THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE PRIVATE PERSONAL AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

accession or accretion under the

PROPERTY (CONCEPT OF PROPERTY, existing laws.
OWNERSHIP, CO-OWNERSHIP, RIGHT OF 4) Those who have acquired
ACCESSION, EASEMENT, NUISANCE) ownership of land in any other
manner provided for by law.
A court confronted with an application for
judicial confirmation of imperfect title Where the land is owned in common,
cannot casually rely on the expedient all the co-owners shall file the
aphorism that real property tax declarations application jointly.
are not conclusive evidence of ownership as
a catch-all key to resolving the application. Where the land has been sold under pacto de
retro, the vendor a retro may file an application
Instead, it must carefully weigh competing for the original registration of the land,
claims and consider the totality of evidence, provided, however, that should the period for
bearing in mind the recognition in redemption expire during the pendency of the
jurisprudence that payment of real property registration proceedings and ownership to the
taxes is, nevertheless, "good indicia of property consolidated in the vendee a retro,
possession in the concept of an owner, and the latter shall be substituted for the applicant
when coupled with continuous possession, it and may continue the proceedings.
constitutes strong evidence of title
A trustee on behalf of his principal may apply
Section 14 of the Property Registration for original registration of any land held in trust
Decree, which "governs the applications for by him, unless prohibited by the instrument
registration of title to land," reads: creating the trust. Kawayan Hills Corp. v.
Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 203090,
Section 14. Who May Apply. — The following September 5, 2018
persons may file in the proper Court of First
Instance an application for registration of title The reliance by the respondent Court of
to land, whether personally or through their Appeals on Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil
duly authorized representatives: Code of the Philippines is misplaced. These
provisions have no application to a contract
1) Those who by themselves or of lease which is the subject matter of this
through their predecessors-in- controversy. Instead, Article 1678 of the
interest have been in open, Civil Code applies.
continuous, exclusive and notorious
possession and occupation of We quote:
alienable and disposable lands of ARTICLE 1678. If the lessee
the public domain under a bona fide makes, in good faith, useful
claim of ownership since June 12, improvements which are
1945, or earlier. suitable to the use for which
2) Those who have acquired the lease is intended, without
ownership of private lands by altering the form or substance
prescription under the provision of of the property leased, the
existing laws. lessor upon termination of the
3) Those who have acquired lease shall pay the lessee one-
ownership of private lands or half of the value of the
abandoned river beds by right of improvements at that time.
Should the lessor refuse to
4
 THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE PRIVATE PERSONAL AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

reimburse said amount, the possessor in good faith may

lessee may remove the retain the thing until he has
improvements, even though been reimbursed therefor.
the principal thing may suffer
damage thereby. He shall not, Useful expenses shall be
however, cause any more refunded only to the possessor
impairment upon the property in good faith with the same
leased than is necessary. right of retention, the person
who has defeated him in the
On the other hand, Article 448 governs the possession having the option
right of accession while Article 546 pertains of refunding the amount of the
to effects of possession. The very language of expenses or of paying the
these two provisions clearly manifest their increase in value which the
inapplicability to lease contracts. They thing may have acquired by
provide: reason thereof.

ARTICLE 448. The owner of the Thus, the improvements that the private
land on which anything has respondent's father had introduced in the
been built, sown or planted in leased premises were done at his own risk as
good faith, shall have the right lessee. The right to indemnity equivalent to
to appropriate as his own the one-half of the value of the said improvements
works, sowing or planting, after — the house, the filling materials, and the
payment of the indemnity hollow block fence or wall — is governed, as
provided for in articles 546 and earlier adverted to, by the provisions of Art.
548, or to oblige the one who 1678, first paragraph of the Civil Code above
built or planted to pay the price quoted. But this right to indemnity exists only
of the land, and the one who if the lessor opts to appropriate the
sowed, the proper rent. improvements. The refusal of the lessor to pay
However, the builder or the lessee one-half of the value of the useful
planter cannot be obliged to improvements gives rise to the right of
buy the land if its value is removal. Cabangis v. Court of Appeals, G.R.
considerably more than that of No. 83722, August 9, 1991
the building or trees. In such
case, he shall pay reasonable Other than the statutory definition,
rent, if the owner of the land jurisprudence recognizes that the term
does not choose to “nuisance” is so comprehensive that it has
appropriate the building or been applied to almost all ways which have
trees after proper indemnity. interfered with the rights of the citizens,
The parties shall agree upon either in person, property, the enjoyment of
the terms of the lease and in his property, or his comfort.
case of disagreement, the
court shall fix the terms thereof. There is a nuisance when there is “any act,
xxx xxx xxx omission, establishment, business, condition
of property, or anything else which: (1) injures
ARTICLE 546. Necessary or endangers the health or safety of others; or
expenses shall be refunded to (2) annoys or offends the senses; or (3) shocks,
every possessor; but only the defies or disregards decency or morality; or

5
(4) obstructs or interferes with the free
passage of any public highway or street, or any A usufruct gives a right to enjoy the
body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use property of another with the obligation of
of property.” But other than the statutory preserving its form and substance, unless
definition, jurisprudence recognizes that the the title constituting it or the law otherwise
term “nuisance” is so comprehensive that it provides.
has been applied to almost all ways which
have interfered with the rights of the citizens, In National Housing Authority v. CA, 456 SCRA
either in person, property, the enjoyment of 17 (2005), this Court upheld the usufructuary
his property, or his comfort. Cruz vs. right of respondent over the seven-hectare
Pandacan Hiker's Club, Inc., G.R. No. area granted under Proclamation No. 1670.
188213 January 11, 2016 However, the Court also emphasized that the
rights of respondent were circumscribed
A nuisance is classified in two ways: (1) within the limits of the seven-hectare area
according to the object it affects; or (2) allotted to it: A usufruct gives a right to enjoy
according to its susceptibility to summary the property of another with the obligation of
abatement. preserving its form and substance, unless the
title constituting it or the law otherwise
As for a nuisance classified according to the provides. National Housing Authority vs.
object or objects that it affects, a nuisance may Manila Seedling Bank Foundation, Inc., 794
either be: (a) a public nuisance, i.e., one which SCRA 1, G.R. No. 183543 June 20, 2016
“affects a community or neighborhood or any
considerable number of persons, although A person who does not have actual
the extent of the annoyance, danger or possession of the thing sold cannot transfer
damage upon individuals may be unequal”; or constructive possession by the execution
(b) a private nuisance, or one “that is not and delivery of a public instrument.
included in the foregoing definition” which, in
jurisprudence, is one which “violates only Article 1477 of the Civil Code recognizes that
private rights and produces damages to but the “ownership of the thing sold shall be
one or a few persons.” transferred to the vendee upon the actual or
constructive delivery thereof.” Related to this
A nuisance may also be classified as to article is Article 1497 of the same Code which
whether it is susceptible to a legal summary provides that “[t]he thing sold shall be
abatement, in which case, it may either be: (a) understood as delivered, when it is placed in
a nuisance per se, when it affects the the control and possession of the vendee.”
immediate safety of persons and property, Article 1498 of the Civil Code lays down the
which may be summarily abated under the general rule that the execution of a public
undefined law of necessity; or (b) a nuisance instrument “shall be equivalent to the delivery
per accidens, which “depends upon certain of the thing which is the object of the contract,
conditions and circumstances, and its if from the deed the contrary does not appear
existence being a question of fact, it cannot be or cannot clearly be inferred.” However, the
abated without due hearing thereon in a execution of a public instrument gives rise
tribunal authorized to decide whether such a only to a prima facie presumption of delivery,
thing does in law constitute a nuisance”; it may which is negated by the failure of the vendee
only be so proven in a hearing conducted for to take actual possession of the land sold. A
that purpose and may not be summarily person who does not have actual possession
abated without judicial intervention. Cruz vs. of the thing sold cannot transfer constructive
Pandacan Hiker's Club, Inc., G.R. No. possession by the execution and delivery of a
188213 January 11, 2016 public instrument. Heirs of Jose Extremadura
6
 THE LAW PERTAINING TO THE PRIVATE PERSONAL AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS

vs. Extremadura, 793 SCRA 581, G.R. No.

211065 June 15, 2016

Unless all the co-owners have agreed to

partition their property, none of them may
sell a definite portion of the land. The co-
owner may only sell his or her proportionate
interest in the co-ownership. A contract of
sale which purports to sell a specific or
definite portion of unpartitioned land is null
and void ab initio.

The rules allow respondent to sell his

undivided interest in the co-ownership.
However, this was not the object of the sale
between him and petitioner. The object of the
sale was a definite portion. Even if it was
respondent who was benefiting from the fruits
of the lease contract to petitioner, respondent
has "no right to sell or alienate a concrete,
specific or determinate part of the thing
owned in common, because his right over the
thing is represented by quota or ideal portion
without any physical adjudication."

Without the consent of his co-owners,

respondent could not sell a definite portion
of the coowned property. At best, the
agreement between petitioner and
respondent is a contract to sell, not a
contract of sale. A contract to sell is a
promise to sell an object, subject to
suspensive conditions. Without the
fulfillment of these suspensive conditions,
the sale does not operate to determine the
obligation of the seller to deliver the object.

A co-owner could enter into a contract to sell

a definite portion of the property. However,
such contract is still subject to the suspensive
condition of the partition of the property,
and that the other co-owners agree that the
part subject of the contract to sell vests in
favor of the coowner's buyer. Hence, the co-
owners' consent is an important factor for
the sale to ripen. Cabrera v. Ysaac, G.R. No.
166790, November 19, 2014