OWNERSHIP, ACCESSION AND CO-OWNERSHIP (INCLUDING THE CONDOMINUM ACT {Rep. Act No. 4726})

Lecture No. 8. Part 1

Civil Law Review I

Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III

(For Fourth Year Section-A and Property Second Year,

University of San Agustin School of Law, General Luna Street,

 Iloilo City, School Year 2016-2017 Ist Semester)

CHAPTER 1
Ownership in General

Article 427. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights. (n)

Article 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law.

The owner has also a right of action against the holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it. (348a)

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.

Comments:

·       Doctrine of Self-Help. Real v. Personal Right

·       Relate this to Article 1164. The creditor has a right to the fruits of the thing from the time the obligation to deliver it arises. However, he shall acquire no real right over it until the same has been delivered to him.

·       May an owner or lawful possessor drastically bulldoze the crops planted by an intruder over the property?

·       “Doctrine of self-help can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened dispossession.”[1]

Article 430. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted thereon. (388)

Article 431. The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third person. (n)

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. (n)

Article 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.

            Comments:

·       This is the legal basis for ejectment actions.

·       The registered owner is not always guaranteed of being successful in an action to recover property.

·       See Blog Article entitled “Legal Trimmings of “Tolerance” in Unlawful Detainer Cases” dated June 30, 2016

·       Read Ruben Corpuz rep by Atty In Fact  Wenfreda C. Agullana v. Sps. Hilarion Agustin and Justa Agustin, GR No. 183822,  January 18, 2012

The rationale for the doctrinal threshold of “more or less than one-year length of time of dispossession” was doctrinally explained in a 2012 case law[5], thus:

“One of the three kinds of action for the recovery of possession of real property is “accion interdictal, or an ejectment proceeding ... which may be either that for forcible entry (detentacion) or unlawful detainer (desahucio), which is a summary action for the recovery of physical possession where the dispossession has not lasted for more than one year, and should be brought in the proper inferior court.”[6][14] In ejectment proceedings, the courts resolve the basic question of who is entitled to physical possession of the premises, possession referring to possession de facto, and not possession de jure.[7][15]

X x x

Instructive on this matter is Carbonilla v. Abiera,[8][23] which reads thus:

Without a doubt, the registered owner of real property is entitled to its possession. However, the owner cannot simply wrest possession thereof from whoever is in actual occupation of the property. To recover possession, he must resort to the proper judicial remedy and, once he chooses what action to file, he is required to satisfy the conditions necessary for such action to prosper.

In the present case, petitioner opted to file an ejectment case against respondents. Ejectment cases—forcible entry and unlawful detainer—are summary proceedings designed to provide expeditious means to protect actual possession or the right to possession of the property involved. The only question that the courts resolve in ejectment proceedings is: who is entitled to the physical possession of the premises, that is, to the possession de facto and not to the possession de jure. It does not even matter if a party’s title to the property is questionable. For this reason, an ejectment case will not necessarily be decided in favor of one who has presented proof of ownership of the subject property. Key jurisdictional facts constitutive of the particular ejectment case filed must be averred in the complaint and sufficiently proven.”

RECOVERY OF POSSESSION

and DAMAGES

·       Different kinds of actions to recover possession: 1.forcible entry and unlawful detainer; 2. Accion publiciana; 3 Accion Reinvindicatoria

·       Article 555 (4)- “A possessor may lose his possession: x x x (4) by the possession of another, subject to the provisions of Article 537, if the new possession has lasted longer than one year. But the real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten years.”

·       The accion publiciana is intended for the recovery of the better right to possess, and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding before a Court of First Instance (now RTC)[2] and must be brought within a period of ten years otherwise the real right of possession is lost. The issue is not possession de facto but possession de jure.[3]

·       In turn, see Article 1141. “Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years. This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription.”

·       The foregoing provisions which could be found scattered in different chapters of the Civil Code provide the legal basis for the ff:

Material or Physical Possession-           For Forcible entry and unlawful detainer

 Or De facto possession                         -Dispossession must be fresh such that case must be filed within one year

                                                                                                                                   

Better right of possession, Real Right

Of Possession or De Jure Possession- For purposes of accion publiciana

Either the dispossession had lasted for more than a year or the elements of forcible entry or unlawful detainer are not present, but must be within ten (10) years

Possession as a consequence of

Ownership -                                                 -For purposes of accion reinvindicatoria

                                                                        -Pursuant to Art. 1141, an action involving real property may be filed within thirty (30) years.

                                                                       

Summary:

1.Within 1 year from dispossession: Forcible entry; Unlawful detainer  

2. After 1 year but within ten (10) years- accion publiciana

3. Within 30 years (Art. 1141) - accion reinvindicatoria. However, according to Art. 555 (4) in relation to 2^nd paragraph of Art. 1141 itself, the real right to possession could be lost after 10 years.

·       The 30-year period that is granted by law to the owner to recover possession under Art. 1141 is CIRCUMSCRIBED by the second paragraph of the very same provision. Thus, in DESAMPARADOS M. SOLIVA, Substituted by Sole Heir PERLITA SOLIVA GALDO, petitioner, vs. The INTESTATE ESTATE of MARCELO M. VILLALBA and VALENTA BALICUA VILLALBA, respondents.[4] it was held that:

“Moreover, we find that the RTC and the CA correctly appreciated the operation of ordinary acquisitive prescription in respondents favor. To acquire ownership and other real rights over immovables under Article 1134 of the Civil Code, possession must be for 10 years. It must also be in good faith and with just title.

Good faith consists of the reasonable belief that the person from whom the possessor received the thing was its owner, but could not transmit the ownership thereof. On the other hand, there is just title when the adverse claimant came into possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights, but the grantor was not the owner or could not transmit any right.

The RTC and the CA held that the Villalbas had continuously possessed the property from January 4, 1966 until May 5, 1982 or for a total of 16 years. Capt. Villalba came into possession through a sale by petitioner, whom he believed was the owner, though -- at the time of the sale -- she was not. Clearly, all the elements of ordinary acquisitive prescription were present.

Petitioner is thus precluded from invoking the 30-year prescriptive period for commencing real action over immovables. Prescription of the action is without prejudice to acquisitive prescription, according to Article 1141 of the Civil Code, which we quote:

Art. 1141. Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty years.

This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the acquisition of ownership and other real rights by prescription. (Italics supplied)”

---

[1] German Management and Services, Inc. v. CA et al., G.R. Nos. 76216, 76217, Sept. 14, 1989

[2] See Roman Catholic Bishop of Cebu v. Mangaron, 6 Phil. 280

[3] See p. 102, Civil Code Book II Fourteenth Edition by Paras

[4] G.R. No. 154017. December 8, 2003

OWNERSHIP, ACCESSION AND CO-OWNERSHIP (INCLUDING THE CONDOMINUM ACT {Rep. Act No. 4726})

Lecture No. 8. Part II

 Civil Law Review

 Lecture Series

Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III

(For Fourth Year Section-A and Property Second Year,

University of San Agustin School of Law, General Luna Street,

Iloilo City, School Year 2016-2017 Ist Semester)

Registered Lands

Query 1. The guarantee of the torrens law is that a property which is covered by a torrens title could not be subject of prescription. Is there a chance that a registered owner of property who has failed to recover possession of his registered property, be permanently barred by prescription or laches?

Doctrinal-ruling: “As registered owners of the lots in question, the private respondents have a right to eject any person illegally occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible. Even if it be supposed that they were aware of the petitioners occupation of the property, and regardless of the length of that possession, the lawful owners have a right to demand the return of their property at any time as long as the possession was unauthorized or merely tolerated, if at all. This right is never barred by laches”. (Citations omitted)[1]

Contra-Ruling: “Likewise, it must be stressed that unlike prescription, laches is not concerned merely with the fact of delay, but even more with the effect of unreasonable delay. In Vda. de Cabrera v. CA, we explained:

In our jurisdiction, it is an enshrined rule that even a registered owner of property may be barred from recovering possession of property by virtue of laches. Under the Land Registration Act (now the Property Registration Decree), no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. The same is not true with regard to laches. As we have stated earlier in Mejia de Lucas vs. Gamponia, while the defendant may not be considered as having acquired title by virtue of his and his predecessors long continued possession (37 years) the original owners right to recover x x x the possession of the property and the title thereto from the defendant has, by the latters long period of possession and by patentees inaction and neglect, been converted into a stale demand.

The contention of petitioner that her right to recover is imprescriptible because the property was registered under the Torrens system also fails to convince us. It was the finding of the trial court that the property was not yet covered by a free patent on January 4, 1966, when Captain Villalba acquired possession thereof. Indeed, the evidence shows that as of that date, the documents relating to the property were still in the name of Pilar Castrence, from whom petitioner purchased the property on April 27, 1966; that she applied for a free patent therefor between January 4 and April 27, 1966; and that the original certificate of title over the lot was issued to her under Free Patent No. (x-1) 3732 only on August 16, 1974.

It is apparent, then, that petitioner sold the house and lot to respondent on January 4, 1966, before she had even acquired the title to convey it. Moreover, she applied for a free patent after she lost, by operation of law, the title she had belatedly acquired from Castrence. These circumstances raise serious questions over the formers good faith in delaying the assertion of her rights to the property. They bar her from seeking relief under the principle that one who comes to court must come with clean hands.” [2]

·       It is no longer good law that all cases for recovery of possession or accion publiciana lie with the RTC, regardless of the value of the property.[3]

Article 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim. (n)

Article 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation.

Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his possession. (349a)

Article 436. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified. (n)

ARTICLE 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation. (350a)

Article 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property on which it is found.

Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another, or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.

If the things found be of interest to science or the arts, the State may acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated. (351a)

Article 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear. (35

Comments:

·       If A by chance unearths a diamond in its natural state, how would the same be divided?

CHAPTER 2
Right of Accession

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially. (353)

SECTION 1
Right of Accession with Respect to What is Produced by Property

Article 441. To the owner belongs:

(1) The natural fruits;

(2) The industrial fruits;

(3) The civil fruits. (354)

Article 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil, and the young and other products of animals.

Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor.

Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income. (355a)

Article 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a third person in their production, gathering, and preservation. (356)

-        Compare with Art 449 which applies only if the crops have not yet been gathered.

Article 444. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as natural or industrial fruits.

With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb of the mother, although unborn. (357)

SECTION 2
Right of Accession with Respect to Immovable Property

Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles. (358)

Comment:

Basic Principles of Accession Continua (Accession Industrial)

a)    To the owner of the principal  must belong also the accessions, in accordance with the principle of “the accessory follows the principal”

b)   The union or incorporation must, with certain exceptions, be effected in such a manner that to separate the principal from the accessory would result in substantial injury to either

c)    He who is in good faith may be held responsible but he should not be penalized

d)   He who is in bad faith may be penalized

e)    No one should enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another

f)     Bad faith of one party neutralizes the bad faith of the other so both should be considered in good faith.

Article 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved. (359)

Article 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or through another, plantings, constructions or works with the materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do so without injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings, constructions or works being destroyed. However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may remove them in any event, with a right to be indemnified for damages. (360a)

Article 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be 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 the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. (361a)

Comments:

1)     Conflicts of rights rule. Applies only when there is a conflict

2)    “considerably more”

3)    Builder and Planter v. Sower

4)   Right of Retention

5)    Choice Irrevocable

6)   No right of removal or demolition UNLESS after selected a compulsory sale, the builder fails to pay for the land

7)    Status quo while Landowner cannot yet make a choice

8)   Builder in Bad faith not entitled to any form of reimbursement at all?

9)   See Crispin Aquino v. Sps. Eusebio Aguilar[4] : “Pursuant to Art. 452 NCC, BBF is entitled to recoup necessary expenses for preservation of the land”.

10) Good Faith involving Registered Lands:

·       Torrens Title serves as constructive notice to whole world of the ownership of the registered owner of said property

·       Exception: Co Tao v. Chico (L-499167, April 30, 1968)[5]- No one, not even a surveyor, can determine the precise location of his land by simply examining his title.

Article 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity. (362)

Article 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent. (363a)

Article 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower. (n)

Article 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land. (n)

Article 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the 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.

It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. (364a)

Article 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder, planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of article 447 shall apply. (n)

Article 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay.

This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor. (365a)

Article 456. In the cases regulated in the preceding articles, good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence, which gives right to damages under article 2176. (n)

Article 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters. (336)

Comment:

·       Loss by Alluvium Not Affected by Registration Under Land Registration Act

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 lose that inundated by them in extraordinary floods. (367)

Article 459. Whenever the current of a river, creek or torrent 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 segregated portion belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that he removes the same within two years. (368a)

Article 460. Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the waters belong to the owner of the land upon which they may be cast, if the owners do not claim them within six months. If such owners claim them, they shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering them or putting them in a safe place. (369a)

Article 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the 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, which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed. (370a)

Comments:

·       What if river totally dries up? See Republic v. Santos III[6]

·       Requisites: 1. Change must be sudden; 2. Change must be more or less permanent; 3. Change of course must be due to natural causes; there must be abandonment by government; 4. River must continue to exist

·       Abandonment by Government

Article 462. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes, opens a new bed through a private estate, this bed shall become of public dominion. (372a)

Article 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is separated from the estate by the current. (374)

Article 464. Islands which may be formed on the seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or floatable rivers belong to the State. (371a)

Article 465. Islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial deposits are formed in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers, belong to the owners of the margins or banks nearest to each of them, or to the owners of both margins if the island is in the middle of the river, in which case it shall be divided longitudinally in halves. If a single island thus formed be more distant from one margin than from the other, the owner of the nearer margin shall be the sole owner thereof. (373a)

SECTION 3
Right of Accession with Respect to Movable Property

Article 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to different owners are, without bad faith, united in such a way that they form a single object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the accessory, indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value. (375)

Article 467. The principal thing, as between two things incorporated, is deemed to be that to which the other has been united as an ornament, or for its use or perfection. (376)

Article 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the preceding article which of the two things incorporated is the principal one, the thing of the greater value shall be so considered, and as between two things of equal value, that of the greater volume.

In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment shall be deemed the accessory thing. (377)

Article 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without injury, their respective owners may demand their separation.

Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment or perfection of the other, is much more precious than the principal thing, the owner of the former may demand its separation, even though the thing to which it has been incorporated may suffer some injury. (378)

Article 470. Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made the incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose the thing incorporated and shall have the obligation to indemnify the owner of the principal thing for the damages he may have suffered.

If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the principal thing, the owner of the accessory thing shall have a right to choose between the former paying him its value or that the thing belonging 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.

If either one of the owners has made the incorporation with the knowledge and without the objection of the other, their respective rights shall be determined as though both acted in good faith. (379a)

Article 471. Whenever the owner of the material employed without his consent has a right to an indemnity, he may demand that this consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value, and in all other respects, to that employed, or else in the price thereof, according to expert appraisal. (380)

Article 472. If by the will of their owners two things of the same or different kinds are mixed, or if the mixture occurs by chance, and in the latter case the things are not separable without injury, each owner shall acquire a right proportional to the part belonging to him, bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused. (381)

Article 473. If by the will of only one owner, but in good faith, two things of the same or different kinds are mixed or confused, the rights of the owners shall be determined by the provisions of the preceding article.

If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith, he shall lose the thing belonging to him thus mixed or confused, besides being obliged to pay indemnity for the damages caused to the owner of the other thing with which his own was mixed. (382)

Article 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another in whole or in part in order to make a thing of a different kind, shall appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own, indemnifying the owner of the material for its value.

If the material is more precious than the transformed thing or is of more value, its owner may, at his option, appropriate the new thing to himself, after first paying indemnity for the value of the work, or demand indemnity for the material.

If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the material shall have the right to appropriate the work to himself 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 he may have suffered. However, the owner of the material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than that of the material. (383a)

Article 475. In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be duly appreciated. (n)

CHAPTER 3
Quieting of Title (n)

Article 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.

Article 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.

Article 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive prescription.

Article 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses that may have redounded to the plaintiff's benefit.

Article 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code.

Article 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal of a cloud therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgated.

Comments:

·       Does the action to quiet title prescribe?

If plaintiff in possession – Imprescriptible

If plaintiff not in possession- Prescribes in 10 or 30 years depending on ordinary or extraordinary prescription. See Art 1134

CHAPTER 4
Ruinous Buildings and Trees in Danger of Falling

Article 482. If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged to demolish it or to execute the necessary work in order to prevent it from falling.

If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the administrative authorities may order the demolition of the structure at the expense of the owner, or take measures to insure public safety. (389a)

Article 483. Whenever a large tree threatens to fall in such a way as to cause damage to the land or tenement of another or to travelers over a public or private road, the owner of the tree shall be obliged to fell and remove it; and should he not do so, it shall be done at his expense by order of the administrative authorities. (390a)

TITLE III
CO-OWNERSHIP

Article 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons.

Comment:

·       Co-ownership v. corporation or partnership

·       Can a co-ownership sue as such?

In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title. (392)

Article 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.

The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved. (393a)

Article 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners from using it according to their rights. The purpose of the co-ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied. (394a)

Article 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. (n)

Comment;

·       Presupposes that the plaintiff recognizes the co-ownership. “Where the suit is for the benefit of the plaintiff who alone claims to be the sole owner and entitled to the possession of the litigated property, the action should be dismissed”[7].

Article 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes. Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the co-ownership. (395a)

Article 489. Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of the co-owners, but he must, if practicable, first notify his co-owners of the necessity for such repairs. Expenses to improve or embellish the thing shall be decided upon by a majority as determined in article 492. (n)

Article 490. Whenever the different stories of a house belong to different owners, if the titles of ownership do not specify the terms under which they should contribute to the necessary expenses and there exists no agreement on the subject, the following rules shall be observed:

(1) The main and party walls, the roof and the other things used in common, shall be preserved at the expense of all the owners in proportion to the value of the story belonging to each;

(2) Each owner shall bear the cost of maintaining the floor of his story; the floor of the entrance, front door, common yard and sanitary works common to all, shall be maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata;

(3) The stairs from the entrance to the first story shall be maintained at the expense of all the owners pro rata, with the exception of the owner of the ground floor; the stairs from the first to the second story shall be preserved at the expense of all, except the owner of the ground floor and the owner of the first story; and so on successively. (396)

Article 491. None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, ma

·       Query: May an alien acquire a condominium under Philippine law?

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4726 June 18, 1966

AN ACT TO DEFINE CONDOMINIUM, ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR ITS CREATION, AND GOVERN ITS INCIDENTS.

Sec. 1. The short title of this Act shall be "The Condominium Act".

Sec. 2. A condominium is an interest in real property consisting of separate interest in a unit in a residential, industrial or commercial building and an undivided interest in common, directly or indirectly, in the land on which it is located and in other common areas of the building. A condominium may include, in addition, a separate interest in other portions of such real property. Title to the common areas, including the land, or the appurtenant interests in such areas, may be held by a corporation specially formed for the purpose (hereinafter known as the "condominium corporation") in which the holders of separate interest shall automatically be members or shareholders, to the exclusion of others, in proportion to the appurtenant interest of their respective units in the common areas.

The real right in condominium may be ownership or any other interest in real property recognized by law, on property in the Civil Code and other pertinent laws.

Sec. 3. As used in this Act, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Condominium" means a condominium as defined in the next preceding section.

(b) "Unit" means a part of the condominium project intended for any type of independent use or ownership, including one or more rooms or spaces located in one or more floors (or part or parts of floors) in a building or buildings and such accessories as may be appended thereto.

(c) "Project" means the entire parcel of real property divided or to be divided in condominiums, including all structures thereon,

(d) "Common areas" means the entire project excepting all units separately granted or held or reserved.

(e) "To divide" real property means to divide the ownership thereof or other interest therein by conveying one or more condominiums therein but less than the whole thereof.

Sec. 4. The provisions of this Act shall apply to property divided or to be divided into condominiums only if there shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds of the province or city in which the property lies and duly annotated in the corresponding certificate of title of the land, if the latter had been patented or registered under either the Land Registration or Cadastral Acts, an enabling or master deed which shall contain, among others, the following:

(a) Description of the land on which the building or buildings and improvements are or are to be located;

(b) Description of the building or buildings, stating the number of stories and basements, the number of units and their accessories, if any;

(c) Description of the common areas and facilities;

(d) A statement of the exact nature of the interest acquired or to be acquired by the purchaser in the separate units and in the common areas of the condominium project. Where title to or the appurtenant interests in the common areas is or is to be held by a condominium corporation, a statement to this effect shall be included;

(e) Statement of the purposes for which the building or buildings and each of the units are intended or restricted as to use;

(f) A certificate of the registered owner of the property, if he is other than those executing the master deed, as well as of all registered holders of any lien or encumbrance on the property, that they consent to the registration of the deed;

(g) The following plans shall be appended to the deed as integral parts thereof:

(1) A survey plan of the land included in the project, unless a survey plan of the same property had previously bee filed in said office;

(2) A diagrammatic floor plan of the building or buildings in the project, in sufficient detail to identify each unit, its relative location and approximate dimensions;

(h) Any reasonable restriction not contrary to law, morals or public policy regarding the right of any condominium owner to alienate or dispose of his condominium.

The enabling or master deed may be amended or revoked upon registration of an instrument executed by the registered owner or owners of the property and consented to by all registered holders of any lien or encumbrance on the land or building or portion thereof. The term "registered owner" shall include the registered owners of condominiums in the project. Until registration of a revocation, the provisions of this Act shall continue to apply to such property.

Sec. 5. Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an apartment, office or store or other space therein, shall include the transfer or conveyance of the undivided interests in the common areas or, in a proper case, the membership or shareholdings in the condominium corporation: Provided, however, That where the common areas in the condominium project are owned by the owners of separate units as co-owners thereof, no condominium unit therein shall be conveyed or transferred to persons other than Filipino citizens, or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital stock of which belong to Filipino citizens, except in cases of hereditary succession. Where the common areas in a condominium project are held by a corporation, no transfer or conveyance of a unit shall be valid if the concomitant transfer of the appurtenant membership or stockholding in the corporation will cause the alien interest in such corporation to exceed the limits imposed by existing laws.

X x x”

End

---

[1] Heirs of Jose Maligaso Sr v. Sps. Simon D. Encinas, G.R. No. 182716, June 20, 2012

[2] Soliva v. Villalba, Ibid.

[3] Filomena Cabling v. Rodrigo  Dangcalan, G.R. No. 187696, June 15, 2016

[4] G.R. No. 182754, June 29, 2015

[5] P. 199, Paras, Ibid.

[6] G.R. No. 160453, November 12, 2012

[7] Arnelito Adlawan v. Emeterio M. Adlawan, G.R. No. 161916, January 20, 2006