MODULE 7 ONG v.

REP of PH
POSSESSION The law speaks of possession and occupation. Since these
CONCEPT OF POSSESSION words are separated by the conjunction and, the clear
• To actually and physically occupy a thing, with or intention of the law is not to make one synonymous with
without a right. the other. Possession is broader than occupation because it
• In general, it is the holding of a thing or of a right, includes constructive possession. When, therefore, the law
whether by material occupation or by the fact that adds the word occupation, it seeks to delimit the all-
encompassing effect of constructive possession. Taken
the thing or the right is subjected to the action of
together with the words open, continuous, exclusive and
our will. notorious, the word occupation serves to highlight the fact
that for an applicant to qualify, his possession must not be
Possession v. Ownership a mere fiction. Actual possession of a land consists in the
manifestation of acts of dominion over it of such a nature
Possession Ownership as a party would naturally exercise over his own property.
There must be actual and No need for actual and
physical occupation or physical occupation or ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION
holding holding 1. Occupancy, apprehension, or taking
2. Intent to possess (animums possidendi)
MEDINA V. GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT CORP
Possession and ownership are two different legal (Note: existence may be inferred from the attendant
concepts. Just as possession is not a definite proof of circumstances. It may be disproved by evidence which
ownership, neither is non-possession inconsistent tends to prove that the person under whose power or
with ownership. Even assuming that petitioners' control the thing in question appears to be, does not in
allegations are true, it bears no legal consequence in fact exercise the power or control and does not intend to
the case at hand because the execution of the deeds do so)
of conveyances is already deemed equivalent to
delivery of the property to respondent, and prior CLASSES OF POSSESSION
physical delivery or possession is not legally required. 1. Possession in one’s own name
Under Article 1498 of the Civil Code, "when the sale 2. Possession in the name of another
is made through a public instrument, the execution
thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the Note: The meaning of possession in one’s own name is
object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary dependent on the meaning of possession in the name of
does not appear or cannot be inferred." Possession is another.
also transferred, along with ownership thereof, to
respondent by virtue of the notarized deeds of Commentators: possession in another’s name = situation
conveyances. where possessor is bound by some obligation or legal tie
to another e.g. agent, administrator, lessee, borrower in
Possession is not a definite ownership and neither is commodatum.
non-possession inconsistent with ownership. Non-
possession is not conclusive that one is not the owner Each of these classes of possession has distinct legal
(registered owner who failed to exercise dominion then consequences.
somebody is squatting the property). If such is the case,
you remain as the owner although you are not in actual POSSESSION IN ONE’S OWN NAME
possession of property. Also, when the land is titled, He is not dependent upon another for the validity of
prescription is not applicable. rightful possession. When you are in possession and the
basis of your possession is your own right, therefore,
Possession as a right is entitled to protection your right on possession of the thing is independent.
apart and distinct from ownership
POSSESSION IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER
He is relying upon the rightful possession of another.
DOMALSIN V. SPS VALENCIANO You do not have an independent right.
The fact that the parties do not and cannot own the
property under litigation does not mean that the Example: A caretaker does not have a right of
issue to be resolved is no longer priority of possession. His rightful possession is intertwined or
possession. The determining factor for one to be closely related to the possession of the owner.
entitled to possession will be prior physical
possession and not actual physical possession.

Possession v. Occupation
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio
This view, in effect, embraces these 2 situations: Not a case of adverse possession, therefore, not
a. Possession strictly as an agent of the one possession in the concept of an owner
entitled to possession there being no right
WOLFSON v. AENLLE
whatsoever in the one exercising it. Where a party, through ignorance, inadvertence, or
mistake, occupies land up to a given line beyond his actual
He does not have any independent right. boundaries, because he believes it to be his true line, but
has no intention of claiming title to the extent, if it should
b. Possession with a right belonging to the be ascertained that such line is on his neighbor’s land, such
person exercising the possession in the name possession beyond his true line is not adverse.
of another of which right that person is in
possession (implying existence of juridical relation). After 1910, the defendant’s possession of the land in
dispute could not be adverse to plaintiff’s claim until after
the cadastral survey was made, and the defendant had
That individual has an independent right of refused to abandon his claim for the excess. That
possession although the subject of which is the right important fact, having been established by the evidence of
itself and not the thing. an impartial witness whose testimony is not disputed or
denied, is conclusive of this case. Under such a state of
Example: A lessee is in possession of the thing in facts, the defendant could not acquire title by prescription.
the name of another. With respect to the leasehold
right itself, a lessee is in possession of it in the POSSESSION OF HOLDER:
concept of an owner. One who possesses as a mere holder (or, not in the
concept of owner) acknowledges in another a superior
POSSESSION IN CONCEPT [OPINION NOT OF right which he believes to be ownership, whether his
POSSESSOR HIMSELF BUT OPINION OF OTHERS] belief be right or wrong.
OF AN OWNER:
The possessor in the concept of an owner may be the Note, however, that with respect to the right itself
owner himself or one who claims to be. (tenancy right, leasehold right, usufructuary right, etc.)
he is in possession of it as owner.
This does not recognize that there is another person With respect to the thing/property, he is a mere holder.
with a better right of possession than him, such as an
adverse claimant. Example: tenant, usufructuary, or borrower of a thing in
commodatum. They could not assert ownership over the
Possession in the concept of an owner may ripen thing that they actually possess. What they have is
into ownership (Article 540) rightful possession but no ownership rights.

Before one can claim ownership by prescription, he must POSSESSION IN GOOD FAITH
prove that the character of the possession is that of 1. Good faith consists in the possessor’s belief that the
possession in the concept of an owner. person from whom he received the thing was the
owner of the same and could convey his title.
If in the character of a mere holder, it cannot be a 2. The belief of the possessor that he is the legal
ground to assert ownership. owner of the thing must be based upon SOME title
or mode of acquisition such as sale, a donation,
Example: Untitled property acquired by prescription. A inheritance, or other means of transmitting
has been in possession for 30 years. ownership. Without this, there can be no real-well
grounded belief of one’s ownership.
After 30 years, B filed an action for declaration of 3. Ignorance of the law may be excusable and thus
ownership. B’s action will be dismissed on the ground of serve as the basis of good faith. (E.g. prohibition to
prescription because A was able to obtain it by reason transfer during the 5 year period in case of lands
thereof. covered by a free patent)

The scenario here is there is one in possession for a

certain period of time and eventually he is compelled to
surrender possession. Here, good faith or bad faith
matters if someone contests such possession. (E.g. Art.
448).

Possessor in good faith: you did not know that there

is a flaw in your title or any possible flaw that would
affect your title.

Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio

Possessor in bad faith: you had knowledge of flaws Fruits that are received after the good faith possession
that would invalidate your title; failed to exercise has been interrupted, belongs to the owner of the thing
prudence and due diligence. who successfully recovers possession. After receipt of
those demand letters, he should account for them and
This is the purpose of a demand letter. If someone is deliver the same to the owner who recovers possession.
occupying the property and he is collecting rentals, he
can always claim that he is in good faith such that he POSSESSION IN BAD FAITH
will consider as his own the rentals he received. One in possession of property knowing that his title
thereto is defective.
However, the moment you send a demand letter
receives it and he still continues to collect the rentals, all Examples: Possessor bought from one whom she knew
those rentals he received would no longer belong to him was merely a tenant; where he knew that land belongs
because his good faith possession has been interrupted. to another.
The demand letter serves as a notice that there is
a possible flaw in the title. ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION
Constructive possession
If you are in possession in good faith and during Possession does not mean that a man has to have his
the period of possession, you harvested fruits. feet on every square meter of ground before it can be
Eventually you were asked to surrender the property. said that he is in possession
Will you be required to restitute?
Rule:
No, precisely because you are a possessor in good faith. Possession and control of a portion of a tract under a
The owner cannot insist.. claim of ownership of is a constructive possession of all,
if the remainder is not in the adverse possession of
However, if bad faith, you will be accounted to return another.
the fruits because you know in the first place that the
thing does not belong to you. This neutralizes the strict requirement of actual holding
for possession. When you possess a part, you are
Another legal consequence for possessors in good faith deemed to have possessed in whole. However, the
is the entitlement to reimbursement for all the expenses moment it is shown that a portion of a property is in the
incurred to preserve the property and the necessary adverse possession of another, one could not validly
expenses for useful improvements. Pending payment by claim that he is in constructive possession of the
the successful possessor, you have the right of property.
retention.
A person who can establish possession is entitled
If in bad faith, only entitled to reimbursement for to an independent protection by the law (even if
necessary expenses but no right of retention. You lose such possession is merely constructive)
everything except for the right to be reimbursed for the
SOMODIO v. CA
necessary expenses. Petitioner took possession of the property sometime in 1974
when he planted to the property coconut trees, ipil-ipil trees
Good faith possession may be interrupted and fruit trees. In 1976, he started the construction of a
To interrupt, it’s not necessary to initiate legal building on the property. It is immaterial that the building was
proceedings such as filing a case in court. unfinished and that he left for Kidapawan for employment
reasons and visited the property only intermittently. Possession
in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have
Ways to interrupt his feet on every square meter of ground before it can be said
• Receipt of demand letters that he is in possession. It is sufficient that petitioner was able
• Summons issued by the court to subject the property to the action of his will. Even if the
Court of Appeals is correct in its finding that petitioner started
Note: Interruption of good faith possession has introducing improvements on the land only in 1981, he still
enjoyed priority of possession because respondent Purisima
consequences or implications entered the premises only in 1983.

This is relevant when there is an issue about entitlement In ejectment cases, the only issue for resolution is who is
to the fruits. entitled to the physical or material possession of the
property involved, independent of any claim of ownership
Rule: set forth by any of the party-litigants. Anyone of them who
Fruits that the thing produces while one is in possession can prove prior possession de facto may recover such
in good faith, they belong to the possessor. possession even from the owner himself. This rule holds
true regardless of the character of a party's
possession, provided that he has in his favor priority
of time which |entitles
Property him to |stay
Atty. Gravador A.Y.on the| property
2020 AGregorio
until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a
better right by either accion publiciana or accion
reinvindicatoria.
VIEWPOINTS OF POSSESSION MATERIAL OCCUPATION
RIGHT TO POSSESSION (jus possidendi) – this is a • Actual physical possession/material apprehension &
right or incident of ownership (e.g. owner of parcel of must be coupled with intent to possess
land is entitled to possess) e.g. “right of registered • Synonymous with occupation under Art. 712
owner to possess a parcel of land” Occupation (513) Occupation (712)
Used in grammatical sense Juridical/technical meaning
RIGHT OF POSSESSION (jus possessionis) – this is an Mode of acquiring Mode of acquiring
independent right of itself, independent of ownership possession ownership
(e.g. lessee by virtue of the lease agreement is entitled Coupled with intent to Intent to own/appropriate
to possess) possess
Applies whether property is Only with respect to
ERNESTO YU v. BALTAZAR PACLEB with an owner or not property without an owner
The issue in this case is: “Who has prior possession Can have as its object a Cannot have as its object a
over a parcel of land that is subject of an ejectment parcel of land parcel of land
suit?”
How a minor or incapacitated person may acquire
The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners (Yu’s) possession
who bought the property not from the respondents
(who are the registered owners) were not able to ART. 535. Minors and incapacitated persons may
prove “prior possession”. acquire the possession of things; but they need the
assistance of their legal representatives in order to
It was established that the ones who supposedly exercise the rights, which from the possession arise
delivered possession of the land to them (petitioners) in their favor.
were not owners.
Constructive delivery as a mode of delivering
possession:
Specific acts that the SC noted to be indicator of
respondents’ possession:
Constructive delivery may be considered as equivalent to
material occupation in those cases where such
1. Tax declaration and receipts in 1994 and
occupation is essential to the acquisition of possession.
1995 established the possession of
Cases of constructive delivery which involve material
respondents.
occupation are:
2. The title of the land
• Tradition brevi manu (takes place when one who
possesses the things by little [title] OTHER than
DEGREE OF POSSSESSION ownership continues to possess the same but under
1. Mere holding or possession WITHOUT title a new title that of OWNERSHIP [another title than
whatsoever and in violation of the right of the owner that of ownership])
e.g. possession of a thief or a usurper of land. • Constitutional possessorium (when the owner
2. Possession with juridical [a possession which gives alienates the thing, but continues to possess the
the transferee a right over the thing which the same under a different title, such as that of
transferee may set up even against the owner] title, depositary, pledge, or tenant).
BUT not THAT of OWNERSHIP. This is possession
peaceably acquired e.g. possession of tenant, SUBJECTION TO ACTION OF ONE’S WILL
depositary, or pledgee. This is another mode of acquiring possession. It does
3. Possession with a just title, or a title sufficient to not necessarily involve material occupation, but
transfer ownership, BUT NOT FROM THE TRUE connotes a degree of control over the thing:
OWNER e.g. the possession of a vendee of a piece • Tradition simbolica (e.g. Delivery of keys)
of land from one who pretends to be the owner but • Tradicion longa manu (e.g. Mere pointing of things
is in fact not the owner. transferred, sale of goods stored in a warehouse)
4. Possession with a just title FROM THE TRUE
OWNER. This is possession that springs from
ownership.
PROPER ACTS & LEGAL FORMALITIES
WAYS OF ACQUIRING POSSESSION Another means of acquiring possession is through
1. Material occupation performance of juridical acts and legal formalities.
2. Subjecting the thing or right to the action of the Examples:
person’s will • Donations
3. Proper acts and legal formalities (delivery of a • Succession
public document) • Contracts
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio
• Judicial possession Statutory basis for taking of possession
• Execution of judgments Note Art. 1138 (Civil Code).
• Execution and registration of public instruments
In the computation of time necessary for prescription
(The law in these instances gives the force of acts of the following rules shall be observed:
possession. If performed, it is equivalent to delivery of
possession) 1. The present possessor may complete the period
necessary for prescription by tracing/tracking
Example: sale of real property pursuant to a public his possession to that of his grantor or
document – here delivery of the public document is predecessor in interest;
delivery of both ownership and possession 2. It is presumed that the present possessor who
was also the possessor at a previous time, has
IGNACIO WONG v. HON CARPIO & MANUEL continued to be in possession during the
MERCADO intervening time, unless there is proof to the
The execution of a sale through a public instrument contrary;
shall be equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless 3. The first day shall be excluded and the last
there is stipulation to the contrary. If, however, day included.
notwithstanding the execution of the instrument, the
purchaser cannot have the enjoyment and material ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION: TRANSFER OF
tenancy of the thing and make use of it herself, POSSESSION BY SUCCESSION
because such tenancy and enjoyment are opposed by
another, then delivery has not been affected. (Paras, ART. 534. The possessor who succeeds by
Civil Code)   hereditary title shall not suffer the consequences of
the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is not
In this case, the execution of a public document as a shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it;
form of delivery of possession was qualified. but the effects of possession in good faith shall not
benefit him except from the death of the decedent.
Rule:  
If there is an adverse claimant, then delivery has not
been effected. ILLUSTRATION:

CEBU WINLAND DEV v. ONG SIAO HUA a. If father or decedent was in bad faith, it does
(ISSUE: Has action prescribed based on Art. 1543?) Article 1497 not necessarily mean that the son was also in
above contemplates what is known as real or actual delivery, when
the thing sold is placed in the control and possession of the
bad faith (because bad faith is personal). The
vendee. Article 1498, on the one hand, refers to symbolic delivery son is presumed to be in good faith.
by the execution of a public instrument. It should be noted, b. However, since the father was in BAD FAITH,
however, that Article 1498 does not say that the execution of the the consequences of the GOOD FAITH of the
deed provides a conclusive presumption of the delivery of
possession. It confines itself to providing that the execution
son should be counted only from the date of the
thereof is equivalent to delivery, which means that the decedent’s death. What happens when
presumption therein can be rebutted by means of clear and predecessor held the property in bad faith for
convincing evidence. Thus, the presumptive delivery by the several years, how should this possession (in
execution of a public instrument can be negated by the
failure of the vendee to take actual possession of the land
bad faith) be taken into account for purposes of
sold. computing the required number of years of
possession for the (benefit) of the successor?
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION; TRANSFER OF
POSSESSION BY SUCCESSION
“In the conversion of the character of possession by the
same possessor (unlike in tacking of possession), i.e.”
Acquisitive prescription (as effect of possession in
from good faith to bad faith, most civilist advance the
the concept of an owner)
view that the possessor during his possession in good
Possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted
faith should be granted an equivalent period of
to the heir without interruption from the moment of
possession as the extraordinary prescriptive period bears
death of the decedent, in case inheritance is accepted
to the ordinary period of prescription.
(tacking of possession).
Or, in the proportion of 3:1 (30 years extraordinary to
Example: Father died on June 1, 2003. Son accepted the
10 years ordinary)
inheritance on June 25, 2003. Possession is deemed
transmitted NOT on June 25, 2003 but on June 1, 2003

Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio

ILLUSTRATION: Assuming you filed a case of FE against a squatter.
Father possessed in bad faith “A”s land for 3 years, after You will cite Article 537. So what is the implication if
which the property was presumably inherited by M they contend that these circumstances would not
(son). M was in good faith. For how many years more affect possession?
from the father’s death, should M possess the land in
order to become its owner? The possession of the registered owner is not
deemed interrupted. Even if in actuality you were
A: For 9 years. How is this arrived? deprived by clandestine means, under 537, your
3 x 10/30 = 30/30 =1 possession is not affected.

In other words, we took and considered this 1 year and Remember this rule, they do not interrupt.
add it to 9 (to complete) possession in good faith of M to Possession by tolerance cannot be a foundation
10 years. for a claim of ownership
MANILA ELECTRIC CO. v. IAC
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION BY
Plaintiffs complained against MERALCO’s use and
FORCE/INTIMIDATION
occupancy of the premises. Subsequently, defendant
Possession is not acquired
sometime in 1968 negotiated with plaintiff for the
purchase of the entire lot but the negotiation did not
ART. 536. In no case may possession be acquired
prosper. Finally, plaintiff filed the present action on
through force or intimidation as long as there is a
possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that August. 7
he has an action or a right to deprive another of the
There being no evidence that the original use of the
holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the
competent court, if the holder should refuse to property in question by Meralco was based upon any
deliver the thing. express grant of a fee to the said property, or of an
easement of right of way nor that it began under the
  assertion of a right on its part, the presumption must
Therefore, even if possessor is physically ousted from
be that the origin of the use was by mere tolerance.
the property through the use of force of violence, he is
still deemed the legal possessor.
Acts of a possessory character performed by one who
holds by mere tolerance of the owner are clearly on
It cannot be validly contended that the illegal possessor
en concepto de dueño.  
who used of force or intimidation has acquired
possession entitled to protection by law. No basis to claim lawful possession, therefore,
possession is just by mere tolerance
If such is the case, the consequence is that it does not
affect or interrupt the rightful possession of the lawful SPS. LLOBRERA v. FERNANDEZ
possessor. At the heart of the controversy is the issue of
whether petitioners' possession of the subject
TOLERATED POSSESSION property is founded on contract or not. This factual
ART. 537. Acts merely tolerated, and those issue was resolved by the three (3) courts below in
executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of favor of respondent. As tersely put by the CA in its
assailed decision of June 30, 1999:
the possessor of a thing, or by violence, do not affect
possession.
Petitioners failed to present any written
  merely tolerated:
Acts memorandum of the alleged lease arrangements
1. They are those, which by reason of neighborliness or between them and Gualberto De Venecia. The
familiarity, the owner of property allows his neighbor receipts claimed to have been issued by the owner
or another person to do on the property acts of little were not presented on the excuse that the March 19,
disturbances, in the interest of neighborliness or 1996 fire burned the same. Simply put, there is a
friendly relations. dearth of evidence to substantiate the averred lessor-
lessee relationship.
Example: Permitting others to pass his land, tie a
carabao or get some water from a well. From the absence of proof of any contractual basis
for petitioners' possession of the subject premises,
They do not interrupt the rightful possession of the the only legal implication is that their possession
lawful possessor. thereof is by mere tolerance.

Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio

One cannot claim lawful possession if there is no basis to
claim such. If one continues to possess the property but Art. 539. Every possessor has a right to be
he cannot explain what is the legal basis of his respected in his possession; and should he be
possession of the subject property, then possession is disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored
just by mere tolerance. to said possession by the means established by the
laws and the Rules of Court.
When you are a possessor by mere tolerance, it carries
with it the implied obligation to surrender possession Art. 540. Only the possession acquired and
whenever the rightful possessor would ask you to do so. enjoyed in the concept of owner can serve as a
title for acquiring dominion.
Not a case of possession by tolerance when there
is invitation DIFFERENT ACTIONS TO RECOVER POSSESSION
Forcible Entry/Unlawful Detainer
SPS. MACASAET v. SPS. MACASAET Forcible entry: deprivation of possession by force,
We hold that the facts of the present case rule out intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; possession is
the finding of possession by mere tolerance. illegal from the start.
Petitioners were able to establish that respondents
had invited them to occupy the subject lots in order Unlawful detainer: possession is legal form the start.
that they could all live near one other and help in Only issue is physical or material possession. Ownership
resolving family problems. By occupying those lots, is not an issue. May be decided provisionally to
petitioners demonstrated their acceptance of the determine issue on priority of possession.
invitation. Hence, there was a meeting of minds, and
an agreement regarding possession of the lots Distinction among the different actions to recover
impliedly arose between the parties.
CASILANG SR V. CASILANG-DIZON
The occupancy of the subject lots by petitioners was
not merely "something not wholly approved of" by It is well to be reminded of the settled distinction between
respondents. Neither did it arise from what Tolentino a summary action of ejectment and a plenary action for
refers to as "neighborliness or familiarity." In point of recovery of possession and/or ownership of the land. What
fact, their possession was upon the invitation of and really distinguishes an action for unlawful detainer from a
with the complete approval of respondents, who possessory action (accion publiciana) and from a
reinvindicatory action (accion reinvindicatoria) is that the
desired that their children would occupy the
first is limited to the question of possession de facto.
premises. Unlawful detainer suits (accion interdictal) together with
forcible entry are the two forms of ejectment suit that may
Since the son and his wife were invited by the father to be filed to recover possession of real property.
build their house, then it is not possession by mere
tolerance. SC ruled that they were builders in good faith Aside from the summary action of ejectment, accion publiciana
and thus entitled to claim the privileges accorded to or the plenary action to recover the right of possession and
accion reinvindicatoria or the action to recover ownership
them as such under Article 448.
which also includes recovery of possession, make up the three
kinds of actions to judicially recover possession.
Conflict over possession de fact
ART. 538 Possession as a fact cannot be recognized ESTATE OF MANANTAN V. SOMERA
at the same time in two different personalities except Further, it appears from the allegations in the Complaint that
the respondent was already in possession of the disputed
in the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise
portion at the time Manantan bought the subject property
regarding the fact of possession, the present from the Bayot family, and it was only after the conduct of a
possessor shall be preferred; if there are two relocation survey, which supposedly showed that respondent
possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates was encroaching on the subject property, did Manantan begin
of the possession are the same, the one who asserting her claim of ownership over the portion occupied and
presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal, used by respondent.
the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending
Clearly, respondent’s possession of the disputed portion was
determination of its possession or ownership through
not pursuant to any contract, express or implied, with
proper proceedings. Manantan, and, resultantly, respondent’s right of possession
over the disputed portion is not subject to expiration or
termination. At no point can it be said that respondent’s
EFFECTS OF POSSESSION possession of the disputed portion ceased to be legal and
No one should take the law into his own hands became an unlawful withholding of the property from
Manantan.

Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio

Manantan bought her property from the Bayot family. So complaint was wanting in the necessary facts. This
as the buyer of from the Bayot family, she conducted a cannot also be a case of FE because her complaint does
relocation survey. She discovered that Somera occupied not allege that the entry of Atty was pursuant to threat,
a portion of her property, which she bought. She filed a strategy or stealth.
case for unlawful detainer.
Mrs. Quijano should’ve filed the appropriate action –
UD is appropriate when the action of the defendant action reinvindicatoria.
possessed the property pursuant to a contract either
express or implied (contract of lease).
JAVELOSA V. TAPUS
Tolerance is of utmost importance in an action for
SC said UD is not the correct remedy ITCAB because he
unlawful detainer. Without proof that the possession
did not possess the property pursuant to a contract.
was legal at the outset, the logical conclusion would
Accion reinvidicatoria is the appropriate remedy. The
be that the defendant's possession of the subject
issue here is also possession but closely related to the
property will be deemed illegal from the very
issue of ownership. If squatter ang ni enter, pwede FE.
beginning, for which, the action for unlawful detainer
shall be dismissed.
FE QUIJANO V. ATTY. DARYL AMANTE
To show that the possession was initially lawful, the
Unfortunately, the petitioner failed to prove how and
basis of such lawful must then be established. With
when the respondents entered the subject lot, as
the averment here that the respondent’s possession
well as how and when the permission to occupy was
was by mere tolerance of the petitioner, the acts of
purportedly given. In fact, she was conspicuously
tolerance must be proved, for bare allegation of
silent about the details on how the permission to
tolerance did not suffice. At least, the petitioner
enter was given, save for her bare assertion that the
should show the overt acts indicative of her or her
respondents' occupied the premises as caretakers
predecessor’s tolerance, or her co-heirs’ permission
thereof.
for him to occupy the disputed property.

But she did not adduce such evidence. Instead, she As an exception to the general rule, the
appeared to be herself not clear and definite as to his respondents’ petition for nullification of the
possession of the disputed property being merely partition of lot 1907-A can abate Carmencita’s
tolerated by Eliseo, as the following averment of her suit for unlawful detainer.
petition for review indicates:
SUAREZ V. EMBOY JR.
Considering all allegation of the petitioner’s tolerance
Carmencita's complaint for unlawful detainer is
of the respondent’s possession of the disputed
anchored upon the proposition that the respondents
property was not established, the possession could have been in possession of the subject lot by mere
very well be deemed illegal from the beginning. In
tolerance of the owners. The respondents, on the
that case, her action for unlawful detainer has to fail.
other hand, raise the defense of ownership of the
Even so, the Court would not be justified to treat this
subject lot and point to the pendency of Civil Case
ejectment suit as one for forcible entry because the
No. CEB-30548, a petition for nullification of the
complaint contained no allegation that his entry in
partition of Lot No. 1907-A, in which Carmencita and
the property had been by force, intimidation, threats,
the Heirs of Vicente were impleaded as parties.
strategy or stealth.
Further, should Carmencita's complaint be granted,
Wrong case filed. Atty. Amante purchased a property the respondents' house, which has been standing in
from a sibling of. Upon partition, it was found out that the subject lot for decades, would be subject to
the share pertaining to Quijano was the one occupied by demolition. The foregoing circumstances, thus, justify
Atty. Amante. He was forced to be ejected because the the exclusion of the instant petition from the purview
property does not belong to the seller who was the of the general rule.
owner’s brother.

Atty said he will not vacate the premises because he ACCION PUBLICIANA
bought the property from the owner’s brother. Fe filed • Ordinary civil proceeding to recover the better right
UD pursuant to her tolerance. of possession of realty INDEPENDENTLY OF TITLE
• Issue is possession de jure
SC dismissed the case of ejectment against Atty. This is • Ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year
not a case of UD because although Mrs. Quijano alleged form the occurrence of the cause of action or one
that the possession was by mere tolerance, her
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio
 year from the unlawful withholding of possession of Note:
the realty. • He acknowledges that there is no other person with
a better title than him
FE and UD are considered summary actions to recover • It may ripen into ownership (Art. 540)
such that it has tight limitations. 1 year from deprivation
from possession, you must file the case for FE. If more Art. 541. A possessor in the concept of an owner
than 1 year, it’s no longer FE but accion publiciana. has in his favor the legal presumption that he
possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged
Because accion publiciana is also an allowable remedy if to show or prove it.
the ejectment suit is filed after the expiration of 1 year
from the occurrence of the cause of action. Meaning of “Just Title”
1. Title is not necessarily the document
If UD, within 1 year from the sending of the last demand 2. By “just title” is meant that which is legally
letter, you have to file a case. sufficient to transfer ownership or the real right
to which it relates.
Objective of Accion Publiciana
POSSESSION PRESCRIPTION
The objective of the plaintiffs in accion publiciana is “Just Title” is presumed “Just title” must be proved
to recover possession only, not ownership. When Titulo verdaro y valido [true “Titulo” (merely colorable
parties, however, raise the issue of ownership, the and valid title sufficient to title although there was a
court may pass upon the issue to determine who transfer ownership mode of transferring
between the parties has the right to possess the ownership)
property. There is a mode of
transferring ownership (Art.
712. Ownership is acquired by Notes: although there is a
This adjudication, nonetheless, is not a final and mode of acquiring
occupation and by intellectual
binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is ownership, still something
creation.
only for the purpose of resolving the issue of is wrong because the
possession, where the issue of ownership is Ownership and other real grantor is not the owner.
inseparably linked to the issue of possession. rights over property are
acquired and transmitted by
The adjudication of the issue of ownership, being law, by donation, by estate
provisional, is not a bar to an action between the and intestate succession and
same parties involving title to the property. The in consequence of certain
adjudication, in short, is not conclusive on the issue contracts, by tradition.
of ownership
They may also be acquired by
means of prescription, and
ACCION REINVINDICATORIA the grantor is the owner. No
need for prescription.
Action to recover possession based on
ownership EFFECTS OF POSSESSION IN CONCEPT OF AN
OWNER:
On the other hand, the recovery of possession case is 1. Possession in concept of owner is converted into
actually an accion reinvidicatoria or a suit to recover ownership by the lapse of time necessary for
possession of a parcel of land as an element of prescription.
ownership 2. Possessor can bring all actions necessary to
protect his possession, availing himself of any
A perusal of the complaint filed by the respondents in action, which an owner can bring, except accion
the recovery of possession case shows that the reinvidicatoria which is substituted by the accion
respondents, as successors-in-interest of Dionisio, publiciana.
are asserting ownership of the subject property and 3. He can ask for inscription of his possession in
are seeking the recovery of possession thereof. the registry of property.
4. Upon recovering possession, he may demand
fruits and damages.
EFFECTS OF POSSESSION IN THE CONCEPT OF AN
OWNER
Possession in concept [opinion not of possessor himself
but opinion of others] of owner.

Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio

Not a case of possession in the concept of an An instance of bad faith possession
owner and thus, prescription will not run
MANOTOK REALTY INC V. CA
The records show that when Dayrit executed the deed of
Bogo-Medellin Milling Co. Inc v. CA
assignment in favor of the respondent, the disputed lot
An easement or servitude is a real right, constituted was already registered and titled in the name of the
on the corporeal immovable property of another, by petitioner. Such an act of registration served as a
virtue of which the owner has to refrain from doing, constructive notice to the whole world and the title issued
or must allow someone to do, something on his in favor of petitioner made his ownership conclusive upon
property, for the benefit of another thing or person. and against all persons including Dayrit and herein
It exists only when the servient and dominant estates respondent, although no personal notice was served on
belong to two different owners. It gives the holder of either of the latter. (See Garcia v. Bello, 13 SCRA 769;
Demontano v. Court of Appeals, 81 SCRA 286). Therefore,
the easement an incorporeal interest on the land but
the presumption of good faith in favor of the respondent
grants no title thereto. Therefore, an cannot apply because as far as the law is concerned, he
acknowledgment of the easement is an admission had notice of the ownership by the petitioner over said lot.
that the property belongs to another. Having held
the property by virtue of an easement, petitioner
cannot now assert that its occupancy since 1929 was Good faith when one relies on the face of the
in the concept of an owner. Neither can it declare certificate of title
that the 30-year period of extraordinary acquisitive
VILLAMIL V. VILLAROSA
prescription started from that year.
Well-settled is the rule that every person dealing with a
registered land may safely rely on the correctness of the
certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way
Ex-parte writ of possession not a proper remedy
oblige him to go beyond the certificate to determine the
condition of the property. Where there is nothing in the
In the case at bar, it is not disputed that after the certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the
foreclosure of the property in question and the issuance of ownership of the property, or any encumbrance thereon,
new certificates of title in favor of the respondent, the the purchaser is not required to explore further than what
petitioner and the respondent entered into a contract of the Torrens Title upon its face indicates in quest for any
lease of the subject properties. This new contractual hidden defects or inchoate right that may subsequently
relation presupposed that the petitioner recognized that defeat his right thereto.
possession of the properties had been legally placed in the
hands of the respondent, and that the latter had taken
such possession but delivered it to the former as lessee of
Precautionary measures when dealing with
the property. By paying the monthly rentals, the petitioner
also recognized the superior right of the respondent to the
registered lands
possession of the property as owner thereof. And by
DOMINGO REALTY INC. V. CA
accepting the monthly rentals, the respondent enjoyed the
While the Court can commiserate with respondent Acero in
fruits of its possession over the subject property. Clearly,
his sad plight, nonetheless we have no power to make or
the respondent is in material possession of the subject
alter contracts in order to save him from the adverse
premises. Thus, the trial court's issuance of a writ of
stipulations in the Compromise Agreement. Hopefully this
possession is not only superfluous, but improper under the
case will serve as a precaution to prospective parties to a
law. Moreover, as a lessee, the petitioner was a legitimate
contract involving titled lands for them to exercise the
possessor of the subject properties under Article 525 of the
diligence of a reasonably prudent person by undertaking
Civil Code. Thus, it could not be deprived of its lawful
measures to ensure the legality of the title and the
possession by a mere ex parte motion for a writ of
accurate metes and bounds of the lot embraced in the title.
possession.
It is advisable that such parties (1) verify the origin,
history, authenticity, and validity of the title with the Office
Possession in good faith and possession in bad of the Register of Deeds and the Land Registration
faith; their corresponding effects Authority; (2) engage the services of a competent and
reliable geodetic engineer to verify the boundary, metes,
LEUNG YEE V. F.L. STRONG MACHINERY CO. and bounds of the lot subject of said title based on the
A possessor in good faith is one who is not aware that technical description in the said title and the approved
there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw survey plan in the Land Management Bureau; (3) conduct
which invalidates it. (Caram v. Laureta, 103 SCRA 7, Art. an actual ocular inspection of the lot; (4) inquire from the
526, Civil Code). One who acquires real estate with owners and possessors of adjoining lots with respect to the
knowledge of a defect or lack of title in his vendor cannot true and legal ownership of the lot in question; (5) put up
claim that he has acquired title thereto in good faith as signs that said lot is being purchased, leased, or
against the true owner of the land or of an interest therein; encumbered; and (6) undertake such other measures to
and the same rule must be applied to one who has make the general public aware that said lot will be subject
knowledge of facts which should put a reasonable man to alienation, lease, or encumbrance by the parties.
upon his guard, and then claims that he acted in good faith Respondent Acero, for all his woes, may have a legal
under the belief that there was no defect in the title of the recourse against lessor David Victorio who inveigled him to
vendor. Property
lease the | Atty.
lot which Gravador
turned out to be|owned
A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio
by another.
 If he chose to disregard those defects and failed to
Holder of Torrens title is entitled to the exercise the necessary prudence, he could not invoke
possession the principle to rely on the face of the title.

SPS APOSTOL v. CA SPS. BORNALES v. IAC

In Pangilinan v. Aguilar, we held that it is an The petitioners claim that they were not aware of
accepted rule that a person who has a torrens title any defect in the title of their vendors because the
over the property, such as the respondents, is certificate of title in the name of their predecessors-
entitled to the possession thereof. We reiterated our in-interest which their lawyer examined contained
ruling in the Pangilinan Case in Javelosa v. Court of nothing to put them on guard. The fact however
Appeals, and declared that the registered owners are remains that the petitioners knew and were parties to
entitled to the possession of the property covered by the fraud committed against the private respondent.
the said title from the time such title was issued in Having bought the land registered under the Torrens
their favor. Moreover, the fact that the respondents system from their vendors who procured title thereto
were never in prior physical possession of the subject by means of fraud, petitioners cannot invoke the
land is of no moment, as prior physical possession is indefeasibility of a certificate of title against the
necessary only in forcible entry cases. private respondent to the extent of her interest
therein. The Torrens system of land registration
If the land registration court would declare one as the should not be used as a means to perpetrate fraud
owner in fee simple, that declaration of ownership against the rightful owner of real property.
carries with it impliedly a declaration that the registrant Registration, to be effective, must be made in good
is also the rightful possessor. faith. [Palanca v. Director of Lands]

Hence, to recover possession, the registrant need not PREVAILING JURISPRUDENCE REVEALS THE
file an independent action. What he may do is to file a FOLLOWING RULES
motion in the cadastral court for the issuance of the writ. BPI v. SANCHEZ
1. Well settled is the rule that all persons dealing with
Right to the possession by the registered owner property covered by a torrens certificate of title are not
required to go beyond what appears on the face of the
VILLA v. HEIRS OF ALTAVAS
title. When there is nothing on the certificate of title to
As to respondents' ownership and right of possession of
indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the
the subject properties, records show that the MCTC based
property, or any encumbrance thereon, the purchaser
its Decision not only on the Position Paper of respondents
is not required to explore further than what the torrens
but also on the pieces of evidence submitted by them.
title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden
Respondents attached, as annexes to their Complaint, the
defect or inchoate right that may subsequently defeat
Original Certificates of Title Nos. RO-4326 and RO-4327 in
his right thereto.
the name of Enrique, covering Lot Nos. 2816 and 2817,
2. This rule, however, admits of an EXCEPTION as
respectively, as evidence of their ownership and right to
where the purchaser or mortgagee has knowledge of a
possess the disputed properties.
defect or lack of title in the vendor, or that he was
aware of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably
Moreover, being a mere lessee, petitioner steps into the prudent man to inquire into the status of the property
shoes of her lessor, Virginia. However, Virginia's claim of in litigation.
ownership was not sustained by the MCTC, which instead 3. Likewise, one who buys property with full knowledge
found that she was not the owner of and had no right to of the flaws and defects in the title of the vendor is
possess the disputed property or to transfer possession of enough proof of his bad faith and estopped from
the same, through lease, in favor of another person. claiming that he acquired the property in good faith
against the owners.
4. To prove good faith, the following conditions must be
GARDNER v. CA present:
While one who buys from the registered owner need a. The seller is the registered owner of the land;
not have to look behind the certificate of title, he is b. The owner is in possession thereof; and
nevertheless bound by the liens and encumbrances c. At the time of the sale, the buyer was not aware of
annotated thereon. One who buys without checking any claim or interest of some other person in the
the vendor's title takes all the risks and losses property, or of any defect or restriction in the title of
consequent to such failure. the seller or in his capacity to convey title to the
property.
Actual knowledge is equivalent to registration
This neutralizes the harsh effect of the constructive All these conditions must be present; otherwise, the buyer is
notice rule. One could not just close his eyes to under obligation to exercise extraordinary diligence by scrutinizing
whatever possible sources of defects with regard to his the certificates of title and examining all factual circumstances to
enable him to ascertain the seller's title and capacity to transfer
title. any interest in the property.

Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio

Possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits RULE ON EXPENSES
before his good faith possession ceases
Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every
possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain
ORTIZ V. KAYANAN the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
There is no question that a possessor in good faith is
entitled to the fruits received before the possession is Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in
legally interrupted. good faith with the same right of retention, the person who
has defeated him in the possession having the option of
Possession in good faith ceases or is legally refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying the
interrupted from the moment defects in the title are increase in value, which the thing may have acquired by
reason thereof. (453a)
made known to the possessor, by extraneous
evidence or by the filing of an action in court by the NECESSARY EXPENSES
true owner for the recovery of the property. • Expenses imposed by the existence of the thing
itself, and have no relation to the desire or purpose
Hence, all the fruits that the possessor may receive of the possessor; hence, they are reimbursed,
from the time he is summoned in court, or when he whatever may be the juridical character [whether
answers the complaint, must be delivered and paid one is in good faith or bad faith] of the person who
by him to the owner or lawful possessor. advanced.
• Those incurred for the preservation of the thing,
they ARE NOT considered as improvements. They
But although no longer entitled to the fruits the
DO NOT increase the value of the thing, but merely
good faith possessor has the right of retention
prevent it from being useless.
ORTIZ V. KAYANAN
However, even after his good faith ceases, the USEFUL EXPENSES
possessor in fact can still retain the property, They are incurred to give utility or productivity of the
pursuant to Article 546 of the New Civil Code, until thing. Reimbursed ONLY to the possessor in good faith.
he has been fully reimbursed for all the necessary E.g. expenses for filling up with soil, house constructed
and useful expenses made by him on the property. on the land etc.
This right of retention has been considered as one of
the conglomerate of measures devised by the law for RIGHT OF REMOVAL OF USEFUL IMPROVEMENTS
the protection of the possessor in good faith. Its
Art. 547. If the useful improvements can be removed
object is to guarantee the reimbursement of the
without damage to the principal thing, the possessor in
expenses, such as those for the preservation of the good faith may remove them, unless the person who
property, or for the enhancement of its utility or recovers the possession exercises the option under
productivity. It permits the actual possessor to paragraph 2 of the preceding article.
remain in possession while he has not been
reimbursed by the person who defeated him in the
possession for those necessary expenses and useful However one may speculate as to the true meaning of the
improvements made by him on the thing possessed. term "indemnizacion" whether correctly translated as
"compensation" or "indemnity," the amount of the
The principal characteristic of the right of retention is
"indemnizacion" is the amount of the expenditures
its accessory character. It is accessory to a principal mentioned in Articles 453 and 454 of the Civil Code, which
obligation. in the present case is the amount of the necessary and
useful expenditures incurred by the defendant. Necessary
expenses have been variously described by the Spanish
RULE ON PENDING FRUITS commentators as those made for the preservation of the
thing; as those without which the thing would deteriorate
Art. 545. If at the time the good faith ceases, there or be lost; as those that augment the income of the things
should be any natural or industrial fruits, the possessor upon which they are expended. Among the necessary
shall have a right to a part of the expenses of cultivation, expenditures are those incurred for cultivation, production,
and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the upkeep, etc. Here the plaintiffs have chosen to take the
time of the possession. The charges shall be divided on the improvements introduced on the land and are disposed to
same basis by the two possessors. pay the amount of the necessary and useful expenses
incurred by the defendant. Inasmuch as the retentionist,
The owner of the thing may, should he so desire, give the who is not exactly a possessor in good faith within the
possessor in good faith the right to finish the cultivation meaning of the law, seeks to be reimbursed for the
and gathering of the growing fruits, as an indemnity for his necessary and useful expenditures, it is only just that he
part of the expenses of cultivation and the net proceeds; should account to the owners of the estate for any rents,
the possessor in good faith who for any reason whatever fruits, or crops he has gathered from it.
should refuse to accept this concession, shall lose the right
to be indemnified in any other manner. (452a)
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio
EXPENSES FOR PURE LUXURY OR MERE In the case of Carbonell vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, et al.
PLEASURE which involves “useful improvements”, the Supreme
Court held that “as a matter of equity, the possessors in
Right of Removal bad faith should be allowed to remove the aforesaid
improvements (useful improvements e.g. draining the
Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure property, filling it with 500 cubic meters of garden soil,
shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith; building a wall around it and installing a gate and
but he may remove the ornaments with which he has P11,929.00 for erecting a bungalow thereon), unless the
embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury lawful possessor chooses to pay for their value at the
thereby, and if his successor in the possession time the possessor in bad faith introduced said useful
does not prefer to refund the amount improvements.
expended. (454)
HOWEVER, in the later case of MWSS vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, the Supreme Court reiterated that the right
EXPENSES FOR LUXURY given a possessor in bad faith to remove improvements
These expenses do not affect the existence of the applies only to improvements for pure luxury or mere
substance of the thing itself, but ONLY the COMFORT, pleasure as provided in Article 549 of the Civil Code.
CONVENIENCE or ENJOYMENT of the possessor. They
are not subject to reimbursement. Rationale for Abandoning Carbonell Ruling

RIGHT TO REMOVE AND RIGHT TO BE REFUNDED

METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND
Art. 549. The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse SEWERAGE SYSTEM V. CA
the fruits received and those, which the legitimate In the case of Carbonell vs. Court of Appeals (66
possessor could have received, and shall have a right SCRA 99),both the trial court and the Court of
only to the expenses mentioned in paragraph 1 of Appeals found that respondents Infantes were
Article 546. The expenses incurred in possessors in good faith. On appeal, the First Division
improvements for pure luxury or mere of this Court reversed the decision of the Court of
pleasure shall not be refunded to the Appeals and declared petitioner Carbonell to have the
possessor in bad faith, but he may remove the superior right to the land in question. On the
objects for which such expenses have been incurred, question of whether or not respondents Infantes
provided that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and were possessors in good faith, four Members ruled
that the lawful possessor does not prefer to that they were not, but as a matter of equity allowed
retain them by paying the value they may have at them to remove the useful improvements they had
the time he enters into possession and in Article 443. introduced on the land. Inasmuch as only four
(445a) Members concurred in ruling that respondents
Infantes were possessors in bad faith and two
Members ruled that they were possessors in good
Rights of possessors in good faith and bad faith faith, said decision does not establish a precedent.
re: useful expenses and expenses for pure luxury Moreover, the equitable considerations present in
said case are not present in the case at bar.
Summary of the Rules
1. Useful expenses are reimbursed to the possessor NOT A NECESSARY EXPENSE
in good faith; by omission, the Code denies this
right to the possessor in bad faith.
ALBURO V. VILLANUEVA
The word "repairs" as used in paragraph 2 of article
2. With respect to expenses for pure luxury or
1554 of the Civil Code implies the putting of
pleasure, two kinds of possessors [ good faith and
something back into the condition in which it was
bad faith possessors] HAVE THE SAME RIGHT i.e.
originally and not an improvement in the condition
to remove the improvements upon which they
thereof by adding something new thereto, hence the
were made if the principal thing will suffer no
filling in a vacant lot is not a repair in the sense
injury and the owner does not prefer to retain
in which the word is used in this article.
them upon payment of the proper indemnity.
EXPENSES FOR REPAIRS REIMBURSABLE
NOTE: they differ in amount of refund
Good faith = amount expended;
Bad faith = value they may have at the time (successor)
enters into possession.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio
 ANGELES V. LOZADA This is a case where an issue was raised that the
With respect to the defendants' counterclaim for the petitioner allegedly abandoned the subject land.
amount expended for the aforesaid repairs, they are
entitled to recover the same, because, according to the No abandonment of the land when waters of
evidence, said repairs were made in good faith, and were Manila Bay covered it
useful and necessary, since the house was, as stated,
uninhabitable and almost in ruins (article 453, Civil Code). It appears, however, that in the year 1892 a
And the defendants would have a perfect right to retain possessory title to the land in question was duly
the property under this article, were it not for the fact that registered in favor of Inocencio Aragon, one of the
they owe the plaintiffs rents for the occupation thereof, predecessors in interest of these applicants;
inasmuch as they were not entitled to its possession.
That for a long period of years, and perhaps from a
LOSS OF POSSESSION time beyond which the memory of man runneth not
How possession may be lost? to the contrary, the applicant and their predecessors
1. Abandonment in interest have been in possession of the parcel of
2. Assignment land in question, under and undisputed claim of
3. Destruction (loss) ownership; that it is located toward the center of one
4. Possession of another of the most valuable residential sections of the city of
Manila, and that for many years a house stood upon
THERE IS NO ABANDONMENT IF THERE IS STILL this land, and was occupied by some of the
EXPECTATION TO RECOVER OF RETRIEVE predecessors in interest of the applicants in these
proceedings; that with some relatively small
US v. REY expenditure by way of a "fill" or a "retaining wall" it
Property cannot be considered abandoned under the law would still be a valuable building lot for residential
and the possession left vacant for the finder until the spes purposes; that the adjoining lots extend toward the
recuperandi is gone and the animus revertendi is finally bay to a line formed by the extension of the outer
given up. (The Ann L. Lockwood, 37 Fed. Rep., 233.) boundary line of the lot in question, and that these
adjoining lots would be in substantially the same
The theory of abandonment on the part of the owners physical condition, by relation to the ebb and flow of
of the money stolen is fully refuted by the fact that some
the tide, as lot in question, but for low retaining walls
weeks after the wreck of the said ship they sent men to the
which protect them against the incoming sea; that
place of the wreck for the purpose of recovering the
property which belonged to them, which was on board the the water which spreads over the lot in question at
ship at the time of her sinking. The mere fact that cargo is high tide is of but little depth, and would be wholly
sunk with a ship wrecked at sea by no means deprives the excluded by a very limited amount of "filling"
owner of said cargo of his property therein. materials or a low retaining wall; that there are
strong reasons to believe that the land in question
It’s not simply momentary loss of the thing which was originally well above the ebb and flow of the
should constitute as abandonment. For there to be tide; and that only in later years have the waters
abandonment, the expectation to recover the thing risen to such a height along the shores of the Bay of
should be shown to have been given up by the Manila at this point as to cover the land in question
possessor. The act of constituting a team to recover the completely at high tide; though it does not definitely
property is proof that the expectation to recover spes appear whether this is due to changes in the current
recuperandi has not been given up by the possessor of and flow of the waters in the bay, or to the gradual
the thing. sinking of the land along the coast.

Indicia on non-abandonment
POSSESSION OF MOVABLE
DOMALSIN v. SPS. VALENCIANO The possession of movable property acquired in good
In the case before us, we find that petitioner never faith is equivalent to a title.
abandoned the subject land. His opposition to the
construction of respondents' house upon learning of the The possession of a movable property is in itself proof of
same and the subsequent filing of the instant case are ownership of the possessor.
clear indicia of non-abandonment; otherwise, he could
have just allowed the latter to continue with the REQUISITES FOR TITLE
construction. Moreover, the fact that the house petitioner 1. Possession is in good faith
built was destroyed by the earthquake in 1990, was never
2. The owner has voluntarily parted with the
rebuilt nor repaired and that same was leveled to the
ground by Gloria Banuca do not signify abandonment.
possession of the thing;
Although his house was damaged by the earthquake, Gloria 3. Possessor is in the concept of an owner
Banuca, the person who supposedly demolished said
house, had no right to do the same. Her act of removing
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio
the house and depriving petitioner of possession of the
land was an act of forcible entry. The entry of respondents
in 1998 was likewise an act of forcible entry.
One who acquires in good faith a movable is Not only limited to cases where the property was stolen
entitled to be respected in his possession but it also applies to instances where there is no valid
transmission of ownership including loss of possession
EDU v. GOMEZ by reason of the fact that the owner was swindled.
With respect to the replevin filed by private
respondent Lucila Abello, respondent Court of First This is what happened ITCAB. Loss of possession by
Instance Judge found that the car in question was reason of estafa is also unlawful deprivation, which
acquired by Lucila Abello by purchase from its would entitle the owner to recover possession from the
registered owner, Marcelino Guansing, for the innocent buyer/possessor without need of reimbursing
valuable consideration of P9,000.00, under the the latter.
notarial deed of absolute sale, dated August 11,
1970; that she has been in possession thereof since Rule:
then until February 3, 1971 when the car was seized An unpaid seller is not necessarily a person who is
from her by the petitioners who acted in the belief unlawfully deprived of possession.
that it is the car which was originally registered in the
name of Lt. Walter A. Bala and from whom it was EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP v.
allegedly stolen sometime in June 1970. SANTOS
Whether the petitioner has been unlawfully deprived
The acquirer or purchaser in good faith of a chattel of the books because the check issued by the
or movable property is entitled to be respected and impostor in payment therefor was dishonored.
protected in his possession as if he were the true
owner thereof until a competent court rules Non-payment only creates a right to demand
otherwise. payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal
prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. But
In the meantime, as to the true owner, the possessor absent the stipulation above noted, delivery of the
in good faith cannot be compelled to surrender thing sold will effectively transfer ownership to the
possession nor to be required to institute an action buyer who can in turn transfer it to another.
for the recovery of the chattel, whether or not an
indemnity bond is issued in his favor. Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz
acquired ownership over the books, which he could
The filing of an information charging that the chattel then validly transfer to the private respondents. The
was illegally obtained through estafa from its true fact that he had not yet paid for them to EDCA was a
owner by the transferor of the bona fide possessor matter between him and EDCA and did not impair the
does not warrant disturbing the possession of title acquired by the private respondents to the
the chattel against the will of the possessor. books.

When there is a valid contract of sale but the seller is

unpaid and the buyer no longer fully paid him of the
The person contesting the possession of the present
purchase price, the unpaid seller cannot validly contend
possessor must go to court to recover his
that he was unlawfully deprived of the thing he owns as
possession of the movable property.
would entitle him to recover the property without need
of reimbursement.
Rule:
If the owner has lost the thing, or he has been
Rationale:
unlawfully deprived of it, he has a right to recover it,
In a valid contract of sale, payment of the full purchase
not only from the finder, thief or robber, but also from
price is not a condition precedent to the transfer of
third persons who may have acquired it in good faith
ownership. In absence of contrary stipulation, a delivery
from such finder, thief, or robber (Rule of
of the thing would cause the transfer of ownership even
Irrevindicability).
if the buyer has not yet fully paid the purchase price.
His right of recovery is not contingent upon his EXCEPTION TO THE RULE GRANTING OWNER THE
willingness to reimburse. He can recover even without RIGHT TO RECOVER
need of reimbursing that innocent possessor who may If an owner has been unlawfully deprived or loss the
be the subsequent buyer. thing he owns, he has the right to recover it even from
an innocent possessor. His right of recovery as a GR is
UNLAWFUL DEPRIVATION not contingent upon his ability to reimburse the
DOMINADOR DIZON v. LOURDES SUNTAY possessor. Except in cases where:
Unlawful deprivation extends to all cases- stolen-
where there is no valid transmission of Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio
ownership including those where the proprietor has
entrusted the thing to a borrower
Possessor acquired it in good faith in a public sale You have the right to recover it, not only from the finder, third
or robber but also from third persons who may have
In this case, owner may recover provided he shall acquired it in good faith from such finder, thief or
robber.
reimburse the possessor.
Since you can recover, there is no obligation on your
In a public sale there are bidders. If, for instance in an part to reimburse the innocent buyer. You can recover it.
auction sale, the thing that the owner wanted to recover
was acquired by an innocent purchaser, the owner can If that innocent buyer acquired it in good faith in a public
still recover. However, considering that the present sale, you still have the right to recover but obliged to
possessor acquired the thing in good faith in a public reimburse the possessor.
sale, this current possessor is entitled to be reimbursed
by the real owner. Public sale: pawnshops, foreclosure pursuant to a chattel
mortgage, auction.
There are however, instances where even if the owner
There are instances where, even if the owner offers to
offers to reimburse, still he cannot recover as a reimburse, still he cannot recover as a matter of right.
matter of right:
1. Estoppel SCENARIOS:
2. If title is lost through prescription 1. There is right to recover and no obligation to
3. If possessor is a holder in due course of a reimburse
document of title 2. There is right to recover and obligation to
reimburse when in a public sale
In any of these instances, there is no right of recovery 3. There is already estoppel on his part, if title is
even if the owner would offer to reimburse. He cannot lost through prescription and sale of item in a
recover as a matter of right. merchant store.
4. There are instances where, even if the owner
Nothing in this Title, however, shall affect: offers to reimburse, still he cannot recover as a
matter of right.
1. The provision of any actor’s act, recording laws,
or any other provision of law enabling the REFER TO EDCA PUBLISHING V. SANTOS
apparent owner of goods to dispose of them as if A case involving a person who pretended to be a professor and
he were true owner thereof; contacted a bookstore to supply books to be paid by post-
2. The validity of any contract of sale under dated checks.
statutory power of sale or under the order of a
court of competent jurisdiction; The check bounced and in the meantime, this professor resold
the books.
3. Purchases made in a merchant’s store, or in fairs,
or markets, in accordance with the Code of The supplier was able to trace it and it was bought by an
Commerce and special laws. innocent buyer. EDCA contended that it has the right to
recover these books even without the need of indemnifying the
A thief stole something from you and an innocent innocent buyer because according to them they were deprived
purchaser bought it; can you recover it? because the checks bounced.

If the owner has lost or unlawfully been deprived of it, he has Is this a case of unlawful deprivation? No. It is a simple
the right to recover it, not only from the finder, but also the case of non-payment of purchase price.
third person.
According to the SC, we have to take note that non-payment
When is there loss of a thing? Temporarily, you lost of the purchase price is not a condition before one can obtain
physical possession and not abandon it. ownership. Non-payment does not bar the transfer of
ownership unless there is a contrary stipulation.
When is there abandonment? When the owner has lost
expectations to recover. The impostor was already the owner even if wala pa kabayad.

When is there unlawful deprivation? Gikawatan ka, but there is The remedy of the supplier of the books is not to recover from
also a case law to the effect that unlawful deprivation also these innocent buyers, but to run after this impostor. This
includes na swindle ka or budol-budol. would be a call for BP22 or collection suit, not a case of
unlawful deprivation.
You ask somebody to sell your jewelry but the guy
misappropriated, that is lost of a thing by estafa or unlawful
deprivation.

Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020 | AGregorio