Property notes

Atty Vincent deo albeos

Article 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 or 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;

(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. (334a)

6/13/15 IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

ARTICLE 415 CLASSIFICATION OF REAL PROPERTIES can be condensed into 4 groups
1. By nature – in essence are fixed and cannot be moved
2. By incorporation – movable incorporated to immovable property
3. By destination – machinery placed by owner for direct use in industry
4. By analogy – right of usufruct, contract for public works, easements
 A house superimposed on the soil supported by a platform = personal property

 A house whose foundation is 0.5m below the soil = personal

Art. 415 (1) “adhered to the soil” implies permanent annexation

 Building subjected to a chattel mortgage will not lose its character as a real property. By
virtue of the principle of estoppel wherein there is inconsistent position of the parties, they
are barred from raising it as a defense the character of the real party. Applicable as long as
there is no third party affected.
 Poles of meralco are personal because they can easily be disassembled
 Trees – real property by incorporation – cultivated by people
- Real property by nature – grows on the land naturally
o Those uprooted by storm still form part of timberland if not yet removed
therefrom

Art 415 (2) growing fruits – real property

- But under RPC they are considered personal properties (qualified theft)

Art 415(3) attached to an immovable property

- Real property by incorporation with the following requisites:
1. there is substantial incorporation
2. immobilized by incorporation

 incorporation is not essential in the determination of whether property is real or personal

 once property is detached, it is no longer a real property regardless of the intention to
attach or return it again

for real properties by destination

- identification is necessary or the person who places or attaches such on the real
property
- removal or detachment does not cause the loss of the property’s character as a real
property
- remains to be a real property if there is intention to return it

art 415 (4)

- both real property by incorporation and destination
- owner must be the one who installed it

art 415 (5)

- real property by destination
- machineries brought by lessee are not real property
- if lessee brought the machinery as agent of the lessor, then such are real property
 - incorporation or attachment is not necessary
- intention to return is necessary (to remain to be real property)

1. must refer to machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements

2. intended by owner for industry or work
3. inside a building or on a piece of land
4. tend to meet directly the needs of industry or work

 must be the principal and essential element of the business, business cannot operate
without such

personalty – a real property which, under a special provision of law is considered as a personal
property

art 415 (6) animals are also considered personalty under RPC
- water in a swimming pool on the 8th floor of a building is personal property

art 415 (8) waters pertain to those which are in their natural bed

personal right – right to demand perfection of a prestation

- there is a definite passive subject

real right – enforceable against the whole world, no definite passive subject

art 415 (10) pertains to a real right over a personal property

6/20/15
- david collateral his house by chattel mortgage
- upon default, creditor foreclosed and acquired his house
- Uy Kim sold house to Tian Sai
- David defaulted in his payment to Marcos Mangubat, another creditor of David,
judgment was filed in favor of Marcos
- The house was levied upon in order to implement judgment
- Tian Sai said it is already owned by him having acquired it from Uy Kim
- Can Marcos Mangubat go after the house to have judgment in his favor?
- Issue: validity of chattel mortgage
If it was valid between David and Uy Kim, then Uy Kim acquired valid right to
Pian Sai and Pian Sai would have valid right

STANDARD OIL CO. OF N.Y. vs JARAMILLO

- is the document nominated a chattel mortgage
- its not a valid chattel mortgage because objects are right and building standing on the leased
premises
- because of refusal, mandamus was filed (special civil action, purpose is to require
performance of ministerial function, that does not involve discretion)
- duty is purely ministerial in character
- classification of property is a question of law which is not for office of Register of Deeds but of
the court which must interpret the law, their function is only ministerial in character.

BOARD OF ASSESSMENT vs MERALCO

- Steel towers can be easily disassembled, they are merely attached on a square metal
and can be disassembled by unscrewing
- WON they can be classified as real property for realty taxes
- SC said there is a special law granting MERALCO
- Steel towers of MERALCO are exempted from realty taxes, even if they are not
classified as poles and not included in tax exemption of poles they are still exempted
because they are not real property

Art 415
- They do not fall under paragraph 1 because there is no permanent annexation because
they can be transferred by unscrewing bolts
- Not under art 3 and 5 because they are not machineries, receptacles, articles. Also,
even if machineries, it should be carried on business on building or land and MERALCO
doesn’t carry on business in land, even so, they could not meet essentially requirement
because business would go on
- SC said it will not fall in any enumeration
- Par 4 MERALCO is not owner of land or tenement

SIBAL vs VALDEZ
- WON sugar cane are considered as real or personal property
- Valdez refused redemption of sugar cane offered because they cannot be validly
redeemed because law does not allow debtor right to redemption
- Although growing fruits are considered real property but there is special law
considering them as personalty (real property but considered personal on special law

TSAI – estoppel could be applied to par. 5

- Owner could not shift or question validity of chattel mortgage
- With respect to other party, these would remain as real

DAVAO SAWMILL – rented parcel of land and built a building where Sawmill was operated; in
contract of lease, upon expiration, buildings etc. except machineries will become property of
lessor
- Sawmill executed a mortgage
- ISSUE: characterization of machineries
- SC: one of the requirements is it must be placed by the owner of immovable but it was
by Davao Sawmill, it will not be immobilized if placed by tenant who has only
temporary right
BURGOS – search warrant was implemented and several properties seized
- In seizure of machineries, implementation of search warrant was questioned whether
the machineries were real or personal
- SC said it is valid, although heavily placed and bolted doesn’t convert it to real
properties
- It is not owner who placed the machineries on the land

CO UN JIENG – immobilized
- It must be intended for industry

MINDANAO – realty taxes for bus company questioning classification as real properties
- SC sided with the bus company because equipments are not essential principal
elements of the business in such a way that business will not continue to operate in the
absence of such equipments, they can have buses repaired in another repair shop

PROPERTIES in RELATION TO OWNERS

ART 416 in case a property is not listed in Art 415

- Can be easily transferred from place to place except those immobilized by destination

Real properties considered as movable

Forces of nature brought under control by science

CONSUMABLE – cannot be used by its nature without being consumed

NON-CONSUMABLE – can be used without being consumed appropriate to its nature
FUNGIBLE – can be replaced with the same kind and quality
NON FUNGIBLE –

OWNERS:
1. STATE
a. Public dominion
b. Public use
c. Public service
d. Development of national wealth
2. Political subdivisions
a. Public use
b. Patrimonial property
3. Persons (private properties)
a. Natural
b. Juridical
4. Heaven

Characteristics of properties of state

 PUBLIC DOMINION (IONE)
 Imprescriptible
Outside the commerce of men
Non-registrable
Free from Execution
 Intended fro public use, public service or development of national wealth
 If not, they are PATRIMONIAL PROPERTY of the STATE

Congress determines how property is to be used

- Its not the actual use the that determines classification even if not used but as long as
INTENDED for public use

Difference of:
Public dominion for public use
- Indefinite public can have access
- Everybody can access indiscriminately ex.plaza

Properties for public service

- Not everybody can access but only authorized persons ex. Military camp

Properties intended for DNW

Patrimonial – can be valid objects of contract

State can dispose as long as with proper authority

Political subdivision
For public use – ex. Provincial roads, city streets, squares etc.
- Cannot lease properties for public use because outside the commerce
of men
Patrimonial – can be used, abused, destroyed as long as no infraction of law
- Ownership is a matter of right, but owner cannot use property to injure
others

Heaven – Biral vs Ramirez

6/23/15
classification

public dominion and private

public dominion for state:

 for public use
 for public service
 for development of national wealth
all the rest are patrimonial

conversion rule – act must be express act

- convert to patrimonial property of the state

acquisitive prescription – does not apply to public dominion for the state

patrimonial properties – even patrimonial cannot be acquired by acquisitive prescription

because

prescription cannot run against the state

but within political subdivisions, properties held by different

political subdivision of state in its proprietary capacity not governmental capacity

state-owned minerals
- constitution allows state to profit share or joint venture

civil law allows lease contracts over fish ponds – viewed as state-owned

properties for public dominion – exempt from

public use

BYUDA DE TANTOCO – writ of execution for judgment

Patrimonial – dispose of, donated by state

- make as objects of contract provided states allow as long as it conforms with laws and
regulation

ropongi property – used to be Philippine embassy in Japan

- vacated and unutilized
- came up with report selling

LAUREL CASE (very important)

- validity of ropongi property
- ropongi property cannot be disposed of because from time it was donated for
Philippines by Japan
- even if office
- no act of government to withdraw use
- its not the actual use
- only a mere intention to devote property to devote it for public service
- it remains a property for public dominion because there was no act by government
 - in order to convert a public dominion may be changed to patrimonial, there must be a
positive, clear definite
- as long as intention remains
- property of public dominion
- void

FRIAR LANDS –owned by church

RA 1120 – a law was passed

Friar lands act

Municipal bldgs. Police stations are not for public use because not used by public

MANILA LODGE vs CA
- transferred to Manila Lodge
- transferred log again to Tarlac Development Corporation
- city of manila filed petition in court during
- purchaser in good faith
- main contention pf reclaimed lands for part for affirming decision of lower court of
extension of Cuneta Park
- SC said in order for property to be classified as patrimonial – mere intention to devote
for public use is sufficient

MERCADO vs MUNICIPAL PRES. MACABEBE

- Removal of dikes
- LC said

Art 420 first paragraph

- Dug up and constructed canal
- Canal constructed or public lands
- It was constructed on private land are properties of private ownership
- Owner of hacienda allowed use of canal for fishing etc.
- Private properties
- State acquired by prescription the hacienda and owner cannot appropriate and convert
it into a fishpond

VILLARICO vs SARMIENTO
- Strip of land owned by government
- Here, respondent constructed building and leased it to Andoks
- Legality of structure
- SC declared neither of them has right because they belong to government for public
use
- Roads constructed on public lands
- Requisites:
 1. Owner of dominant state
2.
3. compensation
- no right of way for properties of public dominion none of them has better right
- occupation merely tolerated by gov.
- SC declared leases of these streets as null and void
- Lessees could not claim reimbursement because they benefited

DACANAY vs ASISTIO
- Pubic street thus public use, thus outside the commerce of man so not subject to lease
or of any other contract
- 208 scra 404 pg 70
- whether or not public street can be leased

are rivers properties of public dominion?

- Law does not make distinction whether navigable or non navigable

Riverbed – area covered by the waters during the

- property of public dominion

CAPUTOL vs AQUINO
- It is sufficient (there is intention it does not matter if it is actually used for public service
- No positive act by

HEARTY vs MUNICIPALITY of VICTORIA

- Look into the intention
- If intention was to devote it for some public use or service
- While mere intention is sufficient, actual intention is more determinative in classifying
properties
- Donated property has been used by public as public place for a while already

State can donate patrimonial property to its political subdivision

Depends on ex. Law allowing donation of a certain patrimonial to a political subdivision

declaring that such property will be used for a specific purpose

ANTIPOLO vs ZAPANTA
- Disputed property was claimed by applicants on basis of tax declaration where disputed
property was paid in their names
- They applied for a title
- Municipality of Antipolo questioned grant of petition
- Considering it is actually used for public service then it is property for public use of
municipality of Antipolo
- Non-registrable
 - In case property is ACTUALLY USED for some public service or purpose, then its
property of that political subdivision for actual use

MACACIANO vs DIOKNO
- Closing streets
- Entered into contract for construction of markets
- He (macaciano) destroyed the stalls confiscated in the street
- Valid according to trial court
- SC said property of local government
- These streets are property of municipality for public use, they are utilized as
municipality streets
- Allow close streets but ordinance for closure must be for closure only
- Authority granted by LGC to close roads, its circumstances must be taken into
- Road or street must be no longer necessary for public use
- Here it was never established but they just pass ordinance
- Municipal streets were still used as streets when ordinance was passed

PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA
- Province of Zamboanga to City of Zamboanga
- WON properties are properties of province in its proprietary capacity
- If governmental capacity then Congress has absolute control and can transfer
- As long as intended for some public service they are intended for public use, law is valid
and constitutional

Ownership next meeting and accession

DOCTRINE OF SELF HELP

Article 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from
the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property.

STATE OF NECESSITY
Article 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the
same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage,
compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The
owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him

7/7/15
ACCESSION DISCRETA
- Right is included in bundle of rights
1. Accession to fruits (discreta)
2. Everything attached or incorporated naturally or artificially to ones property
3 kinds of fruits NIC
Natural – real properties as long as adhered to land
Industrial – same as above
Civil – personal property ex. Rentals, annuities; they accrue daily

Perennial – 1 harvest need of replanting

Annual

2 kinds of natural fruit

1. Products of land (must be produced spontaneously, no intervention of human labor, no
cultivation, grows spontaneously on the land
2. Young and other products of animals

If there is cultivation, it is an industrial fruit

For animals, it does not matter if there is human intervention

Art 441
General rule – to the owner belongs all kinds of fruits
- Reinforcement of 440
- There are exceptions to art 441
1. Fruits naturally falling from its branches belong to owner of land from which it feel
 Lease art 1654
 Antichresis art 2132
 Usufruct art 546
 Good faith art 544
 Possessor in good faith
2. Contract of lease of rural lands (lessee gets fruits, lessor gets rent)
3. Usufruct (entitled to all fruits) art 566
4. Antichresis (art 2132)
5. Pledge

Contract of antichresis – a formal contract; law requires that these be in writing or else void
contract to secure payment of obligation
- Debtor turns over possession of his immovable to antichresis
- Fruits belonging to debtor applied to interest then principal to creditor

Art 544 fruits before legal interruption, already gathered

Accession continua
Art 445
- Building, planting sowing
- 3 parties: landowner, owner of materials and builder planter sower
- important characteristics or basis of accession continua
Immovable art 456

BANGUS
Bad faith – party in bad faith shall be penalized ex. 449, 450, 451, if all are in bad faith, bad faith
of 1 neutralizes all others
Accessory follows principal
Neutralizes bad faith of one and bad faith of the other
Good faith – not penalized but may be held responsible
Unjust enrichment at the expense of another
Separation, attachment

Art 445 whatever built sown or planted on the land of another because of art 446
- presumed all works done by owner at expense of other person

art 447 – owner is also builder, planter, sower but not owner of materials

art 448 difference between planting and sowing

building – structure that has roof, for dwelling

art 447 rights and obligations of contracting parties

1. both acted in good faith
2. both acted in bad faith
for owner of materials: 3 and 4
3. land owner acted in good faith but owner of materials acted in bad faith
 owner must pay value of materials not liable for
4. land owner acted in bad faith but owner of materials acted in good faith

1. right of owner for appropriation of materials with obligation to pay their value
owner of materials has no right of removal or demand return, only demand indemnity
for materials
landowner can insist return materials if they haven’t been transformed or if no actual
incorporation or attachment, no accession continue yet
owner of materials cannot order demolition to get the materials
monetary obligation of landowner, if he cannot, owner of materials can go to court

2. bad faith of one neutralizes bad faith of other

- knowledge of owner of materials that landowner used his materials

bad faith if owner had knowledge he doesn’t own materials or seeds but still appropriate it,
owner of materials, still owner automatically owns materials

4) owner has extraordinary right to remove materials

Right of absolute removal, he could refuse to payment of materials and asked the return of his
materials or value of materials plus damages.

Art 447 builder owner

- landowner who is the builder planter sower
- discourages ownership
- owner builds on his land using materials of another person

art 448 another person enters land of landowner and builds, plants or sows
both are in good or bad faith
solution: landowner exercise either option

art 449 landowner in good faith, owner of materials will lose his materials

right of absolute removal – because of landowner’s bad faith

PACIFIC FARMS – where landowner builds on his own land a building using materials of another

7/14/15
art 448 options available to owner if a stranger plants in good faith to his land
1. appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting after paying indemnity
a. necessary expenses
b. useful expenses
c. ornamental expenses
2. compel builder to buy land, if sower then rent the land
 applicable only to stranger claiming ownership over the land
 land is owned by another person
 stranger thinking he owns the land, builds or sows

could the landowner sell in case the land is higher in value than that of building or trees?
Whether land is considerably more
- court decides, its not automatically taken out as option

1. right of landowner is older

2. accessory follow principal
3. for industrial, land is principal when 2 things involved

art 448 is applicable but owner could not exercise

GRANA and TORRALBA vs CA (Sui Generis case)

- lot belongs to A the other to B
- he built on his land in good faith a residential building but a portion of his lot was
encroached by B
- A filed a case for removal of such portion
 - Issue: WON A can exercise options given
- Mr. A could only appropriate the portion, B’s house would be useless because builder
should not be penalized here, his house will be useless. Mr. A could only sell land to B
because land is not more than house

 Does not apply to ownership and lease

LACAP vs ONG LEE

- Spouses say they are builders in good faith, they have right to remain because they
have right of retention
- Spouses are actually lessees on land
- After foreclosure, they were allowed by bank to remain as lessees they thus recognize
owner is bank, lessees not builders in good faith

RIGHT OF LESSEE
- 1678 introduces useful improvement in accord with use of promises and does not alter
substance
- ask payment one half of value of expenses
- do not have retention right
- could not be compelled to pay more than 1 hr
- only removal of useful improvements even if it damages leased premises

IF CO-OWNERSHIP TERMINATED
- after partition, building encroaches purchase of land 5 sqm by others, 448 is applicable

del CAMPO vs ALBESIA

- one of co-owners constructed house on co-owned land
- all co-owners are considered owner of entire property
- owner of ideal share (spiritual) of entire property but could not pinpoint particular
portion belonging to them
- art 448 not applicable to situations where co-owner builds because he is not a stranger
- at the time of dispute builder should not be owner

SARMIENTO vs AGANA – they knew they were not owners, 448 applied
- land was titled in the name of another person

IGNACIO vs HILARIO – after compulsory selling and buyer cannot pay, he cannot stay and he
can demolish
- change is irrevocable

TORRENS TITLE

TAYAG vs YUSECO – pay price of land as an ordinary monetary debt

3 solutions in case landowner elects 2nd option and builder or planter refuses to pay
INTERREGIONAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs CA – owner of the land does not ipso facto
become owner of what had been planted on his land by another. First, determine if planter was
in good faith or bad faith.
Second, if good faith, landowner should first indemnify planter
- before payment, owner of building or trees is still builder or planter, before actual
payment in appropriation Art 546 gives them right of retention
- he can continue possession until he is paid of indemnities
- if landowner could not pay in appropriation, can he change his mind and elect 2 nd
option?
o No, choice is irrevocable. The moment of election of either options have been
communicated – TAYAG case

TAYAG
- Lawyer was given land for legal services by donation not made in a public instrument.
Donation is void. Daughter of donor filed ejectment case. Before donor died, lawyer
already built residential house. Daughter won because donation is void.

Ordinary monetary debt Art 546 and 548

449 sower acts in bad faith – fruits not yet gathered

loses everything without right to demand indemnities

art 443 no longer accession continua because fruits have already been gathered

art 449450 451 bad faith of sower

art 454 447 land owner in bad faith

art 447 who make use personally through another (builder, planter, sower)
2 options in case land owner bad faith builder good faith

art 445 rights and obligations of owner of materials in case he is party in bad faith

ACCESSION NATURAL

Art 457 alluvium vs accretion – is the process whereby alluvium is transferred from body of
water to land adjoining the banks

Alluvium – soil deposited in banks

- Alluvium belongs to owner of a land
Requisites of alluvium: (RICE)
Must be a River
Gradual and Imperceptible
Cause is Current
River must continue to Exist

Exam up to art 456 formation of islands

PRELIM ANSWERS
1. Yes it was ultra vires (not within their power to perform)
- Of public dominion
- Outside the commerce of man
a. Property involved was not noxious
- An ultra vires act no longer within their power to perform
- Plaza is public dominion which is outside the commerce of man
b. Municipal corporation has dual personalities
Proprietary and governmental
- Municipal corporations hold properties as trustees of state administered by them. In
this case, LBP vs Cahayuran, in the absence of proof all properties administered are
properties of…
- … even if acquisition is through its propriety capacity, they are depending on actual use,
here there is no proof where plaza came from whether by private person and donated
or state donated it to municipality
- records are bereft of any proof
- SC said municipality could not lawfully declare public plaza as public property. These
local government units could not convert it by ordinance but congress through
legislative act provided requisites are complied with
- Property already abandoned that is why it must be converted

 Ordinances have no effect because it is na act ultra vires, not valid, case is not rendered moot
and academic

2 ALIDAMORES vs YUGO
A. Whether or not 448 will apply. No, contract will govern commodatum.
Yes, you can oust him and destroy house without indemnity except for
necessary expenses for preservation of the land
B. Unlawful detainer, real property, there is contract. Owner has right of
recovery, refusal of demand to vacate makes it unlawful
C. Mr. X is not builder in good faith – occupies land of another with claim
of ownership, possessor as owner, claims to be owner, his claim is
defective and he does not know

3. Contention of Y is incorrect. Builder must be a stranger, the moment there is partition,

specific portions already delivered art 448 would then apply
20 options according to 448

4. Immovable or personal, only temporary

 5. Only builder is in bad faith
- Art 447 builder is given right to remove if landowner in bad faith and builder and owner
of materials

7 c. movable

PECSON vs CA

IGNACIO vs HILARIO, landowner choses to pay but cannot right of remission

e. invoke assistance with court

9. a. Jessica could not claim 2 meter increase

alluvium did not result from natural current but intentional
Jenny could claim 1 meter increase unless it can be established that incase was not natural

3 general kinds of accession of personal property

1.adjunction – 2 movable properties are attached without destruction
2. commixture
3. specification

ADJUNCTION – retain their special characteristics

- Things united must belong to different owners and such union results to a situation
where things united cannot be separated without destruction
- Owners do not become co-owners
- Accessory must follow principal
- Its important to determine which is principal and accessory
- Could result to 2 or more things
- Only one principal thing
- All others are considered accessories

Determining principal
1. That to which other has been attached as ornament, establishment or for its use or
perfection (test of intention)
2. If could not be determined then thing of GREATER VALUE
3. GREATER VOLUME
4. Greater merits (utility and value)
 Court determines

WIPES:
Writing
Inclusion
Printing
Engraving
Sculpture
Principal is obliged to pay value of accessory
Principal owner owns everything

Art 470 if owner of principal acted in bad faith

- Owner of accessory has right to choose between former paying him its value or
- Thing be separated even if it destroys principal + damages

OWNER OF ACCESSORY IN BAD FAITH

- Lose the thing incorporated
- Indemnify owner of principal damages

2. MIXTURE
- There is greater interpenetration
- Things would lose their respective characteristics
- It results to co-ownership
- There must be good faith
- Maybe by fortuitous event
- Party in bad faith loses thing mixed plus damages

3. SPECIFICATION
- Owner of a thing in good faith employs materials of another to make a thing of
different kind, he should appropriate it as his own he must pay owner of materials the
value
- If material more precious, owner of material can appropriate new thing after first
paying value of work or demand its indemnity
- Making was in bad faith, owner of material can appropriate thing to himself without
paying maker OR demand latter indemnity for value plus damages
- If owner of material cannot appropriate work IF value of work for ARTISTIC or
SCIENTIFIC reasons is considerably more

 If you use paint on canvass of another = adjunction if you use paint of another it is
SPECIFICATION because labor is the main

QUIETING of TITLE – an action in favor to owner of real property or person in interest. There
must be cloud of doubt on its title

PRICE:
Proceeding
Record
Instrument
Claim
Encumbrance
If agent not authorized in writing then sale is void. Instrument is valid on its face but in reality
its void.
Heirs of principal can file quieting of title because there is cloud on that title.

If on its face deed of sale says it is void one of elements is lacking

It must be apparently valid
But on its face it is valid saying agent is not authorized no need to quiet title
If they are not in possession they could file recovery

8/8/15 CABRERA vs CA

8/11/15
PARDEL vs BARTOLOME
- Matilde is entitled to rentals but only to portion of lower house
- May co-owner demand payment of rental from another co-owner if one will use the
entire property
- General Rule: co-owner cannot demand rentals from other co-owner for use of
property because he is co-owner of entire property and owner of ideal share
- If co-owners agree its for dwelling purposes
- 2 story house owned in common by 2 sisters
- agreement was that upper story is for dwelling and lower is for lease
- one of the sisters used entire upper dwelling with her husband
- husband used lower portion as his office
- sister came back and demanded payment of rentals
- one who used it for dwelling is not liable to pay because it is in accordance with
purpose, not injurious, does not deprive other sister from using
- made to pay1/2of rental because other sister is co-owner

AGUILAR vs CA
- 2 brothers purchased a house and lot
- agreement was that its for their father and to live with brother Senen and pay balance
of loan from SSS
- they agreed that it will be registered to one of them Senen
- after father died, Virgilio demanded that Senen vacate house so they could be sold and
proceeds divided
- he refused to vacate
- WON Senen is liable for rentals for use of house and lot since the time it was purchased
- From occupation till demand to vacate, not liable because he can use property as long
as in accordance with agreement etc.
- SC noted that Senen shall vacate so property can be sold he is liable for rentals after
decision of SC his right of use has already ceased
- General Rule: not to pay rentals as long as…
- Exception: one of the co-owners secured judgment, sold, proceeds divided
DE GUIA vs CA
- Can co-owner successfully eject or oust other co-owner from co-owned property
without joining others as long as its for benefit of all
- No. cannot eject others from possession because they are also owner of entire property
- Any action for ejectment is only action for recognition of co-ownership
- If he wants to identify his ideal share, it has to be action for partition
- Abejo can demand rentals, court examined purpose of former co-owners
- SC noted heirs intended land be leased as fishpond only as regards his ½ share of
rentals

SPOUSES del CAMPO vs CA

- 2 kinds of ownership
1. whole property – not absolute, rights of other co-owners respected
2. ideal share
- art 493 alienate, encumber, dispose of
- right of one is limited with right of others
- if co-owner sells entire property without knowledge of other co-owners, valid only in so
far as his ideal share
- not binding to other co-owners who did not give consent

ACT of ALTERATION without CONSENT

- he could not demand reimbursement even if benefits resulted

exceptions: in case there is agreement among co-owners

prohibition
- first 10 years valid, in excess its void
- may be renewed by another agreement
- or if there’s a will prohibiting partition for 20 years it shall be respected

partition – physical segregation of property done judicially or extra judicially

repudiation

right of legal redemption – not right of first refusal

- 30 days from receipt of written notice either by vendee or vendor
- if 2 or more, in proportion to their interest