Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017

PROPERTY Law Reviewer

PROPERTY Davao Sawmill v. Castillo

FSUU | SY 2016-2017 “Machinery which is movable in its nature only
~ Atty. Gonzaga ~ becomes immobilized when placed in a plant by the owner of the
property or plant, but not when so placed by a tenant,
PROPERTY – branch of civil law which classifies & defines usufructuary, or any person having only a temporary right, unless
different kinds of appropriable objects, provides for such person acted as the agent of the owner.”
their acquisition and loss, treats of the nature & Berkenkotter v. Cu Unjieng
consequences of real rights. “Installation of a machinery and equipment in a
mortgaged sugar central, in lieu of another of less capacity, for
Classification of things the purpose of carrying out the industrial functions of the latter
and increasing production, constitutes a permanent
a) Res nullius (belong to no one) improvement.”
b) Res communes (belong to everyone)
c) Res alicujus (belong to someone) Lopez v. Orosa
“While it is true that generally, real estate connotes
Characteristics the land and the building constructed thereon, it is obvious that
the inclusion of the building, separate and distinct from the land,
a) Utility for the satisfaction of moral or economic in the enumeration of what may constitute real properties could
wants mean only one thing – that a building by itself is an immovable
b) Susceptibility of appropriation property.”
c) Individuality or substantivity
Associated Insurance v. Iya
Article 414. All things which are or may be the object of “A building cannot be divested of its character of a
appropriation are considered either: realty by the fact that the land on which it is constructed belongs
(1) Immovable or real property; or to another.”
(2) Movable or personal property
Tumalad v. Vicencio
Article 415. The following are immovable property: “Parties may agree that the house is personal property
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered thought by nature is real property, partly based on the principle
to the soil; of estoppel.”
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to
the land or form an integral part of an immovable; Makati Leasing v. Wearever
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in “If a house of strong materials, may be considered as
such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without personal property for the purpose of executing a chattel
breaking the material or deterioration of the object; mortgage thereon, as long as the parties to a contract so agree
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or and no innocent third party will be prejudiced thereby, there is
ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of absolutely no reason why a machinery which is movable in its
the immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to nature and becomes immobilized only by destination or purpose,
attach them permanently to the tenements; may not be likewise treated as such. This is really because one
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended who has so agreed is estopped from denying the existence of a
by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which chattel mortgage.”
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; Bd. Of Assessment Appeals v. MERALCO
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or “Steel towers are NOT real property. 415(1) it does not
breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed constitute buildings or constructions adhered to the soil. They are
them or preserves them with the intention to have them movables and merely attached by means of bolts which when
permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent unscrewed could easily be dismantled and moved. 415(3) it’s not
part of it; the animals in these places are included; attached to an immovable in a fixed manner and can be
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land; separated without breaking the material to which it’s attached.
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof 415(3) it is not machineries xxx and if they were, not intended for
forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant; industry or works on land.”
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by
their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, MERALCO Sec v. Bd. Of Assessment Appeals
or coast; “The PIPELINE system is indubitably a construction
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real adhering to the soil. It is attached to the land in such a way that
rights over immovable property. it cannot be separated therefrom without dismantling the steel
pipes which were welded to form the pipeline.”
Article 416. The following things are deemed to be personal
property: Caltex v. Bd. Of Assessment Appeals
(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not “The equipment and machinery, as appurtenances to
included in the preceding article; the gas station building or shed owned by Caltex (as to which it
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is is subject to realty tax) and which fixtures are necessary to the
considered as personalty; operation of the gas station for without them the gas station
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science; would be useless, and which have been attached or affixed
and personallty to the gas station site or embedded therein, are
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to taxable improvements, and are therefore, real properties.
place without impairment of the real property to which they are
fixed. Sibal v. Valdez
Article 417. The following are also considered as personal “The existence of a right on the growing crops (which
property: is ordinarily real property under Art 415 (2) mobilizes the crops
(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables by anticipation, a gathering, as it were, in advance, rendering the
or demandable sums; and crop movable.”
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial
entities, although they may have real estate.

1|Page JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

US v. Carlos Leung Yee v. PL Strong Machinery Co.

“The true test of what is property subject of larceny “The building on which the machinery was installed
seems to be not whether the subject is corporeal, but whether it was real property and the mere fact that the parties seem to
is capable of appropriation by another than the owner. Electricity, have dealt with it as separate and apart from the land on which
the same as gar, is a valuable article of merchandise, bought and it stood in no wise changed its character as realty.”
sold like other property and capable of appropriation by another.”
Bicerra v Tenezza
HSBC v. Aldecoa “A house is defined as immovable by reason of its
“The right of mortgage over real property that was in adherence to the soil on which it is build, even if the house is built
turn mortgaged by Aldecoa to HSBC partakes the nature of a real on land belonging to another but once demolished, it ceases to
property by analogy.” Art 415(10) exist as such and hence, its character as an immovable likewise
ceases.”
Involuntary Insolvence of Strocheker v. Ramirez
“Business interest is a personal property capable of Fels Energy Inc. v. Province of Batangas
appropriation and not included in the enumeration of real “POWER BARGES are under Article 415(9) which
properties and may be the subject of mortgage. All personal provides that “dock and structures which though floating, are
property may be mortgaged.” intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place in
a river, lake or coast” are considered immovable property by
US v. Tambunting destination, being in the nature of machinery and other
“There is nothing in the nature of gas used for implements intended by the owner for an industry or work which
illuminating purposes which renders it incapable of being may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which
feloniously taken and carried away. It is a valuable article of tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or works.”
merchandise, bought and sold like other personal property,
susceptible of being segregated from a mass or larger quantity 🔶 GR: Real property can’t be a subject of a chattel
and capable of being transported from place to place.” mortgage
💡 Exception: If parties agreed to it & no 3rd party is
Rubiso v. Rivera prejudiced.
“Ships or vessels, whether moved by steam or sail,
💡 Exception: If 3rd party acted in bad faith.
partakes to a certain extent of the nature and conditions of real
property, on account of their value and importance in the world
 Parties are estopped from attacking its validity.
of commerce.”

Mindanao Bus Co. v. City Assessor Article 418. Movable property is either consumable or
“So that movable equipment to be immobilized in nonconsumable. To the first class belong those movables which
contemplation of the law must first be “essential” and principal cannot be used in a manner appropriate to their nature without
elements of an industry or works without which such industry or their being consumed; to the second class belong all the others.
works would be “unable to function or carry on the industrial
purpose for which it was established. Aside from the element of Consumable vs Non-consumable
essentiality, Article 415(5), also requires that the industry or
works be carried on in a building or on a piece of land.” a) Consumable – cannot be used according to its
nature without its being consumed.
Tsai v. CA b) Non-consumable – any other kind of movable
“While it is true that the controverted properties
property
appear to be immobile, the court affirmed that the true intention
of the parties is to treat the machinery as chattels. And even Fungible vs Non-fungible
assuming arguendo that the properties are immovable by nature,
the parties may still agree that the property is treated personal a) Fungible – capable of substitution by other
if there’s a stipulation to that effect. The party so agreeing is things of the same quantity and quality
therefore estopped from denying its existence.”
b) Non-fungible – incapable of substitution
Navarro v. Pineda Article 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private
“A house build on land belonging to another may be ownership.
the subject matter or a chattel mortgage and treated as personal
property if so provided in the mortgage deed. And the parties so Article 420. The following things are property of public dominion:
agreeing are precluded from assailing its validity of the said
(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers,
contract by reason of estoppel. Moreover, for Chattel Law
torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores,
purposes, a house may be validly treated as personalty and its
roadsteads, and others of similar character;
entry into the registry is valid provided no third party is
prejudiced thereby.” (2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use,
and are intended for some public service or for the development of
Prudential Bank v. Panis the national wealth.
“While it is true that mortgage of land necessarily
includes, in the absence of stipulation, buildings, still a building Article 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the
by itself may be mortgaged apart from the land on which it has character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property.
been built. Moreover, the court established that possessory Article 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended
rights over said properties, before title is vested to the grantee, for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial
may be validly transferred as in a deed or mortgage.” property of the State.

Punzalan Jr. v. Vda De Lacsamana Public Dominion – ownership by the state in that the
“A building treated separately from the land on which state has control & administration; ownership by the
it stood is immovable property and the mere fact that the parties public in general, not even the state or its subdivisions
to a contract seem to have dealt with it separately and apart thereof may make them the object of commerce as long
from the land on which it stood in no wise change its character
as they remain properties for public use.
as immovable property.”

2|Page JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

3 Kinds of Public Dominion

Importance and Significance of Classification
a) Public use Government v. Cabangis
b) Public service “The lots, having disappeared on the account of the
c) Development of National wealth gradual erosion due to the ebb and flow of tide, and having
remained in such state until they were reclaimed by the
Characteristics of properties of Public Dominion Government, are public land in the sense that neither herein
claimants-appellees nor their predecessors did anything to
a) Outside the commerce of man prevent such destruction.”
b) Cannot be acquired by prescription
c) Cannot be registered Cebu v. Bercilles
d) Cannot be levied “Since that portion of the City street was withdrawn
e) Generally, can be used by everybody form public use, it follows that such withdrawn portion becomes
f) May either be real or personal patrimonial property which can be the object of an ordinary
contract.”
Patrimonial Property – property of the State which it
owns but is not devoted to public use, public service, or Tantoco v. Municipal Council
the development of the national wealth. It is wealth “Municipal-owned real property and personal
properties devoted to the public or government use or purposes
owned by the State in its private, as distinguished from its
may not be attached and sold for payment of or judgment
public capacity. against a municipality otherwise governmental service would be
Article 423. The property of provinces, cities, and municipalities is jeopardized.”
divided into property for public use and patrimonial property.
Salas v. Jarencia
Article 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and “There’s no proof that the lot had been acquired by
municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal the City with its own funds, the presumption is that it was given
streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and to it by the State in trust for the benefit of the inhabitants, the
public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or control remained in the State, and therefore the State can
municipalities. lawfully dispose of the lot.
All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall
be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of Municipality of San Miguel v. Fernandez
special laws. “It is for the region that they are held in interest for
the people intended and used for the accomplishment of the
Property of Municipal Corporations purpose which municipal corporations were created, and that to
subject said properties and public funds to execution would
a) Property for public use materially impede, even defeat in some instances, destroy said
b) Patrimonial property purpose.”

Article 425. Property of private ownership, besides the patrimonial Zamboanga del Norte v. Zamboanga
property of the State, provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists “Under the law of Municipal Corporations (LGC), as
of all property belonging to private persons, either individually or long as the purpose is for a public service, the property should
collectively.
be considered public use.”
Private Property
OWNERSHIP
a) Patrimonial property of the state
- Independent and general right of a person to control a
b) Patrimonial property of municipal corps
thing particularly in his possession, enjoyment,
c) Private property of private persons
disposition, and recovery, subject to no restrictions
[individual/collective]
except those imposed by the State or private persons
Laurel v. Garcia without prejudice to the provisions of the law.
“The fact that the Roppongi lot has not been used for - Ownership is an independent right. It can exist alone.
a long time for actual embassy service doesn’t automatically
convert it to patrimonial property. Any such conversion happens Article 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing,
only if the property is withdrawn from public use. A property without other limitations than those established by law.
continues to be part of the public domain, not available for The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor
of the thing in order to recover it.
private appropriation or ownership until there is a formal
declaration on the part of the government to withdraw it from
being such.” Kinds of ownership

1) Full – all rights of an owner

Villarico v. CA
“Forest lands (inalienable land of the public domain) 2) Naked – right to use & fruits is denied
cannot be owned by private persons. Possession thereof, no 3) Sole – vested in 1 person
matter how long doesn’t ripen to a registrable title.” 4) Co-ownership – two or more persons

Chavez v. PEA Rights of an owner (CC)

“The foreshore and submerged areas of Manila Bay
1) Right to enjoy
are part of the lands of the public domain, waters and other
natural resources owned by the State. As such, shall not alienable a. Right to possess
unless they are classified as agricultural lands of the public b. Right to use
domain. Mere reclamation doesn’t convert these inalienable c. Right to the fruits
natural resources into alienable and disposable lands of the 2) Right to dispose
public domain. There must be a law or presidential proclamation a. Right to consume/destroy/abuse
officially classifying these reclaimed lands as alienable and b. Right to encumber/alienate
disposable if the las has reserved them for some public or quasi- 3) Right to recover or vindicate
public use.

3|Page JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

Ownership is: d) Right to hidden treasure (Art 438-439)

a) Independent Article 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land,
b) Abstract building, or other property on which it is found.
c) Elastic Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of
d) Exclusive another, or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance,
e) Perpetual one-half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a
f) Inherently unlimited trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.

Article 429. The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to If the things found be of interest to science or the arts, the State may
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity
this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary with the rule stated.
to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical
Article 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any
invasion or usurpation of his property.
hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious
Caisip v. People objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear.
“She had merely remained in possession thereof, even
e) Right of accession
though the hacienda owner may have become its co-possessor.
Appellants didn’t repel or prevent an actual or threatened Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of the property. They to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or
expelled the complainant from a property on which she and her attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.
husband were in possession even before the action for forcible
entry was filed against them. f) Right to recover possession and/or ownership (jus
vidicandi)
Other specific rights found in the Civil Code a. Available action to recover possession/ownership
i. Immovable property
a) Right to exclude; Doctrine of Self-Help (Art. 429) 1. Accion reivindicatoria – action to recover ownership
- Elements over real property. Must be brought in the RTC where
o Owner/lawful possessor the real estate is situated. (ordinary prescription – 10
o Person is in actual, physical possession yrs, extraordinary prescription – 30 yrs)
o There must be actual or imminent danger 2. Accion publiciana – recovery of the better right to
(necessary reasonable force) possess, and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil
proceeding and must be brought within a period of 10
b) Right to enclose or fence (Art 430) years, otherwise the real right of possession is lost. The
issue is not possession de facto but possession de jure.
Article 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements 3. Forcible entry/unlawful detainer – action must be
by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other brought within one year
means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.
- Forcible entry – summary action to recover material or
physical possession of real property when a person
c) Right to receive just compensation in case of originally in possession was deprived thereof by force,
expropriation (Art 435) intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth.
- Unlawful detainer – action that must be brought when
Article 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by
possession by a landlord, vendor, vendee or other
competent authority and for public use and always upon
payment of just compensation.
person of any land/building is being unlawfully
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall withheld after the expiration or termination of the
protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract,
possession. express or implied. Prior physical possession IS NOT
required.
De Knecht v. Bautista
“There is no question as to the right of the RP to take De Leon v. CA
private property for public use upon the payment of just “Forcible entry and unlawful detainer are quieting
compensation. It is recognized, however that the government processes and the one-year time bar to the suit is in pursuance of
may not capriciously or arbitrarily choose what private property the summary nature of the action. The use of summary
should be taken.” procedure in ejectment cases is intended to provide an
expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to
City of Manila v. Chinese Community possession of the property. They are not promises to determine
“The courts have the power to restrict the exercise of the actual title to an estate. If at all, inferior courts are
eminent domain to the actual reasonable necessities of the case empowered to rule on the question of ownership raised by the
and for the purposes designated by the law. When the municipal defendant in such suits, only to resolve the issue of possession.
corporation or entity attempts to exercise the authority Its determination on the issue of ownership is, however, not
conferred, it must comply with the conditions accompanying conclusive.”
such authority.”
Alfredo Bokingo v. CA
Republic v. Juan “What really distinguishes an action for unlawful
“In the exercise of his sovereign right (eminent detainer from a possessory action (accion publiciana) and form a
domain), the State is not subject to any limitation other than reivindicatory action (accion reivindicatoria) is that the first is
those imposed by the Constitution which are: first, the taking limited to the question of possession de facto. An unlawful
must be for public use; secondly, the payment of just detainer suit (accion interdictal) together with forcible entry are
compensation must be made; and thirdly, due process must be the 2 forms of an ejectment suit that may be filed to recover
observed in the taking. The valuation of the lots must be fair and possession of real property. Aside from the summary action of
just, not only to the owner but also to the taxpayers who are to ejectment, accion publiciana or the plenary action to recover the
pay for it. To award them less, would be unjust to them, and to right of possession and accion reivindicatoria or the action to
award them more, would be unjust to the public. recover ownership which includes recovery of possession, make
up the 3 kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.”

4|Page JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

ii. Movable property Heirs of Vincilao v. CA

1. Replevin – action or provisional remedy where “The Certificate of Title issued is an absolute and
the complainant prays for the recovery of the indefeasible evidence of ownership of the property in favor of the
person whose name appears therein. It is binding and conclusive
possession of personal property.
upon the whole world. All persons must take notice and no one
Requisites for recovery (Art 434) can plead ignorance of the registration. Neither can tax
declarations and tax receipts presented by petitioners as
Article 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, evidence of ownership prevail over respondent’s certificate of
and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the title, which, to reiterate, is an incontrovertible proof of
weakness of the defendant's claim. ownership. It should be noted that tax declarations and receipts
do not by themselves conclusively prove title to land. They only
Laluan v. Malana constitute as prima facie evidence of ownership and possession.
“In order to maintain an action to recover ownership,
the person who claims that he has a better right to the property PEZA v. Fernandez
must prove not only his ownership of the property claimed but “For an action action for reconveyance to prosper, the
also the identity thereof. The party who desires to recover must property should not have passed into the hands of an innocent
fix the identity thereof of the land he claims.” purchaser for value.”

Presumption of ownership Bongato v. Malvar

“The one-year period within which to bring an action
Perez v. Mendoza for forcible entry is generally counted from the date of actual
“Possession is an indicium of ownership of the thing entry to the land. However, when entry is made through stealth,
possessed and the possessor goes the presumption that he holds then the one-year period is counted from the time the plaintiff
the thing under a claim of ownership. (Art. 433)” learned about it. After the lapse of the one-year period, the party
dispossessed of the parcel of land may file either accion
Additional Cases: publiciana or an accion revindicatoria which is an action to
recover ownership as well as possession.
Heirs of Bofill v. CA
“Possession is not a definitive proof of ownership and Chiao Liong Tan v. CA
nor is non-possession inconsistent.” “A certificate of registration of a motor vehicle in one’s
name indeed creates a strong presumption of ownership and
Acap v. CA such presumption is rebuttable by competent proof.
“Ownership and real rights are acquired only pursuant It is true that the judgment in a replevin suit must only
to a legal mode or process. The execution (Declaration of resolve in whom is the right of possession. Primarily the action of
Heirship & Waiver of Rights) of the heirs of Pido was held not to replevin is possessory in character and determines nothing more
be tantamount to a sale. As delos Reyes is a stranger to the than the right of possession. However, when the title to the
succession of Cosme Pido, he cannot claim ownership over the property is distinctly put in issue by the defendant’s plea and by
lot only on the sole basis of the document executed.” reason of the policy to settle in one action all the conflicting
claims of the parties to the possession of the property in
Depra v. Dumlao controversy, the question of ownership may be resolved in the
“The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry same proceeding.”
or detainer shall be effective with respect to the possession only
and in no wise bind the title or affect the ownership of the land Sps. Cruz v. Sps Cruz
or building, nor shall it be held conclusive of the facts therein “RA 7691 expanded the MTC’s jurisdiction to include
found in a case between the same parties upon a different cause other actions involving title to or possession of real property
of action not involving possession.” where the assessed value of the property does not exceed
Php20,000.
Sps. Benitez v. CA
“Prior possession is not always a condition sine qua Heirs of Concha v. Lomocso
non in ejectment. This is one of the distinctions between forcible * Cases that involve property incapable of pecuniary estimation,
entry and unlawful detainer. In forcible entry, the plaintiff is MTC has original jurisdiction, regardless of possible value.
deprived of physical possession by means of FISTS; thus he must
allege and prove prior possession. But in unlawful detainer, the US v. Causby
defendant unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration Lunod v. Meneses
or termination of his right thereto under any contract, express or US v. Toribio
implied. In such a case, prior physical possession is not required.
Limitations of Real Right of Ownership
Cutanda v. Heirs of Cutanda
“The action brought by the respondents to the court 1) General limitations (State’s Inherent Powers)
was one of accion publiciana, to recover the right to possession a. Eminent Domain
and to be declared rightful owners of the land. Since the b. Police Power
complaint actually put in the issue of ownership of the land, it c. Taxation
should thus be treated as an accion revindicatoria.”
2) Specific limitations imposed by law
Oclarit v. CA a. Legal easements
“The deed of sale did not even indicate with b. During a period of acute public want or
particularity the area of the land covered. Although it is true that emergency, thoughtless extravagance
what defines a piece of land is not the area mentioned in its in expenses for pleasure or display
description but the boundaries therein laid down, in controversial may be stopped by order of the courts
cases as in this case, where there appears to be an overlapping at the instance of any government or
of boundaries, the actual size of the property gains importance. private charitable institution
It is well settled that anyone who claims that he has a better right
c. Lands acquired under free patent or
to the property must prove the ownership and identity of the said
property. An area delimited by boundaries properly identifies a
homestead cannot be subject to
parcel of land. encumbrance or alienation within five
years from the issuance of the patent.

5|Page JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

3) Limitations imposed by previous owner Article 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil,
4) Limitations imposed by Owner himself and the young and other products of animals.
5) Limitation from scattered NCC provisions & in Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through
special laws cultivation or labor.

US v. Causby Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and
“The airspace is a public highway. But it is obvious that other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or
if the landowner is to have the full enjoyment of his land, he must other similar income.
have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the
Article 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the
enveloping atmosphere. If this were not true then landowners
expenses made by a third person in their production, gathering,
could not build buildings, plant trees and run fences.
and preservation.
The airspace, apart from the immediate reaches
above the land, is part of the public domain. The Court does not Article 444. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as
set the precise limits of the line demarcation Flights over private natural or industrial fruits.
land are not a taking, unless, hike here, they are so low and
frequent as to be a direct and immediate interference with the With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb of
enjoyment of the land.” the mother, although unborn.
*There is servitude but not easement.
General Principles of Accession
Lunod v. Meneses
a) Accessory follows the principal
“Every owner may enclose his property by means of
walls, dikes, fences or any other device, but his rights is limited b) No unjust enrichment
by the easement with which his estate is charged.” c) Accessory incorporated to principal such that it
cannot be separated without serious damage
US v. Toribio or diminution of value (Art. 447)
“In the general police power of the State, persons and d) Bad faith involves liability for damages and
property are subjected to all kinds of restraints and burders, in other dire consequences
order to secure the general comfort, health, and prosperity of the e) Bad faith of one party neutralizes bad faith of
State.” (In the interests of the public, generally.)
the other (Art. 453)
f) Ownership of fruits to owner of principal thing
ACCESSION
exceptions:
Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession a. Possession in good faith
to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated b. In usufruct
or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially. c. In lease
d. In antichresis
Accession – right of an owner of a thing to the products
of said thing as well as to whatever is inseparably Rights with respect to Immovable Property (Art.445-465)
attached thereto as an accessory
Rights with respect to Movable Property (Art.466-475)
Kinds of Accession
Table of Accession
1) Accession Discreta (To the fruits) General Rule (Accession Discreta): Owner has the right to
a. Natural fruits products or to the fruits of his property
b. Industrial fruits
c. Civil fruits Exception: Usurfruct, lease of rural lands, antichresis, possession
2) Accession Continua (Attachment/Incorporation) in good faith, fruits naturally falling, etc.
a. Real property
i. Accession industrial Article 447. Landowner builds improvements using the
1. Building materials of another.
2. Planting Landowner | BPS Material Owner
3. Sowing Good Faith Good Faith
ii. Accession natural Acquire materials after full Right to be indemnified for
1. Alluvium payment to the owner of the value of the materials,
2. Avulsion the materials or limited right of removal
3. Change of course of rivers Landowner | BPS Material Owner
4. Formation of islands Good Faith Bad Faith
b. Personal property Acquire the materials Loses materials without
i. Adjunction/conjunction without paying its value to indemnity plus liable for
1. Engraftment the owner of the materials damages
2. Attachment plus entitled to damages
3. Weaving due to defects or inferior
4. Painting quality of materials
5. Writing Landowner | BPS Material Owner
ii. Mixture Bad Faith Good Faith
1. Confusion (liquids) Can acquire the materials Entitled to full payment for
2. Commixtion (solids) provided full payment is the value of the materials
iii. Specification made to the owner of the plus damages, or absolute
materials as well as right of removal
damages
Landowner | BPS Material Owner
Bad Faith Bad Faith
Treated as if both are in Good faith

6|Page JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

Article. 448 A builder/planter/sower using his own Option 3. Option 3.

materials builds/plants/sows on the land of another. Compel BPS to remove or Obliged to remove or
Landowner Builder/Planter/Sower demolish work done plus demolish work done at his
damages. expense plus payment of
Good Faith Good Faith
damages.
Option 1. Receive indemnity for the
Landowner Builder/Planter/Sower
Purchase whatver has been necessary, useful, &
built, planted, or sown after luxurious expenses (depen- Bad Faith Good Faith
paying indemnity which ding on the LO) with right of Acquire whatever has been BPS has absolute right of
includes necessary, useful retention over the land built, planted, or sown by removal & will be entitled to
and luxurious expenses (if he without obligation to pay paying indemnity plus damages. If LO acquires
wishes to appropriate rent until full payment. damages. whatever has been built,
luxurious expenses) Prohi- Remove useful improvement planted or sown, BPS must
bited from offsetting or provided it does not cause be indemnified the value
compensating the necessary any injury (part of the right thereof plus damages.
and useful expense with the of retention). If LO does not
fruits received by the BP in appropriate luxurious If LO does not acquire, BPS
good faith improvements, BPS has cannot insist on purchasing
limited right of removal. land.
Landowner Builder/Planter/Sower
Option 2. Option 2. Bad Faith Bad Faith
To obligate the BP to buy the To purchase land at FMV at Treated as if both are in Good faith
land or the Sower to pay the time of payment when value
proper rent unless the value is not considerably more
of the land is considerably than that of the building or Landowner B/P/S Material Owner
more than that of the trees. To pay rent until GOOD FAITH
building or trees. *Legal purchase has been made. If Option 1. Acquire Receive indemnity To receive
implication of planter vs BP cannot pay purchase whatever has been from LO with right indemnity from
sower: Owner can't compel price of the land, LO can built, planted or of retention over BPS who is
sower to buy, only rent. require BP to remove sown provided land until full primarily liable for
whatever has been built, there is payment of payment thereof. materials; if BPS is
planted or sown. If the value indemnity (which insolvent, to
of the land is considerably includes value of proceed against LO
more than that of the what has been who is subsidiarily
building or trees, BP cannot built, planted or liable with no right
be compelled to buy the sown plus value of of retention.
land. In such case, BP will pay materials used)
reasonable rent if LO does Option 2. Oblige BP Buy land (BP) or Receive indemnity
not choose option 1. If BPS to buy land or S to pay proper rent (S) from BPS only (LO
pay rent unless isn't subsidiarily
cannot pay the rent, LO can
value of land is liable) w/ right of
eject BPS from the land.
considerably more retention until full
*Rental period of sower is than that of payment; or
only until he gathers what he building or trees limited right of
sowed. He doesn't have removal and have a
remedy of removal. material lien
(Sarmiento) against BPS for
Landowner Builder/Planter/Sower payment of
Good Faith Bad Faith materials
Option 1. Loses whatever has been Landowner B/P/S Material Owner
Acquire whatever has been built, planted or sown GOOD FAITH GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH
built, planted or sown without indemnity plus Option 1: Acquire BPS loses what has (Treat both BPS &
without paying indemnity liable for damages. Entitled whatever has been been built, planted MO as if they are in
except for necessary to reimbursement for built, planted or or sown plus liable good faith.)
sown without for damages but Whatever the LO's
expenses for preservation fo necessary expenses for
paying indemnity entitled to be choice is, MO has
land and luxurious expenses, preservation of land but no
except for indemnified for the right to be
if LO wishes, plus damages right to retention. necessary necessary & indemnified the
*NOT entitled to reimburse- expenses for luxurious expenses value of materials
ment for useful expenses & preservation of (should LO want to from BPS only (LO
cannot remove useful land and luxurious acquire luxurious has no subsidiary
improvements even if no expenses (should improvements) liability because
injury is caused. Not entitled LO want to acquire and no right of MO is considered
to luxurious expenses except luxurious removal even if no to have good faith
when LO wants to acquire it, improvements plus injury will be insofar as to BPS)
value at time of LO's damages) caused No right to remove
possession will be used. materials even if
Entitled to remove luxurious no injury will be
improvements if it will cause caused.
injury and LO does not want Option 2: Oblige BP Buy the land (BP) Right to be
to acquire it. If it will cause to buy the land or S or pay rent (S) plus indemnified by BPS
injury & LO doesn't want to to pay rent plus liable for damages
damages to LO
acquire it, he gets ir free.
Option 3: Oblige BP To demolish or Liable for damages
Option 2.
to demolish or remove what has due to defects or
Obligate BP to buy land or S Option 2.
remove what has been built, planted inferior quality of
to pay proper rent plus Obliged to pay for land or been built, planted or sown plus liable materials.
damages, regardless of proper rent plus payment of or sown plus for damages
value. damages. damages

7|Page JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

Landowner B/P/S Material Owner It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner
BAD FAITH GOOD FAITH GOOD FAITH whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without
Acquire what has Receive Receive indem- opposition on his part.
been built, indemnity from nity of materials Article 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder,
planted or sown LO plus damages principally from planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of article
by paying BPS, if insolvent 447 shall apply.
indemnity plus then LO is
damages subsidiarily liable Article 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person
Landowner B/P/S Material Owner who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer
BAD FAITH GOOD FAITH BAD FAITH subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who
Same Same No right to made use of them has no property with which to pay.
rights/options rights/options receive indemnity This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right
for value of granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds
materials from has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may
either BPS nor LO demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor.
(who ends up
owning building Article 456. In the cases regulated in the preceding articles, good
or trees. faith does not necessarily exclude negligence, which gives right to
*if MO is in bad damages under article 2176.
faith, he doesn't
Article 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers
get anything
belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects
unless BPS is in of the current of the waters.
bad faith too
Article 458. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not
acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters, or
Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods.
another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to
the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following Article 459. Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent
articles. segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion of land and
transfers it to another estate, the owner of the land to which the
Article 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided
the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved. that he removes the same within two years.

Article 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally Article 460. Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the
or through another, plantings, constructions or works with the waters belong to the owner of the land upon which they may be cast,
materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad if the owners do not claim them within six months. If such owners
faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. The claim them, they shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering them
owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them only in or putting them in a safe place.
case he can do so without injury to the work constructed, or without
the plantings, constructions or works being destroyed. However, if Article 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural
the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners
remove them in any event, with a right to be indemnified for whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the
damages. area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed
shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof,
Article 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the
sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as new bed.
his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the
indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one Article 462. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes,
who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who opens a new bed through a private estate, this bed shall become of
sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be public dominion.
obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of
the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if Article 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into
the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner
or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a portion of
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the land is separated from the estate by the current.
terms thereof.
Article 464. Islands which may be formed on the seas within the
Article 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or floatable
another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to rivers belong to the State.
indemnity.
Article 465. Islands which through successive accumulation of
Article 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, alluvial deposits are formed in non-navigable and non-floatable
planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the
rivers, belong to the owners of the margins or banks nearest to each
work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace of them, or to the owners of both margins if the island is in the
things in their former condition at the expense of the person who middle of the river, in which case it shall be divided longitudinally in
built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to halves. If a single island thus formed be more distant from one
pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent. margin than from the other, the owner of the nearer margin shall be
the sole owner thereof.
Article 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner
is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower. Article 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to different
owners are, without bad faith, united in such a way that they form a
Article 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to single object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the accessory,
reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value.
land.
Article 467. The principal thing, as between two things incorporated,
Article 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person is deemed to be that to which the other has been united as an
who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the ornament, or for its use or perfection.
part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall
be the same as though both had acted in good faith. Article 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the
preceding article which of the two things incorporated is the

8|Page JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

principal one, the thing of the greater value shall be so considered, Article 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be
and as between two things of equal value, that of the greater volume. refunded to the possessor in good faith; but he may remove the
ornaments with which he has embellished the principal thing if it
In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor in the possession does
lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment not prefer to refund the amount expended.
shall be deemed the accessory thing.
Meneses v. CA
Article 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without “Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under
injury, their respective owners may demand their separation. Article 457 of the CC requires the concurrence of these requisites:
Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment or
(1) that the deposit of soil or sediment be gradual and
perfection of the other, is much more precious than the principal
imperceptible; (2) that it be the result of the action of the river
thing, the owner of the former may demand its separation, even
(or sea); and (3) that the land where accretion takes place is
though the thing to which it has been incorporated may suffer some
injury. adjacent to the banks of rivers or the sea coast.”

Article 470. Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made Pacific Farms Inc. v. Esguerra
the incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose the thing incorporated *The person who benefited from the accession (here, a purchaser
and shall have the obligation to indemnify the owner of the principal of the land) steps into the shoes of a landowner and acquires the
thing for the damages he may have suffered. same rights as his predecessor. Art 447 is applicable by analogy.
If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the principal Bernardo v. Bataclan
thing, the owner of the accessory thing shall have a right to choose
*The indemnity to be paid is borne by the person who benefited
between the former paying him its value or that the thing belonging
the accession except when it has been paid already.
to him be separated, even though for this purpose it be necessary to
destroy the principal thing; and in both cases, furthermore, there
shall be indemnity for damages. Mendoza v. De Guzman
“Inasmuch as the retentionist, who is not exactly a
If either one of the owners has made the incorporation with the possessor in good faith within the meaning of the law, seeks to
knowledge and without the objection of the other, their respective be reimbursed for the necessary and useful expenditures, it is
rights shall be determined as though both acted in good faith. only just that he should account to the owners of the estate for
any rents, fruits, or crops he has gathered from it.
Article 471. Whenever the owner of the material employed without
his consent has a right to an indemnity, he may demand that this
San diego v. Monteza
consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value, and in all
The right of retention granted is merely a security for
other respects, to that employed, or else in the price thereof,
according to expert appraisal.
the enforcement of the possessor’s right to indemnity for the
improvements. As a result, the possessor in good faith, in
Article 472. If by the will of their owners two things of the same or retaining the land and its improvements pending reimbursement
different kinds are mixed, or if the mixture occurs by chance, and in of his useful expenditures, is not bound to pay any rental during
the latter case the things are not separable without injury, each the period of his retention; otherwise the value of his security
owner shall acquire a right proportional to the part belonging to him, would be impaired.
bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused.
Filipinas Colleges Inc. v. CA
Article 473. If by the will of only one owner, but in good faith, two
*What is the recourse or remedy left to the parties in such
things of the same or different kinds are mixed or confused, the
eventuality where the builder fails to pay the value of the land?
rights of the owners shall be determined by the provisions of the
preceding article.
1) He might be able to pay rental and decide to leave things as
they are and assume the relation of lessor and lessee, and should
If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith, they disagree on the amount of the rental, then they can go to
he shall lose the thing belonging to him thus mixed or confused, the court to fix that amount.
besides being obliged to pay indemnity for the damages caused to 2) Should the parties not agree to leave things as they are, in the
the owner of the other thing with which his own was mixed. case of Ignacio v. Hilario, the court ruled that the owner of the
land is entitled to have the improvement removed when after the
Article 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another other party is compelled to purchase, he fails to pay.
in whole or in part in order to make a thing of a different kind, shall
3) In Bernardo v. Bataclan, the Court approved the sale of the
appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own, indemnifying the
land and the improvement in a public auction applying the
owner of the material for its value.
proceeds thereof first to the payment of the value of the land and
If the material is more precious than the transformed thing or is of the excess, if any, to be delivered to the owner of the house in
more value, its owner may, at his option, appropriate the new thing payment thereof.
to himself, after first paying indemnity for the value of the work, or
demand indemnity for the material. Grana & Torralba v. CA
“A builder in good faith may not be required to pay
If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the rentals. He has a right to retain the land on which he has built in
material shall have the right to appropriate the work to himself good faith until he is reimbursed the expenses incurred by him.
without paying anything to the maker, or to demand of the latter
that he indemnify him for the value of the material and the damages Panlileo v. Mercado
he may have suffered. However, the owner of the material cannot “In the case of a public stream, the bed is of public
appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or ownership and the public cannot be considered absolutely
scientific reasons, is considerably more than that of the material. divested of this ownership until there is some indication of an
intention on the part of the government to acquiesce in the
Article 475. In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be duly change in the course of the stream.
appreciated.
Agustine v. IAC
Article 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every
The sudden change of course of the Cagayan River as
possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing
until he has been reimbursed therefor.
a result of a strong typhoon caused a portion of the lands to be
separated from the estate of the current. Respondents have
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith retained ownership of the portion transferred by avulsion to the
with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him other side.
in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the
expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have Inter-Regional Dev’t Corp v. CA
acquired by reason thereof.

9|Page JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

“When a person plants in good faith on land belonging “Article 70 of the Law of Waters and not Article 74
to another, the landowner does not ipso facto acquire ownership should be applicable which defines the natural bed or channel of
of what has been planted; he must first indemnify the planter a creek or river as the ground covered by its waters during the
before he can appropriate the same provided in Article 448.” highest floods”

Ferrer v. Bautista Ballatan v. CA

*Director of Lands does not have authority to issue patent over “In the even that petitioners elect to sell to
accretion lands because accretion lands are not part of public respondents, the price must be fixed at the prevailing market
dominion. value at the time of payment unlike in expropriation.”
“The plaintiff is the lawful owner of the accretion, she
being the registered owner of the lot which adjoins the alluvial Geminiano v. CA
property.” *Article 448 does not apply when the builder is a lessee since he
can’t be constructing the improvements in the concept of an
Hilario v. City of Manila owner.
*Banks f river are lateral strips/zones of its bed which are washed
by the stream only during such high floods as do not cause Sarmiento v. Agana
inundation. River banks are part of public domain. *Article 448 was applied in a situation where the son-in-law built
a house on a land through his mother-in-laws permission
Pecson v. CA thinking that the land was hers.
- Current market value should be made basis of reimbursement
- Art. 448 applies by analogy to a case where property was Manotok Realty v. Tecson
acquired from the original landowner who built improvements. “Private respondent’s good faith ceased after the
The previous landowner acquires the rights of a filing of the complaint by the petitioner. Thus, the repairs and
builder/planter/sower. improvements introduced by said respondents after the
complaint was filed cannot be considered to have been built in
Pleasantville v. CA good faith. Since the improvements have been gutted by fire, and
“Good faith is based on the belief of Kee that he is therefore the basis for private respondent’s right to retain the
building on a land that is his and his ignorance of any flaw or premises has already been extinguished without the fault of the
defect of such ownership. petitioner, there is no other recourse but to vacate the premises
and deliver possession of the same to petitioner (landowner).”
Baes v. CA
“While the riparian owner is entitled to compensation Technogas Phil. V. CA
for the damage to or loss to his property due to the change of “It is presumed that possession continues to be
course of the river effected through artificial means, we find enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired until the
however that the petitioners have already been so compensated. contrary is proved.”
Petitioners cannot now claim additional compensations because
to allow petitioners to acquire ownership of the dried-up portion Lanzar v. Director of Lands
of the creek would be a clear case of double compensation and “Lands added to the shore by accretion and alluvium
unjust enrichment at the expense of the State.” deposits caused by the action of the sea form part of the public
domain. When they are no longer washed by the water of the sea
Ronquillo v. CA and are not necessary for purposes of public utility or for the
“The rules of alluvion does not apply to man-made establishments of special industries or coastguard service. The
accretions nor to accretions to lands that adjoin canals or esteros government shall declare them to be the owners of the estate
or artificial drainage systems.” adjacent thereto as an increment thereof.

Reynante v. CA Santos v. Bernabe

“While it is true that alluvial deposits shall belong to (Palay with the same grade/quality owned by diff owners were
the owner of the land adjoining such accretion, it does not mixed when it was deposited in a warehouse.)
automatically bestow imprescriptibility. If the owners of the said “There are no means to distinguish the palay of the
land have not registered this with the proper entity, said land will owners. This being the case, each owner shall acquire the right
be subject to acquisitive prescription.” in the mixture proportionate to the part belonging to him,
according to the value of the things mixed or commingled.”
Grande v. CA
“Accretion doesn’t automatically become registered QUIETING OF TITLE
land just coz the lot which receives it is covered by Torrens.”
Heirs of Navarro v. IAC - a remedy for the removal of any cloud upon or doubt or
“The principle of accretion is only applicable to owners
uncertainty with respect to title to real property.
whose estates are adjacent to rivers as stated in Art 457. The
Article 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or
disputed land is an accretion on a sea bank, not a river bank, or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim,
on what used to be the foreshore of Manila Bay. It cannot come encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective
under the purview of Art 457 but to that of Article 4 of the Law but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or
of Waters of Spain which classifies such land as part of public unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be
dominion and so cannot be appropriated for private use.” brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

Republic v. CA An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast
“The extent of a lake bed is defined in Art 74 of the upon title to real property or any interest therein.
Law of Waters of 1866: “The natural bed or basin of lakes, ponds,
or pools is the ground covered by their waters when at their Requisites of Action to Quiet Title
highest ordinary depth.” The phrase “highest ordinary depth”
has been interpreted to be the highest depth of the waters of 1) The plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an
Laguna de Bay during the dry season, such depth being the equitable title to or interest in the real property
“regular, common, natural which occurs always or most of the subject of the action;
time during the year.” 2) There is a cloud on title to real property or any
interest therein;
Binalay v. Manalo

10 | P a g e JNM88
 Father Saturnino Urios University – College of Law | SY 2016-2017
PROPERTY Law Reviewer

3) The deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding equitable title being sufficient to clothe him with the personality
claimed to be casting a cloud on his title must be to bring an action to quiet title.”
shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite
Titong v. CA
its prima facie appearance of validity or legal
“The ground for filing a complaint for quieting title
efficacy. must be an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or
proceeding. Through his allegations, what he imagined as cloud
“Cloud on title” - a semblance of title which appears in
cast on his title were alleged acts of intrusion. The grounds
some legal form but which is in fact unfounded. mentioned are for action for forcible entry and not quieting of
title.”
In an action to quiet title, the plaintiff need not be in
possession of the property. If the plaintiff in an action for Oclarit v. CA
quieting of title, however, is in possession of the property “The case is a boundary dispute and as such action to
being litigated, the action is imprescriptible. quiet title must fail. Petitioner fail to point out any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding that could have been
Uberas v. CFI a cloud to their title.”
“An action to quiet title to property in the possession
of plaintiff is imprescriptible and that where there are material
facts to be inquired into and resolved on the basis of evidence
adduced by the parties which will determine the legal precepts
to be applied, as in this case, the complaining party should be
given full opportunity to prove his case.”

Sapto v. Fabiana
*An action to quiet title applies in a valid, binding and effective
sale even it was not registered.

Spouses Benito v. Saquitan-Ruiz

“The respondent is in possession of the disputed
property. If a person claiming to be the owner of a wrongfully
registered parcel of land is in actual possession, the right to seek
reconveyance does not prescribe. A petition for the quieting of
title although essentially an action of reconveyance, should not
be dismissed on the ground of prescription, if it is alleged that the
plaintiff is in possession of the property.

Metropolitan Bank v. Alejo

“An action of quieting of title is filed only when there
is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein. A cloud
on a title is defined as a semblance of title which appears in some
legal form but which is in fact unfounded.” (A judgment/court
decision found on a TCT is not considered a cloud.)

Robles v. CA
“The cloud on petitioner’s title emanate from the
apparent validity of the free patent issued and the tax
declaration and other evidence in favor of respondents
ultimately leading to the transfer of the property to spouses
Santos.”

Gapacan v. Omipet
*Property rights (question on ownership) may be adjudicated in
an action to quiet title.

Oblea v. CA
“Pendency of an action for quieting of title before the
RTC does not divest MTC of its jurisdiction to proceed with the
ejectment case over the same property. Sole issue in an action
for unlawful detainer is physical or material possession.”

Vda. De Aviles v. CA
“A special civil action of quieting of title is not the
proper remedy of a boundary dispute and that petitioners should
have instituted an ejectment suit instead.”

Gallar v. Hussain
“An action for quiet title is imprescriptible to the
plaintiff who is in possession of the land.”

Pingol v. CA
“A cloud has been cast on the title since despite the
fact that the title had been transferred to them by execution of
deed of sale and the delivery of the object of the contract, Pingol
adamantly refused to accept payment and insisted that they no
longer had the obligation to transfer the title. Donasco, who
partially paid and made improvements, is entitled to sue Pingol.
It is not necessary that Donasco should have an absolute title, an

11 | P a g e JNM88