Property Transcribed HanggangBefore Start ng Ownership

In the Mindanao Bus Company yung transportation buc company case, which I was referring to
a while ago, sabing Supreme Court dun, the industry is not carried on in this building where the repair
shop is located. The transportation business is carried on outside not here. So thats another reason why
the court said the repair equipment there should not be considered as immobilized but remained
personal property.
Can the parties agree that a certain machinery which has been installed by the owner of the
tenement for an industry or works which will be carried on in that building which tend to directly meet
the needs of the industry or works? Can the owner of that machinery and a creditor agree to treat this
machinery as personal property subject them to a chattel mortgage? Is that allowable? The answer is
yes. In other words, again the principle of estoppel will apply. Although the machinery inside the
building were installed by the owner and they tend directly to meet the needs of an industry or work
which can be carried on in that building, if the parties agree to treat the machinery as chattel and enter
into a chattel mortgage, neither of them will be permitted to question the validity later on of the chattel
mortgage on the ground that the subject was actually real property.
Next point.In number 6 of Art. 415, the law deals with animal houses, pigeon houses, fish ponds,
and other breeding places of similar nature. In case their owner place them or reserves them with the
intention to have them permanently attached to the land, the animals in these places are included. So if
there is a pigeon house, permanently attached to the land, the pigeons in that pigeon house are also
considered real property. Of course pigeons sometimes fly around or in the case of fish ponds and you
happen to bangus in your fish ponds, the bangus are considered immovable real property even if they
are swimming around. For purposes of sale, however, they should be considered as movable property.
So if you enter into a contract of sale of the bangus in your fishpond, thats not a sale of real property.
That should be considered of course as a sale of natural property. Or if you donate the bangus to the
certain individual, that should not be considered a donation of real property but a donation of personal
property. If you will consider it a donation of real property you will need to execute a public document
both for the donation and the acceptance.
Fertilizers actually used in a piece of land. What about insecticide? Same rule should apply.
Mines, quarries and slag dumps when the matter thereof forms part of the bed and waters
either running or stagnant. The waters referred to here are yung natural waters. So if you have several
drums of water which you keep in your land because in some areas the water becomes scarce, the
waters in those drums which you have earlier collected cannot be considered as waters referred to in
Art 415. Yung mga waters ditto either running or stagnant ay yungmga waters in rivers, lakes, lagoons.
Natural waters.
Number 9, docks and structures which although floating are intended by their nature and object
to remain in a fixed place in a river, lake or port. A question has already been asked regarding this. There
was a barge which was at a fixed place, bastanasa fixed place even if floating consider it as real property.
For example NAPOCOR and some other private companies have these power barges which supply
electricity to some island provinces. These power barges are usually docked along a port or a shore and
they remain there for a considerable period of time. They are considered as real property. Yung floating
restaurant jansamei reclamation area. It is floating but it remains in fixed place. That should be
considered as real property. But of course if its actually a boat, takes passengers, go on a cruise in
Manila Bay while cruising around Manila Bay dinner is served, you dont considered that as real property
or immovable property.
Lastly, contracts for public works and servitudes and other real rights over real property. So
please remember the enumeration of real property under Art 415. Then take a look at what are in turn
considered as immovable property under Art 416 and 417 of the NCC. I just want to call your attention.
Certain real property by special provision of law also considered as movable property. Very good
example are growing crops. Growing crops are considered under certain provisions of law as movable
property under the chattel mortgage law as well as the civil code provisions on sales they are considered
personal property. Sabinga eh in the case of growing crops, while they are still there growing in the soil,
sabing SC in the case of Sibalvs Valdez, its a mobilization by anticipation. The law already anticipates
there subsequently becoming movable. When would that happen? When they are actually gathered. So
even before they are gathered there is mobilization by anticipation. Thats why they can be a subject of
chattel mortgage.
Forces of nature which are brought under the control of science; nuclear power, wind power,
electricity, these are considered movable property.
Shares of stock in any corporation as long as you are talking of shares of stock they are
considered real property regardless of the fact that the corporations in which the shares are held are
real property or even if the assets of the corporation consist of real property, the shares of stock in that
corporation are considered personal.
The next important classification of course is the classification between property of public
dominion and property of private ownership. So remember Art 420.
What are considered property of public dominion? Those intended for public use. Those
intended for public service or for the development of national wealth.
Property intended for public use roads, streets, parks. A property is considered according to
the court, for public use within the meaning of the civil code if it is open indiscriminately to public. In
other words, anyone can go there and use it. Like our streets. It is open to anyone indiscriminately.
Thats property for public use.
Properties of public dominion are subject to certain special rules. We have to remember these.
They cannot be the subject matter of contracts. They cannot be sold or leased or subject of contracts.
They cannot be acquired by prescription. They cannot be attached and sold at public auction to satisfy
any judgment. They cannot be burdened with an easement. They cannot be even registered and titled in
your name under the Torrens system. If a title is issued covering a property of public dominion, thats
not a valid title.
The government has property of two types: Property of public dominion and patrimonial
property. With respect to the patrimonial property, just like any ordinary and private property, that can
be the subject of contracts. Property of public dominion as long as it remains such is subject to special
rules we have just mentioned cannot be subject to prescription, not subject to contracts, etc. Is it
possible to convert property of public dominion to patrimonial property? Yes possible. How can that be
done? Will the mere fact that the property of public dominion is no longer actually being used for public
use or is no longer actually being devoted to some public service, will that automatically convert into
patrimonial property? No it will not. There must be a formal declaration in the case of nation
government property by the executive or legislative of such conversion otherwise the property remains
a property of public dominion. With respect to property of political subdivisions, conversion must always
be authorized by law. Example, the Raponggi Cases involving the property of the Philippines located in
Japan which was given to us by way of reparation by the Japanese as part of the reparations agreement.
Those properties were originally intended for the use of our embassy but they were never used for that
purpose. After a long period of time there was an attempt to sell these properties. The SC said the mere
fact that these properties in Japan had not been actually used for their original purpose does not
automatically convert these properties into patrimonial property. They remain part of the public domain
and consequently not available for private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal declaration
from the government to withdraw from being such. Abandonment according to SC cannot be inferred, it
must be definite.
On the part of local government entities, just like the state, their properties are subdivided into
properties for public use and patrimonial properties. Again for property to be considered for public use,
it must be open indiscriminately to the public otherwise it cannot be said a property for public use. In
some cases however, the SC in determining the properties of a local government unit should be
considered as public or patrimonial, the SC opted to apply the special laws governing municipal
corporation. Thus in the case of Zamboanga del Nortevs City of Zambuanga, the SC said we cannot
strictly decide this case on the parameters set by the Civil Code in determining what are public use and
patrimonial property. This involved the creation of a new local government curve out of a political unit.
In that case and other similar cases involving local governments, the SC instead considered the USE of
the property whether it is for governmental purposes or not. As long as the property was used for
governmental purposes, it was considered property for public use or a public property.
Still on this point. As to the absence of clear evidence as the source of funds used in acquiring
the property which is currently being held by the local government unit, the presumption is that the
land came from the State. Salas vsJarencio and some other cases. So if a local government unit is
currently holding property but there is no clear showing as the funds used to acquire the property or
how the property was acquired, the presumption is that property or land actually came from the State
and the local government unit is holding it merely in trust for the State for the benefit of the inhabitants
of that locality. If that is so, those properties cannot be considered as patrimonial property. They will be
considered public property and the national legislature will be considered to have absolute control over
these properties. In some cases decided by the SC, it has been made clear that LGUs cannot enter into
contracts, cannot even validly authorized by means of an ordinance, the awarding of contracts of certain
streets in favour of certain individuals for purposes of having plea market there. As long as the street
remains a street, its for public use and therefore beyond the power of LGU to deal with by means of
contract. In one case the LGU authorized that a certain street be converted a plea market, there was an
ordinance authorizing that. The SC said that cannot be. What is clear from this cases is that while even
under the LGC, LGUs are allowed to withdraw certain streets when no longer necessary or withdraw
from public use, in other words they cannot have their cake and eat it too. Without actually withdrawing
the road from public use, they will still maintain it as a street and at the same time operate it as a plea
market. That cannot be done. Sabing SC samgaganitongkaso, Hindi pwedeyan. As long as they have not
been withdrawn from public use, they remain property for public use. They cannot at the same time
enter into contract with private individual who intended to operate a plea market in that road.
Kailingankung gusto nyoi-withdraw, i-withdraw nyo. In other words, that street will cease as a street.
Only after that can you deal with it as patrimonial property but not while it is still a street.
You recall the ruling by the SC in Chavez vs PEA. There was this agreement between the PEA and
the AMARI. AMARI would reclaim areas of Manila Bay and as payment it will be paid with reclaimed
lands. The SC said, with respect to the reclaimed lands on freedom islands around 157 hectares, which
are covered by titles in the name of PEA they are alienable lands of the public domain. But they may
only be leased not sold to public corporations of course they may be sold to Filipino citizens. Of course
with regards to submerged areas, they are inalienable and outside the commerce of man. Only after the
PEA has reclaimed them may the government reclassify them as alienable and disposable lands IF NO
longer needed for public service. The transfer of the submerged lands to AMARI is also void since the
Constitution prohibits alienation of our natural resources other than the agricultural land of public
domains. So remember the important points of the decision.

Ownership Remember the traditional attributes of ownership. Generally, what are the
rights of an owner? You have the right to use, right to the fruits, the right, yung jus abutendi,
that should not interpreted to mean the right to abuse. There is no such thing. Jus abutendi
simply means the right to consume the thing by its use. Right to dispose.Right to vindicate or
recover. You also remember the limitations on the rights of ownership. These are limitations
which may either come from the State in the exercise of its inherent powers of Government::
police power, eminent domain and taxation. Or these may be limitations imposed by specific
provisions of law like the provisions on Civil Code dealing with easements, legal easements. This
maybe limitations imposed by the person transmitting the property. If I am donating a property
to you, I may impose in the deed of donation certain limitations on your use of the property, for
example.

In connection with the rights of ownership, you remember the doctrine of self-help
under Article 429. An owner or lawful possessor is allowed by law the use of such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful deprivation or
physical invasion or usurpation of his property. Only reasonable force should be used. The
doctrine can only invoke at the time when there is an actual or threatened unlawful, physical
invasion not thereafter. If the property has already been taken by the third person, you are not
allowed to use force to get it back. You must invoke the aid of judicial authorities. One of the
best examples in connection with the doctrine of self-help is of course the case of German
Management and Services Inc. Here was a landowner. He wanted to develop his property and
so he executed a power of attorney in favor of German Management Services to develop that
property. German Management Services went to the property and discoveredthat certain
individuals are occupying the property. They are cultivating the property. So German
Management used reasonable force to oust these occupants who are cultivating portions of that
property. Later on they tried to invoke the principle of self-help. Court said thats not proper
because it is not disputed that when they tried to enter the property those occupants were
already there. They have been cultivating the land for some time. A party in peaceable quiet
possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror according to the Court.
The doctrine of self-help can only be exercised and invoked at the time of actual or threatened
dispossession. When possession has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process
for the recovery of his property. He cannot take the law in his own hands. I think we can take a
little oxygen break at this point.

Alright, still on ownership. The owner of the property has the right to enclose his
property with a fence, a wall or any other means. There is this beautiful case in this connection
and I referred to Custodio v. CA. There was a property owned by a person. There was no fence
around his property so some of his neighbors were passing through his land to reach the public
road. Later on, the property owner decided to enclose his property with a fence. Consequently,
his neighbors could no longer pass through his land. They had to take a long route to reach the
public street. They filed a complaint for damages. The Court said this is a case of
damnumabsqueinjuria. The property owner was simply exercising a right explicitly granted to
him by law, the right to enclose his property with a fence. If at the meantime, great
inconvenience was caused to his neighbors who now take a longer route to reach the street, its
just too bad but obviously they do not have the legal right to claim damages. Please take note
that when the case was decided, there was no easement yet. Wala pang easement. It was only
after the case was decided when the Court said that an easement must be created but they need
to pay indemnity. So as long there was no easement yet, you have the perfect right to enclose
your property with a fence. That is very clear in Article 430 of the Civil Code.

A property owner has, of course, the jus utendi. The right to use his property. But the
right to use ones property must be exercised in such a way as not to injure others. Sic uteret to
utelienum non laedas (not sure). So use your own as not to injure others. In one case, there was
two adjoining properties. The owner of the higher property built thereon certain artificial bodies
of water. There were artificial lakes, water pots, etc. unfortunately, during an inclement or bad
weather, some of these constructions were washed away and they fell to the adjoining lower
estate. The lower court dismissed the case. The Supreme Court said the case must be reinstated
applying Article 431 while you have the right to use your property; you use it in such a way as
not to injure others. Obviously, the Court considered the construction of these artificial bodies of
water on the higher estate as something which causes during bad weather some damage or
prejudice to the adjoining lower estate.

You also take note of the provisions of Article 432 of the Civil Code which is sometimes
referred to as the emergency doctrine, emergency rule. If you are the owner of a thing, the
law says you have no right to prohibit the interference of another person with your property as
long as the interference is necessary to prevent an imminent danger and as long as the
threatened damage or injury is greater, much greater as a matter of fact. The law says much
greater than the damage that would arise to you from the interference with your property. In
this connection, the view has been advanced to which I agree that negligence on the part of the
person interfering does not preclude resort to the rule under Article 432. If, for example, while I
was using my car another vehicle owned and driven by Mr. X carrined to the street and it was
being driven carelessly and slammed to the Meralco post and started to billow with smoke. It
was obviously under fire. Under this Article, Mr. X although he was negligent in driving his car
would have the right to interfere with my property. If I happened to have a fire extinguisher for
example I do not have the right to prohibit the interference with the use of that fire extinguisher.
His negligence does not preclude him from invoking the rule under Article 432 of the Civil Code.
Obviously, any possible damage which might cause to me with the use of my fire extinguisher is
much less than the damage that would result to the complete burning of his car. So in that case
I submit the requirements of Article 432 would clearly be met.

You just read Articles 433 and 434. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises
disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process if he wants
to recover his property. And the requirement to recover property, the property must be
identified and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his evidence and not on the weakness of
the defendants claim which is in accord with the rule that he who alleges has the burden of
proof.

Article 435 is simply a reinstatement of the basic principle in Constitutional Law. One of
the inherent powers of the State is of course the power of eminent domain. Property can be
taken for public use as long as there is payment of just compensation.

Article 436, on the other hand, is a reinstatement of the rule on police power. Of course,
the moment the State exercises its police power then property rights must necessarily yield. If
property is taken or damaged or destroyed as a consequence of the exercise of police power, of
course, there is no right to indemnity. The only indemnity they get, the only possible indemnity
you get is the feeling of satisfaction that somehow you have contributed to the common good.

I call your attention to Article 437 at this point. The owner of property is the owner not
only of its surface but of everything under it. If you are the owner of a parcel of land, you own
not only the surface but everything under it. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that
provision that everything under it is to be taken in its literal sense. If there are for example
minerals under your land, ah that does not belong to you. That belongs to our
KabalikatsaKaunlaran, the State. Regalian doctrine. The question is up to what depth you will be
considered an owner of what is beneath your land? Does that extend up to the middle of the
earth? The rule of thumb is that it extends only up to such depth as you can still make use of
itup to such depth that you can still make use of it. And in a case decided by the Supreme
Court, it would seem that it is quite deep, at least from the point of view of the Supreme Court. I
refer to NPC v. Ibrahim. For example, there is a property owner. Unknown to him, the NPC
constructed a tunnel passing beneath his land because, this happened somewhere in Mindanao,
the NPC was drawing water from Agus River if I remember correctly. One of the big rivers there.
So the property owner was not aware that there was a tunnel underneath his land constructed
by the NPC, it was much later when.