ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION

parcel of land property without an

Art. 531. Possession is acquired by the owner
material occupation of a thing or the exercise -It cannot have a
of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the parcel of land as an
action of our will, or by the proper acts and object
legal formalities established for acquiring such The doctrine of constructive possession is a
right. (438a) rule that states that the actual possession of part
Art. 532. Possession may be acquired by the of the property is deemed to extend to the whole
same person who is to enjoy it, by his legal because possession does not mean that a man
representative, by his agent, or by any person has to have his feet on every square meter of
without any power whatever; but in the last ground before it can be said that he is in
case, the possession shall not be considered possession.
as acquired until the person in whose name However, in a series of jurisprudence, the Courts
the act of possession was executed has further clarifies the application of the doctrine. In
ratified the same, without prejudice to the Lasam v Director of Lands, while there was an
juridical consequences of negotiorum gestio in evidence showing that claimant might have
a proper case. (439a) possessed a portion if a parcel, but this evidence
Possession is acquired in any of the following is insufficient to establish with certainty what
ways: particular portion was occupied and the extent of
(1) By material occupation of a thing or the the occupation.Because mere planting of a sign or
exercise of a right; symbols of possession cannot justify one to claim
(2) By subjecting the thing or right to the action dominion over an immense tract of territory.
of our mind; and In Ramirez v Director of Lands, the Court noted
(3) By the property acts and legal formalities that the mere fact of declaring uncultivated land for
established for the acquisition of such right taxation purposes and visiting it every once in a
The acquisition of possession presupposes the while by the alleged possessor does not constitute
existence of these two: an act of possession. In Director of Lands v
a. The corpus or the material holding of the Reyes, the Court held that mere casual cultivation
thing or the exercise of the right which may of portions of land by claimants, raising of cattle
be acquired thru any o the modes therein, do not constitute possession under a claim
b. Animus possidendi or the intent to possess of ownership.
the thing or right. Without this intent, Thus, for the doctrine of constructive possession
possession is not acquired in law altho to apply, the following requisites must be present:
there is physical holding of the thing. a. The alleged possessor must be in actual
Material occupation means actual physical possession of a portion of the property;
possession of corporeal things. But this is b. He is claiming ownership of the whole
different from occupation as a mode of acquiring area;
ownership. c. The remainder of the area must not be in
Thus, an adverse possession of another person;
and
Material occupation as Occupation as a mode d. The area claimed must be reasonable
a mode of acquisition of ownership For a thing to be under possession, it must be
of possession subjected to an action of will. This connotes a
degree of control over the thing sufficient to
-Intent to possesses -Intent to own or
subject the sam to the action of one’s will. There
-Whether a property is appropriate
with owner or not -Can take place only must be intention to possess manifested by certain
-Object may be a with respect to facts which are present.
It includes two forms of constructive delivery:
 a. Tradicion simbolica; and Minors and incapacitated persons may only
b. Tradicion longa manu acquire the possession of things. This is
Tradicion simbolica takes place thru delivery of because capacity to act is necessary for the
symbols or some object which represent those to acquisition of possession, which, in their case, is
be delivered thus placing the thing under the lacking to acquire possession over rights. Minors
control of the transferee. For example, the delivery and incapacitated persons need assistance from
of the keys to a warehouse is sufficient to transfer their legal representatives in order to exercise the
possession rights which arise from their favor.
Tradidion longa manu is effected by the transferor —----------------------------------------------------------------
pointing out to the transferee the things which are Art. 533. The possession of hereditary property
being transferred. is deemed transmitted to the heir without
Acquiring possession through proper acts and interruption and from the moment of the death
legal formalities refer to any juridical act by which of the decedent, in case the inheritance is
possession is acquired or to which the law gives accepted.
the force of acts of possession. For example, One who validly renounces an inheritance is
donations, intestate and testate succession, writs deemed never to have possessed the same.
of possession, judicial or administrative (440)
possession and execution of public instruments. Art. 534. On who succeeds by hereditary title
In Myco v Montilla, et.al, possession by the sheriff shall not suffer the consequences of the
to the assignees of the original purchasers of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is
hacienda, in compliance with the order of the not shown that he was aware of the flaws
court, constitutes proper acts and legal formalities affecting it; but the effects of possession in
as acquiring possession. good faith shall not benefit him except from
Acquiring possession over rights happens the date of death of the decedent.
through any of the following means: (1) by Succession is one juridical act sufficient to transfer
exercise of such right; (2) by subjecting it to the possession without need of physical or material
action of our will; and (3) by proper acts and legal holding of the property. If possession of property is
formalities. effected by way of succession, the heir is
Who may exercise possession? transmitted of said possession from the moment of
1. Owner or holder personally or thru his/her the death of the decedent, without interruption
agent or legal representative BUT only if the heir accepts the inheritance. This
2. Any person for or on behalf of the person rule applies even if the heir is not in physical
who is to enjoy it even without authority possession of the property.
from the latter For example, A had been in open, peaceful and
If possession is exercised by an agent, the adverse possession of a parcel of land owned by
principal is considered to have acquired the X for an uninterrupted period of 20 years under a
possession of the thing at the time the agent claim of ownership. Upon A’s death, his heirs B
acquired it. and C are entitled of the inheritance but if B
If a person is not authorized by the intended renounced his right to possession while the
principal but nonetheless acquired by the former property is in his physical possession and C did
only in representation of the latter, the principal will not renounce his right, it is C who is deemed to
only acquire such possession if he/she ratifies it. have better right to possess the property, this is
When a person manages the affairs of true even if C is not in physical possession of the
another(negotiorum gestio) the ratification by the subject property.
person whom the thing was acquired will retroact What happens if the decedent is in bad faith?
to the time of the apprehension by the gestor, and A decedent possessor in bad faith is one in
the possession of the former must be deemed to possession of property knowing that his title
have been acquired from that moment. thereto is defective. This bad faith,however, does
not pass on his heir because bad faith is presented proving bad faith, like in this
intransmissible. Thus, if the heir is not aware of the case, the presumption of good faith
flaws affecting the title or mode of acquisition of remains.Here, Simeon did not provide
the decedent, the heir is considered a possessor proof to support his claims.
in good faith but the benefit to the heir is only from —---------------------------------------------------------------
the date of the death of the decedent. Art. 535. Minors and incapacitated persons
CASE may acquire the possession of things; but they
1. Miguel filed an application for the tilting of a need the assistance of their legal
parcel of land and without opposition representatives in order to exercise the rights
thereto, the cadastral court favored Miguel. which from the possession arise in their favor.
Miguel took possession of the property.. In (443)
the same year, Simeon filed a petition for Art. 536. In no case may possession be
review contending that Miguel obtained the acquired through force or intimidation as long
property thru fraud and misrepresentation. as there is a possessor who objects thereto.
However, while the proceeding is on going He who believes that he has an action or a
Miguel died. Miguel’s heirs took possession right to deprive another of the holding of a
of the property. In 1971 or 13 years later, thing, must invoke the aid of the competent
the court decided in favor of Simeon and court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the
ordered the heirs to vacate the land. A writ thing. (441a)
of possession was later issued and the Art. 537. Acts merely tolerated, and those
heirs of Miguel voluntarily gave up their executed clandestinely and without the
possession. In 1975, Simeon filed another knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by
case for recovery of damages for the fruits violence, do not affect possession.
of the land which was allegedly possessed While material occupation is a recognized mode of
by the heirs unlawfully for 13years. Simeon acquiring possession, possession is not
alleged that the registration of the land by acquired if the acquisition of possession is
Miguel was effectuated with fraud, malice through force, violence, or intimidation.
and misrepresentation. According to Thus, even if the possessor is physically ousted
Simeon,both Miguel and the heirs were from the property through force or violence, he is
possessors in band faith. The lower court still deemed the legal possessor. His possession
dismissed Simeon’s complaint, finding that here is not considered interrupted.
the heirs were in good faith possessing the This is true even if the one seeking recovery of
land under a just title. On appeal, the IAC possession is the owner of the property himself. In
reversed this. The SC did not agree with no case may possession be acquired through
the IAC. It stated that possessors in bad force or intimidation as long as there is a
faith should not prejudice his successors- possessor who objects thereto. He who believes
in-interest, because personal knowledge of that he has an action or a right to deprive another
the flaw in one’s title or mode of acquisition of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the
that makes one in bad faith is not competent court, if the holder should refuse to
transmissible to another person, not even deliver the thing.
an heir. ‘one who succeeds by hereditary In other words, a person in possession cannot be
title shall not suffer the consequences of ejected by force, violence or terror, not even by the
the wrongful possession of the decedent, if owners, and notwithstanding the actual condition
it is not shown that he was aware of the of the title to the property.
flaws affecting it. Further, good faith is The rationale of this rule is to prevent breaches of
always presumed, and upon him who peace and criminal disorder. The law does not
alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor allow the mighty and the privileged to take the law
rests the burden of proof. If no evidence is into their own hands to enforce their alleged rights.
CASE contract, is necessarily bound by an implied
1. A property was sold to SP Properties promise that they will vacate the same upon
however Spouses Laurora were in demand. Failing to do so, a summary action for
possession of the same property where ejectment may be charged against the possessor.
they have planted trees. SP Properties Toleration is defined as the act or practice of
bulldozed and uprooted th trees and plants permitting or enduring something not wholly
with the use of armed men and by means approved of. This is because of neighbourliness or
of threats and intimidation, they succeeded familiarity.
ejected the spouses. A file of ejectment But in the Macasaet Case, the children were
against SP Properties was filed by the invited by the parents to occupy the latter’s house.
spouses. SP properties alleged that The parents cannot claim that the children
spouses are not the owners of the land occupied the property by mere tolerance to justify
because they already disposed the said ejecting their children. In this particular case, the
land in 196. The court decided in favor of Court’s rationale is that their arrangement is not
the spouses. It explained that that of possession by mere tolerance, the
notwithstanding the actual condition of the arrangement is by virtue of invitation arising from
title to the property, a person in possession familial love and a desire for family solidarity, the
cannot be ejected by force, violence, or basic Filipino traits.
terror, not even by the owners. If such an If the acts are clandestine or done in secret,
illegal manner of ejectment is employed, hidden or concealed, and is unknown to the
the party who proves prior possession can legal possessor, his possession over the
receive possession even from the owner property is unaffected.
themselves. Even if the spouses illegally What is the consequence?
entered into and occupied the property in The legal possessor’s possession is not deemed
question, SP Properties had no right to interrupted for all legal intents and purposes, e.g.,
take the law into their own hands and it will not interrupt the running of the period of
summarily or forcibly eject the occupants. acquisitive prescription in favor of the legal
Even if spouses were mere usurpers, they possessor nor it will affect his right to receive the
may remain on the property until they are fruits. On the part of the actual possessor, his
lawfully ejected therefrom. possession acquired through clandestine acts not
Here, SP properties may resort to available legal known to the legal possessor will not ripen into
remedies such as an ejectment suit in an accion ownership thru prescription because one of the
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria or an action to requirements thereof is that the possession be
recover ownership of the real property. public.
Acts which are merely tolerated do not affect Hence, if the clandestine acts are known to the
possession. Persons whose occupation of a legal possessor, his possession will be affected. In
property is by sheer tolerance of its owners are not the same way, if the acts are done publicly yet
considered as possessors in law. unknown to the possessor, the same will affect the
Mere permissive use or due to license, cannot be latter’s possession.
made the basis of acquisitive prescription no —----------------------------------------------------------------
matter how long the possession may be. Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be
While a possessor may acquire property thru recognized at the same time in two different
acquisitive prescription, one needs to be under a personalities except in the cases of co-
claim of title to invoke the a prescriptive right. possession. Should a question arise regarding
However, acts of possessory character by mere the fact of possession, the present possessor
tolerance of the owner is not a claim of title. shall be preferred; if there are two possessors,
A person who occupies the land of another by the one longer in possession; if the dates of
latter’s tolerance or permission, without any the possession are the same, the one who
presents a title; and if all these conditions are declaration since 1926. She was ousted
equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial from the subject property. Is honorata’s
deposit pending determination of its forcible ejectment proper?
possession or ownership through proper No, because Honorata was the preferred
proceedings. possessor because she had been in
This contemplates that the fact of possession and possession for a longer period by virtue of
the right to possession are in the hands of two Article 538 of the NCC, benefiting from her
different persons, as in the case of possession father's tax declaration dating back to 1926,
exercised in another’s name. whereas the petitioners' father only acquired joint
Here, the owner may temporarily deprive himself possession in 1952.
of his right to possess the property as when he Determination of Ownership(IM): While the
continues a usufruct over the same in favor of respondent was deemed the preferred possessor,
another person or when he enters into a contract the court explicitly stated that possession is
of lease with a lessee. Both the right of possession different from ownership. To settle the issue of
and fact of possession are exercised by the ownership, the court examined which party had
usufructuary or lease, they are the legal proven acquisitive prescription.
possessors of the property. The court found that the respondent, being the
However, the law prohibits possessor de facto or sole heir of her father, had shown possession in
possession resides at the same time in two the concept of owner – public, peaceful, and
different personalities unless they are co- uninterrupted – for more than ten years since
possessors. In case of conflict involving the 1932. This possession, coupled with her father's
question of possession as a fact, the following tax receipt and her own subsequent declaration
rules of preference shall govern: and payment of realty taxes, had ripened into
1. Present possessor shall be preferred ownership through ordinary prescription
2. If there are two possessors, the one (possession for ten years).
longer in possession is preferred; In contrast, the petitioners' claim of ownership
3. If the dates of possession are the same, based on tax declarations and receipts in the
the one who presents a title; name of Margarito Mendoza was rejected. The
If all the foregoing are equal, thie thing shall be court reiterated that tax declarations and receipts
placed in a judicial deposit pending determination are not conclusive evidence of ownership; they are
of its possession or ownership throu proper merely prima facie proof of possession or a claim
proceedings. of title. Furthermore, their occupation of the land
How to determine the present possessor? for thirty-two years (1953-1985) was not deemed
In cases where possession is acquired thru to have conferred ownership because it was not
vitiation, or that possession is by mere tolerance, coupled with the element of hostility toward the
the previous possessor is the present possessor.It true owner over the entire disputed lot and was not
is necessary that the present possessor’s entirely public, peaceful, and uninterrupted. Mere
possession of the property is exclusive, otherwise, occupation does not equate to ownership.
he/she is not a present possessor and the The court first used the concept of longer possession to determine
who had the better right to possess the land under Article 538 of the
succeeding rule on preference applies. Civil Code. Then, to resolve the ultimate issue of ownership, the court
CASE applied the principles of acquisitive prescription, finding that the
respondent's longer and continuous possession in the concept of
1. Honorata resides in the property of her
owner had matured into ownership, whereas the petitioners'
deceased father since tha latter’s death in possession, even if longer in years of occupation, did not meet the
1030. In 1953, Margarito, the brother of necessary legal criteria for acquiring ownership of the entire property.
This demonstrates a clear application of the distinction between the
Honorata’s deceased father declared the right to possess and the right of ownership in resolving the dispute.
suject property for taxation and paid realty —---------------------------------00—-----------------------
taxes beginning 1952. Honorata continued
residing and benefiting from her father’s tac