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
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 2nd 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)”
No comments:
Post a Comment