LESSON 4: ACCESSION

25

26

27

28

29

Nazareno v. CA,
326 SCRA 338
[right of actual
possessor]
Factoran v. CA,
Judge Dayaw, 320
SCRA 393
[replevin]
Del Rosario v.
Gerry Roxas
Foundation, 651
SCRA 414
[wrongful entry]

Fernandez v. Co,
625 SCRA 370
[physical
possession]
Rico v. Rufon, 525
SCRA 477 [in
personam]

30

Barrameda v.
Gontang, 19 SCRA
387 [trespassing]

31

German
Management
Services v. CA,
177 SCRA 495
[better right of
possession]
Pang-oden v.
Leonen, 510 SCRA
93 [action to
recover]
Aranda v.
Republic, 656
SCRA 140 [claim
of ownership]
Ferrer-Lopez v.
CA, 150 SCRA 393
[titles,tax
declarations]
Rocamora v. RTCCebu, 167 SCRA
615 [just
compensation]

32

33

34

35

25

Nazareno v. CA,
326 SCRA 338
[right of actual
possessor]

26

Factoran v. CA,
Judge Dayaw, 320
SCRA 393
[replevin]
Del Rosario v.
Gerry Roxas
Foundation, 651
SCRA 414
[wrongful entry]

27

A writ of possession on a building cannot be granted where judgment was rendered only as to the
ownership of the land in question and not on the building placed on it.
Replevin is not automatic upon the applicants filing of a bond and affidavit. If property in custodia legis
cannot be subject of replevin
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of action defined in Section 1, Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means
of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds
possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract,
express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is
who has the prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became
unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess and the issue of rightful possession is
the one decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff's
cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.
Continuous physical possession passes on from predecessors-in-interest; The law protects possession de
facto; Affidavit recognizing possession is binding
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while an action
in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. The former, being directed
only against the plaintiffs and not against the whole world, requires actual notice of the scheduled
hearing. The latter, on the other hand, being directed against the whole world, requires constructive
notice.
In provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the injunction is recognized as a perfectly legitimate remedy
to protect the owner of the land, being in possession, from illegitimate acts of repeated intrusion by a
stranger, as where a person who has no right to enter from time to time, cut wood, or carry other
products. The intermittent nature of such acts, and the probability of repetition in the future, makes the
legal remedy by an independent action to try title inadequate and justifies the granting of the equitable
remedy.
A valid claim of ownership does not responsively address the issue of prior actual possession raised in a
forcible entry case. Regardless of ownership, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned
out by a strong hand, violence or terror.
NCC 429, which provides the doctrine of self-help, does not apply in this case of peaceable possession
as the same only applies at the time of actual or threatened dispossession
the party who [files an action for recovery of real property] must fully prove, not only his ownership of
the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same
Requisites of Claiming Ownership under PD 1529: 1.) Alienable and Disposable Property, 2.) Open,
continuous, adverse, and public possession, in the concept of an owner, 3.) Bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier
It was ruled that tax declaration is not a conclusive evidence of ownership against an original certificate
of title.
P.D. 76 could only be used for determining just compensation in expropriation proceedings. In this case,
P.D. 76 does not apply because the government did not exercise its power of eminent domain but
instead opted to enter into a negotiable sale with the land owners. As such, just compensation should
be based on the agreement of the parties and not on P.D. 76. Assuming arguendo, but not conceding,
that the government did indeed exercise its power of eminent domain, P.D. 76 would still not apply
considering that the SC declared it unconstitutional in a separate case.
A writ of possession on a building cannot be granted where judgment was rendered only as to the
ownership of the land in question and not on the building placed on it.

Replevin is not automatic upon the applicants filing of a bond and affidavit. If property in custodia legis
cannot be subject of replevin
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are two distinct causes of action defined in Section 1, Rule 70 of the
Rules of Court. In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of any land or building by means
of force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth. In unlawful detainer, one unlawfully withholds
possession thereof after the expiration or termination of his right to hold possession under any contract,
express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession is illegal from the beginning and the only issue is
who has the prior possession de facto. In unlawful detainer, possession was originally lawful but became

28

29

Fernandez v. Co,
625 SCRA 370
[physical
possession]
Rico v. Rufon, 525
SCRA 477 [in
personam]

30

Barrameda v.
Gontang, 19 SCRA
387 [trespassing]

31

German
Management
Services v. CA,
177 SCRA 495
[better right of
possession]
Pang-oden v.
Leonen, 510 SCRA
93 [action to
recover]
Aranda v.
Republic, 656
SCRA 140 [claim
of ownership]
Ferrer-Lopez v.
CA, 150 SCRA 393
[titles,tax
declarations]
Rocamora v. RTCCebu, 167 SCRA
615 [just
compensation]

32

33

34

35

unlawful by the expiration or termination of the right to possess and the issue of rightful possession is
the one decisive, for in such action, the defendant is the party in actual possession and the plaintiff's
cause of action is the termination of the defendant's right to continue in possession.
Continuous physical possession passes on from predecessors-in-interest; The law protects possession de
facto; Affidavit recognizing possession is binding
An action in personam is an action against a person on the basis of his personal liability, while an action
in rem is an action against the thing itself, instead of against the person. The former, being directed
only against the plaintiffs and not against the whole world, requires actual notice of the scheduled
hearing. The latter, on the other hand, being directed against the whole world, requires constructive
notice.
In provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the injunction is recognized as a perfectly legitimate remedy
to protect the owner of the land, being in possession, from illegitimate acts of repeated intrusion by a
stranger, as where a person who has no right to enter from time to time, cut wood, or carry other
products. The intermittent nature of such acts, and the probability of repetition in the future, makes the
legal remedy by an independent action to try title inadequate and justifies the granting of the equitable
remedy.
A valid claim of ownership does not responsively address the issue of prior actual possession raised in a
forcible entry case. Regardless of ownership, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned
out by a strong hand, violence or terror.
NCC 429, which provides the doctrine of self-help, does not apply in this case of peaceable possession
as the same only applies at the time of actual or threatened dispossession
the party who [files an action for recovery of real property] must fully prove, not only his ownership of
the thing claimed, but also the identity of the same
Requisites of Claiming Ownership under PD 1529: 1.) Alienable and Disposable Property, 2.) Open,
continuous, adverse, and public possession, in the concept of an owner, 3.) Bona fide claim of
ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier
It was ruled that tax declaration is not a conclusive evidence of ownership against an original certificate
of title.
P.D. 76 could only be used for determining just compensation in expropriation proceedings. In this case,
P.D. 76 does not apply because the government did not exercise its power of eminent domain but
instead opted to enter into a negotiable sale with the land owners. As such, just compensation should
be based on the agreement of the parties and not on P.D. 76. Assuming arguendo, but not conceding,
that the government did indeed exercise its power of eminent domain, P.D. 76 would still not apply
considering that the SC declared it unconstitutional in a separate case.