Professional Documents
Culture Documents
IGNACIO VS. DIRECTOR OF LANDS AND VALERIANO: Case Doctrine: Article 457 of the New Civil Code (Article 366, Old Civil Code), which provides that: To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. The article cited is clearly inapplicable because it refers to accretion or deposits on the banks of rivers, while the accretion in the present case was caused by action of the Manila Bay. FACTS: Ignacio applied for registration of a parcel of land adjacent to his land, claiming that he has acquired the land by right of accretion. Director of Lands, Valeriano opposed, instead it avers that portion sought to be registered is property of public domain. ARGUMENTS: 1. Appellant contends that the parcel belongs to him by the law of accretion, having been formed by gradual deposit by action of the Manila Bay, and he cites Article 457 of the New Civil Code 2. Appellant next contends that Articles 1, 4 and 5 of the Law of Waters are not applicable because they refer to accretions formed by the sea, and that Manila Bay cannot be considered as a sea. ISSUE/S: WON the land subject of the dispute can be acquired by right of accretion of Ignacio. HELD: NO. The land cannot be acquired by right of accretion. Article 457 is not applicable. The article cited is clearly inapplicable because it refers to accretion or deposits on the banks of rivers, while the accretion in the present case was caused by action of the Manila Bay. Manila bay is not a river. A bay is a part of the sea, being a mere indentation of the same: Bay. An opening into the land where the water is shut in on all sides except at the entrance; an inlet of the sea; an arm of the sea, distinct from a river, a bending or curbing of the shore of the sea or of a lake. 7 C.J. 1013-1014 (Cited in Francisco, Philippine Law of Waters and Water Rights p. 6) DE BUYSER VS. DIRECTOR OF LANDS: Case Doctrine: Such alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and, therefore, not open to acquisition by adverse possession by private persons. It is outside the commerce of man, unless otherwise declared by either the executive or legislative branch of the government. FACTS: De Buyser is the registered owner of a lot contiguous to the lot subject of this dispute. On the other hand, defendant Tandayags have been occupying this foreshore land under a revocable permit issued by the Director of Lands. Claiming ownership of the foreshore land, de buyser plaintiff filed an action against spouses Tandayag to recover possession of this land and the Director of Lands for having illegally issued a revocable permit to the Tandayags. ARGUMENTS: In asserting the right of ownership over the land, plaintiff invokes Article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of August 3, 1866 which provides: Art. 4. Lands added to the shore by accretion and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea, form part of the public domain, when they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea, and are not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of special industries, or for the coastguard service, the Government shall declare them to be the property of the owners of the estate adjacent thereto and as an increment thereof. ISSUE/S: WON claim of ownership has legal basis. HELD: No. Plaintiffs claim of ownership is bereft of legal basis. Such alluvial formation along the seashore is part of the public domain and, therefore, not open to acquisition by adverse possession by private persons. It is outside the commerce of man, unless otherwise declared by either the executive or legislative branch of the government. 1
Page
Page
FACTS: Respondents Benjamin Tancinco, Azucena Tancinco Reyes, Marina (should be "Maria") Tancinco Imperial and Mario C. Tancinco filed an application for the registration of three lots adjacent to their fishpond property.
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
Page
10
Page
11
Page
12
Page
13
Page
14
Page
15
Page
16
Page
17
Page
18
Page
19
Page
20
Page
21
Page
22
Page
23
Page
CASE DOCTRINES
24
FRANCISCO MEDINA, et al., Petitioners, versus GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent., G.R. No. 140228, 2004 Nov 19, 2nd Division
Page
25
ERNESTO V. YU and ELSIE O. YU, Petitioners, versus BALTAZAR PACLEB, Respondent., G.R. No. 130316, 2007 Jan 24, 1st Division CASE DOCTRINES Possession; defined The Civil Code states that possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. In the grammatical sense, to possess means to have, to actually and physically occupy a thing, with or without right. Possession always includes the idea of occupation x x x. It is not necessary that the person in possession should himself be the occupant. The occupancy can be held by another in his name. Without occupancy, there is no possession. Possession; requirements Two things are paramount in possession. First, there must be occupancy, apprehension or taking. Second, there must be intent to possess (animus possidendi). Payment of tax; indicia of animus possidendi
Page
26
Page
27
Page
28
Page
29
Page
30
Page
31
Page
32
Page
33
Page
34
Page
35
Page
36
Page
37
Republic vs. Alonte CASE DOCTRINES Possession can be exercised in ones name or that of another The fact that Editha Alonte, respondent's attorney-in-fact, testified that it is she and her family who are residing on the subject lot does not negate the statement in the petition for reconstitution that it is respondent who is in possession of the lot. After all, Article 524 of the New Civil Code provides that possession may be exercised in one's own name or in that of another. Obviously, Editha Alonte was exercising possession over the land in the name of respondent Lourdes Alonte. FACTS: Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45. In 2001 Lourdes F. Alonte filed a Petition for the Reconstitution of the original TCT and Issuance of the Corresponding Owner's Duplicate thereof over lot 18-B of the subd. Plan (LRC) Psd-328326 co situated in the Municipality of Caloocan (now Quezon City). All the requirements were complied by Alonte. There being no opposition her representative was allowed to present evidience ex-parte. RTC decision: granted the reconstitution. The RTC has issued a Certificate of finality. However, it revoked the same because a Notice of Appeal was submitted. CA decision: affirmed the RTC. ISSUE: WON Alonte who was in the United States complied with possession requirement for the reconstitution of title. RULING: The petition for reconstitution alleged that respondent is in possession of the subject lot and it listed the names and addresses of adjoining owners enumerated in the Certification from the Office of the City Assessor dated August 1, 2001; it stated that the title is free from any and all liens and encumbrances; and it stated that a copy of TCT No. 335986 is attached to the petition and made an integral part of the petition, hence, the restrictions and liabilities appearing at the back of the copy of the TCT are deemed part of the petition for reconstitution. Said petition was also accompanied by a technical description of the property approved by the Commissioner of the National Land Titles and Deeds Registration Administration, the predecessor of the LRA, as prescribed under the last condition of Section 12 of R.A. No. 26. Thus, the petition clearly complied with the requirements of Section 12, R.A. No. 26. The fact that Editha Alonte, respondent's attorney-in-fact, testified that it is she and her family who are residing on the subject lot does not negate the statement in the petition for reconstitution that it is respondent who is in possession of the lot. After all, Article 524 of the New Civil Code provides that possession may be exercised in one's own name or in that of another. Obviously, Editha Alonte was exercising possession over the land in the name of respondent Lourdes Alonte. This is supported by the Certification from the Office of the City Treasurer of Quezon City which states that the real property taxes on said property, declared in the name of Lourdes Alonte, had been paid. Furthermore, as stated above, the LRA submitted to the trial court a Report dated August 2, 2002 stating that *t+he plan and technical description of Lot 18-B of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-328326, were verified correct by this Authority to represent the aforesaid lot and the same have been approved under (LRA) PR-19193 pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of R.A. No. 26. Attached to said Report were the print copy of plan (LRA) PR-19193 and the corresponding technical description. Since the LRA issued a Report that is highly favorable to respondent, and considering further the presumption that official duty has been regularly performed the only conclusion would be that respondent has fully complied with the requirements of LRC Circular No. 35. HELD: petition denied. /adsum Special thanks to zoila :-)
Page
38
Page
39