company is entitled to a materialman’s lien to be paid by Pacific Farms, Inc?

HELD: YES.Therefore, applying article 447 by analogy, we perforce consider the

buildings as the principal and the lumber and construction materials that went into their construction as the accessory. Thus Pacific Farms, if it does own the six buildings, must bear the obligation to pay for the value of the said materials; the Company- which apparently has no desire to remove the materials, and, even if it were minded to do so, cannot remove them without necessarily damaging the buildings has the corresponding right to recover the value of the unpaid lumber and construction materials.

Of course, the character of a buyer in good faith and for value, if really possessed by the Pacific Farms, could possibly exonerate it from making compensation. But the Pacific Farm's stance that it is an innocent purchaser for value and in good faith is open to grave doubt because of certain facts of substantial import (evident from the records) that cannot escape notice.

In the deed of absolute sale, exhibit 1, the Insular Farms, Inc. (vendor) was represented in the contract by its president, J. Antonio Araneta. The latter was a director of the appellee (Pacific Farms, Inc.) and was the counsel who signed the complaint filed by the appellee in the court below. J. Antonio Araneta was, therefore, not only the president of the Insular Farms, Inc. but also a director and counsel of Pacific Farms.

During the trial of civil case the Insular Farms, Inc. was represented by Attorney Amado Santiago, Jr. of the law firm of J. Antonio Araneta. The latter was one of the counsels of the Pacific Farms, Inc. They cannot claim ignorance of the pendency of civil case because the Insular Farms, Inc. was defended by the same lawyer from the same law firm that commenced the present action.

Pacific Farms merely folded its arms in disinterest and waited, so to speak.

Not until a decision was rendered therein in favor of the Company, a writ of execution issued, and the six buildings levied upon by the sheriff, did it file a third-party claim over the levied buildings.

Documents

Property