What are mixed or semi-movable properties? is not the owner of the land.

is not the owner of the land. The SC said yes because in the enumeration of
immovables in CC, you have a separate item there for buildings and
How do you make it a semi-movable or a mixed property? therefore a building in itself is also an immovable. It is not necessary that the
owner of the building is also the owner of the land. That’s the basic issue in
One example of a mixed property or semi-movable is there are movables this case. So if you are just renting the land and you are making there a
just like paintings, which are attached to an immovable. It cannot be building, you can subject that building under a real estate mortgage because
removed without destroying the immovable object. a building is a separate item, a separate immovable apart from the land.

Can you give me another kind of mixed property apart from movable being
made immovable by attachment to an immovable? People’s Bank and Trust Co. v. Dahican Lumber

How about immovables being treated as movables? Can you give me an So here you are being given an example of an immovable by destination. The
example? law itself states, that even though by nature it can be moved, but since it is
placed there by the owner in the building to answer for the needs of the
Just like wild animals or plants, they are, as a general rule, immovables, but industry or works, it becomes an immovable. It may be a proper subject of a
once they are removed or transferred to another place, they become real estate mortgage.
movables.
So that is how important it is to know the classification of a property whether
So these are examples of mixed properties or your semi-movables or your it is a real or personal property.
semi-immovables.
Board of Assessment Appeals, Q.C. v. Meralco
Laurel v. Abrogar
Why can’t it not be considered as ______?
But there was an argument there, which said that while it is not the same as
your electronic impulses, it is the business that you stole. Therefore, he How do you separate the steel poles according the SC? Why are they not
should be charged with theft. How did the SC rule on that? And business is considered attached permanently? How was it explain?
property according to that argument. How did the SC rule on that?
So the SC said it cannot be under #3 because when you say that it should be
You mean to say that had the information stated that it was the business attached in a fixed manner, that means that either the thing that it is being
stolen, it could be charged with theft under the RPC? Is that what you are attached or the thing it is attached should be broken for it to be separated.
saying? Here, the steel towers are connected to the land by steel bolts, which can
easily be unscrewed and removed such that the steel towers can also be
Here the SC is telling you that yes a business is a property but when it deals removed without damaging either of the 2 things.
with other laws like your RPC, when it defines or gives out the elements of
theft on personal property, personal property means all things which may Why can’t it be under #5? Apart from that MERALCO did not own the lands,
be transferred from one place to another. While a business is a property which they are attaching the steel poles and so the requisites under #5 are
under the CC, if you’re talking about theft under the RPC, you cannot be not complete. It cannot also be under #5.
charged with theft under the circumstances because the telephone calls
cannot be transported from one place to another. So this is where your So it cannot be under any of the listed immovables under the CC so clearly it
definition of property comes in. You have to remember when we use which is not an immovable. It is a personal property. I cannot be subject of real
definition because other laws may define it differently or may make property tax.
qualifications apart from those given by your CC. So that is an example where
the definitions differ. So this is what I said. It’s very important to classify property because the
rules are not the same. Real property is subject to real property tax. Personal
Leung Yee v. Strong Machinery property is not subject to real property tax. So you actually have to
determine whether it falls under immovable or whether it is a movable
What principle of law was used by the SC to determine who had the better property. That’s how important it is. Also in the RPC, you also have a case on
right to possess apart from the principle of _____? that that the RPC also gives out its definition. So it’s very important to make
a classification because the rules wherein different kinds of properties are
So you mean to say the ruling of the SC that the machine company had the not the same. That is why we start with the classification, understanding
better right to possess was because they annotated it first under the chattel when do we classify as such.
mortgage registry? IMMOVABLES

You said that it’s null and void that this machine company annotated it in the Does your CC give you a definition on what an immovable is? It does not give
wrong registry because it’s a building and therefore it should be real you a definition but it enumerates things or properties that will be
property and it should have been registered not in the chattel mortgage considered as immovable properties.
registry. But how come the SC said that the one who had a better right was
still the machine company? Can you enumerate them for us?

So a property there is this basic rule that as between 2 persons who are From the 10 listed immovables, can you group and classify them?
claiming the right to own the property, you have to look into who first
registered it in good faith. This presupposes that registration should be made By the 4 classifications, from the listed immovable properties, which may be
in the proper registry. This will all be talked about in your land titles. So first considered as real property by nature?
registrant in good faith. But remember that in this case, there was the wrong
registry so you can no longer follow that rule.
How about by incorporation? How about by destination? By analogy?
The next is if there was no registration, as in this case, it cannot be
considered as it has been registered, you look at possession, the one who So there are some enumerated items there that belong to 2 or more
first possessed it in good faith. Who possessed it first? It was this machine categories. It does not belong to only 1 category like for example the statues
company and they were also in good faith because it was brought about by or painting, it could fall under by destination or by incorporation. Machinery
their foreclosure of the mortgage. Leung Yee, however, knew all of these could also be by incorporation or destination. It depends on what kind of
things and therefore, he cannot be considered as a purchaser in good faith. machinery you are talking about. So you can actually easily remember the
That was why the SC ruled that the one who had a better right over the 10 by remembering the 4.
property was this machine company.

And the third, if there is no registration, no possession, then the person who
can show the oldest title in good faith. Again, you will all be experts with this
under your land titles. We will talk about it a bit but you will really study this
in your land titles. So next meeting we will talk about each of the items enumerated under
Prudential Bank v. Panis immovable property and we get to study the requisites for each immovable
property because if 1 requisite is lacking, then it removes the property from
That was the basic issue in this case. Whether a building is separate from the being an immovable. If it is not immovable, then it is movable property,
land maybe a subject of real estate mortgage when the owner of a building because as I said the CC does not give you a definition of what an immovable
1
property is but it gives you an enumeration of items that are to be destroy the wall, so while it is not an immovable under the
considered as an immovable property and each item bears with them first category, it is still immovable under a different category.
requisites. So there are 10 and each of them has requisites. Of course once it is removed it becomes a tidbits of that wall
it becomes a personal or an immovable property.
So let’s study each of the enumerated property under your immovable. So Bathan: May real properties, like a house, can the parties agree in a contract
first is your land, plants, buildings, roads, and construction of all kinds. While of loan and mortgage? Can they treat a house as a personal
your civil code does not define what a real property is, it gives you an property and make that house an object of a chattel mortgage
enumeration of things that should be considered as real property. instead of a real mortgage? And what are the effect or
consequences?
So clearly, lands are immovable property, how about when there is an
earthquake, the land will move, will that still be considered immovable? Ans: It is binding between the contracting parties the
Because while the land may move during an earthquake, the land will still debtor/creditor accordingly. But if third parties are already
remain where it is. So that still makes it an immovable property. involve, the way they treated the property will no longer
affect them. Let for example in cases when there is now
How about the land is merely being rented? Does it affect the character of it registration of a chattel mortgage and there is another
as an immovable property? It would still be an immovable property because
innocent purchaser of that house who is not a party to the
the issue is not who owns it.
chattel mortgage treating the house as a personal property.
How about buildings? Again, in the list, building have to be considered as an This third party cannot be prejudiced by even a registration
immovable property. How about if the building is soon to be demolished of this chattel mortgage because the jurisprudence said that
within a short period of time from the time it is sold? Will that building still it cannot affect them. Because a house is actually real
be considered as an immovable property? property, but the contract and the parties, the one that
changed the classification of the property, it is binding
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
between both of them. So they cannot anymore say “no you
cannot foreclose the chattel mortgage because my house is
Bathan: How about buildings? Again in the list buildings have to be not a chattel mortgage” they cannot longer say that. They
considered as an immovable property. What if a building is sold to can never use that as a defense in a closure proceedings
be demolish or will be demolish in a short period of time from the because they already agreed to classify it as a chattel or as
time it is sold? Will that be still considered as an immovable personal property.
property? Bathan: Trees, plants and growing fruits are they immovable or not?
Ans: Yes, it will be an immovable property because the object of Ans: Trees by its nature is immovable, however, if you can find a
the sale are the materials. way to uproot a tree without damaging a tree and can
transfer it as what is done in some countries, then that is
Bathan: What do you call that principle where you do not look at the state considered as movable property. As general rule, plants and
at the time of sale but rather the purpose for which it was made? growing fruits for as long as they are attached to the land or
That is why it is considered a movable property and no longer an attached to the tree, they are part of the land or the tree and
immovable property. The principle could also be applied on the therefore they are considered immovable. But, once you
crops that are to be harvested. uproot the plant or you harvest the fruits they become
Ans: Principle of mobility by anticipation, so while at the time that movable. These are examples of semi movables or mixed
you have entered into a contract the object was an property.
immovable property, but you are already anticipating it as a
movable. Then it becomes mobilize by anticipation because Bathan: Another item under immovable property, the law says that
you are already anticipating the purpose of that immovable everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner. What are
to become a movable. the requirements for us to consider that thing as an immovable
property apart from the fact that is permanently attached to an
Bathan: What about roads and other constructions on the land? Why are immovable? What are these other requisites to consider apart
they considered as immovable? from the fact that is attached permanently?
Ans: Because they become an integral part of the land, it becomes Ans: Under this item of immovable property there are two
a part of the land. The roads become part of the land. As in requirements. First, it is attached to an immovable in a fixed
fact when you look at the road, it becomes the land that you manner, meaning the intention is to make it permanent
see. It becomes the manifestation of the land underneath, it there. Second is when, if you are to detached it from the
becomes as part of the land. Therefore, it is also an immovable you will cause damage either to the immovable
immovable or to the object itself.
Bathan: How about wall/fences how do they become an
immovable? When do they become movable? Or are they Bathan: Let us take for example this blackboard, can you see how it is
considered at all times an immovable? attached? It is nailed, this blackboard is nailed to the wall. If I will
Ans: Let’s take the first example on the fence with just as bamboo remove this blackboard will it cause damage to the blackboard or
and a barbwire being used. The intention is to make the to the wall? Is this movable or immovable? Would your answer
fence permanent and therefore it becomes an integral part will be the same if this blackboard is attached using cement?
of the land, despite the fact that it is not built with strong Would you still consider that as a movable property?
materials, it is still an immovable property. Of course, once Ans: While the purpose is to make it permanent, if it was attached
it is removed, it becomes movable. Just like in the example although in a permanent or fixed manner but it can be
of on the concrete fence or wall, the purpose of which is only remove without damaging either property, if naa damage it
to cover something temporarily, under land buildings and is minimal. Then will not affect the integrity of the wall it is
construction, you may say it is not an immovable, because movable property. But, if it was attached in a manner that
the intention is that it is only temporarily to be placed there. removing it will damage either of the two things, it is
But remember there is another item under immovable immovable.
property and those which are permanently fixed, wherein
removing it will either destroy the property to which it is Bathan: What are the requisites for statues, painting or other things for use
attached or the thing itself. Clearly, if you destroy that or ornamentation for it to become immovable?
concrete wall, to remove it from the land, while it may not
cause so much destruction on the land, it will definitely

2
Ans: There are two requisite, first is that the object must be because while they remain there, they are immovable
attached by the owner itself and second is that there is an because they are integral part of the animal houses and etc.
intent to attached it permanently. But once they are actually removed from that place or land,
it becomes movable property.
Let us go back to the first requisite, let us pretend that the
one who attached the object to the immovable is not the Bathan: How about fertilizers will they be considered movable or
owner who was the lessor thereof, supposing the one who immovable?
attached it is the lessee. How does the lessee become the Ans: When it is already use and you spread them out into the land
agent of the owner? So as to consider the statue that he and it becomes an integral part of the land, they become an
attached with intent of being permanent becomes immovable. But if you have not use them yet, let say in the
immovable? containers or sack and you kept them into a warehouse they
are still movable property.
So the lessee becomes an agent in considering whether the
thing he attaches to the lessor’s property becomes Bathan: How about mines, quarries and slag dumps are they considered
immovable or not, there is a prior agreement between the immovable or not?
lessor and the lessee that upon the termination of the lease, Ans: So long as the minerals are still part of the bed they are
those things he attached to the property of the lessor considered immovable property, once removed they are
permanently or to with intent to make the attachment movable.
permanently becomes the property of the lessor by the end
of the lease. The lessee becomes an agent or an extension of
the personality of the lessor because it becomes his property Bathan: How about water?
after termination of the lease. Ans: Water running and stagnant are considered immovable. But
Bathan: How about machinery, receptacles, instruments, or of course they are there and they are really there, unless of
implements for industry or work? What are the requisites to course there will be an event na ma move sila sa antartica
consider? but they are immovable. They will become movable only for
example you get a water from the river or from the sea then
Ans: There are three requisites. First, it must be placed there by
it becomes movable. Just like you get soil from the land and
the owner of the immovable or the agent of the owner.
put it on the pot, they become movable.
Second, it must be placed where the industry or work is
being carried out. Third, the machinery that is being placed Bathan: How about docks and other structures, where the structures are
there should meet the needs of the industry or work. attached to the docks? How about floating docks?
Ans: Even if the docks or floating docks if their intention is to
remain in that area, even though nag float sha it is consider
For example, the printing machines, if the owner of
as immovable.
publishing company places the printing machines in the
building where the publishing is being carried out, then the
printing machines are consider as immovable property Bathan: How about vessels is that consider movable or immovable?
because it is placed there by the owner in an immovable Ans: Why do we categorize vessels or ships as different from the
building where the industry or work is being carried out and other ordinary personal property? Because of their
third the printing machine meets the needs of that industry importance in trade or commerce. While they are clearly
or work. movable personal property, the way they are treated are
somehow like real property. Why somehow like real
Is it necessary that the machinery or the receptacles that are property? Because you have to register it with the Registry
placed in that building or land that is industry or work is of deed in Customs. Second, the rules on double sales to real
being carried out, is it necessary that it is to be attached to property also applies to ships or vessels. Double sales in real
the building or to the land for it to be consider as property is when there are two or more owners claiming
immovable? ownership over a certain parcel of land. The rule is in
deciding who has a better right, the rule is the one who is
able to register the property first in good faith, if there is no
It is not necessary to attach it, it is not one of the registration then the one who has possessed property first
requirement and you do not confuse it with the other items and if there is no registration or possession, then the one
in the enumeration where attachment is a requisite. But for who presents the owner’s title with the earlier date.
machinery, receptacles that was placed by the owner in that
land or building where an industry or work is being carried
out, attachment is not necessary. This is real property by Standard Oil Co. v. Jamarillo
destination. The law itself says, that it immovable even by
nature it cannot be move, so even if the machines will be Whether the house could be considered as a personal property that can be
move from the first floor to the second floor it wouldn’t as subject to a chattel mortgage?
matter because the law said that is immovable property. Ans: Clearly it is not a personal property but a real property and
Bathan: The law also said that animal houses, pigeon houses, therefore immovable. But the parties can classify it as a personal
beehives, fishponds are immovable property. How about the property even if it is a real property and it is binding between the
fish, how about the bee, how about other animals that are two of them. This is an example now of the principle that I said
being contained or are placed in the animal houses, are they earlier, that even though in reality and by classification by law it
consider movable or immovable? is real property, but the parties may agree and it is binding
Ans: It’s immovable. The law said including the animals living between them
therein. But animals move around, fish swims from point A
to point B. How come the law said that it is considered as an Whether or not the register of deeds could review the registration?
immovable? Because they are an integral part, the fish is Ans: The register of deeds only has ministerial duty to register. He does
integral part of the pond, the animals are integral part of the no discretionary power. So even if kahibaw siya na sayup
animal houses, pigeons are integral part of the pigeon iyahang document, he has no power to review the registration if
houses, that would have not been be built if not for them, so all fees are being paid.
they are part of the immovable. However, this is also
another example of selling immovable or real property,
3
 Serg’s Products v PCI Leasing and Finance Bathan: What do mean by easier? Because when you create a mortgage,
that’s the same contract and the difference merely is that a
So you have now a writ of replevin. What is replevin? This is actually getting Chattel Mortgage is a Chattel Mortgage because the subject of the
personal property. There is a writ of replevin directed against these mortgage is personal property. Then if you wish to register it, you
chocolate machines. Now there is an agreement between the PCI leasing can with the Registry of Deeds. Sa Real Estate Mortgage sad, it’s
and Serg Company that the machines are to be considered as a personal Real Estate Mortgage because it concerns real properties and if
property. But by classification of law those chocolate machines are you want to register it with the Registry of Deeds. So there’s really
considered real property. Why? Because it was placed by the owner in a nothing peculiar in registration kay ang difference lang jud is what
building or in an immovable property where an industry or work is being it covers – what type of property it covers.
carried out and the chocolate machines tend to meet directly the needs of
the industry or work. So it is real property, but because of the agreement Villegas: We know that we cannot register a personal property as a Chattel
between Serg and PCI to consider it as a personal property. That led for the Mortgage...
PCI to ask for the issuance of the writ of replevin. But you have Serg crying
out saying that “dli pwede ang writ of replevin kay according to law the Bathan: What do you mean you cannot register? Actually you can register
machines are real property”. The SC said you are already estopped because anything because the job of the Registry of Deeds is ministerial.
you signed the agreement and you consider that real property to be personal So long as you give the case, ilang i-register basin kahibaw sila na
property. Therefore, you are bound by that. So the writ of replevin was just di jud ni mao uy. So they will have to register it so long as the
correct because you treated the machines as personal property. The SC also properties are ([Link]) because it is ministerial.
said that by issuing that writ of replevin will not affect third parties in that
scenario but wala may third party na involve. So it was just right for the PCI
to resort for the issuance of writ of replevin for the object of which is a Villegas: So for example Atty., when he registers and somebody brings an
personal property. action against the registration of the ([Link]), wouldn’t it be...a
lot more losses that after he registers ([Link]) if the job of the
Registry is purely ministerial and it belongs to another authority...
Piansay v. David

Bathan: It belongs to the Courts to decide whether...because the goal of

The owner of the house was David he contracted a loan with Kim and it was registration is merely collecting these documents and putting it
secured by a chattel mortgage. As we all know a house is not a chattel but a on record...that’s documenting it. As to whether the document is
real property. But despite that it was covered by a chattel mortgage. David valid or not, that is not for the registry of deeds to determine and
failed to pay so Kim foreclose it and Kim became the highest bidder. Kim now that is for the Court to determine.
is supposedly the owner of the property by virtue of the foreclosure of the
chattel mortgage. So Kim sold it to Piansay. In the other side of the world
David who also became indebted to Mangubat. There was no mortgage but Villegas: So for everything to be in place, you just have to register and then
wala sad cya kabayad. Mangubat now filed a case for collection and wanted you have to...
to attach the house. Piansay said “no way because this is now mine because Bathan: Because what is the purpose of registration? The purpose of
Kim sold it to me”. Will Mangubat be affected by the transactions between registration is give notice to the whole world. But for you to be
David and Kim and the transaction between Kim to Piansay? If it was able to give notice to the whole world, you have to make sure that
supposedly valid between them, it does not affect Mangubat. Meaning to you register it to the proper registry. Because if it is not in the
Mangubat that Chattle Mortgage does not exist. proper registry, that is not notice to the whole world. Later on you
will discuss that on your Land Titles.

Bathan: ...so if the Chattel Mortgage does not exist, the subsequent
foreclosure does not exist and therefore Mangubat can attach the
*Orbita recites the case of Caltex Philippines, Inc. vs. Board of Assessment
house because the Chattel Mortgage when it concerns third
Appeals*
parties, it will not affect them because the house is real property.
If this should have been a mortgage over the house to affect the
third parties it should have been Real Estate Mortgage not Chattel Bathan: So the SC basically saying that Art. 415 par. 3, this is not applicable.
Mortgage. If this were Real Estate Mortgage, then wala nay This is not ([Link]) by the owner; this is ([Link]) on the leasee.
mabuhat si Mangubat, because if that was registered, the Real But still, at the end of the ruling, it said that it is still unalienable
Estate Mortgage was registered, him being the highest bidder, so (please confirm at [Link]). Under what article of the
only then Mangubat can no longer attach it. So that’s what it enumeration since it is not 415 par. 3? Therefore it is not Art. 415
means when two parties try to classify the property ([Link]). If par. 5 on machinery and receptacle. There is an added part on that
no third parties are involved, no problem because they are bound it is an immovable because it is placed on a land where the
by it because of estoppel. But once third parties are involved, that industry or work has been carried out and it tends to the need of
cannot affect them because it is real property and real properties the industry. But there was one requisite lacking that is should be
are by its nature have value. That’s precisely why registration placed there by an owner. However, it was not placed by the
comes in. So you will learn in Land Titles that even if you register owner considering ([Link]) of the leasee so removed siya from
it but sayop na registry, still it is not considered as notice to the that category. But still the SC said that it is still consider an
whole world because of the importance of the value of the real immovable therefore subject to real property tax. What
property. paragraph ([Link]) of immovable property that is applicable?

Villanueva: Why do some people attach their real property as Chattel Orbita: That paragraph of establishing the concept of being an immovable by
Mortgage? destination because when these machineries were removed from
the gas station, so the gas station ([Link]) so in that sense, these
are real properties.
Bathan: Maybe because of wrong advice or maybe because they are
ignorant or maybe because they want an easier process in
registering or maybe because they had a bad lawyer advising Bathan: It’s Art. 415 par. 3. Everything attached permanently and in a fixed
them. So, mostly because of ignorance. manner because when you remove those tanks underneath, you
will destroy the land. So the ([Link]) underneath are actually or
has become integral part of the land because by removing them, it
Albano: So it is easier as Real Estate Mortgage or Chattel Mortgage?
will cause damage to the immovable ([Link]).

4
 *Mikey Go recites the case of Philippine Refining Co., Inc. vs. Aboitiz &
Co.*

Bathan: Alright. This further application of what we discussed earlier on. A

ship or a vessel is clearly a personal property.

5
 MOVABLE PROPERTY water which you use. For non-consumable are lands, cellphones,
laptops or books.
Bathan: So we move on to Movable Property. So as we said ([Link])
according to your Civil Code ([Link]) either be immovable or Bathan: Non-fungible? Non-fungible, meaning it cannot be replaced with
movable. We have a list of immovable property. What now are anything else.
considered as movable properties?
Tan: Probably specific objects. Like my car with a Plate No. _______.
Sarmiento: Art. 416 enumerates what are considered movable properties
such as those that are not enumerated in Art. 415. Then next is those Bathan: Alright. Because as we said, that you ([Link]) intention if you
real properties considered by law as movable. And third are those ([Link]) that thing as cannot be replaced with anything else, then
forces of nature such as electricity. Lastly are all those things that are that is non-fungible. So, for consumable things, you cannot use it
generally transported from place to place without damaging the without consuming it like water, sugar... While non-consumable,
immovable property. Art. 417 also includes obligations and actions you don’t have to eat it...it does not...you don’t have to consume it
which have for their object movable or demandable sums and shares to be able to use it like your books because you just have to read it
of stock. but you don’t eat it. While fungible, as what Mr. Tan said refers to
the intention. Money, by its nature, fungible because it can be
Bathan: Alright. It says there obligations and actions. Can you give me an substituted with the same money of the same value. But rice, it will
example of obligations and actions that are that are considered only be fungible if you intend to also replace it with the same
personal property right? quality with the same quantity also and same value. Non-fungible
when it cannot be replaced with anything of the same value either
Sarmiento: An example mentioned in this book is a promissory note. by nature like ([Link]) painting wherein the same paint by face
painter and it cannot be replaced anymore. Or even though by
nature it may be replaced by another object or value but the
Bathan: Yes. Promissory notes therefore you are expecting a receivable that intention of the parties is not to replace it. For example, money
is actually a property since you can ask for a demandable sum of para ([Link]), dapat that same money should be given back
money. How about real property rights can you give me an ([Link]), so it cannot be replaced with the same amount of money
example? if the intention of the parties were to consider it as non-fungible.
Another way of classifying according to your Civil Code is according
Sarmiento: So here ([Link])... to ownership or according to who owns the property.

Bathan: So where do you draw the line? When you look at whether you have CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY ACCORDING TO OWNERSHIP
a definitive passive subject or when you have none where you can
enforce it against the whole world. Another criteria that you may Bathan: How do you classify according to ownership?
look into is the object of that obligation or action: is it personal
property or is it real property? A Real Estate Mortgage, what is the
object? That is real property and therefore that is a real property Tan: They are of public dominion or private property.
right. How about ownership of land? That is also real property and
therefore your ownership or possession of the land is also a real Bathan: Alright. It’s either property of public dominion or private property.
property right. That is another way of knowing whether the right in In your Land Titles, what is the rule on land ownership? As a
an action or an obligation in an action whether that is real property general rule, all lands are owned by the State under the Regalian
or personal property. Doctrine. The exception is, if you can prove private ownership and
only then can the State ([Link]) ownership over the property.
*Sarmiento recites the case of Sibal vs. Valdez* What are properties of public dominion under your Civil Code?

Bathan: So again, what principle was mentioned earlier on? Tan: According to the Civil Code, properties of public dominion are
properties which are for public use and to subject (please confirm at
[Link]) by the State that have been owned by the State but have a use
Sarmiento: Principle of ([Link]). for...and are entitled for public service.

Bathan: Alright. So this is again an example of the principle that was Bathan: So there are 2 categories of public dominion. You have your
discussed earlier on mobility by ([Link]). So moving on to another property for public use (i.e. roads, bridges, ports, canals). The
way of classifying property is either it is consumable or non- second category are those that are not are not for public use but
consumable, or fungible or non-fungible. When do we consider a intended for public service or development of national wealth.
property consumable or fungible? When is it non-consumable or Your property of public dominion includes ports. In fact, there is a
non-fungible? Is the term consumable the same as the term title there public use including ports like airports or your seaports.
fungible? Now your airports and seaports, they collect terminal fees, does
that change the character of the ownership or the classification of
Tan: The term consumable refers to the nature of the object. While fungible the property because they are collecting fees?
refers to the intention of its object.
Tan: No, it does not change and that is according to the case of MIAA vs. CA.
Bathan: Can you give us an example?
Bathan: Alright. It does not change the character because there is this wrong
Tan: For the nature of the object, for example the ([Link]) by their nature, notion that if you pay, there must be some private profit
through time is ([Link]) therefore they are considered ([Link]) on somewhere. No, it does not change the fact that it is still a
their own except for example in case I will give you or I will ([Link]) property of public dominion so long as anybody has an access to
my bottle water but then you have to return the bottle water it. It does not matter whether the State collects fees or not. Can
([Link]) simply have fungibles...you have to return that bottle water private individuals own a property of public dominion? The
and the amount of water being used and...you return the amount of question is, can they own?

6
Tan: No, they cannot own. stockholders own shares but there are no stockholders. Then the
SC also said that it’s also not a non-stock because if it’s non-stock,
Bathan: They cannot own. So, there is no way that Mr. A can own a property there should be members and there are no members in your
of public dominion? airport. There is no board member. So the SC said that clearly, this
is not a GOCC. This is an instrumentality of the State having
corporate powers. And then it was also mentioned that just
Tan: Unless there is a positive act by the government in which ([Link]) because they collect fees, that does not mean that it is already a
cannot ([Link]) of the land alienable and disposable. private ownership. It being an instrumentality, it is for public use
and your Civil Code in fact says that ports are properties of public
Bathan: Right, unless it has been changed to an agricultural land which is dominion. An airport is still a port. A port could either refer to a
now alienable and disposable, which may now be acquired by seaport an airport. So there were several reasons. Another was on
private individuals through acquisitive prescription. Can the control of the Philippine President over the airport. Clearly,
properties of public dominion be encumbered? Meaning, for again, this is not a GOCC but an instrumentality of the State. It was
example the State...nangutang ang State, can the State secure also mentioned that of course, it being the property of public
that loan with a mortgage over a bridge or an airport or a road? dominion, it is outside the commerce of man. Therefore, it cannot
be subject to real property taxes. That is what your law said, if it
Tan: No, because these properties are outside the commerce of man and being subject to real property taxes and di kabayad ang State, it
([Link]) of the State. may be subject to attachment. And we said that these properties
cannot be encumbered.

Bathan: Alright. That is the academic answer. What is the reason behind
that? Why is it outside the commerce of man? What is its effect if
you were to allow the encumbrance of properties of public *Student recites the case of Bishop of Calbayog vs. Director of Lands*
dominion?
Bathan: Alright, there were three lots involved. Lot 3 was confer in favor of
Tan: If you were to allow that, it would be against the Regalian Doctrine. You the Bishop as a (____). Lot 1 was a road so clearly that belongs to
are taking a public property for yourself and you are selling public the State, Lot 2 was public plaza, the Church and the municipality
property and you are allowing the public to gain... could not prove private ownership because (___). The general rule
is if you cannot prove ownership, then that belongs to that State.

Bathan: Right. That’s one of the reasons. Another reason is your public
services will be jeopardized. Can you imagine, if di kabayad ang
government, mabira inyong airport, wa namoy airport? The *Student recites the case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Director of
airport will be foreclosed, the bridge will be foreclosed...ang duha Lands *
pa jud ka bridge sa Mactan. There are actually 2 major reasons:
that the public services are being jeopardize and second, as what Bathan: So the Supreme Court said that (____) of the property since several
Mr. Tan said, it is like a run around of the principle that no private years had already passed because there is no prescription if the
individuals should be able to own properties of public dominion. title is (___) from the very beginning.
If you were to allow encumbrance, then ang buhaton ra sa State
would be to contract a loan, secure a mortgage over a property of
public dominion and if di sila mobayad, so a private individual can ALIENATION OF PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL LANDS
foreclose it. So that is the reason why ([Link]). Of course they
also cannot be registered under the Land Registration Act. What *Student recites the case of Republic vs. CA and Naguit*
happens if a forest land was erroneously covered by a Certificate
of Title? Bathan: Sec. 14, Par 1 tells you that for you to apply for original registration
over a land(by original registration, it means you want the parcel
Prospero: The Certificate of Title will be null and void. of land to be registered in the Torrens system to be given an
Bathan: Ok. The Certificate of Title will be null and void. As we have learned Original Certificate of Title), the issue in the Naguit case was they
in Land Titles, the Certificate of Title does not grant you ownership. were arguing whether the classification of the land as alienable
It can ([Link]) it. So if it is a forest land with a title over it, you and disposable (because you can only own lands if they are
cannot have owned that and therefore the title does not confirm alienable and disposable). There was now an argument on the
anything and does not confirm any ownership. understanding of Sec. 14, Par. 1, that you must openly,
notoriously, continuously and exclusively occupied the land by
yourself or through predecessors-in-interest under a bona fide
*Prospero recites the case of Harty vs. Municipality of Victoria*
claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. There was an
argument that the land should have been classified the entire
Bathan: Alright. It did not ([Link]) belong to the municipality. Neither the period of possession. While another interpretation says that it
Church nor the municipality own that parcel of land because they need not be the entire period of possession for long as you can
could prove ownership over it. What is the general rule if you prove possession since June 12, 1945 or earlier and that it is
cannot prove? It belongs to the State and it was very clear that it alienable and disposable at the time of application for original
was used as a public plaza. It had a direct sense (please confirm at registration. The Supreme Court said that it is not necessary that
[Link]) of access to it. Nobody stops them from ([Link]) or from at the time of possession of the property, it was already alienable
using that place ([Link]). So, the SC said that neither of you owns and disposable. So it is allowed that you are possessing the
this parcel of land. It belongs to the State. property since June 12, 1945 and at that time it was not yet
alienable and disposable but you filed an application for original
*Roa recites the case of MIAA vs. CA* registration on 1991 and there was only a reclassification of the
land from forest land to agricultural land only in 1990. Does that
mean your possession from 1945 until 1990 during the
Bathan: Alright. So there are actually ([Link]) saying that the airport should
reclassification would not be included in counting the possession?
be taxed because the airport is a GOCC. The SC said that it is not a
No, because the requirement is that your land that you are
GOCC. Its not a corporation, in fact, why is it not a corporation? The
applying an original registration for should already be alienable
SC said that it is not a corporation by either stock or non-stock. If it
and disposable at the time of registration. It is not necessary that
were stock, they would have a capital divided into shares where
7
 for the entire period of registration t was already alienable and contract of sale is valid so long as upon delivery on the actual
disposable. Because if that were the case, SC said that it would be date, the seller is the absolute owner thereof.
very difficult to file for an original registration, if it is really
necessary that it is already alienable and disposable since June 12. Bathan: How about if it’s not a contract to sell but contract of mortgage
1945 or earlier. between A and X? A & B entered into a contract to sell over the
same car. Now this car is being used by A as security for a loan
Lacking recordings on from Patrimonial Property to the case of Nazareno under a chattel mortgage in favor of X. Is the mortgage valid?
vs. CA Ans: In a mortgage, it is different because the Civil Code requires
OWNERSHIP that the mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the
property at the time of perfection of a contract. In other
*Student recites the case of O. Rommel Realty and Development words, A is not yet the owner under a contract to sell so
Corporation vs Sta. Lucia Realty * when he mortgaged the property, he is not yet the absolute
owner at the time of the execution or perfection of the
mortgage. That is the difference between the effects of
Bathan: So here there was a trace of the right to possess the property to the a sale or a mortgage.
predecessor-in-interest. In a separate case, it was already
*Student recites the case of Flancia vs. Court of Appeals *
recognized that there was such possession. And because of that,
the subsequent persons who acquire the interest from the
predecessors have the same right over the property. Bathan: In here, you have the spouses purchasing under a contract to sell
with Oakland Development Corporation. The spouses were
questioning the mortgage entered into by Oakland with Genato
Bathan: Now another right pertaining to being an owner of the property is
because spouses said they were the ones who purchased the
of course the right to use. Are there limitations to such right? Are
property. Supreme Court said that the mortgage was valid
there limitations to such right to use and enjoy the property?
because the subject property was still owned by Oakland
Ans: In other words, the only limitation is that you do not injure or Development Corporation. It is still under the contract to sell so
prejudice the rights of others. While you can enjoy the still owned by Oakland. In other words, it is stil not fully paid. It
use of your property, you have to be sure that you also would have been different if it was under a contract of sale
do not injure the rights of others or the property of others. because then the owner would now be the spouses. But then
again Supreme Court said to avoid unjust enrichment on the part
Bathan: Another right is the right to the fruits and accessories of a property. of Oakland, Oakland will have to reimburse the spouses.
That is a right that springs from ownership. Is there ever a time that
the owners cannot use or enjoy the fruits and accessories of a *Student recites the case of Vda. De Bautista vs. Marcos *
property?
Ans: Yes, when that property is in the possession of another lawful
Bathan: The subject parcel of land under a contract of mortgage was in fact
possessor.
part of public domain when mortgaged. Because as the facts
stated, there was a free patent issued after the mortgage was
Bathan: Can you give me an example when possession of a property is executed. So the Supreme Court said it was void because as we
vested upon another lawful possessor? said, the requirement for a mortgage to be valid is that the
Ans: An example that we see every day is a lease contract. An mortgagor must be the absolute owner of the property at the
owner of the property cannot use the property, cannot enjoy time of the perfection of the mortgage. But clearly since the free
the accessories of their property, or if there are fruits, cannot patent was issued only after the mortgage was executed, so it
enjoy it because it is being rented out or tenanted. That is an means that at the time mortgage was executed the mortgager
example of an instance where even if you are the owner, you was not yet the absolute owner of the property. Now there was a
do not receive the fruits or enjoy the accessories. contention that the free patent that was issued did cure such
Bathan: Another right of the owner is the right to consume. What defect. The Supreme Court said that no, such did not cure the
do we mean by the right to consume? defect because then again the requirement is at the time the
Ans: If a property is a consumable one, then the owner has the right mortgage was executed, he must be the absolute owner thereof.
to consume it. And the Supreme Court even continued to explain on that even if
the mortgage was executed after the free patent was issued, if the
mortgage was foreclosed within the 5-year prohibitive period as
Bathan: Can the owner abuse the property to the point of deterioration? provided for the Public Land Act, still the mortgage cannot be
Ans: Yes, because you have absolute control over the property. You considered as valid not because of the failure to meet the
can even destroy your property. You can abuse your property requirements that you are the owner but because of the
to the point of deterioration. This is so long as you do prohibition of Public Land Act that it cannot be alienated or
not prejudice the rights of others. disposed of within 5 years after the issuance of the free patent.
The reason for that is the property would remain with the grantee
Bathan: Now supposing there is contract to sell over a property between A and his family such that if you allow mortgage to be executed over
& B wherein Mr. A is the buyer and Mr. B is the seller. They say for the property, then you are allowing to do indirectly what is
example that property is a car. Can A sell the property to X? While prohibited because that would allow alienation to persons who
the contract to sell is still subsisting, A is selling the car to X, can A do not belong to the family.
do that?
Ans: In the case, A can sell the car to X even though he is not yet Bathan: And the force that is used to repel such threatened or actual
the owner thereof because law on sales tells you that you dispossession or usurpation should be reasonable and there must
can sell a thing even if its not yet yours and it can make the be no delay. So, if there’s dispossession today, and the force that
sale valid. So long as upon delivery, you are already the is used to repel should be done immediately, do not wait for next
absolute owner thereof. Because you can enter into a year to use a reasonable force because then, there’s already
contract of sale without delivery so long as you have object, delay. When there is delay, you can no longer take the law in your
consent and cause. But the only requirement is for that sale own hands. You have to ask the aid of the courts.
to be continued to be considered as valid, upon delivery of
that thing it must already be owned by the seller. The *Sitoy recites the case of German Management vs. CA*

8
 delivery of this personal property and that such would be given
Bathan: All right, the Doctrine of Self-Help could not be used as a defense back to you as the lawful owner or possessor of the property.
on getting all those crops because there was already delay.
Because the farmers were already in possession for several years. *Apple recites the case of Arabeque Industrial Phils. vs. CA*
They waited so long before they acted on it. You cannot use the
Doctrine of Self-help anymore.
Bathan: All right, so here, the principle that is being applied by the SC is that
you cannot ask for a writ of replevin against a party who is the
ENCLOSING AND FENCING lawful possessor of the property. And in this case, it was a boat.
And the boat was lawfully possessed by PDEC because of the
Bathan: Another right of the owner under Article 430 is the Right to enclose failure of Arabesque to pay the fees.
his property. And the limitations is that you do not encroach upon
the property of your neighbor. So if you are to fence using walls,
or hedges, it must be within the boundaries of your property. *Orbita recites the case of Chua vs. CA*

Student: Minerals are presumed to be owned by the state then of course, Bathan: The SC said that while it may be allowed in some cases where a writ
your property cannot be partly agricultural and partly mineral. It of replevin may be issued for personal properties that are in
should either be mineral or agricultural. Because of that, the state custodia legis, which only happens when it is sure that there is no
will have to get that from you and you will be given just case that will be filed anymore using that property. But in this
compensation. case, there was high probability that a criminal complaint for car
napping was to be filed against him. So, the Writ of Replevin could
not be issued to undermine also the seizure made by another
This brings us to this other right of the landowner, where, if you
court having the same power.
are the landowner, you own everything underneath it and
everything above it. Subject of course, to the laws on aerial
navigation because there’s a certain height where your planes will RECOVERY OF REAL PROPERTY
be allowed to go over the property.
Bathan: So moving on, on recovery of real property. AS we said, there are 3
actions that may be availed of by the owner or the possessor of
*Yaki recites the case of Republic vs. CA* the property dispossessed. That would be forcible entry, unlawful
detainer, and your accion publiciana.

Bathan: You have here an applicant for original registration of the subject
parcel of land saying that it’s an agricultural land and he’s in So let’s talk first about accion interdictal which is your unlawful
possession of it for a certain number of years. But then, you have detainer and forcible entry, or your ejectment suits.
here the oppositors saying that they have already perfected their
mining claims even prior to the 1935 Constitution. Under this Bathan: These actions are summary in nature because there are pleading
Constitution that we have in 1897, starting from 1935, mineral that are not allowed. This is because pleadings tend to delay the
lands and minerals are owned by the state. But then there’s a process of the court. There’s a list there of prohibited pleadings.
permission in the 1935 Constitution that this is subject to vested The reason for that is because we are talking about possession of
rights prior to the adoption of that particular constitution. And a property. So dapat paspas. Because you are now trying to
prior to the 1935 Constitution, mineral lands were allowed to be dispossess someone. For forcible entry, this is an ejectment suit
occupied and owned by private individuals. And these Atok and where the complainant has been dispossessed of the property by
Benguet, these are mining companies which already perfected Force, Intimidation, Strategy, Threat, or Stealth. So in other
their claims prior to the 1935 Constitution. That was why the SC words, from the very beginning, the possession was unlawful. And
said that while yes, under this constitution, and starting 1935, the for your forcible entry suit to prosper, it should be filed within 1
mineral lands are supposed to be owned by the state, prior to year from the entry or if the entry is through strategy or stealth,
that, private entities may own mineral lands. And because Atok then it would be counted from 1 year from the time of discovery.
and Benguet were able to prove that they have perfected their
claims, the subject property was of course granted in favor of All right, for Unlawful Detainer, from the term itself, detain, the
them. initial entry was lawful, possession was initially lawful, which
turned unlawful because the basis for its lawful possession has
All right, since we said that it is the right of the owner to recover already expired or terminated. The requisites for filing an unlawful
possession of their ownership, if there’s such dispossession, there detainer is that you must show to the court that you have asked
are so many ways of recovery. It can be recovered not through the the unlawful possessor to pay and to vacate. And that the
courts by through the doctrine of self-help. Granting that there’s unlawful detainer should also be filed from 1 year from the date
dispossession, reasonable force, and no delay. But of course, if of last demand to pay and vacate. Therefore, you can make as
there’s already delay, then you have to resort to the aid of the many demands, the one is to be counted from the last demand
courts. made. The issue for your forcible entry and unlawful detainer is of
course, possession independent of ownership.
Bathan: For recovery of possession, independent of ownership, you have
forcible entry or unlawful detainer, which are summary remedies, All right, if the issue on ownership is raised by the defendant,
accion interdictal, and third, accion publiciana. For recovery of meaning, the defendant is saying that he is the owner thereof, this
ownership, you have your accion reivindicatoria, or you can have does not divest the MTC if the unlawful detainer or forcible entry
reconveyance. Of course, there are other remedies. You have is lodged to them. In fact, it can the rule on the ownership if and
your writ of possession, an incident to a main action. Now let’s only if the issue on possession and ownership are so intertwined
talk about replevin. If you file an action for replevin, what are you that he cannot rule upon the issue of possession without
actually asking from the court? determining who is the owner of the property.
*Bea recites the case of Peralta-Labrador vs. Bagarin*
Apple: All right, when you file an action for replevin, you are actually asking
from the court that the other party who is supposedly unlawfully
possessing your property, be returned to you. So there is manual
9
Bathan: All right, so this case speaks of the importance of the prescriptive Ans: Because the jurisdiction for cases involving forcible entry, the
period. IN the complaint, it alleged that the unlawful entry was in jurisdiction lies with the MTC and this judge was an RTC
1994, but then, the case was filed only in 1996. So the SC said that Judge. But the Supreme Court said that the judge was
clearly, this is beyond the 1 year prescriptive period. And because wrong because the case that was filed by the petitioner
of this, he can no longer avail of the summary remedy of Forcible was that of recovery of possession (accion publiciana).
Entry. But does that mean that he can no longer avail of any The judge merely concluded that it was for ejectment. The
remedy? Supreme Court said that for the judge to determine
Ans: No. There’s still another remedy. The other remedy is accion whether he has jurisdiction or not, you do not look at the
publiciana because accion publiciana is actually a suit that title of the complaint, but to the allegations of the
is filed beyond the 1 year period. And the issues in it are on complaint.
recovery of possession. Now, so as to avail of the summary
remedy of forcible entry in this case, that can no longer be *Louie Sarmiento recites the case of Sarmiento vs CA*
done.
*Minette recites the case of Nunez vs. SLTEAS * Bathan: So here, it was actually a boundary dispute because after the survey
of the geodetic engineer, it was found that the fence of the
Bathan: So here, there was an ocular inspection on 2003, and the filing of neighbor was encroaching upon the parcel of land of the silingan.
the case for Forcible Entry in December 2003, however, the sellers The supreme court said that if that is the case, you cannot just
there were saying that it’s beyond the prescriptive period for one simply file a summary remedy because you are actually trying to
year because they have entered upon the property since 1999. So take possession from someone who has been possessing that
that was clearly more than a year from 1999 to [Link] the SC subject parcel of land for a very long time because both of you
said that if the unlawful entry was done through strategy or thought that that was part of his property so it cannot be under
stealth, the one year prescriptive period should be counted from the summary remedy of ejectment.
the date of discovery; in this case, during the ocular inspection. It cannot be forcible entry because there was no unlawful entry
The SC said that the complaint was able to prove that it had no dispossessing you of your possession. In fact, at first you thought
participation and were in fact, not yet the owner. And another that it was not your property. Second, it also cannot be unlawful
important discussion of the SC was on the first requisite in filing a detainer because there was no contract or agreement making the
forcible entry: on an allegation of prior possession. Because when possession lawful at first and then it expired or it was terminated
you say that there was a forcible entry, that means that you were making the possession unlawful.
possessing the property first and then someone illegally enters.
Since you want to recover ownership of that part that’s being
The SC further said that prior possession does not necessarily
encroached upon, the Supreme Court said that its accion
mean physical occupation of the property. It could mean doing
reivindicatoria.
acts of possession such as in cases of payment of real property tax
and that is already possession. No stupid person will pay for taxes *Ben Tan recites the case of Ocampo vs Dionisio*
on property he does not own.
*Ina Roa recites the case of Dela Cruz vs CA* Bathan: So here you have Dionisio filing a forcible entry case against Mario
and according to him Mario unlawfully entered in to the property
until the (inaudible) later on. Mario was saying that it was the
Bathan: Why an unlawful detainer when in fact the lease was already
property of his wife by virtue of an inheritance. Unfortunately for
considered expired when the fire broke out and then you have
Dionisio, he wasn’t able to prove prior possession which is a
Reyes entering in to the property after it has already expired?
requisite for forcible entry.
Why unlawful detainer when it can actually be considered as
forcible entry as alleged that it was done through stealth? So the MTC favored Mario saying that he was the better possessor
of the property with Dionisio having failed to prove prior
Ans: Because it was possession by tolerance which actually is a
possession. That order became final. There was no appeal
specie for unlawful detainer. There was already a
whatsoever.
knowledge that there was an entry upon the property but
they did nothing about it, they were very lenient. In fact, Now you have the heirs of Dionisio filing again a case against
they asked them to vacate the property but then they did Mario but this time the case that was filed was in the nature of
not pursue it, they did not file a case against Dela Cruz. And accion reivindicatoria. The heirs of Dionisio were able to prove
when they sold the property to Tan Te, Tan Te also knew that Dionisio purchased the property from a certain Capistrano
about the occupation of Dela Cruz but also did nothing and in fact was able to get a free patent issued on Dec. 22 1957 in
about it, not until the time that there was the sending of favor of Dionisio. Clearly there was ownership over the property
the demand letter to pay and to vacate. The Supreme Court by Dionisio and now it has been passed over to his heirs.
explained here that this is actually possession by tolerance. Mario was saying that there is already res judicata because the
There is an implied agreement that you can stay there, but forcible entry case ruled in his favor, he’s saying that the accion
from the time we ask you to leave, you should leave. If you reivindicatoria case can no longer prosper.
do not leave, then from the time there was such demand The Supreme Court said, you have the same parties, same subject
for you to leave, there is still one year to file an unlawful parcel of land, but the issue is not the same. Therefore, there is
detainer. So this is a case where possession by tolerance is no res judicata.
a specie of unlawful detainer. Why are the issues not the same? Because in forcible entry or
unlawful detainer, the issue is possession independent of
Bathan: If there is already a title, no matter how long another possessor is ownership. In fact, possession can be ruled in favor of the person
staying there, that cannot defeat the title of the owner. That who is not the owner of the property if he has a right over the
cannot be considered as an adverse possession. property on possessing it. While in accion reivindicatoria has a
*Mikey Go recites the case of Dela Paz vs C.A. nervously…(Yati aka Vee!)* different issue, the issue is ownership. Therefore, there is no res
judicata.
In forcible entry case, even if the MTC rules on the ownership of
Bathan: What was the action really about? What was the initial action to
the property, that is only provisional, that is not final.
which the Judge said he had no Jurisdiction?
*Charles Albano recites the case of Suarez vs Emboy*
Ans: Forcible Entry

Bathan: Supreme Court is telling you that when you file a complaint for
Bathan: Why did the judge say again that he did not have jurisdiction?
forcible entry or unlawful detainer, you must be sure that you
10
 allege everything that is needed to make up your case for forcible value of the property does not exceed P20K, the case may be held
entry or unlawful detainer. in the MTC EXCEPT F.E. or U.D. because regardless of the value,
The SC said in this case that it cannot be forcible entry because it should always be lodged with the MTC.
there was no allegation and there was no proof in the complaint
that there was prior possession before the entry of the defendant. Bathan: In this case, SC said that jurisdiction is to be lodged with the MTC
It could not also be unlawful detainer because while there was an because while complainant failed to allege the value of the
allegation of tolerance, it was not very clear how it came to be. In property, they attached a 1991 tax declaration which stated that
the first place, how was the entry done? Who tolerated the stay? the value was about P5K.
All of these should have been alleged in the same way that it was This tells us that the assessed value in an Accion Publiciana and
alleged in the case of Dela Cruz with the Reyes’ where it was Accion Reivindicatoria case is a jurisdictional requirement.
clearly alleged on the possession by tolerance by the defenders.

*Pat Prospero recites the case of Urieta vs Aguilar*

ACCION PUBLICIANA and ACCION REIVINDICATORIA

Bathan: What was the ruling of the court as to the prescription of accion
Publiciana when respondents alleged that the filing of the case
Bathan: What is Accion Publiciana? was already beyond the prescriptive period, it was filed 25 years
Ans: Accion Publiciana is an action to recover possession. after because the filing of the case was in 1995 while there was
already possession as early as 1968?

Bathan: How is it different from Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer? Ans: It has not prescribed because there was an allegation that
their possession was by tolerance and because it was by
Ans: For F.E. and U.D., the issue involved is Possession De Facto
tolerance, it couldn’t have been by unlawful detainer which
while in Accion Publiciana, the issue involved is Possession
is one year from the date of the last demand, but clearly it
De Jure.
was just about this summary remedy, it’s really Accion
● Possession De Facto: This dwells more on the Publiciana and the last demand to vacate was in 1994 and
material or physical possession over the property. the case was filed in 1995 which is well within the 10 year
● Possession De Jure: This dwells more on the prescriptive period.
ownership over the property.

Bongato vs Malvar
Bathan: What is the prescriptive period for filing an Accion Publiciana?
Ans: You can file an action for Accion Publiciana in the RTC within
The SC said that the one-year prescriptive period has set in because he knew
10 years.
of the unlawful possession since 1987, and he filed the complaint only in
1992. That was way beyond the one-year prescriptive period.
Bathan: What is Accion Reivindicatoria and how is it different from Accion The SC suggested that what he should have filed should be accion
Publiciana? publiciana, which is an ejectment suit after one year, or accion
Ans: Accion Publiciana only deals with the issue of recovery of reivindicatoria for recovery of ownership.
possession while in Accion Reivindicatoria there is an issue
of ownership involved together with an issue of the
Encarnacion vs Amigo
recovery of possession.
*Caitlin Kintanar recites the case of Bokingo vs CA*
What is the difference between this case and Dela Cruz, wherein SC said that
possession by tolerance is considered as an unlawful detainer?
Bathan: You have here (___) saying that the court did not have jurisdiction
How come here there was an allegation of tolerance and it was clear that
because it was not for recovery of possession.
there was tolerance and there was knowledge of the possession?
SC said that you do not interpret the jurisdiction of the court by
And how come in this case the SC did not rule in the same way as in the case
the action of the complaint, nor does the answer of the defense
of Dela Cruz?
even determine the nature of the case. It should be based on the
allegations in the complaint.
And in the allegations in the complaint and the prayer asked for Both cases are not somehow the same because in Dela Cruz entry was
in the complaint, it had nothing to do with recovery of possession. already there during the previous possession. Here, there was possession as
It was only asking the court to enjoin () from stopping them from early (katay?) of the previous owner, Encarnacion. How is this not a specie
conducting a survey over the property. of unlawful detainer?

That being said, the SC ruled that RTC had jurisdiction because if
the relief prayed for is not capable of pecuniary estimation, the The cases are different because in this case there was no allegation at all of
rules of court says that the one who has jurisdiction is RTC. who tolerated the possession of the property by Amigo.
So then you cannot automatically say that the complaint is for the While in the case of Dela Cruz it was very clear in the allegation that when
recovery of a possession just because the title says so or just Dela Cruz entered the property, the Reyeses tolerated the entry until it was
because the defense says that it is. You have to look in to the turned over to Dante. But here, there was nothing in the allegation which
allegations in the complaint because that’s what determines the said that anybody tolerated. It cannot be considered as possession by
jurisdiction. tolerance. From the very beginning it was unlawful. If the possession from
the beginning is unlawful, it is not unlawful detainer, but forcible entry. It
should have been filed within one year from the entry. It is not considered is
*Jam Francisco recites the case of Hilario vs Salvador*
unlawful detainer because one of the elements is missing, which is it should
be unlawful from the beginning.
Bathan: You seem to imply that the jurisdiction for cases involving Accion De Leon vs CA
Publiciana and Accion Reivindicatoria is always lodged in the RTC,
is that correct?
Here, we have a case that does not only delve into the ejectment case. We
Ans: The jurisdiction of actions involving A.P. and A.R. is not exclusive in
have so many other issues as whether to the tenancy assailment was invalid
the RTC. RA 7691 tells us that we have to look in to the assessed
or not if it was capable of pecuniary information. The SC said that it should
value for cases involving title to or possession over real property.
If it exceeds P20K, the jurisdiction is with the RTC, if the assessed
11
not be lodged in the MTC because it has issues that are incapable of - There was a constructive created due to the existence of fraud.
pecuniary estimation that RTC has jurisdiction. The prescription period for the filing of the action for
reconveyance in cases like these is 10 years reckoned from the
Manlapaz vs CA fraudulent registration of the property. This is applicable if the
property is still in the hands of the party guilty of fraud.
- If it is an implied trust, we have 4 years.
This is what I said earlier on. In an ejectment suit, if the MTC should pass the - However, if the property is transferred from the party guilty of
issue on ownership to determine who has the better right, this is merely fraud to an innocent purchaser for value, reconveyance can no
provisional. It is not final. You can still have another action for accion longer be availed of. The aggrieved party may still file an action
reivindicatoria, reconveyance, etc. That provisional decision by the MTC for damages against the forger/the party guilty of fraud.
shall not bar any other suit pertaining the ownership of the property. What - An action for reconveyance becomes imprescriptible if the
is only delved upon by the MTC is only on the issue of possession, even if property is still in the possession of the real owner. (this
incidentally the suit has an issue in regards to ownership. contemplates of a situation where the lawful owner of a
property who is actually occupying the same is unaware that
Valdez vs CA somewhere out there, a forger obtained title over the land.

N.B. This case should have been either under Accion Publiciana or Accion Gasataya case
Reivindicatoria - An action for reconveyance is not only available to the legal
owner, it is also available to a party who has a better over
This is basically connected somehow to the principles we have discussed another party in actual possession of the land.
yesterday. This case merely amplifies the requirement that if you are to use - You have the child of Mabasa entering into an agreement with
unlawful detainer as your remedy, from beginning of the possession, if you Gasataya where Gasataya would pay the former’s debt to the
are using possession by tolerance, it must be validated that the stay was bank.
tolerated by whom. But if there was no allegation in the complaint of how - Instead of fulfilling the agreement, Gasataya intentionally
the entry was made or who tolerated the possession, which facts would have stopped paying the bank so the bank foreclosed the property.
to be contained in the complaint to determine if it was an unlawful detainer - Gasataya, being a sly motherfucker, bought the parcel of land at
or forcible entry are absent, then you have no choice but to file an accion public auction.
publiciana or accion reivindicatoria case. And the other principle there is that - Mabasa is now seeking for reconveyance since Gasataya had
if the possession from the very beginning is unlawful, then it should not be obviously perpetuated a fraud. The very reason why she entered
an unlawful detainer. It should be forcible entry. into the aforesaid agreement with Gastaya was so she could
redeem the property.
- SC said that cleary, there was fraud here, and it allowed an
ORBITA’s TRANSCRIPT GOES HERE action for reconveyance even if Mabasa wasn’t really the owner
Action For Reconveyance of the land. (he still had to redeem the same from the bank) This
- Its presupposes that there is a title was because there was fraud.
- In an action for reconveyance, you do not disturb a title that was
already issued in favor of a certain person because you respect Injunction
the indefeasibility of titles. Unless of course you can prove that - Two requisites
the title was registered fraudulently in the name of a certain a. A positive right
person, you make the ask court to return the property to you. b. Acts by the party sought to be made subject to the
- If the title has been registered in the name of an innocent injunction which are in violation of the plaintiff’s positive
purchaser for value, said title can no longer be assailed. Innocent right over the land.
purchasers for value are protected. This is because as a general
rule, an innocent purchaser for value is not obligated to look Idolor case
beyond the title. The person who was fraudulently divested of - Idolor was not entitled to an issuance of the writ of injunction
his title in such a case can no longer file for reconveyance of the since she wasn’t able to prove that she had an existing right over
property, instead he may file for damages against the forger. the property.
- Idolor wanted the court to be precluded from pushing through
Carro case with the public auction.
- Carro sought to annul a deed of sale which in essence was a Things to remember about public auction sales :
petition for reconveyance. According to him, he had the better a. These are typically done when a mortgagor is unable to pay
right over the property. (a free patent was issued in the name of his/her obligation
Sucaldito) b. The mortgaged land is sold at public auction, the proceeds
Issue was whether or not Carro was a real party in interest. of the sale are then applied to the mortgagor’s unpaid
- In this case, the SC said that Carro was also seeking for a free debt.
patent. Carro was also an applicant for a free patent, just like c. The mortgagor is given by law, a one year period to redeem
Sucaldito. the foreclosed property
- Carro was not a real party in interest since he never really owned - The one year had already lapsed in this case.
the property in dispute since he was merely an applicant for the - Since Idolor wasn’t able to redeem the property within one year,
free patent. the SC said that she no longer had an existing right over the
- It should have the Government that filed for reversion of the subject land. So it follows that she can’t secure a writ of
land to the state. injunction to put a halt to the public auction sales.
- Carro did not stand to benefit from the judgment since in the
event that the court would render judgment against Sucaldito,
the property wouldn’t have been given to Carro, instead, it Savellano Case
would have been reverted back to the state’s public domain. - Here the SC reminds the court that before granting a writ of
- In an action for reconveyance, the petitioner or the plaintiff injunction to a party, they must make sure that said party had
must be the owner of the property. If he isn’t the owner, he, at already proven the existence of an existing right over the
the least, should have some kind of claim of ownership over the property.
property. - If it were the other way, it would mean that people who do not
really have any color of title or ownership over a parcel of land
Rapaya case
12
 may compel the actual occupants to leave despite their failure to
establish an existing right over the property.

FRC Case
- This was a case which involved a military reservation which sent
out soldiers to scare FRC’s workers to stop their construction.
- FRC asked for a writ of injunction.
- SC said that the injunction issued in favor of FRC was proper
since the latter was able to prove a clear and unmistakable right
over the property by presenting a Certificate of Title.
- The validity of a title cannot be collaterally attacked. If you want
to assail the validity of a title, a separate action has to be
instituted for that purpose.

Limitless Case
- This case focused on an injunction bond.
- The bond needs to be put up by the party seeking for the
issuance of a writ of injunction.
- The bond is to answer for the damages that the party enjoined
sustained IF it found out that at the end of the case, the writ of
injunction shouldn’t have been issued in the first place.
- Malice or bad faith is not a requirement before the enjoined
party may avail of the injunction bond.

13