You are on page 1of 14

!

PROPERTY • The right of using a thing indefinitely is an essential quality of absolute property, without which
Lecture notes by Atty. Robles absolute property can have no legal existence. Use is the real side of property. This right of
user necessarily includes the right and power of excluding others from the land.
PROPERTY
• The right and interest which a man has in lands and chattels to the exclusion of others; • Property is lost by the act of man by:
o Alienation;
• The sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things o Voluntary abandonment of the thing.
of the world in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe; the right to
possess, use, enjoy, and dispose of a thing; the free use and enjoyment by a person of all his • It is lost by operation of law by:
acquisitions, without any control or diminution, save only by the law of the land. o Forced sale;
o Confiscation or sentence of a criminal court;
• A vested right of action is property in the same sense that tangible things are property; it is a o Prescription;
thing owned, that to which a person has or may have a legal title. o Civil death;
o Capture by a public enemy.
• It embraces every species of valuable right and interest, including real and personal property,
easements, franchises, and hereditaments; it includes money, credits, a chose in action, a • It is lost by the act of God by:
mining claim, a debt; o Death of animals;
o Total destruction of a thing.
• In the strict legal sense, it is an aggregate of rights which are guaranteed and protected by the
government, and, in the ordinary sense, indicates the thing itself, rather than the rights attached IMMOVABLES
to it. • Property which, from its nature, destination, or the object to which it is applied, cannot move
itself, or be removed.
• All things are not the subject of property; the sea, the air, and the like cannot be
MOVABLES
appropriated; every one may enjoy them, but he has no exclusive right in them. When things
are fully our own, or when all others are excluded from meddling with them or from interfering • Such subjects of property as attend a man’s person wherever he goes, in contradiction to
about them, it is plain that no person besides the proprietor, who has this exclusive right, can things immovable;
have any claim either to use them, or to hinder him from disposing of them as he pleases: so
that property, considered as an exclusive right to things, contains not only a right to use those • Things movable by their nature are such as may be carried from one place to another, whether
things, but a right to dispose them, either by exchanging them for other things, or by giving they move themselves, as cattle, or cannot be removed without an extraneous power, as
them away to any other person without any consideration, or even throwing them away. inanimate things.

• The ownership of property implies its use in the prosecutions of any legitimate business which DOMINION
is not a nuisance in itself. • Perfect and complete property or ownership in a thing. This right is composed of three principal
elements:
• Property is said to be, when it relates to goods and chattels, absolute or qualified. Absolute o The right to use;
property is that which is our own without any qualification whatever. Qualified property o The right to enjoy; and,
consists in the right which men have over wild animals which they have reduced to their own o The right to dispose of the thing, to the exclusion of every other person.
possession and which are kept subject to their power, which are his own while he has
possession of them, but as soon as his possession is list his property is gone, unless the • He who has the enjoyment of a thing is entitled to receive all the profits or revenues which
animals go animo revertendi. may be derived from it.

• Property in personal goods may be absolute or qualified without any relation to the nature of the TREASURE
subject-matter, but simply because more persons than one have interest in it, or because the • A thing hidden or buried in the earth which no one can prove as his property, and which is
right of property is separated from the possession. A bailee of goods, though not the owner, discovered by chance.
has a qualified property in them; while the owner has the absolute property.
• Property is again divided into corporeal and incorporeal; the former comprehends such TREASURE TROVE
property as is perceptible to the senses, as lands, houses, goods, merchandise, and the like; • This name is given to such money or coin, gold, silver, plate, or bullion, which, having been
the latter consists in legal rights, as choses in actions, easements, and the like. hidden or concealed in the earth, or other private place, so long that its owner is unknown, has
been discovered by accident. Should the owner be found, it must be restored to him; and in
case of not finding him, the property belongs to the King [under English law]. By the civil law,
when the treasure was found by the owner of the soil he was considered as entitled to it by the

! Jillian Gandingco | 1
!
double title of owner and finder; when found on another’s property, one-half belonged to the • The owner continues to have the same right although he performs no acts of ownership or be
owner of the estate and the other to the finder; when found on public property, it belonged one- disabled from performing them, and although another person performs such acts without the
half to the public treasury and the other to the finder. knowledge or against the will of the owner. But the owner may lose his right in a thing if he
permits it to remain in the possession of a third person for a sufficient time to enable the latter
• If the owner is known, it is not technically treasure trove. to acquire a title to it by prescription or under the statute of limitations.

• In the Roman law valuables hid in the earth for safety were not treasure trove, unless hid so TRADITIONAL RIGHTS IN OWNERSHIP
long that the owner was not known. (1) The right to use;
(2) The right to enjoy;
APPURTENANCES (3) The right to dispose;
• Things belonging to another thing as principal, and which pass as incident to the principal thing. (4) The right to abuse;
(5) The right to recover;
• To constitute an appurtenance there must exist a propriety of relation between the principal (6) The right to possess.
or dominant subject and the accessory or adjunct, which is to be ascertained by
considering whether they so agree in nature or quality as to be capable of union without LIMITATIONS ON OWNERSHIP
incongruity. (1) Fixed by the Constitution
(2) Fixed by statutes
• If a house and land be conveyed, everything passes which is necessary to the full enjoyment (3) Fixed by voluntary acts (contracts and wills)
thereof and which is in use as incident or appurtenant thereto. Under this term are included the
curtilage, a right of way, water-courses, and secondary easements, a turbary and generally RIGHTS INCIDENT TO OWNERSHIP
anything necessary to the enjoyment of a thing. (1) The right to enjoy and dispose of a thing without other limitations that those established by
law;
• Appurtenance of a ship include whatever is on board a ship for the objects of the voyage and (2) The right to file an action against the holder or possessor of a thing in order to recover it;
adventure in which she is engaged, belonging to her owner. (3) The right to exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal of the thing lawfully
owned or possessed and for this purpose, to use such force as may be reasonably
• The thing appurtenant must be of inferior nature to the thing to which is appurtenant. necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his propety.
ACCESSORY (4) The right to enclose or fence the land or tenements by walls, ditches, live or dead hedges,
• Any thing which is joined to another thing as an ornament, or to render it more perfect. or by means without detriment to servitudes constructed thereon;
(5) The right to demand indemnity for the damage caused by reason of interference with the
OWNERSHIP owner’s property to avert an imminent greater danger;
• The right by which a thing belongs to some one in particular, to the exclusion of all others (6) The right to compensation in case the owner’s property is taken by competent authority
and for public use;
• The entirety of the powers of use and disposal allowed by law; it implies that there is some (7) The right to be restored to possession of one’s property in case the same is takem not by
power of disposal; but the owner of a thing is not necessarily the person who at a given time competent public authority and/or without just compensation and/or not for public use;
has the whole power of use and disposal; it is broader than possession. (8) The right to compensation if one’s property is condemned or seized by a competent
authority unjustifiably as when it is so condemned or seized not In the interest of health,
OWNER safety, or security;
• He who has dominion of a thing, real or personal, corporeal or incorporeal, which he has a (9) The right to the surface and sub-surface of the land as well as the right to construct
right to enjoy and do with as he pleases, -- even to spoil or destroy it, as far as the law permits, thereon any work or make any plantations and excavations which the owner may deem
unless he be prevented by some agreement or covenant which restrains his right. proper without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances and
without right to complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation;
• Although there can be but one absolute owner of a thing, there may be a qualified (10) The right to hidden treasure;
ownership of the same thing by many; thus a bailor has the general ownership of the thing (11) The right to accession and fruits of the property; and
bailed, the bailee the special ownership; the right of the absolute owner is more extended than (12) The right to quiet the title to real property or any interest therein.
that of him who has only a qualified ownership: as, for example, the use of the thing. Thus, the
absolute owner of an estate, that is, an owner in fee, may cut the wood, demolish the buildings, KINDS OF ACTION FOR RECOVERY OF PROPERTY
build new ones, and dig wherever he may deem proper for minerals, stone, plaster, and similar (1) Action to EJECT, which is an action to recover possession within one year from the time
things, which would be considered waste and would not be allowed in a qualified owner of the the action accrues;
estate, as a lessee or tenant. (2) ACCION PUBLICIANA, which is an action to recover possession after one year has
elapsed from the accrual of the right but before ten years therefrom;

! Jillian Gandingco | 2
!
(3) ACCION REIVINDICATORIA, which is an action to recover ownership and possession of o By construction, as by building on another’s land;
land within 30 years from the time the action accrues; and, o By writing, as when one writes on another’s parchment; or
(4) REPLEVIN, which is an action to recover personal property possessed by another. o By painting, as when one paints a picture on another’s canvas.

ACCESSION • In these cases, as a general rule, the accessory follows the principal; hence, those things
• The right to all which one’s own property produces, whether that property be movable or which are attached to the things of another become the property of the latter. The only
immovable, and the right to that which is united to it by accessory, either naturally or artificially. exception which the civilians made was in the case of a picture, which, although an accession,
drew to itself the canvas, on account of the importance which was attached to it.
• Every building is an accession to the ground upon which it stands.
AVULSION
• If the materials of one person are united by labor to the materials of another, so as to form a • The removal of a considerable quantity of soil from the land of one man and its deposit
single article, the property in the joint product is, in the absence of any agreement, in the owner upon or annexation to the land of another, suddenly and by the perceptible actions of water. [In
of the principal part of the materials by accession. such case the property belongs to the first owner.]

• The tree belongs to the owner of the land on which the root is, and its fruits is to the owner of ALLUVION
the tree, although limbs overhang a neighbor’s land. • That increase of the earth on a bank of a river, or on the shore of the sea, by the force of
the water, as by a current or by waves, or from its recession in a navigable lake, which is so
• Where, by agreement, an article is manufactured for another, the property in the article, while gradual that no one can judge how much is added at each moment of time.
making and when finished, vests in him who finished the whole or the principal part of the • Where land is submerged by the gradual advance of the sea, the sovereign acquires the title to
materials; and the maker, if he did not furnish the same, has simply, a lien upon the article for the part thereby covered and it ceases to belong to the former owner.
his pay. • The proprietor of the bank increased by alluvion is entitled to the addition, this being regarded
as the equivalent for the loss he may sustain from the encroachment of the waters upon his
• The increase of an animal, as a general thing, belongs to the owner of the dam or mother; but, land. [just compensation]
if it be let to another, the person who thus becomes the temporary proprietor will be entitled to
its increase. KINDS OF ACCESSION
(1) Accession discreta
• If, by the labor of one man, the property of another has been converted into a thing of different • Refers to natural fruits, industrial fruits as well as civil fruits
species, so that its identity is destroyed, the original owner can only recover the value of the (2) Accession continua
property in its unconverted state, and the article itself will belong to the person who wrought the • May affect immovable property in which case it may either be accession industrial or
conversion, if he wrought it believing the material to be his own. accession natural, or it may affect movable property in which case it may take place
either by adjunction or conjunction, commixtion or confusion, or specifications.
• But, if there be a mere change of form or value, which does not destroy the identity of the
materials, the original owner may still reclaim them or recover their value as thus improved; so, a) Accession industrial
if the change have been wrought by a willful trespasser, or by one who knew that the materials o Building, planting, or sowing
were not his own; in such case, however, radical the change may have been, the owner may b) Accession natural
reclaim them, or recover their value in their new shape. o Alluvion;
o Avulsion;
ACCRETION o Change of river course; and,
• The increase of real estate by the addition of portions of soil, by gradual deposition o Island formation
through the operation of natural causes to that already in possession of the owner. [The term
alluvion is applied to the deposit itself, while accretion rather denotes the act.] • While accession discreta refers to a person’s right (as owner) over the fruits produced by his
property, this rule is not absolute. There are certain cases where the fruits of the property will
• It is generally conceded that the riparian title attaches to subsequent accretions to the land not belong to the owner. Thus, a possessor of a property in good faith may claim the fruits of
effected by the gradual and imperceptible operation of natural causes. such property [Article 544]. A usufructuary is entitled to the fruits of the property held in usufruct
[Article 566]. So also, in antichresis, the creditors may, in the proper case, appropriate the fruits
ADJUNCTION of the security.
• The attachment or union permanently of a thing belonging to one person to that
belonging to another. This union may be caused: • Accession continua is a form of accession where the property of one person is incorporated in
o By inclusion, as if one man’s diamond be set in another’s ring; that of another. The basic principles or characteristics that underlie accession continua
o By soldering, as if one’s guard be soldered on another’s sword; are the following:
o By sewing, as by employing the silk of one to make the coat of another; (1) Accessory follows the principal.

! Jillian Gandingco | 3
!
(2) The nature of the incorporation is in such a way that separation would injure or alluvion owns the accretion while the owner of the land from which a part is detached by
destroy either or both of the properties incorporated. avulsion retains the ownership of such part.
(3) No punitive liability shall be suffered by the person who acts in good faith.
(4) The person who acts in bad faith is punished by, among others, requiring him to pay • Adjunction or conjunction pertains to a situation where two things belonging to different owners
damages. form a single object so that to separate them would result in their impairment.

• Article 448 is not applicable in the following instances: • Each of the things that from the new object preserves its own nature and there is a relation
(1) In cases of co-ownership between and/or among the things united so as to form a new object.
(2) In cases of usufruct • Commixtion or confusion refers to the mixture of things, either solid or liquid, pertaining to
(3) In cases of lease already and/or previously agreed upon different owners.
(4) In case a person who owns a house and lot sells only the lot but not the house
(5) In relations between private persons and sovereign belligerent • Specification is the transformations of the material of another person into a new form.
(6) Construction made exclusively for prosecuting a war
(7) When the parties concerned agree on terms and conditions not contemplated by the • There is only one thing (the form of which is changed) in specification while there must be more
article. than one thing in commixtion and in adjunction. In commixtion, the mixture may be such that the
things mixed may not retain their original nature while in both specification and adjunction, the
• In case, in the meantime, the owner of the land who is also in good faith, has not paid the things united and the new object, as the case may be, retain and preserve their nature. In both
proper indemnity, the builder, sower or planted in good faith shall have the right to stay in the adjunction and specification, the principles that the accessory follows the principal is applicable
property without paying rentals and also the right to have the value of which is built, planted or while such principle does not apply to commixtion because here, the mixture shall be
sown annotated on the titles of the land to protect his right in case the land is sold to a third proportionately divided.
person in good faith and for value.
SUMMARY: ACCESSION CONTINUA DISTINGUISHED
• If the landowner properly chooses to ask for the payment of the price of the land and the ADJUNCTION MIXTURE SPECIFICATION
builder, planter or sower cannot pay the same, the landowner may either oblige the builder or Involves at least 2 things Involves at least 2 things May involve only 1 thing (may
planter to remove the improvements at his expense or he may petition the court to have the be more) but form is changed
property sold at public auctions and if the proceeds are not enough to cover the value of the As a rule, accessory follows As a rule, co-ownership results As a rule, accessory follows the
improvements, there shall be no reimbursement. But the landowner does not automatically the principal principal
become the owner of the improvement if the builder fails to pay the value of the land. The things joined retain their The things mixed or confused The new object retains or
nature may either retain or lose preserves the nature of the
• A builder in good faith cannot be compelled to pay rental on the land he does not own and on respective natures original object
which his building was constructed. He has the right to retain the land on which he has
constructed the building in good faith until he is reimbursed the expenses incurred by him. QUIETING OF TITLE
• Under the Rules of Court, any person interested under a deed, will, contract, or other written
• The owner acquires ownership over an accretion received by his land from the effects of the instrument, may, before breach or violation thereof, bring an action to determining any question
waters by virtue of the fact of addition and he need not file any action to possess each addition. of construction or validity arising under the instrument and for a declaration of his rights or
duties thereunder.
• Lands added to the shores by accretion and alluvial deposits are owned by the State. The said
lands, until a formal declaration on the part of the Government to the effect that they are no • An action to quiet title of real property not in possession of another does not prescribe. If the
longer needed for coast service, for public use or for special industries, continue to be part of real property is in possession of another, it may be acquired by acquisitive prescription.
public domain, not available for private appropriations or ownership.
• In an action to quiet title, the plaintiff asserts his own estate and declares generally that
• Accretion takes place even if the adjoining land is not titled under the Torrens system. defendant claims some estate in the land, without defining it, and avers that the claim is without
foundations, and calls the defendant to set forth the nature of his claim, so that it may be
• If a river completely dries up, there is no accretion within the meaning of the law. determined by decree; while in a suit to remove a cloud, plaintiff not only declares his own title,
but also avers the source and nature of defendant’s claim, points out its defect, and prays that it
• Land acquired by accretion will not become automatically registered under the Torrens system be declared void.
if such accretion took place on a registered land.
• The remedy of the quieting of, or the removing of cloud from title is generally understood to
• Alluvion involves a gradual deposit of soil while avulsion refers to a sudden deposit. The soil in have relations only to real property.
alluvion cannot be identified while that in avulsion is identifiable. The owner of the land in

! Jillian Gandingco | 4
!
• A cloud on title is an outstanding instrument record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which • In the event of a division or partition of property owned in common, assignees of one or more of
is actually invalid or inoperative but which may nevertheless impair or affect injuriously the title the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its
of property. The matter complained of must have a prima facie appearance of validity or legal being effected without their concurrence.
efficacy. The cloud on title is a semblance of title which appears in some legal form but which is
in fact unfounded. The invalidity or inoperativeness of the instrument is not apparent on the face • In a contract of sale of co-owned property, what the vendee obtains by virtue of such a sale are
of such instrument and it has to be proved by extrinsic evidence. the same rights as the vendor had as co-owner, and the vendee merely steps into the shoes of
the vendor as co-owner.
• As a general rule, a cloud which may be removed by suit to quiet title is not created by mere
verbal or parol assertions of ownership of or an interest in property. • A co-owner cannot give valid consent to another to build a house on the co-owner property,
which is an act tantamount to devoting the property to his or her exclusive use.
• In the Philippines, we follow the rule prevailing in many jurisdictions that one who has only an • Giving consent to a third person to construct a house on the co-owned property will injure the
equitable title to property may maintain an action to quiet title or remove a cloud thereon. It is interest of the co-ownership and prevent other co-owners from using the property in accordance
also allowed to one out of possession to maintain an action against a defendant in possession. with their rights.

• In a suit to quiet title, defendant may set up equitable as well as legal defenses. The acquisition • Even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his or her own share
by the defendant of the title to the property by adverse possession is a good defense of the but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. A sale of the entire
action. A prior adjudication of the questions may constitute a good defense, under the rule of property by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void; buyer
res judicata. However, when the property is in possession of the plaintiff, action to quiet title is made a co-owner of the property.
thereto is imprescriptible.
• The right to seek partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches. The only exception
CO-OWNERSHIP to the imprescriptibility of an action for partition against a co-owner is when a co-owner
• There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to repudiates the co-ownership.
different persons;
• An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation
• Pursuant to Article 494 of the Civil Code, no co-owner is obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties.
and his proper remedy is an action for partition under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.
• As a matter of law, acquisitive prescription does not apply nor set in against compulsory heirs
• Anyone of the co-owners may bring an action for ejectment without joining the others. insofar as their pro-indiviso share or legitime is concerned, unless said heirs repudiate their
share.
• Co-ownership only arises when there is clear proof of showing the acquisition of the property
during the cohabitation of the parties, and the actual joint contributions of the parties to acquire • Acquisitive prescription may still set in favor of a co-owner where there exists a clear
the same. repudiation of the co-ownership, and he co-owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and
exclusive ownership.
• One of the co-owners may bring actions for the recovery of co-owned property without the
necessity of joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs because the suit is presumed to • The characteristics of co-ownership are:
have been filed for the benefit of his co-owners. (1) Plurality of subjects, who are the co-owners;
(2) Unity of or material indivision, which means that there is a single object which is
• Article 487 of the Civil Code covers all kinds of actions for the recovery of possession, including not materially divided, and which is the element which binds the subjects; and
an accion publiciana and a reivindicatory action; any judgment of the court in favor of the (3) The recognition of ideal shares, which determines the rights and obligations of the
plaintiff will benefit the other co-owners, but if the judgment is adverse, the same cannot co-owners.
prejudice the rights of the unimpleaded co-owners.
• There is no co-ownership when the different portions owned by different people are already
• The co-owners, being owners of their respective aliquots or undivided shares in the subject concretely determined and separately identifiable even if not yet technically described.
property, can validly and legally dispose of their shares even without the consent of all the other
co-owners. • Any co-owner may file an action under Article 487 not only against a third person but also
against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of
• During the existence of the co-ownership, no individual can claim title to any definite portion of the property.
the community property until the partition thereof, and, prior to the partition, all that the co-
owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire thing. • Redemption by a co-owner does not terminate the co-ownership nor give her title to the entire
land subject of the co-ownership.

! Jillian Gandingco | 5
!
• An oral partition by the heirs is valid if no creditors are affected. • Since the lot and its improvements were mortgaged by the deceased parents, a co-ownership
existed among the heirs during the period given by law to redeem the foreclosed property.
• It is a fundamental principle that a co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the Redemption by one would inure to the benefit of all.
other co-owners, absent any clear repudiation of the co-ownership.
• The requisites in order that the title may prescribe in favor of a co-owner are: • When a co-ownership is terminated by the partition and the house of defendants overlaps a
(1) The co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an portion of the land of plaintiff, which defendants built in good faith, Article 448 applies.
ouster of the other co-owners; • The appropriate recourse of the co-owners who did not consent to the sale of the entire
(2) Such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the other co-owners; property and the sale of the undivided shares of some of the co-owners is partition.
and
(3) The evidence thereof is clear and convincing. • Where a surviving spouse sold his undivided portion of the conjugal property to the wife of one
• By the provision of Article 1082 of the Civil Code, it appears that when a co-owners sells his of his sons, the vendor’s other children are entitles to exercise the right of redemption as co-
inchoate right in the co-ownership, he expresses his intention to put an end to indivision among owners of the portion sold. The daughter-in-law is deemed a stranger or third person under
his co-heirs. Article 1620.

• Co-owner is entitled to a written notice from selling co-owner in order to remove all uncertainties • Benefits derived from property owned in common are divided in proportion to co-owner’s
about the sale, its terms and conditions, as well as its efficacy and status. interests.

• Possession of a co-owner is like that of a trustee and shall not be regarded as adverse to the • The liability of the owners of undivided shares in an hacienda is not several. For a contractual
other co-owners but in fact as beneficial to all of them. obligation to assume that character, the obligors must expressly so assume; otherwise, the
obligation must be deemed joint, that is, in proportion to their shares in the hacienda.
• The exercise of a right of legal redemption under Article 1620 presupposes the existence of a
co-ownership at the time the conveyance is made by a co-owner and when it is demanded by • Shares of co-owners are equal in the absence of stipulation.
the co-owner or co-owners.
• Generally, co-heir cannot acquire community property by prescription.
• A third person, within the meaning of Article 1620 (on the right of legal redemption of a co-
owner) is anyone who is not a co-owner. • Possession held by a co-owner is generally not adverse against his co-owners.

• Redemption by a co-owner inures to the benefit of all the other co-owners. • All co-owners must be joined in a partition suit.

• When co-owned estate is patrimonial, it is the co-owner whose portion is encroached upon who • Co-owner may redeem community property sold under pacto de retro by another co-owner.
has the option to sell that portion or buy the improvement.
• The rule is that co-owners are not privies inter se in relation to the property owned in common
• The issuance of new title constituted an open and clear repudiation of the trust or co-ownership [Since tenants in common are not privies, it is clear that a judgment rendered in a suit affecting
and the lapse of 10 years of adverse possession was sufficient to vest title by prescription. the common property, brought by only one of the co-owners is not binding upon his associates
nor can it be invoked by them.]
• Imprescriptibility of an action for partition cannot be invoked when a co-owner possessed the
property as exclusive owner. • Once the property is subdivided and distributed among the co-owners, the community has
terminated and there is no reason to sustain any right of legal redemption.
• Payment of land taxes does not constitute repudiation of co-ownership.
• One cannot be compelled to remain as co-owner.
• A co-owner has no pre-emptive right to purchase the pro-indiviso shares of his co-owners.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CO-OWNERSHIP
• A co-owner’s right to redeem may be invoked only after the shares of the other co-owners are (1) The co-owner’s share in the property, although definite in amount or size, is not physically
sold to a third party or a stranger to the co-ownership. and actually identified, it being merely an ideal;
(2) A co-owner’s share is absolutely owned by him and he may dispose of it as he pleases;
• Co-ownership was extinguished when the heirs allowed the one-year redemption period to and
expire without redeeming their parents’ former property and permitted the consolidation of (3) In regard to the use, enjoyment and preservation of the property, the co-owners observe
ownership and the issuance of new title. mutual respect.

! Jillian Gandingco | 6
!
ORDINARY PARTNERSHIP DISTINGUISHED FROM CO-OWNERSHIP: owners is required. Even if the lease is for less than one year, if it is recorded in the Registry of
(1) Co-ownership is created not only by agreement of the parties but also by law and other Deeds, consent of all co-owners must be secured.
means while partnership is created by agreement of the parties;
(2) The purpose of partnership is primarily for profit while the purpose of co-ownership is The following are examples of cases where property owned in common cannot be validly
principally common enjoyment of the property named in common; partitioned:
(3) A co-owner may ordinarily sell to a third person his interest in the co-ownership without the • In conjugal partnership (as long as it validly exists);
consent of the other co-owners while a partner may not sell his interest in the partnership • And in the case of party wall.
without the consent of his co-partners;
(4) Co-ownership is not a juridical person while a partnership has its own juridical personality; POSSESSION
(5) Death of a co-owner does not dissolve the co-ownership while the death of a partner • Elements of possession:
dissolves the partnership. (1) The thing or corpus
(2) An intention to possess the property or animus possidendi
REQUISITES OF CO-OWNERSHIP ! [U.S. v Tan Tyco, 13 Phils. 939; the placing of a stolen thing in one’s
(1) Plurality of subjects property without his knowledge or consent was held as excluding animus
(2) Unity of object (absence of division) possidendi]
(3) Proportionate shares of such subjects
• Forms of possession:
HOW CO-OWNERSHIP CREATED (1) Possession based on absolute ownership or valid title
• By contracts (2) Possession based on just title like possession of one who acts in good faith
• By law (as in conjugal partnership) (3) Possession not in the concept of owner but based on a juridical title as possession of
• By will a lessee
• By chance as in confusion or commixtion (4) Possession without any right like possession of a property stolen by a thief

KINDS OF CO-OWNERSHIP • Acquisition in good faith refers to the possession in the concept of owner and not that of a
• ORDINARY (where right of partition exists) or COMPULSORY (where no such right exists as in lessee.
party wall);
• LEGAL (created by law) or CONTRACTUAL (created by contract); • How possession acquired:
• UNIVERSAL (over universal things as among co-heirs in inheritance) or SINGULAR or (1) By the material occupation of a thing
PARTICULAR (over a particular or specific thing). (2) By the exercise of a right
• It may also be INCIDENTAL, if it exists independently of the will of the parties. (3) By the fact that it is subject to the action of own will
(4) By proper acts and legal formalities for acquiring property
JOINT TENANCY AND CO-OWNERSHIP DISTINGUISHED:
• Disability (like minority) in joint tenancy inures to the benefit of the others which is not true in co- • Possession is characterized by a relation, that is, a relation of power or control, more or less
ownership. effective, by a person over a thing without resolving the question of ownership.
• In case of death of a joint tenant, the survivor is subrogated the rights of the decedent which is • If the owner uses force to obtain possession of property; the owner’s possession will not be
not true in co-ownership where the death of a co-owner transfers his share to his heirs. legally recognized.
• A joint tenant may transfer or dispose of his share only with the consent of the others, but no
such consent is required in co-ownership. • A lessee, an employee, a pledgee, an antichretic creditor, a trustee and co-owner cannot claim
title by acquisitive prescription because they possess the property not in the concept of owner.
The law does not specify the nature of consent to alterations in a property owned in common. It may
be made expressly or impliedly. • Tax declarations and land tax payments are good indicia of possession in the concept of owner.
But such declarations and payments are not enough to prove valid title; they only show intent to
If a co-owner makes an unauthorized alteration, the other co-owners may demand that the alteration possess the property in the concept of owner.
be removed at the expense of the guilty co-owner.
• Possession always includes the idea of occupation.
A co-owner’s share may be attached or levied upon in execution.
• The general rule is that the possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract under claim of
A co-owner may leave the property owned in common by securing the resolution of the majority ownership of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse
interest in the co-ownership, as long as the lease is not more than one year and it is not recorded. A possession of another.
lease of more than one year is no longer an act of administration and therefore, consent of all co-
• The rights of possession may be exercised through agents.

! Jillian Gandingco | 7
!
• Effects of possession in concept of owner: • Necessary expenses are reimbursed to all, whatever may be the juridical character of the
(1) The possession in concept of owner is converted into ownership by the lapse of time person who advanced them; in case of a good faith possessor, entitled to retention.
necessary for prescription.
(2) The possessor can bring all actions necessary to protect his possession; availing • Useful expenses are refunded only to good faith possessor, with right of retention.
himself of any action which an owner can bring, except the accion reivindicatoria
which is substituted by the accion publiciana. • With respect to expenses for luxury or pleasure, good faith and bad faith possessors have the
(3) He can ask for the inscription of his possession in the registry of property. same right ... that is, to remove the improvements upon which they were made if the principal
(4) Upon recovering possession from one who has unlawfully deprived him of it, he can thing will suffer no injury and the owner does not prefer to retain them upon payment of the
demand fruits and damages. proper indemnity.
(5) He can do on the thing possessed everything that the law authorizes an owner to do;
he can exercise the right of pre-emption, and is entitled to the indemnity in case of • A possessor in bad faith has no right to receive any fruits; those already gathered and existing
expropriation. will have to be returned; with respect to those lost, consumed, or which could have been
received, he must pay the value; the ungathered fruits will go to the lawful possessor or owner.
• A possessor in good faith is one who is unaware that there exists a flaw which invalidates his
acquisition of the thing; good faith consists in the possessor’s belief that the person from whom • The possessor in bad faith is liable only for the fruits corresponding to his period of possession;
he received a thing was the owner of the same and could convey his title. he cannot be held liable for the fruits received by those who preceded him.

• One in possession of property knowing that his title thereto is defective, is a possessor in bad • If the owner or lawful possessor chooses to retain the subject for which expenses for luxury and
faith. pleasure were spent, the possessor in bad faith cannot remove the object but is entitled to the
payment of its value at the time the owner/lawful possessor enters into possession; in the case
• Possession in good faith ceases from the moment defects in the title are made known to the of the good faith possessor, he is entitled to the expenses incurred for the improvement for
possessor, by extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery of the property by the true owner. luxury or pleasure.

• There are more things which can be the object of possession that those which can be the • Abandonment of the thing is the opposite of occupation. It consists of the voluntary renunciation
object of prescription; not all things susceptible of appropriation can be the object of of all the rights which a person may have in a thing, with the intent to lose such thing. By virtue
prescription. of the abandonment, the thing is left without owner or possessor. To be effective, it is
necessary that it be made by a possessor in the concept of owner. Furthermore, it must clearly
• The only cases of constructive delivery which involve material occupation are the “tradicion appear that the spes recuperandi is gone and the animus revertendi is finally given up.
brevi manu” and the “constitutum possessorium.”
• The possession of personal property acquired in good faith is equivalent to title.
• Possession must be public in order to be the basis for prescription. o Requisites:
a) Possession is in good faith;
• Bad faith is personal and intransmissible. Its effects must, therefore, be suffered only by the b) The owner has voluntarily parted with the possession of the thing; and
person who acted in bad faith. c) Possession is in the concept of owner.

• In an action of forcible entry and detainer, the court may grant preliminary injunction to prevent • If the owner has lost the thing, or he has been unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right to recover
the defendant from committing further acts of dispossession against the plaintiff. it, not only from the finder, thief or robber, but also from third persons who may have acquired it
in good faith from such finder, thief or robber. The general rule of irreivindicability has two
• To consolidate title by prescription the possession must be under claim of ownership, and it exceptions: when the owner has lost the thing, or has been unlawfully deprived thereof. In these
must be peaceful, public and uninterrupted. cases, the possessor cannot retain the thing as against the owner, who may recover it without
paying any indemnity, except when the possessor acquired it in a public sale. [Public sale is
• Acts of a possessory character done by virtue of a license or mere tolerance on the part of the one where there has been public notice of the sale, in which anybody has a right to bid and
real owner are not sufficient. offer to buy.]

• As a general rule, prescription does not run in favor of one who holds in trust for others. • The right of the owner to recover personal property acquired in good faith by another, is based
on his being dispossessed without his consent; hence, it cannot extend to property voluntarily
• To every possessor in good faith there comes a time when he is considered a possessor in bad delivered by him to another who misappropriates or disposes of the thing through abuse of
faith; when the owner or a possessor with a better right comes along, when he becomes aware confidence.
that what he had taken for granted is at least doubtful, and when he hears the grounds in
support of the adverse contention, his good faith ceases. • Actual possession though not founded upon claim of ownership is entitled to protection by the
law.

! Jillian Gandingco | 8
!
• Only actual possessor may bring action of forcible entry. • Administrator has right to the possession of all properties of the estate so long as it is
necessary to pay debts.
• Symbolic tradition is equivalent to physical possession.
• Prior physical possession of real property is necessary to make forcible entry and detainer
• Possession of a part is constructive possession of the whole. action prosper.

• Possession in good faith entitles possessor to reimbursement of his necessary and useful COMMON LAW - POSSESSION
expenses, and fruits. • The detention or enjoyment of a thing which a man has holds or exercises by himself, or by
another who keeps or exercises it in his name.
• Possessor in good faith is not liable for payment of damages. Possession of another’s property
is presumed to be in good faith; burden of proof is on party alleging bad faith. • Actual possession exists where the thing is in the immediate occupancy of the party.

• Possession of chattel in good faith is equivalent to a title. • Constructive possession is that which exists in contemplation of law, without actual personal
occupation.
• Possession in good faith of improvements has right to buy land on which improvements were
built. • Possession in the occupation of anything with the intention of exercising the rights of ownership
in respect to it. Natural possession implies mere physical contact with the thing, apart from all
• Possession in good faith is not a good defense in accion reinvindicatoria. attempted exercise of rights with respect to it. The lower degree of control was known to the
latter civilians as “detentio.”
• Possession in good faith is entitled to reimbursement for improvements.
• In order to complete a possession, two things are required: that there be an occupancy,
• Possessor in bad faith loses improvements and is liable for fruits gathered; not entitled to apprehension, or taking; that the taking be with an intent to possess; hence, persons who have
reimbursement for useful expenses. no legal wills, as children and idiots, cannot possess or acquire possession. But an infant of
• Abandonment of property arises only when hope of recovery and intent to return are given up. sufficient understanding may lawfully acquire the possession of a thing.

• Possession of co-owner is generally not adverse against his co-owners. • Proof of the possession of property is commonly said to be prima facie evidence of title to it.

• Possession of co-owner by mere tolerance does not give rise to acquisitive prescription. • Rights of ownership are substantially the same as those incident to possession. The owner is
allowed to exclude all and is accountable to no one; the possession is allowed to exclude all but
• Possession not in the concept of an owner is not adverse possession. one and is accountable to no one but him.

• Actual possession of entire land is not necessary; constructive possession is enough. • Legal possession does not necessarily coincide either with actual physical control … or with the
right to possess, and it need not have a rightful origin.
• Tenant’s possession cannot be the basis of acquisitive prescription.
• A very high degree of legal protection is accorded to one lawfully in possession and, whether its
• Possession of stolen goods must explain such possession. origin is rightful or not, a stranger cannot be heard in opposition to it. The true owner may be
heard, but an intruder never. It is said, however, that the bold proposition that possession is a
• Possession may be interrupted either naturally or civilly. good title against a wrongdoer is inaccurate, if stated entirely without a qualification, and that
the true limits of the bare possessor’s right to recover damages for interference with his
• Private deed of sale without possession cannot be a basis of acquisition of ownership. possession are:

• Right to recover possession of registered land does not prescribe. (1) If the defendant cannot show who the true owner is, the bare possessor may recover
the same measure of damages as if he were the true owner, whether he is liable
• Person in possession of a property is presumed to be the owner and he is not required to even to the owner or not;
present his title. (2) Where the true owner is shown, the bare possessor cannot recover the value of the
• In actions for recovery of possession, plaintiff must rely upon strength of his title and not upon goods taken or the diminution in their value, or for injury, unless he is liable even to
weakness of defendant’s claim. the owner;
(3) Whether the true owner be shown or not, the possessor may recover damages for
• Possession protected by law is not merely personal possession but also predecessor’s the taking or trespass, nominal or substantial, as the taking is or is not attended with
possession. aggravation.

! Jillian Gandingco | 9
!
• Comprehensive principals .. (3) Arriola v Dela Serna
(1) Possession in fact is such actual exclusive control as the nature of the thing admits. (4) Santiago v Cruz
(2) Possession in law, the right which is protected by possessory remedies, generally (5) Cagoan v Cagaoan
follows possession in fact, but does not necessarily cease when possession in fact (6) Cuaycong v Benedicto
ceases. (7) Masallo v Cesar
(3) Possession in law continues until determined in some way which the law definitely (8) Yu v De Lara
recognizes, beyond the mere absence or failure of a continuing intent to possess. (9) Cruz v Pahati
(4) Possession in law is a commencement of title; in other words the possessor can deal (10) U.S. v Sotelo
with the thing as an owner against all persons not having a better title and this (11) People v Alajano
protection extends to persons deriving title from him in good faith. (12) Repide v Astaur
(5) When possession in fact is so contested that no one can be said to have actual (13) Ramos v Dir. Of Lands
effective control, possession in law follows the better title. (14) Arendo Cruz v De Leon
(15) Alo v Rocamora
• Failure to take possession is sometimes considered a badge of fraud, in the transfer of (16) Lim, et. al. v Velasco
personal property. (17) Leung Yee v Strong Machinery Co.
(18) Kasilag v Rogue
• Possession of real property will be presumed to accompany ownership until the contrary is (19) Roman Catholic Apostolic Church v Certain Municipalities
proved; and constructive possession consequent upon legal ownership is sufficient as against (20) Cea v Villanueva
mere trespassers. Long continued possession and use of real property creates a presumption (21) Tacas v Tobon
of lawful origin. (22) Mañalac v Olegario
(23) Santiago v Cruz
• When it is not based on a legal right, but secured by violence and maintained with force and (24) Masallo v Cesar
arms, possession cannot furnish the basis of a right. (25) Devesa v Arber
(26) Pasafox v Madamba
• Possession applies properly only to corporeal things, movables and immovables. The (27) Sotto v Enage
possession of incorporeal rights, such as servitude sand other rights of that nature, is only a (28) Tuason and Sampedro, Inc. v Germina
quasi-possession, and is exercised by a species of possession of which these rights are (29) Rebullida v Bustamante
susceptible. (30) Varela v Finnick
(31) Arenas v Raymundo
• Possession is lost with or without the consent of the possessor. It is lost with his consent – (32) Tagatas v Jimenez
when he transfers this possession to another with the intention to divest himself of it; when he (33) U.S. v Soriano
does some act which manifests his intention of abandoning possession. A possessor of an (34) Del Rosario v Lucena
estate loses possession against his consent – when another expels him from it, whether by (35) Varela v Matute
force in driving him away, or by usurping possession during his absence, and preventing him (36) Bishop of Cebu v Mangaron
from re-entering; when the possessor of an estate allows it to be usurped and held for a year, (37) Caballero v Abellana
without during that time having done any act of possession or interfered with the usurper’s (38) Rodriguez v Taño
possession. (39) U.S. v Rey

• Civil possession exists when a person ceases to reside in a home or on the land which he ANIMALS
occupied, or to detain the movable which he possessed, but without intending to abandon the • Any animate being which is not human, endowed with the power of voluntary motion.
possession. It is the detention of a thing by virtue of a just tile and under the conviction or
possessing as owner. • Domitae ... are those which have been tamed by man; domestic.

• Natural possession is that by which a man detains a thing corporeal; as by occupying a • Ferae naturae are those which still retain their wild nature.
house, cultivating ground, or retaining a movable in his possession. Natural possession is also
defined to be the corporeal detention of a thing which we possess as belonging to us, • A man may have an absolute property in animals of a domestic nature; but not so in animals
without any title to that possession, or with a title which is void. ferae naturae, which belong to him only while in his possession. Yet animals which are
sometimes ferae naturae may be tamed so as to become subjects of property.
CASES TO READ – POSSESSION - PHILIPPINES
(1) Atun v Nuñez • Animals ferae naturae were considered by the Roman Law as belonging in common to all the
(2) Barcelona v Barcelona citizens of the State; and by the common law the property in game was based on common

! Jillian Gandingco | 10
!
ownership and subject to governmental authority. One may have the privilege of hunting wild knowingly, voluntarily, and unnecessarily places himself within the reach of a ferocious animal
animals to the exclusion of other persons, but only by grant of the king or of his officers or by which is chained up cannot recover from injuries received. An injunction will lie against keeping
prescription. In the U.S.A., the ownership of such animals is vested in the State, not as a vicious dog without appropriate restraint; it is a nuisance.
proprietor, but in its sovereign capacity, as representing the people and for their benefit. It alone
has power to control the killing and ownership of wild game. Animals wild by nature are • It is the duty of the owner of domestic animals to keep them upon his own premises. It is the
subjects of ownership while living only when in the land of the person claiming them. nature of cattle and other animals to stray and to do damage, and the owner is bound to keep
them from straying at his own peril. The common law doctrine is that the owner of the cattle
• Bees are ferae naturae; but when hived or reclaimed one way have a qualified property in must fence them in.
them, because they “have a local habitation, more often in a tree than elsewhere, and while
they may be said to be within control, because the tree may at any time be felled. But the right • The keeping of livestock is usually under police regulation.
to cut it down is in the owner of the soil, and therefore, such property as the bees are
susceptible of is in him also.” The mere finder of them on the land of another acquires no title to USUFRUCT
the tree or the bees. • The right of enjoying a thing the property of which is vested in another, and to draw from the
same all the profit, utility, and advantage which it may produce, provided it be without altering
• The common law recognized a property in dogs. The owner may recover for its wrongful injury; the substance of the thing.
or its conversion; or its unlawful killing; • Perfect usufruct is of things which the usufructuary can enjoy without altering the substance,
• Dogs are not considered as being upon the same plane with horses, cattle, sheep, and other though their substance may be diminished or deteriorated naturally by time or by the use to
domesticated animals, but rather in the category of cats, monkeys, parrots, singing birds, etc., which they are applied.
kept for pleasure. They are peculiar in that they differ among themselves more widely than any
other class of animals, and can hardly be said to have a characteristic common to the entire • Imperfect or quasi usufruct is of things which would be useless to the usufructuary if he did
race. They stand between animals ferae naturae, in which, until killed, there is no property, and not consume and expend them or change the substance of them [Alteration may take place]
domestic animals, in which the right of property is complete.
• Usufructuary ... one who has the right and enjoyment of a usufruct.
• The owner of any animal, tame or wild, is liable for the exercise of such dangerous tendencies
as generally belong to its nature, but not of any not in accordance with its nature, unless the • Duties of the usufructuary:
owner or keeper knew, or ought to have known, of the existence of such dangerous tendency. (1) To make an inventory of the things subject to the usufruct, in the presence of those
To recover for damages inflicted by a ferocious dog, it is not necessary actually to prove that it having an interest in them;
has bitten a person before. (2) To give security for their restitution when the usufruct shall be at an end;
(3) To take good care of the things subject to the usufruct;
• The owner of a mischievous animal, known to him to be so, is responsible, when he permits (4) To pay all taxes and claims which arise while the thing is in his possession as a
him to go at large, for the damage he may do; it is said that though it may be, in a certain ground rent;
sense, that the action for injury by vicious animals is based upon negligence, such negligence (5) To keep the thing in repair at his own expense.
consists not in the manner of keeping the animal, but in the fact that he is ferocious and the
owner knows it. The negligence consists in keeping such an animal. Philippine cases:
• Stock dividend belongs to usufructuary of shares of stock;
• One knowingly harboring a vicious and dangerous dog is liable for damages sustained by • Death of usufructuary terminates usufruct;
others from its bite. Keeping a dog known to be savage stands on the same footing as keeping • The right of usufruct of a town over its municipal waters is not subject to execution;
a wild beast. It is enough if he occasionally attacks human beings without provocation. • Usufruct cannot be proven by parol evidence;
• By express provision of law, the usufructuary does not have the right to reimbursement for
• ONE BITE RULE. The mere fact of the attack does not raise a presumption that the dog was the improvements he may have introduced to the property;
vicious, but it can be established by proof that on previous occasions it had attacked people • A usufruct may be constituted for a specified term and under such conditions as the
without provocation; and one who has long harbored a vicious dog is presumed to know its parties may deem convenient subject to the legal provisions on usufruct;
propensities. • A usufructuary has the duty to protect the owner’s interests—a usufruct given a right to
enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance,
• Where one kept dogs of the same family and appearance, a person bitten by one of them is not unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides;
required to prove which one, nor to prove that previous attacks on others were made by the • In a usufruct, only the jus utendi and jus fruendi over the property is transferred to the
same dog. usufructuary—the owner of the property maintains the jus disponendi or the power to
alienate, encumber, transform, and even destroy the same.
• It has been held that when wild animals are kept for a purpose recognized as not censurable, • The usufruct of a widow may be transferred, assigned or otherwise disposed of by her as
all that can be demanded of their keeper is that he shall take that superior precaution to prevent she may please, take away other hereditary property, and hence, an interest in real
their doing mischief which their propensities in that direction justly demand of him. One who property which can be sold upon execution.
! Jillian Gandingco | 11
!
• The manner of terminating the right of usufruct is primarily determined by the stipulation of (5) There must be two distinct tenements – the dominant, to which the right belongs;
the parties such as the happening of resolutory condition. and the servient, upon which the obligation is imposed;
• Usufructuary may remove improvements on property subject to usufruct as provided for in (6) By the civil law, it is also required the cause must be perpetual.
Art. 579.
EASEMENT • Easements impose no duty on the servient owner, except not to change his tenement to the
• A right in the owner of one parcel of land, by reason of such ownership, to use the land of prejudice or destruction of the privilege.
another for a special purpose not inconsistent with a general property in the owner.
• Easements are as various as the exigencies of domestic convenience or the purposes to
• A privilege which the owner of one adjacent tenement has of another, existing in respect of their which buildings and lands may be applied.
several tenements, by which that owner against whose tenement the privilege exists is obliged
to suffer or not to do something on or in regard to his own land for the advantage of him in • An easement of private way over land must have a particular, definite line.
whose land the privilege exists.
• A negative easement does not admit of possession; and, by the civil law, it cannot be acquired
• Although the terms are sometimes used as if convertible, properly speaking easement refers by prescription, and can only be proved by grant. Use, therefore, is not essential to its
to the right enjoyed by one and servitude the burden imposed upon the other. existence.
• An interest in land created by grant or agreement, express or implied, which confers a right
upon the owner thereof to some profit, benefit, dominion, or lawful use out of or over the estate • Easements are extinguished: (CRAM-N)
of another. o By release;
o By merger, when the two tenements in respect of which they exist are united under
• In the civil law, the land against which the privilege exists is called the servient tenement; its the same title and to the same person;
proprietor, the servient owner; he in whose favor it exists, the dominant owner; his land, the o By necessity, or abandonment, as by a license to the servient owner to do some act
dominant tenement. And, as these rights are not personal and do not change with the persons inconsistent with its existence;
who may own the respective estates, it is very common to personify the estates as themselves o By cessation of enjoyment, when acquired by prescription, -- the non-user being
owning or enjoying the easements. evidence of a release where the abandonment has continued at least as long as the
user from which the right arose.
• ‘Natural rights’ do not depend upon grant or prescription, but are really incident to the
property in land. Such are the right of lateral support to land by adjacent land, the right to the • An easement acquired by grant cannot be lost by mere non-user, though it may be by non-user
flow of water, and the right to air free from noxious smells. These rights, of course, exist without coupled with an intention of abandonment.
grant.
• The destruction of an easement of a private right of way for public purposes is a taking of the
• The distinction between an ordinary easement and an easement in gross is that in the property of the dominant owner for which he must be compensated.
former there is and in the latter there is not a dominant tenement. [NOTE: There is no such
thing in the civil law or in England as an easement in gross – an easement not connected with a • Prescription does not run against the exercise of a servitude in favor of one who resisted and
dominant tenement. prevented its exercise.

• Continuous easements are those of which the enjoyment is, or may be, continual, without the • An easement in favor of land held in common will be extinguished by a partition, if nothing is
necessity of any actual interference by man; discontinuous easements are those, the said about it.
enjoyment of which can be had only by the interference of man, as rights of way, or a right to
draw water. • Remedies ... interference with a right of easement:
o Action for trespass
• There must be two tenements owned by distinct proprietors: o Action for consequential damages
(1) The dominant, to which the privilege is attached; and, o Infringement
(2) The servient, upon which it is imposed. o Injunction

• The essential qualities of easements may be distinguished: EASEMENT: CASES


(1) Easements are incorporeal; • Fishpond owners may build canal through servient estates to draw water from river ..
(2) They are imposed upon corporeal property; • Fishpond owner has right to draw water from the river ...
(3) They confer no right to a participation in the profits arising from it;
(4) They must be imposed for the benefit of corporeal or incorporeal hereditaments, • Read:
and are usually imposed for the benefit of corporeal. (1) Gonzales v Banzon, 51 Phil. 15
(2) Gonzales v De Dias, 88 Phil. 770

! Jillian Gandingco | 12
!
(3) Unson v Lacson, No. L-7909, Jan. 12, 1957 (3) It cannot exercise the easement in any other manner than that previously
(4) Araneta v Hashin, No. L-10082, Nov. 19, 1957; 54 O.G. 4967 established;
(4) It cannot construct anything on it which is not necessary for the use and preservation
• Creation of servitudes does not involve transfer of ownership of servient estates. of the easement;
• Actual notice of existence of right of way is as binding as registration .. (5) It cannot alter or make the easement more burdensome;
• Owner of dominant estate has obligation to make necessary works to conserve his easement. (6) It must notify the servient estate owner of its intention to make necessary works on
• Easement of waters does not require that higher and lower estates be contiguous .. the servient estate; and,
• Legal easement need not be annotated on certificate of title.. (7) It should choose the most convenient time and manner to build said works so as to
• Right of way is not acquired by prescription. cause the least inconvenience to the owner of the servient estate ..
• Easement should be exercised with least prejudice to servient estate..
• Right of way is not voluntary but compulsory .. • The opening of an adequate outlet to a highway cannot extinguish only legal or compulsory
• Damages are recoverable for breach of easement .. easements, not voluntary easements; the fact that an easement by grant may have also
• Dam impeding flow of water from higher and lower estates may be demolished .. qualified as an easement of necessity does not detract from its permanency as a property right,
• Public use may not be imposed on private property without proper expropriation and just which survives the termination of the necessity ..
compensation .. • It is settled that the registration of the dominant estate under the Torrens system without the
• Acquisition of negative easement requires execution of notarial instrument .. annotation of the voluntary easement in its form does not extinguish the easement – it is the
• Easement is extinguished upon registration of servient estate if it is not annotated on the title .. registration of the servient estate as free, that is, without an annotation of the voluntary
• Apparent sign of easement under Article 624 [NCC] is equivalent to title when estate is easement, which extinguishes the easement ..
alienated. • When the owner of two properties alienates one of them and an apparent sign of easement
• Overhanging eaves may be removed .. exists between the two estates, entitlement to it continues, unless there is a contrary
• Owner of easement of light and view does not have to live in her house to enforce it .. agreement, or the indication that the easement exists is removed before the execution of the
• Open spaces in subdivisions are reserved for public use and are beyond the commerce of man deed ..
..
o Read: D. M. O. v Legaspi Towers 300, Inc., 593 SCRA 382
• 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 .. • The right-of-way easement resulting in a restriction of limitation on property rights over the land
traversed by transmission lines falls within the ambit of the term expropriation.
• To be entitled to an easement of right of way, the following requisites should be met:
• A document stipulating a voluntary easement must be recorded in the Registry of Property in
(1) The dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet
to a public highway; order not to prejudice third parties.
(2) There is payment of proper indemnity;
(3) The isolation is not due to the acts of the proprietor of the dominant estate; and, NUISANCE
(4) The right of way claimed is at the point least prejudicial to the servient estate, and • That class of wrongs that arises from the unreasonable, unwarrantable, or unlawful use by a
insofar as consistent with this rule, where the distance from the dominant estate to a person of his own property, either real or personal, or from his own improper, indecent, or
public highway may be the shortest .. unlawful personal conduct, working an obstruction of or to the right of another, or of the public,
and producing such material annoyance, inconvenience, discomfort, or hurt that the law will
• The convenience of the dominant estate has never been the gauge for the grant of compulsory presume a consequent damage.
right of way; to be sure, the true standard for the grant of the legal right is “adequacy.”
Hence, when there is already an existing adequate outlet from the dominant estate to a public • A private nuisance is anything done to the hurt or annoyance of the lands, tenements, or
highway, even when the said outlet, for one reason or another, be inconvenient, the need to hereditaments of another. It produces damage to but one or a few persons, and cannot be said
open up another servitude is entirely unjustified .. to be public.
• Easement of right of way falls within the purview of the power of eminent domain .. it is
discontinuous and, as such, cannot be acquired by prescription .. should the easement be • A public or common nuisance is such inconvenience or troublesome offense as annoys the
established in such a manner that its use may be continuous for all the needs of the dominant whole community in general and not merely some particular person. It produces no special
estate, establishing a permanent passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land injury to one more than another of the people.
occupied and the amount of the damage caused to the servient estate ..
• The owner of the dominant estate cannot violate any of the following restrictions on its right on • A mixed nuisance is one which, while producing injury to the public at large, does some
the servient estate, to wit: special damage to some individual or class of individuals.
(1) It can only exercise rights necessary for the use of the easement;
(2) It cannot use the easement except for the benefit of the immovable originally • It is difficult to say what degree of annoyance constitutes a nuisance. If a thing is calculated to
contemplated; interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of a man’s house, it is a nuisance. In relation to
offensive trades, it seems that when such a trade renders the enjoyment of life and property

! Jillian Gandingco | 13
!
uncomfortable, it is a nuisance. Every citizen holds his property subject to the implied obligation
that he will use it in such a way as not to prevent others from enjoying the use of their property.

• A thing may be a nuisance in one place which is not so in another; therefore the situation or
locality of the nuisance must be considered.

• To constitute a public nuisance, there must be such a number of persons annoyed that the
offense can no longer be considered a private nuisance.

• A person is not liable in damages for a nuisance erected on land by his grantor until after a
request to abate.

• The remedies against a nuisance are by an action for the damage done, by the owner, in the
case of a private nuisance, or by any party suffering special damage in the case of a public
nuisance; by abatement by the owner, when the nuisance is private; by injunction, which is the
most usual and efficacious remedy; or by indictment for a public nuisance.

• Every continuance of a nuisance or recurrence of the injury is an additional nuisance forming in


itself the subject-matter of a new action.

• Equity will consider the comparative injury which will result from the granting or refusing of an
injunction, and it will not be granted where it will be inequitable and oppressive, as where it
would case a large loss to defendant and others, while the injury, if it is refused, would be
comparatively slight and can be compensated by damages.

• Attractive nuisance: Read Hidalgo Enterprises, Inc. v Balandan, 91 Phil. 488

• But at most a nuisance per accidens, its summary abatement without judicial intervention is
unwarranted.

• A private individual cannot abate a nuisance in a public highway, unless it does him special
injury, and then only so far as is necessary to the exercise of his right of passing along the
highway. He may abate a public nuisance only when it is also a private nuisance as to him, or
incommodes him more than the general public.

! Jillian Gandingco | 14