PROPERTY

JUNE 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 appropriated
Atty: 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 mortgage
3. For purposes of determining the formalities of a donation
4. In extrajudicial deposit: Only movable things may be the
object of extrajudicial deposit.
5. In crimes of theft, robbery and usurpation
6. 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 TUESDAY
How 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 movable
Are 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
ANI
Contracts 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 3 rd 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 3 rd person. Basis: Leung
Yee vs Strong Machinery
Case: Leung yee
What 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 THURSDAY
Article 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 SATURDAY
In 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 Board
The 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 IAPPLY 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 BELONGS
This 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 - THURSDAY
Can 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 SATURDAY
What 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 DOMINION
Art. 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 DOMAIN
The 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 MONDAY
Case: 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 LAND

How 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 corporation
Case: 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 TUESDAY
Case: Jean tan vs Republic
Continuation of public agricultural land
Why is the state allows the a & d land to be disposed of?
Constitution says it can be alienated
In 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 property
What 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 THURSDAY
Q: 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 Zamboanga
Addresses 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 Garcia
Even 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
title
Title 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 MUNICIPALITIES
Q: 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 Zamboanga
When 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 SATURDAY

Q: 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 Zamboanga
Case: 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 Tesda

TESDAs 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 Diego

SC 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 Pabalan
A 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 case

JULY 14, 2014 MONDAY

OWNERSHIP a bundle of right a person has over things
General Rights

Right to enjoy
Right to dispose
Right 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 OWNER
Q: What are the rights of an owner?
Right to enjoy
Right to dispose
Right to vindicate
Q: What do you mean by right to vindicate?
Right to vindicate - the right to recover the possession of real
or personal property
Q: 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 property
Replevin 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 ownership
ACTION 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 only
Action publiciana and Action reinvidicatoria are ordinary civil
action

Forcible 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 stopped
Strategy - within 1 year from the strategy has discovered
Stealth - within 1 year from the stealth has discovered
Unlawful Detainer

Ex. 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 Publiciana
Ex. 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 situated
UNLAWFUL 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.
o 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 THURSDAY

Limitations 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 way
Case: 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 SATURDAY
One 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 Luisa

Case: 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 grantor

In 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 Owner
This 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 Prohibition
Section 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