REQUISITES OF AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE

(1) There is a CLOUD on title to real property or any

interest to real property.
(2) The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to,
or interest in the real property.
(3) Plaintiff must return the benefits received from
the defendant.

It is worthy of note that, as observed by the court a quo, both the Civil Code of 1889 (Art. 409) and
the Law of Waters of 1866 (Art. 194) recognized two different ways of acquiring the right to the use
of public waters: (1) by administrative concession and (2) by prescription for 20 years. Since the
Irrigation law nowhere provides that the procedure provided in its section 14 shall be exclusive, and
implied repeals are not favored, we see no reason to disturb the lower court's conclusion that even if
the Irrigation law did modify the old legislation procedure in obtaining administrative concession of
public waters, still it has not invalidated prescription of a mode of acquiring title thereto, specially
considering that the Civil Code of 1950, Article 504, reiterates the dual juridical source of title to the
use of public water, and even reduces the prescriptive period from twenty to ten years. In fact, the
Attorney General of the Philippines had heretofore recognized that the Irrigation law (Art. 2152) has
not affected either Article 409 of the Civil Code of 1889 or Articles 39 and 194 of the Law of Waters
of 1866 (7 op. Atty. Gen. 570, 576-579; Francisco, Philippine Law of Waters and Water Rights, p.
147).

Goodwill is property.

Can co-owner of a thing become owner of the whole? no. only upon repudiation of the co-owner of
his share.

Memorize 544-549

MARGARITA F. CASTRO, Petitioner, v. NAPOLEON A. MONSOD, Respondent.

NACHURA, J.:

FACTS:

Petitioner is the registered owner of a parcel of land located on Garnet Street, Manuela Homes,
Pamplona, Las Pias City. Respondent, on the other hand, is the owner of the property adjoining the lot
of petitioner, located on Lyra Street, Moonwalk Village, Phase 2, Las Pias City.

In 2000, respondent caused the annotation of an adverse claim against sixty-five (65) sq.m. of the
property of petitioner. The adverse claim was filed without any claim of ownership over the property.
Respondent was merely asserting the existing legal easement of lateral and subjacent support at the rear
portion of his estate.

Petitioner averred that when she bought the property from Manuela Homes in 1994, there was no
annotation or existence of any easement over the property.

The trial court ratiocinated that the adverse claim of respondent was non-registrable considering that the
basis of his claim was an easement and not an interest adverse to the registered owner, and neither did
he contest the title of petitioner.

On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the trial court and ruled that while respondents adverse claim
could not be sanctioned because it did not fall under the requisites for registering an adverse claim, the
same might be duly annotated in the title as recognition of the existence of a legal easement of subjacent
and lateral support. The purpose of the annotation was to prevent petitioner from making injurious
excavations.

ISSUES: Whether or not the easement of lateral and subjacent support exists on the subject
adjacent properties and, if it does, whether the same may be annotated at the back of the title of
the servient estate.

HELD:

CIVIL LAW: Easement

Article 684 of the Civil Code provides that no proprietor shall make such excavations upon his land as to
deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support. An owner, by virtue of his
surface right, may make excavations on his land, but his right is subject to the limitation that he shall not
deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support. Between two adjacent
landowners, each has an absolute property right to have his land laterally supported by the soil of his
neighbor, and if either, in excavating on his own premises, he so disturbs the lateral support of his
neighbors land as to cause it, or, in its natural state, by the pressure of its own weight, to fall away or
slide from its position, the one so excavating is liable. Here, the residential house and lot of respondent is
located on an elevated plateau of fifteen (15) feet above the level of petitioners property; hence, an
easement of subjacent and lateral support exists in favor of respondent.

However, respondents assertion that he has an adverse claim over the 65 sq.m. property of petitioner is
misplaced since he does not have a claim over the ownership of the land. The annotation of an adverse
claim over registered land under Section 70 of Presidential Decree 1529 requires a claim on the title of
the disputed land. Therefore, an annotation of the existence of the subjacent and lateral support is no
longer necessary.

Preysler case- batangas resort

However, under Article 656 of the New Civil Code, if the right of way is
indispensable for the construction, repair, improvement, alteration or beautification
of a building, a temporary easement is granted after payment of indemnity for the
damage caused to the servient estate. In our view, however, indispensable in this
instance is not to be construed literally. Great inconvenience is sufficient.[11] In the
present case, the trial court found that irrespective of which route petitioner used in
gaining access to his property, he has to pass private respondents subdivision. Thus
we agree that petitioner may be granted a temporary easement. This temporary
easement in the original writ differs from the permanent easement of right of way
now being tried in the main case.
The law provides that temporary easement is allowed only after the payment of the
proper indemnity. As there are neither sufficient allegations nor established facts in
the record to help this Court determine the proper amount of indemnity, it is best to
remand the case to the trial court for such determination.

Additionally, we find that the installation of electric power lines is a permanent

easement not covered by Article 656. Article 656 deals only with the temporary
easement of passage. Neither can installation of electric power lines be subject to a
preliminary injunction for it is not part of the status quo. Besides, more damage
would be done to both parties if the power lines are installed only to be removed
later upon a contrary judgment of the court in the main case.