1
TITLE I. CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS
Property an object that which is, or may be, appropriated;
o That branch of civil law which classifies and defines
the different kinds of appropriable objects, provides
for their acquisition and loss, and in general, treats
of the nature and consequences of real rights.
Thing distinguished from Property
Thing is broader in scope for it includes both
appropriable and non-appropriable objects.
Property involves both material and intangible things.
Classification of Things
(a) Res Nullius (belonging to no one): things that have
not yet been appropriated, or because they have been
abandoned (res derelictae) by the owner with the
intention of no longer owning them. E.g. Fish still
swimming in the ocean, wild animals, birds, pebbles
lying on the seashore.
(b) Res Communes (belonging to everyone): things really
owned by everybody in that their use and enjoyment
are given to all of mankind. E.g. Air, wind, sunlight,
starlight.
(c) Res Alicujus (belonging to someone): tangible or
intangible objects which are owned privately, either in
a collective or individual capacity. E.g. ones book,
shares of stock, parcel of land.
Classification of Property
(a) Mobility and non-mobility
1. Movable or personal property
2. Immovable or real property
(b) Ownership
1. Public dominion or ownership
2. Private dominion or ownership
(c) Alienability
1. Within the commerce of man (can be objects of
contracts or juridical transactions)
2. Outside the commerce of man (e.g. prohibited
drugs)
(d) Existence
1. Present property (rex existentes)
2. Future property (res future)
* Both may be the subject of sale, but generally not
the subject of donation
(e) Materiality or Immateriality
1. Tangible or corporeal that can be seen or touched
2. Intangible or incorporeal rights or credits
(f) Dependence or Importance
1. Principal
2. Accessory
(g) Capability of Substitution
1. Fungible capable of substitution by other things of
the same quantity and quality
2. Non-fungible incapable of such substitution; the
identical thing must be given or returned
(h) Nature or Definiteness
1. Generic referring to a group or class
2. Specific referring to a single, unique object
(i) Whether in the Custody of the Court or Free
1. In custodia legis (in the custody of the court)
when it has been seized by an officer under a writ
of attachment or under a writ of execution
2. Free not in the custody of the court
Characteristics of Property
(a) Utility for the satisfaction of moral or economic wants
(b) Susceptibility of appropriation
(c) Individuality or substantivity (i.e., it can exist by itself,
and not merely as part of a whole)
Art. 414. All things which are or may be the object of
appropriation are considered either:
(1)Immovable or real property; or
(2)Movable or personal property.
Importance of the Classification of Property Into
Immovables and Movables

Different provisions of the law govern the acquisition,
possession, disposition, loss, and registration of
immovable and movables.
Incompleteness of the Classification
Mixed or semi-immovable movable properties which
under certain conditions, may be considered immovable by
virtue of their being attached to an immovable for certain
specified purposes.
* Machines are immovable
Historical Note
Corporeal property res corporales
Immovables res immobiles
Movables res mobiles
Jurispridence on the Classification
Standard Oil Co. of New York v. Jaranillo (44 Phil. 630):
Under certain conditions, it is undeniable that the parties
to a contract may, by agreement, treat as a personal
property that which by nature would be real property.
Reclassification distinguished from Conversion
Reclassification the act of specifying how agricultural
lands shall be utilized for a non-agricultural uses such as
residential, industrial, or commercial.
Conversion the act of changing the current use of a
piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved
by the DAR.
o Ludo & Luym Development Corp. v. Barretto, 471 SCRA
391 [2005]): A mere reclassification of agricultural land
does not automatically allow the change of its use
Human body is not a property at all it generally cannot
be appropriated.
Person who mat execute a legacy
Any individual, at least 18 years of age and of sound mind,
may give by way of legacy, to take effect, after his/her death,
all or part of his/her body for any specified purpose.
Who may execute a donation?
2
1. Spouse
2. Son or daughter of legal age
3. Either parent
4. Brother or sister of legal age; or
5. Guardian over the person of the decedent at the time
of his death
* In the same order of priority, in the absence of any actual
notice of contrary intentions by the decedent or actual notice
of opposition by a member of the immediate family of the
decedent, for purposes of donating all or any part of the
decedents body.
Donations may be made after or immediately before
death.
Manner of executing a legacy
By will, which shall become effective only upon the
testators death without waiting for probate of the will.
Notwithstanding the declaration of its invalidity for
testamentary purposes, or if the will is not probated, so
long as it was executed in good faith, the will is
nevertheless valid and effective.
Legacy becomes effective upon the death of the testator
and shall be respected by and binding upon the testators:
1. Executor
2. Administrator
3. Heirs
4. Assign
5. Successors-in-interest
6. All members of the family
Rules:
o Must be signed by the testator in the presence of two
witnesses who must sign the document in his presence
o The legacy may be made to a specified legatee or
without specifying a legatee
o The testator may designate in his will, card or
document, the surgeon or physician who will carry out
the appropriate procedures
o A legacy of all or part of the human body may also be
made in any document other than a will
Any right in the Nature of Property Less than Title

PNB vs CA (82 SCAD 472 (1997): The term interests is
broader and more comprehensive than the word title
and its definition in a narrow sense by lexicographers as
any right in the nature of property less than title, indicates
that the terms are not considered synonymous. It is
practically synonymous, however, with the word estate
which is the totality of interest which a person has from
absolute ownership down to naked possession. An
interest in land is the legal concern of a person in the
thing or property, or in the right to some of the benefits or
uses from which the property is inseparable.
Chapter 1 IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Art. 415. The following are immovable property:
(1)Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all
kinds adhered to the soil;
(2)Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are
attached to the land of form an integral part of
an immovable;
(3)Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed
manner, in such a way that it cannot be
separated therefrom without breaking the
material or deterioration of the object;
(4)Statues, reliefs, paintings, or other objects for
use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on
lands by the owner of the immovable in such a
manner that it reveals the intention to attach
them permanently to the tenements;
(5)Machinery, receptacles, instruments or
implements intended by the owner of the
tenement for an industry or works which may be
carried on in a building or on a piece of land,
and which tend directly to meet the needs of the
said industry or works;
(6)Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish
ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in
case their owner has placed them or preserves
them with the intention to have them
permanently attached to the land, and forming a
permanent part of it; the animals in these places
are included;
3
(7)Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8)Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the
matter thereof forms part of the bed, and
waters either running or stagnant;
(9)Docks and structures which, though floating, are
intended by their nature and object to remain at
a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast;
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes
and other real rights over immovable property.
Immovable property (as defined in dictionaries) that
which is firmly fixed, settled, or fastened; that which is fixed
in a definite place; subject to exceptions.
Academic Classification of Real Properties (Presbitero v.
Fernandez, L-19527, Mar. 30, 1963)
(a) Real property by nature (trees & plants)
(b) Real property by incorporation (buildings)
(c) Real property by destination or purpose (machinery
placed by the owner of a tenement on it for direct use
in an industry to be carried on therein)
(d) Real property by analogy (right of a usufruct, contract
for public works, easements and servitudes
Paragraph 1: Land, buildings, roads, and
constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil.
Land: Immovable by its very nature;
o Immovable: even if moved by an earthquake or
extraordinary happening, or if rented.
o Personal property: a shovelful of land, as it no
longer adheres to the soil.
Buildings: considered immovable provided they are
more or less of a permanent structure, substantially
adhering to the land, and not mere superimpositions
on the land or Quonset fixtures and provided there is
the intent of permanent annexation (Luna v.
Encarnacion, et al., 91 Phil. 531)
o The law does not distinguish as to who built or
owns the building. (Ladera v. Hodges, CA, 48
O.G. 5374)

o The inclusion of building separate and distinct
from the land is because the building is by itself
an immovable property. mean that a building is
by itself an immovable property. (Lopez v.
Oroso, Jr., et al., L-10817-18, Feb. 28, 1958;
Assoc., Inc. and Surety Co., Inc. v. Iya, et al., L-
10837-38, May 30, 1958)
o Mortgage on a building is a real estate
mortgage. The nature of the building as real
property does not depend on the way the
parties deal with it. (Leung Yee v. Strong
Machinery Co., 37 Phil. 644; Ladera v. Hodges,
[CA] 48 O.G. 5374)
o Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co. (37 Phil.
644): The building is real property The mere
fact that the parties decided to deal with the
building as personal property does not change
its character as real property.
o Prudential Bank v. Panis (GR 50008, Aug. 31,
1988): While a mortgage of land necessarily
includes, in the absence of stipulation of the
improvements thereon, buildings, still a building
by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land
on which it has been built. Such a mortgage
would still be considered immovable property
even if dealt with separately and apart from the
land.
May a house built on rented land be the object of a
mortgage? Yes real estate mortgage;
Conditions for a house built on rented land be a
subject of chattel mortgage:
1. The parties to the contract so agree, and
2. No innocent third party will be prejudiced
o If a chattel mortgage is made on a building, and
subsequently a real mortgage is made on the land
and the building: real mortgage should be
preferred.
o Manalang, et al. v. Ofi lada, (L-8133, May 18, 1956):
Even if so stipulated as personal property, for
purposes of sale at a public auction, the house
should be considered real property.
4
o Luna v. Encarnacion, et al., (91 Phil. 531): A
building subjected to a chattel mortgage cannot be
sold extra-judicially
Building Mortgaged Separately from the Land on
Which It Has Been Built
o Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery Co. (37 Phil. 644);
Evangelista v. Alto Surety and Ins., Co., Inc. (L-
11139, Apr. 23, 1958): In case such a building is
made the subject of a chattel mortgage, and the
mortgage is registered in the chattel mortgage
registry, the mortgage would still be void insofar as
third persons are concerned.
o Manalansan v. Manalang, et al. (L-13646, July 26,
1960): There is no legal compulsion to register
transactions over buildings that do not belong to
the owners of the lands on which they stand.
Sale or Mortgage of a Building which Would Be the
Object of Immediate Demolition
o Bicerra, et al. v. Teneza, et al., (L-16218, Nov. 29,
1962): May be considered personal property and
the sale or mortgage thereof would be a sale of
chattel, or a chattel mortgage, for the true object of
the contract would be the materials thereof.
Ministerial Duty of the Registrar of Property
o Standard Oil Co. v. Jaranillo (44 Phil. 631): The
registrar has the ministerial duty to record the
chattel mortgage since he is not empowered to
determine the nature of any document of which
registration is sought as a chattel mortgage. The
registrars duty is MINISTERIAL in character. There
is no legal provision conferring upon him any
judicial or quasi-judicial power to determine the
nature of the document presented before him.
o Toledo-Banaga v. CA (102 SCAD 906, 302 SCRA 331
(1999): It is a ministerial function of the Register of
Deeds to comply with the decision of the court to
issue a title and register a property in the name of
a certain person, especially when the decision had
attained finality.
Constructions of All Kinds
 5

o It is understood that the attachment must be more o Once severed, it becomes personal property even if
or less permanent; as long as there is an intent to left scattered or lying about the land.
permanently annex. Synonyms
o Growing crops = standing crops, or
Paragraph 2: Trees, plants and growing crops, while ungathered fruits of growing fruits
they are attached to the land or form an integral part Paragraph 3: Everything attached to an immovable in
of an immovable. a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be
Trees and Plants separated therefrom without breaking the material or
o Real property by nature: if they are the deterioration of the object. (res vinta in Roman Law)
spontaneous products of the soil; For the incorporated thing to be considered real
o Real property by incorporation: if planted thru labor. property, the injury or breakage or deterioration in
o The moment they are detached or uprooted from case of separation must be SUBSTANTIAL.
the land, they become personal property, except Examples: Fixed fire escape stairway embedded in the
for uprooted timber from a timber land. walls of a house, aqueduct, sewer, well.
o Trees blown by a typhoon remain part of the land Distinctions:
and should be considered real property. Paragraph 3 Paragraph 4
Registration of Land Containing Trees and Plants 1. Cannot be separated 1. Can be separated
o Lavarro v. Labitoria (54 Phil. 788): Trees and plants from immovable from immovable
annexed to the land are parts thereof, and unless without breaking or without breaking or
rights or interests in such trees or plants are deterioration deterioration
claimed in the registration proceedings by the 2. Need NOT be placed 2. Must be placed by the
others, they become the property of the person to by the owner (Ladera owner, or by his
whom the land is adjudicated. vs Hodges, CA 48 O.G. agent, express or
Growing Crops on Ones Own Land 5374) implied
o Geguillana v. Buenaventura, et al. ([CA] GR 3861-R, 3. Real property by 3. Real property by
Jan. 31, 1951): ...trees remain real property even if incorporation incorporation and
sold separate and apart from the land on which destination
they grow as long as the trees are still attached to
the land if from an integral part thereof. Properties temporarily removed, but there is an
o Under express provisions: growing crops are intention to replace them should be regarded as
considered real property by incorporation; personal property inasmuch as the incorporation has
o Under Rules of Court: growing crops are attached in ceased.
the same way as a real property;
o Under Chattel Mortgage Law: growing crops may be Paragraph 4: Statues, reliefs, paintings or other
considered as personal property, and may thus be objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings
subject of chattel mortgage. or on land by the owner of the immovable in such a
Growing Crops on Anothers Land manner that it reveals the intention to attach them
o Growing crops whether on ones land or on permanently to the tenements.
anothers as in case of usufructuary, a possessor or Examples: fixed statue in the garden of a house,
a tenant, should be considered real property. permanent painting on the ceiling, picture embedded
o Important consideration: still attached to the land

in the concrete walls of a house, rug or carpet fastened
to the floor.
Placing by the Owner
o Objects must be placed by the owner of the
immovable and not necessarily by the owner of the
object.
o Valdez v. Altagracia (225 U.S. 58): Owner may act
thru his agent, or in case of insanity through the
owners duly appointed guardian.
o Davao Sawmill v. Castillo (61 Phil. 709): If placed by
a mere tenant, the objects must remain chattels or
personalty for the purposes of Chattel Mortgage
Law.
Paragraph 5: Machinery, receptacles, instruments, or
implements intended by the owner of the tenement
for an industry or works which may be carried on in a
building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly
to meet the needs of the said industry or works. (Real
property by destination or purpose)
Essential Requisites:
1. Placing must be made by the owner of the
tenement, his agent, or duly authorized
representative.
2. Industry or works must be carried on IN the building
or ON the land. Transportation businesses is not
included. (Mindanao Bus Co. v. City Assessor, L-
17870, Sep. 29, 1962)
3. Must tend directly to meet the needs of said
industry or works adaptability.
4. Must be essential and principal elements in the
industry, and not merely incidental.
Test on whether the equipment is movable or
immovable: If the business can continue to carry
on their functions without the incidental
equipment. (Mindanao Bus Co. v. City Assessor
and Treasurer, L-17870, Sep. 29, 1962)
Effect of Separation
o Chattel: if machine is still in the building, but is no
longer used;
6
o Immovable/real: if still needed for the industry, but
separated temporarily; -- not to real property by
incorporation but to real property by destination or
purpose.
Examples (cases):
o Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng (61 Phil. 663): Machines
placed in a sugar central being subjected of a real
estate mortgage, the machines become subject to
such mortgage.
The mortgage of a parcel of land generally
includes all future improvements that may be
found on said parcel. These improvements
include real properties because they are
essential and principal elements of the business,
without which, the business would be unable to
carry out its industrial purpose.
o Machinery v. Pecson (L-7057, Oct. 29, 1954):
Machines attached to concrete foundations of
buildings in a fixed manner such that they cannot
be separated therefrom without unbolting and
cutting some supports.
o Davao Sawmill Co. v. Castillo (61 Phil. 709):
Immobilization by destination or purpose cannot
generally be made by a person whose possession
of the property is only TEMPORARY, otherwise, it
may be presumed that the intention is to give the
property permanently away in favor of the owner of
the premises.
Machinery which is movable in its nature
becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by
the owner of the property or plant, but not when
so placed by a tenant, a usufructuary, or a
person having only a temporary right, unless
such person acted as the agent of the owner.
o Valdez v. Central Altagracia, Inc. (25 U.S. 58):
Machinery placed on property by a tenant does not
become immobilized: when however, a tenant
places it pursuant to a contract that it shall belong
to the owner, it becomes immobilized as to that
tenant and his assigns having notice, although it

does not become so as to the creditors not having
legal notice of the lease.
o When is machinery attached to land or a tenement
considered immovable? Par.5, Art. 415
Exception: When placed on the land or
tenement by a TENANT.
Exception to the exception: (a) When the tenant
had promised to leave the machinery on the
tenement at the end of the lease, or (b) when he
acted only as agent of the owner of the land.
o Ago v. Court of Appeals, et al. (L-17898, Oct. 31,
1962): Sawmill machineries and equipment
installed in a sawmill for use in the sawing of logs, a
process carried on in said building, become real
properties, and if they are judicially sold on
execution without the necessary advertisement of
sale by publication, the sale made by the sheriff
would be null and void.
o Peoples Bank and Trust Co. v. Dahican Lumber Co.
(L-17500, May 16, 1967): After-acquired properties
may be treated either as (a) real property by (e.g)
subjecting them to the lean of the real estate
mortgage; or as (b) personal property by (e.g)
executing chattel mortgage.
o Board of Assessment Appeals, Q.C. v. Meralco (10
SCRA 68): WON steel towers or poles of the
MERALCO considered real or personal properties:
PERSONAL does not come under Pars. 1, 3 & 5 of
Art. 415.
Paragraph 6: Animal houses, pigeon-houses,
beehives, fishponds or breeding places of similar
nature, in case their owner has placed them or
preserves them with the intention to have them
permanently attached to the land, and forming a
permanent part of it; the animals in these places are
included.
Alienation of the Animals
o When the animals inside the permanent animal
houses are alienated onerously or gratuitously:
7
Alienation of personal property, unless the building
or the tenement is itself also alienated.
Reason: The animal structures must of necessity be
detached from the immovable.
Temporary Structures of Cages
o Easily removable or which may be carried from
place to place chattel.
Paragraph 7: Fertilizer actually used on a piece of
land.
Considered personal property when NOT yet been
actually used or spread over the land.
Paragraph 8: Mines, quarries, and slag dumps while
the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters,
either running or stagnant.
Real property: when mines, including the minerals are
still attached thereto;
o Chattels: when minerals have been extracted.
o Slag dump dirt and soil taken from a mine and
piled upon the surface of the ground.
o Waters those still attached to or running thru
the soil or ground.
Water: personal property
Other bodies of water (canals, rivers, lakes,
part/s of the sea) as may be object of
appropriation: real property
Paragraph 9: Docks and structures which, though
floating, are intended by their nature and object to
remain at a fixed place on a river, or coast.
Floating House
o Real property: when tied to a shore or bank post
and used as a residence;
o If a floating house makes it a point to journey from
place to place: vessel
Vessels
o Philippine Refining Co., Inc. v. Jarque (61 Phil. 229):
Considered personal property. may be subject of a
chattel mortgage.

o Although vessels are personal property, they
partake to a certain extent of the nature and
conditions of real property because of their value
and importance in the world of commerce.
Paragraph 10: Contracts for public works, and
servitudes and other real rights over immovable
property.
Rights
o Necessarily intangible;
o The piece of paper on which the contract for public
works has been written is necessarily personal
property, but the contract itself (the right to the
contract) is real property.
o A servitude or easement is an encumbrance
imposed on an immovable for the benefit of
another immovable belonging to another owner, or
for the benefit of a person, group of persons, or a
community.
o Usufruct of personal property or lease of personal
property: personal property
Real Property by Analogy
o Considered real property, although they are not
material, they nevertheless partake of the essential
characteristics of immovable property.
Chapter 2 MOVABLE PROPERTY
Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be
personal property:
(1)Those movables susceptible of appropriation
which are not included in the preceding article;
(2)Real property which by any special provision of
law is considered as personalty;
(3)Forces of nature which are brought under
control by science; and
(4)In general, all things which can be transported
from place to place without impairment of the
real property to which they are fixed.
Examples:
8
o Par. 1: fountain pen, piano, animals
o Par. 2: growing crops, machinery on a tenement by
a tenant who did not act as the agent of the
tenement owner. (Davao Sawmill v. Castillo, 61 Phil.
709)
o Par. 3: electricity, gas, light, nitrogen (U.S. v. Carlos,
21 Phil. 543)
o Par. 4: machinery not attached to land nor needed
for the carrying on of an industry conducted
therein; portable radio, laptop, diploma hanging on
the wall
Cases:
o Sibal v. Valdez, 50 Phil. 512: The existence of a
right on the growing crop is a mobilization by
anticipation, a gathering as it were, in advance,
rendering the crop movable.
o U.S. v. Carlos (21 Phil. 543): The true test of what
may be stolen is not whether it is corporeal or
incorporeal, but whether, being possessed of value,
a person other than the owner, may appropriate
the same.
o Involuntary Insolvency of Stochecker v. Ramirez (44
Phil. 933): Drugstore business should be
considered personal property, and may thus be the
subject of a chattel mortgage.
Three Tests to Determine whether Property Is Movable
or Immovable (Manresa):
1. If the property is capable of being carried from
place to place (Test by description)
2. If such change in location can be made without
injuring the real property to which it may in the
meantime be attached (Test by description);
3. If the object is not one of those
enumerated/included in Art. 415 (Test by exclusion)
* Test by exclusion superior to test of description

Other incorporeal movables: Patent, copyright, right to
an invention (intellectual properties) personal
property.
Personal effects include only such tangible commercial, and industrial entities, although they may
property as applied to a person (automobiles not
included) (Hemnani v. Export Control Committee, L-
8414, Feb. 28, 1957)
o Personal effects are personal property, but not all
personal property are personal effects.
Order of Demolition
o City of Baguio v. Nio, 487 SCRA 211 (2006): What
is the extent to which an administrative entity may
exercise process depend largely on?
o Depends on the provisions of the statute
creating or empowering such agency.
Art. 417. The following are also considered as
personal property:
(1)Obligations and actions which have for their
object movables or demandable sums; and
(2)Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and
industrial entities, although they may have real
estate.
Paragraph 1: Obligations and actions which have for
their object movables or demandable sums.
Examples:
o Right to bring an action to recover a stolen
automobile is personal property by itself.
o Credit as well as the right to collect by judicial
action is personal property.
o Illegal object is not considered demandable,
therefore, no right exists.
o A right to recover possession (e.g. a piece of land)
is considered real, and not personal property. the
object of such right is immovable.
o Promissory note, as well as right to collect it, are
personal property.
9
o Mortgage on real estate is a real property by
analogy.
Paragraph 2: Shares of stock of agricultural,
have real estate.
Examples:
o Share of stock in a gold mining corporation:
personal property;
o Gold mine itself, as well as any land of the
corporation: real property by the law;
o Certificate evidencing ownership of the share and
the share itself: personal property may be the
object of mortgage.
o Cedman v. Winslow (10 Mass. 145): Even if the sole
property of a corporation should consist only of real
property, a share of stock in such is considered
personal property.
All shares in all juridical persons should be considered
personal property.
o Involuntary Insolvency of Stochecker v. Ramirez (44
Phil. 933): Half-interest in a business is personal
property is capable of being the subject of a chattel
mortgage. However, a half-interest in a building
(and not the business) is a real right therefore,
by itself a real property.
Enforcement of Property Rights in Shares of Stock
o Black Eagle Mining Co. v. Conroy, et al. (221 Pac.
425, 426): The property right of shares of stock can
only be exercised or enforced where the
corporation is organized and has its place of
business, and can exist only as an incident to and
connected with the corporation
o Com. of Customs v. Capistrano (L-11075, June 30,
1960): When it is in domestic circulation, money is
legal tender and is, therefore, NOT merchandise.
When, however, it is attempted to be exported or

smuggled therefore now considered as a
merchandise or commodity
o Whether the money is legal tender or not, whether
it is a merchandise or not, it is PERSONAL property.
Art. 418. Movable property is either consumable or
non-consumable. To the first class belong those
movables which cannot be used in a manner
appropriate to their nature without their being
consumed; to the second class belong all the others.
Consumable property cannot be used according to
its nature without its being consumed.
Non-consumable any other kind of movable
property
Classification:
(a) According to their nature:
1. Consumable
2. Non-consumable
(b) According to the intention of the parties:
1. Fungible (res fungibles) that which is
replaceable by an equal quality and quality,
either by the nature of things, or by common
agreement; equivalent thing be returned
2. Non-fungible (res nec fungibles) if
irreplaceable, because the identical objects
must be returned; (even though by nature it is
consumable)
Credit transactions: Loan for consumption: simple loan
or mutuum; Loan for exhibition: commodatum
Chapter 3 PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON
TO WHOM IT BELONGS
Art. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of
private ownership.
Property Classified According to Ownership (properties
are owned either):
(a) In a public capacity (dominio public)
10
o Heirs of Proceso Bautista v. Sps. Barza (GR 79167,
May 7, 1992): The function of administering and
disposing of lands of the public domain in the
manner prescribed by law is not entrusted to the
courts but to executive officials.
(b) In a private capacity (propiedad privado)
State may own properties both in:
1. public capacity (properties of public dominion);
and
2. private capacity (patrimonial property)
Art. 420. The following things are property of public
dominion:
(1)Those intended for public use, such as roads,
canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges
constructed by the State, banks, shores,
roadsteads, and others of similar character;
(2)Those which belong to the State, without being
for public use, and are intended for some public
service or for the development of the national
wealth.
Public Dominion ownership by the State in that the State
has control and administration;
o Ownership by the public in general, in that
not even the State or subdivisions thereof
may make them the object of commerce as
long as they remain properties for public use.
o Examples: river, town plaza
o Republic of the Phils. v. Lat Vda. De Castillo, et al.GR
69002, June 30, 1988): Mere possession of land does
not by itself automatically divest the land of its public
character.
Three Kinds of Property of Public Dominion
1. For public use may be used by anybody (e.g. roads,
canals)
2. For public service may be used only by duly
authorized persons (e.g. national government
buildings, army rifles, army vessels)

3. For development of national wealth (e.g. natural
resources)
Examples of others of similar character:
1. Public streams
2. Natural beds of rivers
3. River channels
4. Waters of rivers
5. Creeks
6. All lands thrown up by the sea and formed by
accretion upon the shore by action of water
7. Lands reclaimed from the sea by the government
8. Manila Bay/coastal area inasmuch as it belongs to
the state, and is used as a waterway
9. Private lands invaded by the waters and converted
into portions of the shore or beach
10.Streets, even when planted by persons
Shore that space alternately covered and uncovered
by the movement of the tide
o Republic of the Phils. v. Lat Vda. De Castillo, et al.
(GR 69002, June 30, 1988): Shores are properties of
the public domain intended for public use, and
therefore not registerable.
Torrent that amount of water which in case of heavy
rains gathers deep places or canals where it is
supposed to flow afterwards.
o Santos v. Moreno (L-15829, Dec. 4, 1967): Under
Art. 420, canals constructed by the State and
devoted to use are of public ownership; canals
constructed by private persons within private lands
and devoted exclusively for private use must be of
private ownership.
o Rivers, whether navigable or not are properties of
public dominion.
o Martinez v. Court of Appeals (L-31271, Apr. 29,
1974, 56 SCRA 647):
1. Navigable rivers are outside the commerce of
man, therefore cannot be registered under the
Land Registration Law.
11
2. Void land decisions can be attacked collaterally.
3. The action of the State for reversion (of the
rivers) does not prescribe.
Characteristics of Properties of Public Dominion
(a) Outside the commerce of man; cannot be leased,
donated, sold or be the object of any contract;
(b) Cannot be acquired by prescription;
(c) Cannot be registered under the Land Registration
Law and be the subject of a Torrens Title;
(d) Cannot be levied upon by execution, nor can be
attached;
(e) Can be used by everybody;
(f) May be either real or personal property.
Cases:
o Mun. of Cavite v. Rojas (30 Phil. 602): Streets and
plazas are outside the commerce of man, since
they are properties for public use.
o Commonwealth v. Meneses (38 O.G. 123, p. 2389):
Rivers are not subject to private appropriation. The
law of prescription does not apply to them.
o Gobierno Insular v. Naval (CA) 40 O.G. (11th S) 15,
p. 59: Although it is true that rivers and esteros are
not specifically included in the list of those that
could not be registered; still the intention of the law
is plainly to prevent a usurpation of any part of
public dominion, rivers and esteros included.
Their inclusion in a certificate of title does not
convert the same into properties of private
ownership or confer title on the registrant.
o Republic v. Reyes (L-36610, June 18, 1976): The
Torrens system of registration is not a means of
acquiring ownership over private or public land; it
merely confirms and registers whatever right or
title may already be possessed or had by the
applicant.
o Republic v. Animas (L-37682, Mar. 29, 1974): Forest
lands as such cannot be registered. The mere fact
that a person has a certificate of title over them is
unavailing.

o Tufexis v. Olaguera (32 Phil. 654): The right is of
public character and could not be bought at an
auction sale.
o Insular Government v. Aldecoa (19 Phil. 505): The
land produced by the action of the sea is of public
ownership and cannot therefore be acquired by any
private person or entity inasmuch as same belongs
to the state.
o Government v. Cabangis (53 Phil. 112: The
government owns the reclaimed land in the sense
that it has become property of public dominion;
When the government took steps to make it land
again, its status as public dominion remained
unchanged.
o C & M Timber Corp. (CMTC) v. Alcala (83 SCAD 346
(1997): evaluation of timber licenses and their
consequent cancellation in the process of
formulating policies with regard to the utilization of
timber lands is a prerogative of the executive
department and in the absence of evidence
showing grave abuse of discretion courts will not
interfere with the exercise of that discretion.
o Villarico v. CA (309 SCRA 193 (1999): Land within
which the unclassified forest zone is incapable of
private appropriation, a forest land cannot be
owned by private persons, and possession thereof,
no matter how long, does not ripen into a
registrable title.
o Manila International Airport Authority (MIAA) v. CA
(495 SCRA 591 (2006): The MIAA Airport Lands and
Buildings constitute a port, constructed by the
State.
Public Lands national domain under the Legislative
Power of Congress as has not been subjected to
private right or devoted to public use;
o Montano v. Insular Govt. (12 Phil. 570): that part
of government lands which are thrown open to
private appropriation and settlement by homestead
and other like general laws.
Examples: mining, forest, agricultural lands
12
Agricultural lands may be sold to or acquired by
private individuals or entities;
Ownership over mining and forest lands cannot be
transferred leases may be had.
Classification of Public Lands
Forest and mining lands: properties of public dominion
(third class)
Public agricultural lands those alienable portions
of the public domain which are neither timber or
mineral lands. (Alba Vda. de Raz v. CA, 314 SCRA 36)
o Part of public dominion before being made
available to the general public;
o Becomes patrimonial property of the State after
being made so available subject to
prescription.
o Becomes private property once acquired by
private individuals
o Bureau of Forestry, et al. v. CA (GR 37995, Aug. 31,
1987): It is the Bureau of Forestry that has the
jurisdiction and authority over the demarcation,
protection, management, reproduction, occupancy
and use of all public forests and forest reservations
and over the granting of licenses for the taking of
products therefrom, including stone and earth. Xxx
One cannot claim to have obtained his title by
prescription if the application fi led by him
necessarily implied an admission that the portion
applied for is part of the public domain which
cannot be acquired by prescription, unless the law
expressly permits it. Possession of forest land,
however long, cannot ripen into private ownership.
o Republic v. CA (GR 40402, Mar. 16, 1987): Thus,
possession of forest lands, however long, cannot
ripen into private ownership. A parcel of forest land
is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of
Forestry and beyond the power and jurisdiction of
the cadastral court to register under the Torrens
System.
o Heirs of the Late Spouses Pedro S. Palanca and
Soterranea Rafols Vda. De Palanca v. Republic (500

SCRA 209 [2006]): Public forests are inalienable
public lands.
Exploration Permits are Strictly Granted to Entities or
Individuals Possessing the Resources and Capability
to Undertake Mining Operations
o Apex Mining Co., Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold
Mining Corp. 492 SCRA 355 (2006): Nonetheless,
the State may not be precluded from considering a
direct takeover of the mines, if it is only plausible
remedy in sight to the gnawing complexities
generated by the so-called gold rush.
Governing Law: Commonwealth Act 141
Jurisdiction: Director of Lands, subject to the control of
the Secretary of Agriculture
Preference of tenants in acquisition: In accord with the
policy of the government of permitting tenants of
public agricultural lands to acquire by purchase or by
homestead their respective landholdings. (Pindangan
Agricultural Co., Inc. v. Dans, et al., L-14591, Apr. 25,
1962)
o Republic v. Oct. (L-18867, Apr. 30, 1966): Sec. 64(e)
of the Revised Administrative Code empowers the
President to reserve alienable public lands for a
specific public purpose or service, and under the
Public Land Act, to release those reserved.
o Government lands: Broader in scope than that of
Public Lands (merely part of government lands);
o Those lands devoted to public use or public
service;
o Public lands before and after they are made
available for private appropriation
o Patrimonial lands
Non-Conversion into Private Property
o Adorable, et al. v. Director of Forestry (L-13663, Mar. 25,
1960): possession thereof (of public lands), however
long cannot convert it into private property. Such portion
falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Bureau of
13
Forestry, and beyond the jurisdiction of the cadastral
court to register under the Torrens system.
Disposition by Public Bidding
o Ladrera v. Secretary of Agriculture and National
Resources (L-13385, Apr. 28, 1960): In every public
bidding the winner prejudices the loser; yet this is no
reason to disqualify him; that in itself is NOT bad faith,
for he is merely exercising the right to buy.
Ownership of Roman Catholic Churches & The
Ecclesiastical Provinces
o Trinidad v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila (63 Phil.
881): The naked ownership of the ecclesiastical provinces
donated to the Church belongs to the Roman Catholic
Church; the use is for the worshippers.
Effect of the Separation of Church and State in the
Philippines
There is nothing that will prohibit the churches from
alienating any of the properties denominated in canon
law as holy or sacred.
Public Land Act
o Bracewell v. CA (GR 107427, Jan. 25, 2000 119 SCAD
47): The Public Land Act requires that the applicant must
prove: (a) that the land is alienable public land; and (b)
that his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of the same must be since
time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the
Public Land Act.
Parity Rights Amendment of 1946
o Ancheta v. GuerseyDalayyon (490 SCRA 140 (2006):
Art. XII, Secs. 7 and 8 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution
explicitly prohibits non-Filipinos from acquiring or
holding title to private lands or to lands of the public
domain.

Art. 421. All other property of the State, which is not
of the character stated in the preceding article, is
patrimonial property.
Patrimonial property the property owned by the
State but which is not devoted to public use, public
service, or the development of the national wealth.
Examples:
1. Friar lands
2. San Lazaro Estate
3. Properties obtained by the Government in escheat
proceedings, or those inherited by or donated to
the government; rents of buildings owned by the
State
4. Municipal-owned waterworks system
Acquisition of Patrimonial Properties thru Prescription
Art. 1113: Patrimonial properties may be acquired by
private individuals or corporations thru prescription.
Art. 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer
intended for public use or for public service, shall
form part of the patrimonial property of the State.
Conversion of Property of Public Dominion to
Patrimonial Property: Entities that may Effect the
Change
o Faustino Ignacio v. Dir. of Lands (L-12958, May 30,
1960): Only the executive and possibly the legislative
departments have the authority and power to make the
declaration that any land so gained by the sea is not
necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the
establishment of special industries or for Coast Guard
Service.
o Municipality of Oas v. Roa (7 Phil. 20): When a
municipality no longer uses a public plaza as such, and
instead constructs buildings thereon for storage of
government property, or for housing purposes, it is clear
that the property has become patrimonial.
o Cebu Oxygen and Acetylene Co., Inc. v. Bercilles (L-
40474, Aug. 29, 1975): The land can be registered in the
14
name of the buyer, because the street has already been
withdrawn from public use, and accordingly has become
patrimonial property.
o Mun. of Hinunang v. Director of Lands (24 Phil. 125):
Although a fortress as such is property of public
dominion because it is for public service, still when it is
no longer used as such, it does not necessarily follow
that the State has lost ownership over the same
inasmuch as the property is now considered patrimonial,
and therefore still belongs to the state.
Different Rule for Abandoned River Beds
An abandoned river bed belongs not to the State, but to
the private land owner whose land is now occupied by
the changed course, in proportion to the area lost.
Art. 423. The property of provinces, cities, and
municipalities is divided into property for public use
and patrimonial property.
Reclaimed Lands
o Chavez v. PEA (403 SCRA 1 [2003]): These are not plain
and simple patches of the earth as agricultural, timber, or
mineral lands are, in the full sense of being products of
nature, but are the result of the intervention of man just
like in the extraction of mineral resources
o Chavez v. PEA (415 SCRA 403 [2003]): reclaimed land
does not fall under the category of natural resources
which under the Constitution are inalienable; it is
statutory law which determines the status of reclaimed
land; submerged lands are owned by the State and are
inalienable;
When the conversion activity such as co-production,
joint venture or production-sharing agreements is
authorized by the Government thru a law, the qualified
party to the agreement may own the converted
product or part of it, when so provided in the
agreement. If there is any doubt as to the object of
the prestation in this case, the Supreme Court opined
that the interpretation which would render the
contract valid is to be favored.

Properties of Political Subdivisions
(a) property for public use: cannot be alienated as such,
and may not be acquired by prescription. (Mun. of Oas v.
Roa, 7 Phil. 20)
(b) patrimonial property: may be alienated, and may be
acquired by others thru prescription. (Mun. of Oas v.
Roa, supra; Art. 1113)
Donation by the National Government to a Political
Subdivision
o Mun. of Catbalogan v. Dir. of Lands (17 Phil. 216): The
National Government may donate its patrimonial
property to a municipality, and the latter may own the
same. When thus donated, the property becomes either
property for public use or patrimonial property,
depending on the use given to the property.
o City of Cebu v. Padilla, et al. (L-20393, Jan. 30, 1965):
The acquisition by a city of portions of public lands is
subject to the rules and regulations issued by the
proper governmental authorities, as well as the
subsequent approval of such acquisition by the Director
of Lands.
Conversion to Patrimonial
When a municipalitys properties for public use are no
longer intended for such use, the properties become
patrimonial, and may now be the subject of a common
contract.
Art. 424. Property for public use, in the provinces,
cities and municipalities consist of the provincial
roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares,
fountains, public waters, promenades, and public
works for public service paid for by said provinces,
cities, or municipalities.
All other property possessed by any of them is
patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code,
without prejudice to the provisions of special laws.
Properties in Political Subdivisions
15
(a) property for public use
Dacanay v. Asistio, Jr. (208 SCRA 404 (1992): A public
street is property for public use, hence, outside the
commerce of man and may not be the subject of lease
or of any other contract. The right of the public to use
the city streets may not be bargained away thru a
contract.
(b) Patrimonial property
o Prov. of Zamboanga del Norte v. City of
Zamboanga, et al. (L-24440, Mar. 28, 1968): State
properties: properties for public service are of
public dominion.
Properties of provinces, cities, etc.: properties
for public service are patrimonial (since they are
not for public use)
Basis of the Classification: Use
o Salas v. Jarencio (L-29788, Aug. 30, 1972): There being
no proof that the lot had been acquired by the City
with its own funds, the presumption is that it was
given to it by the State IN TRUST for the benefit of the
inhabitants. Residual control remained in the State,
and therefore the STATE can lawfully dispose of the lot.
Properties of provinces, cities, and municipalities may also
be classified into the following:
(a) Acquired with their own funds (in their private or
corporate capacity): political subdivision has
ownership and control;
(b) Those other than (a): subject to the control and
supervision of the state;
o Held by political subdivision in trust for the state for
the benefit of the inhabitants (whether
governmental or proprietary purpose)
o Reason: Political subdivision owes its creation to the
State.
Rules With Respect to Properties for Public Use
o Mun. of Cavite v. Rojas, 30 Phil. 602): May not be
leased to private individuals.

o Viuda de Tan Toco v. Mun. Council of Iloilo (49 Phil. 52):
Properties used by a municipal corporation in the
exercise of its governmental powers cannot be
attached or levied upon.
o Municipality of Hinabangan, et al. v. Mun. of Wright, et
al. (L-12603, Mar. 25, 1960): The right to settle
boundary disputes between municipalities is vested by
law on the provincial board of the province
concerned If the provincial board fails to settle the
boundary dispute, the action if at all, would be one
against said board, not an action for declaratory relief.
Effect if Private Land is Donated to a Town and Made
into a Plaza
o Harty v. Mun. of Victoria (13 Phil. 152): Private land
donated to a town for use as a plaza becomes property
for public use, and may not in turn be donated by the
town to the church, nor can the church acquire
ownership over it by prescription, for a town plaza is
outside the commerce of man.
National Properties May Not Be Registered by a
Municipality Under its Own Name
o Mun. of Tigbawan v. Dir. of Lands (35 Phil. 798):
Properties of public dominion, owned by the national
government, even if planted upon with trees by a
municipality for a number of years, do not become
municipal properties, and may not therefore be
registered by a municipality under its name.
Patrimonial Property of a Municipal Corporation
The towns patrimonial property is administered, at
least insofar as liability to third persons is concerned,
in the same way as property of a private corporation.
Hence, the town is not immune to suits involving this
kind of property.
o Alonso v. Cebu Country Club, Inc. (417 SCRA 115
(2003): Possession of patrimonial property of the
Government, whether spanning decades, or
centuries, cannot ipso facto ripen into ownership.
16
Art. 425. Property of private ownership, besides the
patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities,
and municipalities, consists of all property belonging
to private persons, either individually or collectively.
Private Properties Other than Patrimonial: (a)
individually or (b) collectively
Collective Ownership
Collectively ownership by private individuals as co-
owners; or by corporations, partnerships, or other
juridical persons allowed by the Civil Code to possess
and acquire properties.
Effect of Possession by Private Persons
o Nalayan, et al. v. Nalayan, et al. (L-14518, Aug. 29,
1960); Oh Cho v. Dir. of Lands (75 Phil. 890); Cario v.
Insular Govt. (212 U.S. 449): Possession by private
persons since time immemorial carries the presumption
that the land had never been part of the public
domain An allegation to this effect is a sufficient
averment of private ownership.
Ownership of Roads
Roads may either be public or property, depending as
to where such roads are to be constructed (i.e. in a
private or public property).
Private Lands Within a Military Zone
o Inchausti and Co. v. Commanding General (6 Phil. 556):
If private lands of a person should lie within a military
zone, said lands do not necessarily become property of
public dominion (public service).
Ownership Evidenced by a Torrens Title
o Zobel v. Mercado (L-14515, May 25, 1960): If there is
any error in the Torrens title of a person in the sense
that it includes lands belonging to the government, it is
only the government which can properly question that
fact, and a judicial pronouncement is necessary in order
to have the portion excluded from the Torrens title.
 17

o Salamat Vda. de Medina v. Cruz (GR 39272, May 4, Natural Resources, may designate by proclamation any
1988): Payment of land tax is not an evidence of tract/s of land of the public domain as reservations for
ownership of a parcel of land for which payment is the use of the Republic or any of its branches, or for
made, especially when the parcel of land is covered by a quasi-public uses or purposes.
Torrens title in the name of another.
o Metropolitan Waterworks & Sewerage System v. CA (215 PROVISIONS COMMON TO THE THREE PRECEDING
SCRA 783 (1992): A certificate is not conclusive CHAPTERS
evidence of title if it is shown that the same land had
already been registered and an earlier certificate for the Art. 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an
same is in existence. individual declaration, the expression immovable
things or property, or movable things or property,
Acquisition by Aliens is used, it shall be deemed to include, respectively,
o Krivenko v. Register of Deeds: An alien has had no right the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and in Chapter 2.
to acquire since the date of effectivity of the Philippine Whenever the word muebles, or furniture, is
Constitution, any public or private agricultural, used alone, it shall not be deemed to include money,
commercial, or residential lands (except by hereditary credits, commercial securities, stocks, and bonds,
succession); the same rule applies to a foreign jewelry, scientific or artistic collections, books,
corporation, even if it be a religious and non-stock medals, arms, clothing, horses or carriages and their
foreign corporation. accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or other
o Ung Sui Si Temple v. Reg. of Deeds (L-6776, May 21, things which do not have as their principal object the
1955): This is not contrary to religious freedom because furnishing or ornamenting of a building, except where
the ownership of real estate is not essential for the from the context of the law, or the individual
exercise of religious worship. declaration, the contrary clearly appears.
o Reg. of Deeds of Manila v. China Banking Corporation (L-
11964, Apr. 28, 1962): The constitutional prohibition
against the acquisition of land by aliens is ABSOLUTE.
Thus, the transfer of ownership over land in favor of
aliens is not permissible in view of the constitutional
prohibition.
o Republic v. Tri-Plus Corp., 505 SCRA 41 (2006):
Applicants for confirmation of imperfect title must prove
the following:
1. the land forms part of the alienable and disposable
agricultural lands of the public domain; and
2. they have been in open, continuous exclusive and
notarious possession and occupation of the same
under a bona fide claim of ownership either since
time immemorial or since June 12, 1945.
o Republic v. Southside Homeowners Assn., Inc. (502
SCRA 587 [2006]): The President, upon the
recommendation of the Secretary of Environment and