PROPERTY

Lecture 7

Part II

Civil Law Review

Lecture Series

Atty. Eduardo T. Reyes, III

PROPERTY

Article 415. The following are immovable properties: x x x”

·       Test of enumeration

·       Comma between “Land, Buildings”; significance

·       Can a building standing on land owned by another, be mortgaged? Should it be by constituting a Real Estate Mortgage or Chattel?

·       “Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works”.

·       Requisites: a. The machinery must have been placed by the owner or an agent of the same; b. An industry or works must be carried on in the building or land; c. The machinery must tend directly to meet the needs of the industry or works; d. The machinery must be essential and principal to the pursuance of the business of the owner, and not merely incidental.

·        Davao Sawmills Co. v Castillo, 61 Phil 709

·       A tenant who installs machinery, etc. on leased property for some industry or works. Real or personal property?

·       Exception? Exception to exception.

Article 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership. (338)

Article 420. The following things are property of public dominion:

(1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State, banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the development of the national wealth. (339a)

            Comments:

·       Bodies of water have technical meanings. “River”.

Article 421. All other property of the State, which is not of the character stated in the preceding article, is patrimonial property. (340a)

Article 422. Property of public dominion, when no longer intended for public use or for public service, shall form part of the patrimonial property of the State. (341a)

Article 423. The property of provinces, cities, and municipalities is divided into property for public use and patrimonial property. (343)

Article 424. Property for public use, in the provinces, cities, and municipalities, consist of the provincial roads, city streets, municipal streets, the squares, fountains, public waters, promenades, and public works for public service paid for by said provinces, cities, or municipalities.

All other property possessed by any of them is patrimonial and shall be governed by this Code, without prejudice to the provisions of special laws. (344a)

Article 425. Property of private ownership, besides the patrimonial property of the State, provinces, cities, and municipalities, consists of all property belonging to private persons, either individually or collectively. (345a)

Provisions Common to the Three Preceding Chapters

Article 426. Whenever by provision of the law, or an individual declaration, the expression "immovable things or property," or "movable things or property," is used, it shall be deemed to include, respectively, the things enumerated in Chapter 1 and Chapter 2.

Whenever the word "muebles," or "furniture," is used alone, it shall not be deemed to include money, credits, commercial securities, stocks and bonds, jewelry, scientific or artistic collections, books, medals, arms, clothing, horses or carriages and their accessories, grains, liquids and merchandise, or other things which do not have as their principal object the furnishing or ornamenting of a building, except where from the context of the law, or the individual declaration, the contrary clearly appears. (346a)

TITLE II
OWNERSHIP

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

·       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.[2]

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?

---

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

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