PROPERTYJUNE 23, 2014 MONDAY

When do you consider a thing property, there are 3 elements right?

utility, or that it can serve as a means to satisfy human needs independent existence susceptible of being appropriatedAtty: What do you understand with the concept of appropriation?A: Being owned by someone, can be subjected to in the exercise of ownership or possession.So, if a thing can be owned or can be an object of legal possession, that is property!

Atty: Would it be correct to say that property only refer to things which can be perceived by our senses? It excludes things that are intangible?

A: No, also includes intangible.

Rights can as well be considered as property.

Atty: Would it also be possible to classify right into real rights and personal rights?

A: Yes

Atty: Is it safe to say that personal right refers to movables? And real rights refer to immovables?

A:

*Real right is right over a thing regardless of whether the thing is real property or personal property.

Real right over a thing is enforceable against the whole world.

Personal right is enforceable against a specific person.Atty: Why do we have to know if a property is a personal or real property? What is the significance?

You have to know because depending on whether the thing is personal or real property they are governed by different legal formalities.

Atty: Give one example.

FROM BOOK:

*IMPORTANCE OF CLASSIFICATION:

1. For purposes of applying the rules of acquisitive prescription

2. In determining the propriety of the object of the contracts of pledge, chattel mortgage and real estate mortgage3. For purposes of determining the formalities of a donation4. In extrajudicial deposit: Only movable things may be the object of extrajudicial deposit.5. In crimes of theft, robbery and usurpation6. For purposes of determining the venue in remedial law ***Atty: In punzalan vs lacsamana, what was the issue there?

A: Case was about recovery of a warehouse. Punzalan is the owner of the warehouse. Punazalan loan from PNB, mortgage the warehouse for the loan to be granted. *Sir only wants the overview for this case

VENUE where the case is to be file is the issue in the case above.

So, in situations calling for the appropriate venue we have to know what is the subject matter of the action, whether it is real or personal property. SO Lacsamana case is about venue.

Atty: What other case have you read in relation to importance of classification?

A: Board of Assessment vs Manila Electric

What is involved in this case? Realty Tax.

In issues about realty tax, knowing whether the property is real property or personal property is also important.Case: Standard Oil vs Jaranilo

In execution proceedings, you have to know whether the property is real property or personal property is also important.

*Execution i-implement ang decision which has become final and executory

Case: Makati Leasing

Transaction involved is a mortgage.So, in all of these cases. Lacsamana which is about venue, Board of Assessment vs Manila electric, Mindanao Bus vs City Assessor - The issue in this case was liability to real property tax and before the court decided WON there is liability, the court first ruled on what is classification of the property subject to the assessment. Case: Makati leasing

This involved mortgage and in ruling on the validity of the mortgage, the court was forced to rule on what is the classification of the subject property.

Atty: Lets go to the specifics in the cases

Case: Punzalan vs Lacsamana

There is a transaction between PNB and punzalan, punzalan obtained loan from PNB. PNB required from punzalan that punzalan should give a security. Punzalan mortgage the parcel of land. Later on, punzalan was not able to pay the loan. PNB forclosed the mortgage being PNB the highest bidder after the sale in the public auction. PNB became the absolute owner of the land but did not immediately take possession of the property. In the meantime, punzalan took possession and constructed a warehouse. PNB then sell the property to Lacsamana. Punzalan objected because PNB included in the sale the warehouse that he constructed on the piece of land being sold by PNB. Punzalan contends that the warehouse and the land they have separate and independent existence. He contends that PNB owner of the land has no right to sell the warehouse. Punzalan filed an anulment of the deed of sale. He filed it at Rizal, the property is located at Tarlac. Punzalan filed it at Rizal because he is a resident of Rizal. The venue of the case is wrong because the warehouse is an immovable property so the case should be filed to the court having jurisdiction where the property is situated.

Why did the lawyer filed the case in Rizal? Because he believes that the cause of action is a personal action. Not a real action daw because its an annulment of sale not a recovery, ingon ang lawyer hence, not a real action daw. SC ruled, even if its denominated as anulment but if the principal objective is recovery of a property that is a real action. Being a real action, it should be filed where the warehouse is situated. Since it was filed NOT in the place where the warehouse was situated, the venue is wrong and when venue is wrong, the case is dismissed.

VENUE

If its a personal action, it should be filed where the plaintiff or any of the principal plaintiff resides or where the defendant or any of the defendant resides at the option of the plaintiff.

If its a real action or action to recover possession and ownership over a property, it should be filed where the property is situated.

JUNE 24, 2014 TUESDAYHow properties are classified: There are 2 major classification of properties under the Civil Code:

Classification of property on the basis of its nature

Classficiation of property on the basis of ownership

In classifying on the basis of its nature: Immovable or Movable Property

In classifying on the basis of its ownership: Property of Public Dominion or Private Ownership

Article 415 of Civil Code

Does our law define what immovable property is? No, it only enumerates what are those properties that are immovable.

Why cant we simply say that immovable property would refer to properties which cannot be moved from one place to another? Because there are some immovable properties that by its nature it is movableAre you saying that there are immovable properties which are not mentioned in Article 415? No. If not included, deemed excluded. If the thing in question is not among those enumerated in 415, then it is an immovable property.Is there a way of classifying of all this things for easy recollection? Yes, 1 and 8 is immovable by nature. 2-3 is Immovable by incoporation. 4,5,6,7,9 is Immovable by destination. 10 is Immovable by law or analogy.

How many properties enumerated there? 10.

How do you describe immovable by nature? Those which by their essence and nature are immovable or cannot be moved from one place to another. We can apply the traditional definition of immovables which is cannot be moved from one place to another.

How about immovable by incorporation? Those which are treated as immovable by reason of their attachment or incorporation to an immovable in such manner as to be an integral part thereof.

*Immovable by incoporation there is a possibility that it will lose its character as immovable the moment it is separated from the immovable to which it is attached.

How about immovable by destination? Those which are essentially movable, but by the purpose for which they have been placed in an immovable, partake of the nature of the latter because of the added utility derived therefrom.

Intented by the owner of the land to be placed in there which are intended to meet the principal needs of the business because if its only incidental then those properties will not be considered as immovable

How about immovable by law or analogy? PATAY WA KO KASABOT ANIContracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property --- Why are these deemed as immovable by analogy???

Whats the difference between item no. 10 and all the other items above it? Item number 10 is intangible whereas the others are tangible.

It is deemed as immovable by analogy because it is not really an immovable but they assume the character of immovability.

Whats the reason why the law says that it assumes the character of immovability? It is immovable because the object in the exercise of that right is immovable.

For example, you have an easement right, thats a right (refering to the easement right). When you say right of way, what do you usually imagine? Land the object of the easement or right of way which is an immovable then this is an example of immovable by analogy.These are all important because there are some legal implications, you may mortgage your right because that is property. And if your property is foreclosed, the mortgagee must follow the rules provided on how to foreclose a real property.

Article 415

1. Land No problem kay klaro

2. Building

Is there a problem about building?

Is there a case where the issue is whether the building is movable or immovable? Yes.

Case: Punzalan vs Lacsamana

Its not necessary or a requirement that the owner of the land to which building stands is the same owner for it be considered as an immovable property.

Regardless of whether the owner of the land which the building stands is a different owner that building is an immovable.

So you can mortgage the building separately because it is a different property.

Chattel mortgage for personal property

Real estate mortage For real property

For example, instead of real esate mortage for a real property, they execute a chattel mortgage subject matter is a house or building.

Is that a legally correct contract? Legally speaking, NO.

Under certain circumstances even if the parties erred in treating the building as immovable it can still be a source of legal right when no other party is prejudice.

So, as between the two parties, they are bound to respect what they previously agree because as between the two of us, the agreement is perfectly valid.

What is the basis why it is deemed as valid? Principle of estoppel.

Can you give a situation where a third party is affected such that since that is the situation the contract can no longer be enforced? Building being mortgage instrument is chattel mortgage. Foreclosed, then the building was sold to another person.

Even if late purchaser, the right is superior to the one who foreclosed. So the rule of binding of erroneous agreement is only to those 2 who agreed.

The erroneous agreement does not bind 3rd party.

Why do we have to registry? Binding against 3rd person, all persons are deemed notified.As between the chattel mortage executed by the 2 parties, you cause to register it. Will that bind you? Will that affect you? No. The right of the 2 parties is not superior to the 3rd person. Basis: Leung Yee vs Strong Machinery

Case: Leung yeeWhat is the effect of the registration of a chattel mortgage as building as an object in the registry of property? Will the constructive notice rule will apply? NO, it will not apply.

But in this case, the building was still adjudicated to the mortgagee because the subsequent purchase have actual knowledge of the chattel mortgage.

SO, if there is a knowledge of the 3rd party of that erroneous mortgage, therefore, he cannot be characterized as purchasher in good faith.

Even if it is registered, it does not cure the defect. The building is always an immovable. The law or jurisprudence says that as far as the parties as concerned, it may be given effect but only up to that. Beyond the parties, it does not bind the third person unless that third person had actual knowledge just like in the Leung Yee case.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE! STUDY THIS PART KAY LIBOG GAMAY!JULY 26, 2014 THURSDAYArticle 415 enumerates 10 immovable properties

Most of the cases dealing with interpreting 415 involve immovable by destination and the context in which an issue arises in regard to what is the classification of these machineries and equipments is real property taxation.

Case: Makati Leasing

It involve textile mill. And the machine in question is dryer in relation to textile manufacturing industry is essential to the business.

Since it is essential, the proper classification it is considered as real property on the basis of 415.

In this case, there was a chattel mortgage with the machine as the object. The chattel mortgage was executed by textile mill in favor of makati leasing. Makati Leasing is a lending company.

They did not execute the correct document because its real property, it should be real estate mortage BUT the SC upheld the document because the principle of estoppel is applied.

Case: Sergs Products

The machinery is used for chocolate manufacturing. They executed a chattel mortgage as machinery as the object. It was given effect because principle was estoppel was applied.

*In the above two cases, they themselves questioned the validity of the document who themselves executed.

There is a limitation to the applicability of estoppel. When there is a third party being prejudiced.

Except if the third person has actual knowledge of the erroneous.

General Rule Exception Exception to the exception.

If you assume the role of a chattel mortgagor, you made as an object of a machinery which is used in a business which is in an immovable property.

Is there a distinction in foreclosing a chattel mortage and real estate mortgage? Yes, there is. When you foreclose a chattel mortgage, there no need for publication. In foreclosing real estate mortgage, there should be publication, notification.

What is the effect if there is no publication of the intended foreclosure of a real estate mortgage? The foreclosure is invalid.

Execution implementation of an judgment with monetary award which becomes final and executory. Lapse na ang period to appeal.

Will that rule also apply in execution?

Case: Pastor Ago vs CA

Execution arising from compromise agreement. The object involve is machinery, sawmill machine which is immovable. This case involves execution of an immovable.

Is there a specific requirement when you execute an immovable property? Yes, there must be publication. 50k+, publication gyud na. No publication, null and void and execution proceeding.

Case: Star two Inc.

Involved here is a real estate mortgage but then in the provision of the mortgage, aside from the real property stated there as an object, there are additional items which are automaically mortgaged like machineries, equipment.

There was a problem there because when the real estate mortgage was foreclosed, the mortgagor had this erroneous thinking that the machineries were not included in the foreclosure.

What he did was through her lawyer, her file a motion that he be allowed to take out those machineries.

SC held that it adverted to what is expressly agreed upon which on the contract, its clear that machineries and equipments are included as an object of real estate mortgage. So therefore, they were included among those which were foreclosed.

This is a case which is primarilly an application on laws of oblicon. What is agreed by the parties should bind the contracting parties.

Machineries and Equipment

Its character, whether movable or immovable, is also involve in issues involving real property taxation.

Case: Meralco vs Central Board

Real property taxation is a kind of tax imposed by the LGU. Taxes may be a national or local tax.

National Tax they can be found in the national internal revenue code

Local Tax they can be found

Real property tax apil ang land, ang building

The dispute relates to machineries whether they can be taxed. The one responsible for that is Article 415.The criteria for machineries and equipment to be considered as immovable property:

1. The machineries and equipments should be essential in relation to the industry. The industry should be conducted in the area where the machineries and equipments are situated

2. The introduction should be made by the owner of the land

If its the tenant that placed the machineries and equipments there, under ALL circumstances cannot be deemed as immovable property? NO. If the tenant is the agent of the owner.

When we say that a tenant is acting as an agent of the lessor-owner, we must have to find something in the contract of lease.

What should be in the stipulation in the contract of lease such that the purposes of treating the machineries built in by the tenant will be considered as immovable? There should be an express stipulation that at the expiration of the lease contract all those machineries and equipments brought in by the leasee/tenant will become the property of the lessor.Case: Davao Sawmill

If the equipment and the machinery are brought in by any person with a temporary right they do not become immovable property. BUT if the lessee is acting as an agent of the lessor-owner, the machinery is considered as immovable.

When the 2 above criteria are present, are the machineries subject to real property tax?

Yes, because they are now immovable property.

Case: Mindanao Bus

The industry in question is transportation. The equipment and machineries sought to be assess to real property taxation are the machines for repairs.

Are they essential for the industry? NO, only incidental.

On the criterion of essentiality, the machines are not immovable. Since they are not immovable, they are not liable to real property tax. The other criterion mentioned by the SC is that industry should be conducted in the area where the machineries and equipments are situated. The legal basis cited by the SC is Civil Code Art 415, therefore the tax code should follow the civil code.

JULY 28, 2014 SATURDAYIn classifcation of property, whether it is mvable or immovable, will also arise in cases involving liability to real property taxation. In fact in the case that was assigned, there are 2 involving real property taxation.Why is machine deemed as real property? Essential to the principal function of the industry.

Immovable by destination it need not be attached to an immovable.

Under the real property tax code, what is needed to be established is that it is essential to the business.

Case: Board of assessment appeals vs Manila electric

The object of the assessment is the steel towers.

Basis of the assessor in taxing the steel is that they were attached to an immovable. Meralco did not agree with the assessment made by the assessor. The legal argument of meralco, they are considered as personal property because the steel towers are not really adhered to the soil, only attached to a steel frame which can be removed by loosening the bolts. Meralco anchored its argument on the basis of art 415 and the jurisprudence interpreting 415.

SC sustainted the contentions of meralco, SC also cited art 415 in ruling on the issues on liability to real property tax. They cannot be deemed as immovable because based on art 415, the posts can be removed by removing the bolts.

Case: Mindanao Bus vs City Assessment

This is also about real property taxation

The object involved are the equipments and machines used for repair. The nature of the industry engaged in by mindanao bus is transportation business. Sought to be assessed are the machineries which are used for the repair of the buses. So these are machines are used in the maintenance of the bus.Mindanao bus objected, the legal basis of their object is that those equipments are not essential to the industry of mindanao bus, they are merely incidental.

City of assessor and mindanao bus are invoking 415. Also the SC relied on Article 415 to solve issue. These machineries are only incidental. Ruling is patterned on the jurisprudence invoking 415. For a machine and equipment to be immobilized or become immovable, they must be those which meet the principal need of the industry.Also, those equipment in the industry is not conducted on the land. Also an article 415 argument

The above arguments are all invoking 415 because as we remember, according to article 415:

It must be placed by the owner

Meet the principal needs of the industry conducted on the land or on the building

Justice Aquino:In issues regarding real property taxation what you should apply is not article 415, it should be Real Property Tax Code. Case: Manila Electric Company vs Central Board GR L-47943 May 31, 2982 (WALA NI SA SYLLABUS)

Another case involving real property taxation.

What was taxed here is tank used to run the diesel-generated generator. This tank was placed on a rented land owned by caltex. According to meralco, this is not taxable because the tank is placed on a rented land. Even assuming that it is essential, still under 415 it only becomes immovable when placed the owner not by a tenant.

SC, NO! It is true that if we based it on 415, it is not an immovable but in issues regarding real property taxation what you should apply is not article 415, it should be Real Property Tax Code.

BUT meralco questioned th previous case nga ngano lahi ang decision nga steel towers man to. The SC said, lahi man to removable man to ang towers. In effect, the SC is invoking 415. So medyo libog ang SC.

Pero gi klaro sa SC, ang previous case is naa man daw silay franchise. so na solve tungod sa franchise, pakapin ra to ang removable daw which invoke 415.

Case: Caltex Philippines vs Central BoardThe parties here are caltex, gas operators and the owner of the land on which the gas stations are set up.

Caltex loan to gas operators some equipment water tank - which are essential to the business of a gasoline distribution.

Caltext objected because they were just leasing the land daw since the equipments are placed not by the owner but by the one leasing the land.

In the light of article 415, that kind of argument is correct. BUT! The SC uses the real property tax code. In the real tax code, it provides another definition for improvements and machineries when it comes to taxation.

Is it required in the real tax code for the item, equipment or machinery to be taxable they must be placed there by the owner? NO, it is not required that it must be placed by the owner. As long as it is essential to the industry it is covered under the tax code.

Opinion ra ni:

In real property taxation, real property tax code and gamiton.

SC for as long as the objective is liability we shall blabla in an interpretation where the tax payer will be held liable. So in order for the tax payer to be liable and tax code should be applied, we shall apply the tax code.

(DILI DAW MU ATTEMPT UG SETTLE SI SIR, SO POSSIBLE DILI SIYA MU ASK UG QUESTION PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE KUNG ASA ANG I-APPLY TAX CODE OR 415)

JUNE 30, 2014 - MONDAY

What are the guiding principles when a question will arise as to whether the thing is movable or immovable? When not mentioned in article 415 then it is safe to say that it is movable property. They are susceptible to appropration.Can you find something in 415 which enumerated as an immovable and yet they are deemed as movable under circumstances or because in a provision of law it says so?

Trees, plants and growing fruits to a certain extent is considered as movable on the basis of Chattel Mortgage Law RA ???

Under Chattel Mortgage Law, growing fruits are deemed as movable or personal property.

So if its a personal property, what is the implication?

It can subject to a chattel mortgage, so no need of publication for a foreclosure to be valid.

No right of redemptiom if the growing fruits are redeemed prior to harvest. No redemption in personal property.The right of redemption can only be applied if what was foreclose is an immovable property.Case: Sival vs Valdez (Naa sa book wala sa syllabus murag paras)

Under the revised penal code the machineries are considered personal property. So there is no such thing as usurpation of machineries. Only theft or robbery.

SO movable property:

Susceptible of being appropriated

Not included in Article 415

But subject to some exception like it can be an object of the chattel pursuant to chattel mortgage law so that is still valid.

So if its a growing fruits and they are used an object of a chattel mortgage, its validity is not limited only as between the parties, even third persons are allowed to intervene because there is a law that allows to have it as an object of a chattel mortgage. (REMEMBER!!! MU GAWAS NI SA EXAM)So, dili to mu apply nga valid ra as between the parties if the object is growing fruits and chattel mortgage. ****Estoppel principle as between the parties their agreement is valid.

Consumables and Non-consumables these are kinds of movable property depending whether on they can be consumed or not.

Commo datum the object of a contracat commu datum can only be non-consumable. At the time you are obliged to return the object, you have to return the very same object that you received.

Mutuum - the object of a contracat commu datum can only be consumable. Since you have to consume it (like money), you have to return the money but not the very same money nga pareho ug serial number.Usufruct the use and enjoyment of the fruits of a non-consumable with the obligation of returning the very same object received by way of usufruct. Although there is an EXCEPTION to that, there are such things denominated under the classification ABNORMAL USUFRUCT.

Case: US vs Ignacio Carlos - 1911

The accused was charged with theft of electricity and he filed a motion to dismiss contending that movable property should only refere to those that are tangible. SC held that movable property are not limited to tangilble objects, it as well included intangible objects like electricity which is susceptible to appropriation and not enumerated in 415.

Case: Luis Marcos Laurel vs Abrogar 2009 (TAKE NOTE BASIN MU GAWAS NI)This is still a crime of theft. The object of the theft are the use of the facilities of PLDT and deprivation of the profit of the business. The court initially agreed with the accused that there was no movable property involved dismissed ang case. What was taken is the use of facilities of PLDT and deprivation of the income of PLDT. Subject matter of the charge not the pldt line kay klaro na.

SC justified its ruling, made mention of a criterion.

Business and use of facilities are proper objects of the crime of theft

What was the justification of the SC in treating them as movable property? SC said, for as long as they are not enumerated in article 415 and they are susception to appropriation they are MOVABLE PROPERTY.

SC explicitly ruled that BUSINESS is in itself a property. Cited BULK SALES LAW which implies that business in itself is a movable property.

BULK SALES LAW if you sell the business as a whole then it is considered immovable property but if you sell it by parts it is considered as movable property.

Business interest in something that is intangible.

Different and selling the interest of the business itself (selling of intangible property) and selling the things in the business (selling of tangible properties).

PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGSThis is a classification of property on the basis of ownership. Property of Public Dominion

Property of Private Ownership

Why dominion for public and ownership for ownership? Why not public or private dominion? Or Public or private ownership?

In dominion, the concept is not that of an owner. In dominion, the extent is only up to control. (READ THIS PART KAY WA NAHUMAN WALA GI TIWAS SA SUNOD NA MEETING KAY GISAPOT SI SIR KAY WALA NI SIMBA ANG 406)

Case: Municiaplity of Cavite vs Rojas

In this case, what the LGU did is lease a portion of a public plaza and disobserved the basi procedures. There was a munipal council resolution, the mayor signed the contract.

JULY 3, 2014 - THURSDAYCan you illustrate the characteristics of property of public dominion?- Properties of Public Dominion cannot be alienated.

- It cannot be an object of commercial transactions (cannot be sold, lease, etc).

- They cannot be acquired by prescription against the State.

- They are not subject to attachment and execution.

- They cannot be burdened by voluntary easement.

*It cannot be an object of commercial transactions

Case: Municiaplity of Cavite vs Rojas

There was a contract of lease, the subject of the contract of lease is the public plaza. A contract between the municipality and roxas, the mayor signed the contract in behalf of the municipality. The municipal council passed the resolution granting authority .. The object of the contract of lease is the public plaza. The validity of the contract of lease was questioned because the public plaza is a property of dominion hence cannot be an object of a contract because property of public dominion is outside the commerce of men. Even if the mayor signed it, still it is not valid.Property of public dominion should be devoted for the use of the public, no private party or private individual can own it exclusively or can enjoy the use of it exclusively.

Case: Kwaco vs Mercedes

Case: Maneclang vs IAC

The subject matter in this case is a fishpond held in a creek. The source of the water of the fishpond is the creek. Parties herein entered into compromise agreement(contract) involving the used of the utilization of water coming from the creek. Parties cannot enter into agreement utilizing the use of property of public dominion (the creek). They dont have legal personality to do that. SC a body of water cannot be owned by a private individual, it is outside the commerce of men therefore cannot be an object of a contract.Case: Republic of the Philippines vs Democrito Mendoza (READ THIS CASE kay wala nka basa ang gitawag)

Case: Macasiano vs Diokno

Involved here is an LGU, lease of portion of a public street to a private cooperative for flee market. Under the LG code, the LGU has the power to close the road. But if the road is still devoted to actual public use, you cannot just close it.SC said it cannot be an object of the contract of lease because that is the property a public dominion.

What is the guideline before you can close the road? The public property must not be currently in use. If the road is still actually in use by the public, you cannot just close it.Case: Cebu Oxygen & Acetylene vs Bercilles

- This is case that you must compare with case of macasiano vs diokno. This case involves pubic road but the actual condition of the public road is that it is already abandoned. You cannot declare forced abandonement.

- So the LGU here is allowed.

*They cannot be acquired by prescription against the State.Good faith is not even a defense

As a general rule: Prescription cannot be invoked against the state so the state can anytime question the validity regarding your ownership of the land. - Imprescriptible

Case: Republic vs Mendoza

Case: Land Bank of the Philippines vs Republic of the Philippines

There a Certificate of Title but the land covered by the title is a mangrove. Certificate of title is not a mode of acquiring ownership, it merely confirms ownership.

Lets go back sa basic sa..

Lands of the public domain are classified into 4:

Forest

Mineral

National Park

Agricultural

Among the 4, only agricultural lands can be alienated. So the other 3 cannot be alienated.

JULY 5, 2014 SATURDAYWhat are the characteristics of property of public dominion?

- Properties of Public Dominion cannot be alienated.

- It cannot be an object of commercial transactions (cannot be sold, lease, etc).

- They cannot be acquired by prescription against the State.

- They are not subject to attachment and execution.

- They cannot be burdened by voluntary easement.

Assuming that I bought a property in good faith and the property that I purchased is covered by a title, I relied on what appears on the face of the title, can you consider me as purchaser in good faith? Yes, but good faith cannot be a valid defense.

Case: Heirs of Malabanan

Case: Jean Tan vs Republic of the Philippines

*They are not subject to attachment and execution.Case: MIAA vs CA

The MIAA was assessed by the assessor to pay real property tax for the land of MIAA. All these lands are held under the name of MIAA. MIAA has a separate and distinct personality from the RP.

Why should the properties under the name of MIAA be deemed as properties of the republic of the philippines?Properties in question are in the name of MIAA, and not in the name of Republic. Why is it the SC held that the properties are still property of the Republic?

MIAA here is just a mere trustee of the Republic. It is not really the real owner although the property is in its name.According the SC the properties of MIAA are techinically the properties of the RP. They cannot be taxed then.

In order for the MIAA to be considered a GOCC, it must have capital stock and the stock must be divided into shares. If its a non-stock, there must be members and no income of which should be distributed to the members. SC, it is not enough that an entity has a separate personality to be deemed as a government corporation, it must be organized in a same manner as a stock corporation or a non-stock corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Corporation code. MIAA not being organized in accordance with the corporation code, they are technically instrumentalities of the government. So if they are just instrumentalities of the government, the real owner of the properties is the Republic.

If the owner is the Republic, it cannot be taxed because Properties of public dominion are not subject to attachment and execution.Would it be correct to say that if you are an instrumentality of the government, you cannot be taxed, in all activites that you are engaged in? NO.

Why? When can you be taxed? When you lease it to private person.

Case: Philippine Ports Authority

The nature of the business engaged in by PPA is warehouse gipa lease to a private person. They are liable to tax?Let us assume that the government entity cannot pay its tax liability which under the law it is taxable. If you are the legal officer of the taxing authority, will you give the recommendation to the municipality or to the city that the tax obligation shall be enforced against the properties of these government entities considering that they are devoted to business? No, cannot be subject to liability even if that same property is devoted to business.

Case: Philippine Fisheries Development Authority vs CA (READ THIS CASE WA KO KASABOT GYUD)SC ruled in this case that the property is no subject to attachment although it is subject to property tax (the portion that is leased to private individual).

Liable to tax pero that very same tax liability cannot be enforced against those properties devoted to business.CONSTI- The state may waive its right or its consent to be sued but when it comes to execution of the judgment thats another story.

*They cannot be burdened by voluntary easement

A private person cannot ask for a right of way, will you be barred from using a government land as access to a public highway?

You cannot assert right of way over a public land? YES.

Because if you are a grantee of a right of way, you have an exclusive right to use the land which the right of way is constituted. BUT when it comes to a propery of public dominion, you cannot bar the other members of the public to use that because that is suppose to be open to the general public.Case: Villa Rico vs Sarmiento Case what is the status of a subdivision road?

LET US NOW TO GO TO SPECIFC TYPES OF PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMINIONArt. 420 gives us sampling of what these properties are roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State; banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character.

Case: Ignacio vs Director of Lands

Accretion of land

What do you mean by accretion? Formation of soil and deposit caused by the current of the river

Ignation was claiming ownership over the accretion because he was a reparian owner daw because his land was adjacent to the acrretion.

But his application was denied because the accretion was formed by a sea and not from the river. Only accretion formed by the river can be owned by private individual (except those alluvial deposits that are man-made) not the acrretion formed by the sea. If accretion is formed by the sea, it forms part of the public domain and therefore cannot be owned by private individual.LANDS OF THE PUBLIC DOMAINThe 4 classification of lands. Among the 4, only agricultural lands can be alienated.

How about the other types of natural resources? There should be a positive act from the executive department to reclassify those lands.

Case: Republic vs Mendoza (READ THIS!!)

What is the gist of the memorandum?

Why did the SC upheld the title of the land which is a fishpond?

There is an authority granted to the president to reclassify the lands that are originally not alienable.JULY 7, 2014 MONDAYCase: Maniclang vs IAC

The parties indicated ownership of that body of water to the private individual who was also a party of the compromise agreement. SC said that it was an invalid agreement because no contract can be valid in regard to ownership of property of public dominion.

Q: Why is it in the case of republic vs mendoza, the SC upheld the certificate of title granted to mendoza?

Q: Was the subject of that memorandum was a body of water or a land?

The executive department has the power to classify the land as a & d, the courts had no authority with such.

Effect of Estoppel

General Rule: No estoppel can be held against the government.

The exception was applied in this case.

Exception: When there is a mistake

Case: Land Bank of the Philippines vs Republic of the Philippines

There was a title issued over a parcel of land but the time it was issued, the land was still classified as timberland. Many years passed, this titles was subdivided until one the purchaser of that land mortgage it to land bank. And there were settlers who questioned the validity of the title claiming that at the time the mother title was issued the land was classified as timberland which cannot be alienated. When there was already a supervening event, it was already classfied as alienable and disposable. But the time the mother title was issued, it was not yet a & d. SC held - Doctrine here is that the matter of classifying land of the public domain, the prerogative to classify belongs to the executive department. The court cannot do anything with what the executive says.

Subdivision Road

Case: Woodridge school vs Arb

Woodridge would like to have access with the road owned by ARB. ARB want to close the land and woodridge objected. Woodridge objected that the property is part of the public dominion on the basis of PD 1216 so subdivision road pursuant to that law, it shall be donated to the municipality. SHALL a mandatory donation.What if the effect if the road lot is donated to the government? A municipality can acquire dominion over the property. This road lot which is formerly a private property will now become a property of public dominion, the subdivision developer even if it was the former owner, cannot demand compensation for its use because its already a property of public dominion.HOWEVER, in this case, there is no donation yet, SO NO DONATION, NO ACCEPTANCE = private property pa ang land. SO on the issue of compensation, ARB can still ask from woodrige while it is still not yet donated to the local government.

Q: Is water a property of public dominion? Yes.

Case: ( READ THIS CASE! PANGITAA KAY WA KO KAHIBAW SA TITLE)

Q: What is the status of water if it is drawn from the natural source and it is placed in a dam?

Under our constitution, utilization of water can only be given to qualified individuals.

Hydro electric plant awarded to a korean company.

PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDHow many classifications of lands of the public domain? 4 AFMN

Only Agricultural lands may be alienated and be disposed of.

What is the effect if the land which is submerged is being reclaimed, does the physical act of reclaiming it does it convert the land into agricultural lands disposable and alienable? NO.

Assuming you are the SOLGEN and the president asks for your opinion to dispose the land which is being reclaimed.President has the authority to classify land to a & d CA 141 Public Land Act

Lands of the public domain cannot be alienated to a private corporation, only to private individual.

Case: Chavez vs PEA no valid transfer to a corporationCase: Chavez vs NHA there is a valid transfer to a corporation

Case: Heirs of Malabanan

Q: When can an individual possibly acquire by ownership through prescription a public agricultural lands?

When will the prescriptive period start to run if he claims prescription as basis of his ownership of a public agricultural land? After it is declared a patrimonial property

Q: What is the status of the land it is is declared alienable and disposable? Is it still property of public dominion? Yes.

There is a farther requirement aside from classifying the land as a & d for it to be acquired is the basis is prescription meaning there must be an express declaration that the property will no longer be intended for public use, public service and development of national wealth.

There should be an express declaration through legislative act or presidential proclamation that the property is already a patrimonial property. If its already patrimonial property it can already be acquired through presciption.

It is not enough that there will only be declaration of land as a & d, because if thats the only declaration adto ka sa july 12, 1945 mu rely sec 14 (1).

JULY 8, 2014 TUESDAYCase: Jean tan vs RepublicContinuation of public agricultural land

Why is the state allows the a & d land to be disposed of? Constitution says it can be alienatedIn what manner can the public agricultural be owned by a private person? Through possession (land tits) and prescription, accretion pud

1. Through judicial confirmation of imperfect title in which the applicant must prove that he actually possessed the property since june 12, 1945 or earlier

2. Through prescription prescriptive period will run once the land is declared as patrimonial propertyWhat is required in (2) that is not required in (1)? The declaration of land as patrimonial property

Case: DENR vs Mayor Yap The default classification of lands which are unclassified is Forest Land basis is PD 705 (Forestry Code).

Any title issued pursuant to that land is void and any derivative titles is void as well.

Case: Land Bank of the Philippines vs Republic

From the mother title, the land was subdivided and then new TCT were issued and then individuals came into the picture who owned portion of these property until it was mortgage to Land Bank. Land Bank sought to forclose the mortgage but it was overtaken by the complaints of some residents of who were affected by the erroneous issuance of its title prompting the DENR to make an investigation as to the validity of the title and in the course of the investigation, it was established that the land covered by the title at the time of issuance of the OCT it was classified as timberland. So that was a void title. Innocent mortgagee or innocent purchaser is not a valid defense.

If one does not have a title, the next best proof of ownership is tax declaration coupled with possession. But that presupposes that the land is capable of being owned privately which is a & d.Q: What do you mean patrimonial property of the state?

Q: Is there such thing as patrimonial property originally?

Under the constitution of local autonomy the LGU is given the leeway to develop its own sources of revenue which translates in saying that the LGU may itself conduct business.

Patrimonial property are property of the state in its proprietary capacity.

Cont. ta on rules of conversion of property to patrimonial

JULY 10, 2014 THURSDAYQ: How do we describe patrimonial property?

A: Property that is declared as no longer for public use, public service and development of national wealth

Q: Is there such thing as patrimonial property originally? Yes. Property of the state in its proprietary capacity.

Case: Province of Zamboanga vs City of ZamboangaAddresses the issue that just because the property is not classified as property for public use, it is not correct to say that it is patrimonial in the light of Art. 420 of Civil Code. Because the Civil Code itself says SUBJECT TO SPECIAL LAWS Civil Code here is just being consistent.

LGC is a special law. Nothing in the code says that if it is not classified as a property for public use, it is already patrimonial.

*In this case, there was a protest from the province when the city was created. There were properties formerly belong to province that were transferred to the city.

Province relied on the Civil Code that if it is not a property for public use, it is patrimonial. Out of 50 properties there, only 2 are intended for public use, others are property for public service. Province alleged that they are deprived of just compensation.

Kay patrimonial man kuno so it is a property which is held by the Local Government in its proprietary capacity. Mura ra kag gikuhaan ug property niana. If you will just transfer the property, it would amount to deprivation without due process of law. It must be compensated.

BUT SC RULED OTHERWISE because the congress had direct control over the properties since these properties are intended for public use. Because of Municipal corporations, it is property for public use. That is what the Special Law states.Q: Is it correct to say that properties for pubblic service is a patrimonial property?A: NO

Can you tell us the rules before they can be coverted to a patrimonial property?

Declare as a & d

Express act from congress or presidential proclamation that it is already a patrimonial property

Case: Laurel vs GarciaEven if it is not actually devoted to actual public use, as long as there is no explicit act declaring the property as patrimonial, It remains property for public use. If is property for public use, what then is it consequence if the executive would attemp to sell it? The sale would be invalid.

For as long as the actual situation is that it is actually used, no amount of legislative act can change the actual situation. Case of makasiano

Case: Cebu Oxygen Acetylene vs Bercilles

The road is already abandoned.

If prior to legislative act, the road is already abandoned, then it would fall under this case.

SO NO FORCED ABANDONMENT.

However, abandonment is not an automatic cause for the property to be declared as patrimonial, there must be a confirmatory explicit act from the government.

Case: Chavez vs PEA

In this case, SC ruled that a reclaimed land is property of public dominion which cannot be alienated and the only way to alienate that is not really the physical act of reclaiming the submerged land. There must be a formal declaration that it is alienable and disposable. At this point, it still cannot be alienated to a private corporation but only to a private individual subject to the limitations.

So in this case, the transfer to amari was held invalid.

Case: Chavez vs NHA

This is a reclaimed land, the SC was still confronted with the issue when did it become alienable and disposable.Reclaimed land become alienable and disposable when there was an explicit act of the government through a presidential declaration declaring the reclaimed lot as alienable and disposable.But at that point, the land is still land of the public domain. Cannot be transferred yet to a corporation.

After the proclamation and the issuance of a special patent, According the SC The proclamation and the issuance of the special patent had the effet of converting the land to alienable and disposable lands of the public domain. Wala pa ni na issuehan ug titleTitle was issued later and the basis of the issuance was the patent.

Certificate of title dayon in favor of NHA.

Q: What according to the SC is the effect when the certificates of title were issued to the NHA?A: The land became patrimonial it can now be transferred to a private corporation

The moment it became patrimonial it is already not within the prohibition of the constitution thus it can now be sold to a corporation.

Q: What was the difference of the certificate of title issued to PEA and NHA? Why did the certificate of title issued in favor of NHA had an effect of converting the land into patrimonial and not in PEA?

The nature of NHA is an end-user agency. End-user they are the main beneficiaries.

In PEA dili sila ang mu gamit sa yuta. They are merely temporary holders of lands of the public domain.

So in Chavez vs NHA case exception ni because IMPLIED CONVERSION. There is no presidential proclamation nor legislative act that converted the land to patrimonial property.

Conversion of patrimonial property must be an explicit act IS NOT AN ABSOLUTE RULE.

PROPERTY OF PROVINCES, CITIES AND MUNICIPALITIESQ: How to we classify the properties of provinces, cities and municipalities?

A: Under the Civil Code, they are classified as for public use or patrimonial.

Q: For property of public service, where it will belong? Public use or patrimonial property? Property for public service is classified as property for public use and NOT patrimonial property.Case: Province of Zamboanga vs City of ZamboangaWhen the city of zamboanga was created, the province was not happy about it.

Out of 50 properties there, only 2 are intended for public use, others are property for public service. Province alleged that they are deprived of just compensation. Province relied on the Civil Code that if it is not a property for public use, it is patrimonial.Public Use open to the general public

Public Service only authorized persons are allowed to use

If kunohay patrimonial, kailangan sila bayran because that would amount to taking without due process of law.SC ruled otherwise, Property of public service is placed on the same footing for property of public use and NOT patrimonial. So there is no unlawful taking here. They are allowed to transfer the property without just compensation.In 424, sa last paragraph naa without prejudiced to special laws, since 424 is a general law, it must give way to a special law which is in the case CORPORATION. And in the law of coroporation, property of public service is placed on the same footing with the property for public use. And if its a property for public use, the control of that property still lies on the state.

JULY 12, 2014 SATURDAYQ: How is a municipality or a city created?

A: Through a law

Q: Can you briefly describe what is in a law creating province, city or municipality?

A: It must describe the meets and bounds of the property

The meets and bounds of the property of a certain province/city/municipality comes from whom? From the??Case: Province of Zamboanga vs City of ZamboangaCase: Cebu Acetylene vs Bercilles

Case: salas vs salencio Sought permission to have it declared patrimonial

Why do they have to seek permission first?

If a certain city or municipality will contend that they are not mere trusties, that the property is owned by them. What sort of proof that they will present to overturn the presumption that they are just trustees? They must prove that they acquire such property through their own funds.

*If mu ingon ka that the province is not just a mere trustee, you have to prove that you acquire that property through your own corporate funds. Otherwise, if you cannot prove that you have to seek the permission or authority from the legislature. There must be a law giving you a permission to dispose that porperty.

^Case: Manila Lands vs CA

GOVERNMENT FUNDS

Funds of government corporation

Q: What is the rule with regards to disbursement of public funds?

A: There must be a law for appropriation

^ That expresses the legislative intent to allot a fund to a certain project to a certain agency. Act of legislative power

Q: If a fund is already budgeted to a government agency and this government agency has an existing liability to a private company and this private company filed a case against this government agency. Can this fund already alloted to the gov. agency be subject of a coercive process like writ of execution or writ of attachment which may be asked by the private company?A: NO, if there is no appropriation law that specified the payment for that liability then it cannot be subject to any coercive process.

Case: Pasay City vs ???

The ordinance in this case had a very specific purpose that it must answer its monetary liability in the compromise agreement

The ordinance was valid

Case: Professional Video vs TesdaTESDAs function is to provide IDs as a certification of works. It entered into a contract of supplier of ID but former could not pay. Professional Video filed a case and wanted to attach file pertaining to TESDAs general appropriation funds. SC held that it could not be done because those are government funds.

You will notice here that there is already a specific appropriation for TESDA in the GAA, but SC held that those funds could not be attached.

In here, just because the government entity enters into a contract it does not mean that the funds pertaining to it under the general appropriations act maybe garnishable or maybe subject to a writ of execution.

(First, you need to determine the nature of the exercise of its function when it enters into a contract. Whether it entered into the contract in its governmental function.

The Contract here is maybe a commercial contract but that is only incidental in the exercise of its governmental function.) political law aspect In this case, the appropriation is general.

Case: Commission of Public Highways vs Lourdes San DiegoSC applied the rule that government instrumentalities are beyond the coercive process of any court. writ of attachment or writ of execution

This case is about garnishing funds pertaining to Bureau of Public Highways (DPWH). It involves the expansion of EDSA, an eminent domain proceeding.

State in here already waived its right not to be sued. As discussed earlier, even if there is waiver in regard to being sued on the part of the state still, that waiver is only good to proceedings anterior to the execution.

Here there is money judgment in favor of the owner but according to the court, this money judgment could not be executed and enforced against public funds pertaining to bureau of public highway.

Case: Philippine National Bank vs Judge PabalanA case which involves funds pertaining to PVTA, a government agency, subject to a writ of execution.

Writ was issued pursuant to a collection suit. It was direct to the funds of PVTA. It was held valid by the court. The reason of the court is that PVTA is a GOCC, it has a distinct personality of its own from the state its funds can be garnished.

*For as long as the government entity concerned has a personality distinct from the state, its funds can be garnished subject to a writ of execution.

-Is this still valid rule in the light of the earlier discussion of MIAA?

-Of course it is not enough that the entity has personality distinct from the state.

We can only consider that the agency is a true GOCC (Government Owned and Controlled Corporation) when it is organized in accordance with the Corporation Code. ALL FUNDS PERTAINING TO IT CAN BE GARNISHED

If it is a non stock corporation, still organized with corporation code, then it is still GOCC

*If the government entity has a personality separate and distinct from the republic and it is performing a proprietary function, it is subject to attachment.Does the proof that the government entity has a personality separate and distinct from the republic enough? NO, it must further be proven that the government entity was organized as a GOCC whether stock or non-stock. MIAA caseJULY 14, 2014 MONDAY

OWNERSHIP a bundle of right a person has over things

General RightsRight to enjoy

Right to disposeRight to vindicate right to institute the necessary legal actions to recover his possession to the thing in case he is dispossessed of the thing he owned

Specific

The right to the space ABOVE and BELOW the land you occupy

RIGHTS OF AN OWNERQ: What are the rights of an owner?

Right to enjoy

Right to disposeRight to vindicate

Q: What do you mean by right to vindicate?

Right to vindicate - the right to recover the possession of real or personal propertyQ: What the remedies available that can be resorted to by the owner?

A: Replevin, Forcible Entry, Unlawful detainer, Injuction and Writ of Possession

Q: What do you understand by replevin?

A: The right to recover personal propertyReplevin basis of remedy is ownership

Q: If the subject is a real property, what are the available legal remedies?

A: Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer, Action Publiciana and Action Reivindicatoria - Recovery of possession. Although the possession on each of these remedies, the nature of the possession involved in each of the remedies are different.

Let us make a distinction now.

FORCIBLE ENTRY

The nature of the possession is that you are the one in actual and physical possession

UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Recovery of possession against one whose right to the possession of the thing terminates which wight is grounded on a contract that is express or implied.

ACTION PUBLICIANA

Possession still is involved here. The nature of the possession is possession de jure Ex. Lessee possession here does not arise from ownershipACTION REINVIDICATORIA

Recovery of possession based on ownership

Forcible entry and Unlawful detainer are only summary proceeding no presentation of witnesses on the witness stand, on the basis of position papers onlyAction publiciana and Action reinvidicatoria are ordinary civil actionForcible Entry the possession of the defendant is illegal from the very beginning, no basis.Unlawful Detainer the possession is legal from the start but become illegal later on.Example:

Parcel of land. Who are the possible defendants here for forcible entry? Squatters

Forcible entry:

Grounds of how the entry was made:

- Force

- Intimidation- Threat- Strategy somewhat accompanied by fraud, deliberate gyud ba- Stealth done secretly, ninja moves*When is the reckoning point to count the 1 year period? Forcible Entry IMPORTANT******Force within 1 year from the entry by force

Intimidation - within 1 year from the intimidation has stopped

Threat - within 1 year from the threat has stoppedStrategy - within 1 year from the strategy has discovered

Stealth - within 1 year from the stealth has discovered

Unlawful DetainerEx. Lessee, after the duration of lease contract dli muhawa initially the possession is legal at first but becomes illegal when the lease contract has expired. It becomes unlawful when the lessee refuses to vacate despite notice to vacate after expiry of lease contract

*If in the complaint there is no demand to vacate, then there is no cause of action case will be dismissed. SO there must be an allegation that there was a demand to vacate and prove it by attaching in the complaint a deman letter to vacate

*Reckoning Point 1 year notice from the time the last demand letter to vacate

Action PublicianaEx. You are a lessee, deprived of possession, you can filed action publiciana because you have the right to possession independent of ownership.Basis is not ownership, but something other than ownership

Can also be resorted when the 1 year period has lapsed When you cannot pinpoint the mode of entry which are not in the remedy

Action Reinvidicatoria

Still an action to recover possession but this time the basis is ownership

You claim that you have possession because you are the owner

Injunction Rule 58 Rules of Court

This can be a remedy Main or Provisional

Can be resorted to when you are dispossessed of your property by force and you would ask mandatory injunction from the court that in the mean time that the case is filed, you will be reinstated to be in possession of the property

Writ of Possession

Is available in cadastral cases. There is already judgment from the court then there are occupants in the property, you are entitled to be issued a writ of possession. You dont to file a case again.

Also available when you are a buyer in a foreclosure sale, then the owner was not able to redeem, so you are now the absolute owner. If this new owner want to vacate the old owner, he will just ask from the court issuance a writ of possession.

JULY 15, 2014 - TUESDAY

TO avail of these remedies, you MUST FIRST determine the nature of the possession which may be remedied by these actions to recover.

FORCIBLE ENTRY

*The nature of possession only involves material possession or who has pripority of possession.

He who can successfully prove that he is in rightful possession of the subject property and there is a basis for his possession will normally be the victor in a forcible entry case.

Even if you are the owner but you cannot prove prior possession, your ownership is not a guarantee that you will be sucessful in a forcible entry case.

*The possession of the defendant must be illegal from the very start and the mode of gaining possession is through either:

Force, intimidation, strategy, threat and stealth

*The law recognizes that there may be other modes of entry of possession which will not necessarily so forcible entry is not a remedy.

*The period of time to avail of this remedy is: 1 year reckoned from the occurrence of the force/intimidation, stopping of the threat, discovery of the strategy and stealth

*On the procedure standpoint, the issue is jurisdiction file it at MTC the court which has sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the place where the real property is situatedUNLAWFUL DETAINER

The possession is legal from the start but at the later point it becomes illegal

Best example of this is in a contract of lease where the lessee still continued to possess the property even after the expiration of the lease period and inspite of the notice to vacate given by the owner.

As soon as the notice to vacate is given, and the period asking him to vacate has expired without him vacating, his possession becomes illegal.

So you have 1 year from the time you serve the last demand letter in which to file a case for unlawful detainer

There are other situations would be an appropriate remedy. Another is when you tolerate another person to possess your property. When the time comes that you will need the entire premises and you ask him to vacate and he will not vacate you can file an unlawful detainer suit because the tolerance given initially gives the others person possession legal, but the moment you ask him to vacate, his possession now becomes illegal

Both of these remedies, FORCIBLE ENTRY and UNLAWFUL DETAINER are described as summary remedies to recover possession

*Summary because they governed on the rules on summary procedure

*Summary procedure can be described as it can be decided solely by position paper. There is no need to present witnesses in the witness stand. There is no need to conduct a direct examination just like in a normal trial type proceeding. After the submission of the position papers, the court will now decide on the case.* Will be resolved sooner thatn ordinary civil action.

ACTION PUBLICIANA

*Also an action to recover possession but the possession is here is grounded on a right other than ownership.

*You may have possession but the possession here is not based on ownership

*Involves right OF possession, its no dependent upon ownership.

*May also be available of you cannot accurately describe how to entry of possession was done by the defendant.

*If the 1 year period has alrady lapsed, if its a case of forcible entry, you can still avail of this remedy the problem here is delay lang gyud because this is not summary but an ordinary civil action

ACTION REINVIDICATORIA

*Action to recover possession but the basis here is ownership

*In other words, you claim that you have the right to the possession of the thing because you are the owner

There also other remedies provided for by law:WRIT OF INJUNCTION Mandatory Injunction

WRIT OF POSSESSION

*There are 3 cases there that I assigned explaining the nature of these remedies specifically forcible entry and unlawful detainer

(READ THESE CASES INTAWN KAY WA KA NI BASA ANI)

*ANOTHER REMEDY is QUIETING OF TITLE

CASES:

Case: Villa vs Heirs of Altavas

You can only be protected in your possession if the transferor of the possession is a valid transferor.

This physician in this case is an operator of fishpond claimed that she was the rightful possessor because allegedly he obtained her possession from the wife of an administrator.

The adversaries are the heirs of the real owner and this owner tasked someone to administer his property and this someone is known as the administrator.

Namatay ang administrator and the wife takes over and this wife caused the transfer of this property to the physician whose possession is now contested by the heirs of the owner. Ang gi saligan sa doctor is the transfer from the wife of an administrator SC the wife cannot validly transfer possessory rights to the physician because she has no right in the first place. Even if you are an administrator, the right of an administrator is just to administer the property. You cannot sell EXCEPT there is a judicial/court order allowing the adminstrator to transfer otherwise that is invalid.

SO even if you are in good faith, you have no right over the possession of the thing because the transferor is an invalid transferor.

In the part of the heirs, when the real owner died, the heirs step into the shoes of the owner.

The SC ruled in this case that there is basis to eject the physician.

Case: Estate of Manantan vs Aniceto Somera The factual scenario of this case is very common

You are the owner and you discovered that a portion of the land that you bought is occupied by another person. And at that time that he started occupying it you were not yet the owner. And when you were already the owner, you asked him to vacate alleging that you owned the land and he refuses to vacate. SC ruled that you cannot exactly say that the possessory right of the current possessor does not have any basis. Because there is basis of his possessory rights, unlawful detainer cannot be a remedy because in unlawful detainer the possession of the defendant must arise from contract whether expressed (lease contract) or implied (possession by mere tolerance)

The problem here is the lawyer committed an error in regard to the allegation of the complaint. Wala gi describe that possession arose from the contract, what he allege is at that the time the plaintiff bought the property the defendant was already there. So from that, it can be inferred that the possession of the defendant does not spring from contract.

SC this is not a case proper for unlawful detainer. You can file another case but not unlawful detainer. Your remedy is Action Reinvidicatoria because ownership naman imo gisaligan.

(MURAG MU GAWAS NI NI)

(IF PALPAK ANG 1st, i-justify ang second)

Case: Casilang vs Casilang-dizon This is an example of ejectment case where the ultimate issue resolved by the court was who has ownership?

So kinsa man ang owner?

SOMETIMES there are issues in forcible entry and unlawful detainer where the court will be forced to decide the issue of ownership.

But whenever the court will resolved that ownership issue that will only be provisional temporary lang. Ex. The court found out that the owner is Mr. A and therefore since Mr. A is the owner, possessory right shall be given to Mr. A. However, Mr. B can still question the ownership in an appropriate proceeding (reinvidicatoria case) because that decision was only provisional.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE

Brothers nag lalis about a parcel of land.

It was later established that it was the other brother who is PEDRO is the owner. Because there was a document partition document adjudicating the land to pedro.

From that, when court dealt about the issue of partition agreement, that is an issue involving ownership.

Pwede mka file ug case si Juan regarding ownership through Action Reindivicatoria but In the meantime you vacate the property.

Case: Iglesia ni Cristo vs Ponferrada

This is about action reinvidicatoria

There was an issue about prescriptive period because there is period to file a case.

Plaintiff contended in this case the imong caso already prescribed.

The RULE is this, IF the one filing a quieting of title case is in possession of the land subject to the quieting of title case is IMPRESCIPITIBLE or action to file will not prescribe.

IF you are not in possession, your action will prescribe in 10 years.

Iglesia Ni Cristo contends that the action reindivicatoria presupposes on the one that is filing that he was not in possession. SO since wa man daw possession, the case must be filed 10 years from the time the title was issued. SO ni prescribe na daw ang cause of action sa contra kay reinvidicatoria man imong gi file.

The other party contended that it has not yet lapsed because along we are in possession except recently when you fenced the portion of the property.

The issue here was, kani mu file ta ug action reinvidicatoria can this only be availed of by one who is NOT IN POSSESSION? Detrimental bani sa plaintiff kay tabla ra ni admit siya na he is not in possession?

SC said that Action Reindivicatoria is ownership issue, ang foundation of the cause of action is ownership.

If you are an owner, there are several attributes of ownership, its not only possession. Possession is only one of the attributes. If the other attributes of ownership are violated, action reinvidicatoria is still an appropriate remedy.

In other words, there can still be an action reinvidicatoria even if you are in possession of the property.

In this, gi fence ang property, the possession is disturbed so action reinvidicatoria is still a remedy. (disturbed rani not dispossessed)

JULY 17, 2014 THURSDAYLimitations on the Right of Ownership

*Limitations established by the state

*Limitations by the law

*Limitations by the owner

Police Power

Q: Can you give a concrete example of an ownership right is validly restricted by the police power of the state.

A:

Q: Are there requisites in order that the exercise of police power maybe deemed a permissible restriction of your right of ownership?

A: Must only regulate nor prohibit

Q: Can you give me an example of polic power measure which does not only regulate but actually prohibits?

A: Case: City of Manila vs Laguio SC said that it is not through banning of motels to prevent immorality, with this it is nor longer regulation but prohibition.

Case: Whitelight Coporatation Case

Banning of establishments offering short time rates

SC said that this kind of ordinance will also not address the alleged evil sought to be prevented. There must be a reasonable measures between the evil sought to be prevented and the measure.Eminent Domain

Q: Tell us the requisite

A: There must be a valid taking of property for public use with payment of just compensation

Q: Why do you say that eminent domain is a valid limitation on your right of ownership?

A: Because the state can validly take your property provided that it is for public use and there is payment of just compensation

Q: What factors would you established so that you can be properly compensated?

A: Prices of adjacent properties, zonal value from BIR, accessibility to a public high wayCase: City Government of Quezon City vs Erecta There was an ordinance requiring all owners of memorial park to a lot 6% of the land area for poor individuals.

This was questioned by one owner of the memorial park to be invalid.

The legal justification of the government is that this is an exercise of police power daw.

SC ruled that this is not a valid exercise of police power because it shifts the burden to private individuals. Instead of that should be a government program, inyo i-shift ro private.

If the city government is really serious in implementing the program, it should be eminent domain so that the owner will be justly compensated.

Case: Office of SOLGEN vs Ayala Land

- This case is about compelling mall owners to provide free parking space in the exercise of police power.

According to solgen, in the building code, if you are the owner of the building daw, you are to provide parking spaces.

SC said, yes its true, but it id not stated that it should be given for free. It is not explicit in the building code that the owners should provide FREE PARKING SPACES, so it cannot be justified by the police power measure founded on the national building code.

If you compel the mall owners to provide free parking spaces, that is taking of private property without due process of law.Case: MMDA vs Trackworks

About MMDa regulation banning of putting up of billboards in the railway stations.

SC ruled that the regulation is invalid. Under the BOT scheme, during the period that they are allowed to operate, they are owners of it and only after the expiration of a certain period of time will that be given to the government. Part of the enticements that the government will offer is that those private companies are allowed to enter into commercial contract (advertisement companies) with another entity aside from the operating the railway. MMDA comes into the picture and prohibits the putting up of billboards because those are distractions of traffic daw.

SC said that the regulation of MMDA is an invasion of property rights because they are owners of it and it is outside of sphere of MMDAs authority.

Eminent Domain

Just compensation is determined by courts and not by any law because several factors being considered by the courts in determining just compensation.

Case: MCIAA vs Lozada

The ruling is, if the public purpose is abandoned regardless of whether there is a condition or not, the land owner is allowed to recover.

JULY 19, 2014 SATURDAYOne of the limitations of right of ownership is through the exercise of the state of its inherent powers police power, eminent domain, taxation

Limitation of the right of ownership may also be imposed pursuant or arising from a provision of the law.

Limitations Imposed by Law

Q: Give me an example of this. Limitation imposed by law.

A: Legal easement and Homestead patents

There are zoning ordinances which prevents homeowners from building houses taller than what is prescribed by the law Maria LuisaCase: Lunod vs Meneses

The properties of plaintiff were flooded because the defendants fenced or restricted the outlet of the water so that it can flow to the river.

There is a law that you have to give access to the waters from one estate to your estate.

Owners of lower estate must receive the water from the higher estate you should obstruct the free flow of the water on the way to the river, because if you will obstruct ma flooded ang naa sa higher estate.

Imposed by the grantorIn donating a property the donor can impose condition as long as the condition is reasonable.

While it is true that you are now the owner, you cannot violate the conditions imposed by the donor otherwise, the donor can rescind the deed of donation.

Case: Roman Catholic vs CA

The condition imposed in the donation is invalid.

There is a deed of donation with a condition imposed by the donor that the property shall not be alienated or sell within a period of 100 years.

According the SC, yes, a grantor can imposed condition BUT that condition should not be undue and impose unreasonable restriction on the ownership rights of the donee. What is acceptable years? 20 years, in analogy with the provision in civil code that a condition imposed by a testator 20 years

Imposed by the OwnerThis is a voluntary act made by the owner and through his own acts, he imposes a restriction unto himself.Ex. Lease of property For the duration of the lease, you are depriving yourself of rights of the possession of the thing you owned.

Ex. If you give usufructory rights to a usufructory, then you are also depriving yourself on the right for the fruits and the right for the use of the thing. NAKED OWNER and the one who is enjoying the fruits is the USUFRUCTORY

Constitutional ProhibitionSection 7. Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain.

Q: Do you know the implication of that?

A: No private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Foreigners cannot own lands of the public domain. You cannot be a transferee of private lands.

Q: How about if you are a former filipino citizen who is naturalized as US citizen, you want to buy lands here in the philippines, can you buy?

A: YES, subject to limitations provided by law. Max is 1,000 sq meters for urban lands and 1 hectare land for rural to be used by him as his residence