property part 2

7/25/2019 Property Part 2

1/150

c. If formed outside territorial waters the rstoccupant owns the Island.

a) If formed on non-navigable or non-oatable rivers:

a. If nearer to one margin or bank ---- the owner of thenearer property will own the island.

b. If euidistant from both banks --- the riparian owners onboth sides of the river will be the owners and they shalldivide the island longitudinally in halves.

ARTICLE 465. Islands which throughsuccessive accumulation of alluvialdeposits are formed in non-navigable andnon-oatable rivers, belong to theowners of the margins or banks nearestto each of them, or to the owners of bothmargins if the island is in the middle ofthe river, in which case it shall be dividedlongitudinally in halves. If a single islandthus formed be more distant from onemargin than from the other, the owner ofthe nearer margin shall be the sole ownerthereof. (!a"

b) If islands are formed by the branching of a river. ---- !helandowner retains ownership of the isolated piece of land.

ARTICLE 46. #hene$er the current of ariver di$ides itself into %ranches, leaving a

piece of land or part thereof isolated, theowner of the land retains his ownership. Healso retains it if a portion of land is separatedfrom the estate by the current. (!4"

"ase #o. $$:

Art. 46& ' A%andoned ri$er %eds

If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damageto or loss of his property due to natural causes% there is all the

& ' ( a g e


2/150

more reason to compensate him when the change in the course ofthe river is eected through articial means. The loss to the

petitioners of the land covered by the canal was the resultof a deliberate act on the part of the government when it

sought to improve the ow of the Tripa de Gallina creek. Itwas therefore obligated to compensate the *aeses for their loss.--- +ps. ,eli *aes and afaela *aes vs. "ourt of /ppeals% 0.. #o.&121$3% 4uly $% &556

"ase #o. $7:

Article 45! of the ew Ci$il Code and not Art. 46&

,acts:

(etitioner 8ionisia (. *agaipo is the registered owner of 9ot #o.&3% a &$%511 suare meter agricultural land situated in ;a-a%8avao "ity under !ransfer "erticate of !itle #o. !-&3737.

espondent 9eonor 9orit of (reliminary In?unction and 8amages against9o


3/150

$&. !he reduction in the land area of petitioner was caused byerosion and not by a change in the course of the 8avao iver."onformably then% the trial court dismissed the complaint.

Cn appeal% the "ourt of /ppeals aDrmed the decision of the trialcourt. Eence% the present petition.

!he +upreme "ourt found no error on the part of the "ourt of/ppeals in aDrming the ndings of the trial court.

!he "ourt upheld the decisions of the trial court and the appellate

court that the decrease in petitioner=s land area and thecorresponding epansion of respondent=s property were thecombined eects of erosion and accretion% respectively. /rt. $&of the "ivil "ode is inapplicable.

(etitioner cannot claim ownership over the old abandonedriverbed because the same is ineistent.

!he riverbed=s former location cannot even be pinpointed withparticularity since the movement of the 8avao iver took placegradually over an unspecied period of time% up to the present.

!he "ourt also ruled that accretion benets a riparian owner whenthe following reuisites are present: &) !hat the deposit begradual and imperceptibleB A) !hat it resulted from the eects ofthe current of the waterB and 6) !hat the land where accretion

takes place is ad?acent to the bank of the river. +aid reuisiteswere suDciently proven in favor of respondents. In the absence ofevidence that the change in the course of the river was sudden orthat it occurred through avulsion% the presumption is that thechange was gradual and was caused by alluvium and erosion.----(Bagaipo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 116290, [Dece!er ",2000#, $00 %&' 12)*+12$*

"ase #o. $2:

Art. 46& ) *ri$ate Land occu+ied as new ri$er %eds

6 ' ( a g e


4/150

/rticle $& provides for compensation for the loss of the landoccupied by the new bed since it is believed more euitable tocompensate the actual losers than to add land to those who havelost nothing. !hus% the abandoned river bed is given to the

owner@s) of the land@s) onto which the river changed its courseinstead of the riparian owner@s). --- achel ". "elestial vs. 4esse"achopero% 0.. #o. &A353% Cctober &3% A116

"ase #o. $5:

Art. 46& ' A%andoned ri$er %ed %elongs to ri+arian owner

If indeed a property was the former bed of a creek that changedits course and passed through the property of the claimant% then%pursuant to /rticle $&% the ownership of the old bed left to dry bythe change of course was automatically acuired by the claimant.*efore such a conclusion can be reached% the fact of naturalabandonment of the old course must be shown% that is% it must be

proven that the creek indeed changed its course without articialor man-made intervention. Thus, the claimant . . . must provethree key elements by clear and convincing evidence.These are !"# the old course of the creek, !$# the newcourse of the creek, and !%# the change of course of thecreek from the old location to the new location by naturaloccurrence.--- +ps. "rispin and "aridad 0alang vs. +ps. "onradoand ,e de Fastro eyes 0.. #o. &27$% /ugust &3% A1&A

"ase #o. 71:

#hen there is not fraud, the title granted is not wholl

in$alidated

!he factual antecedents are as follows:

;orandarte led an application for free patent% dated 8ecember3% &57A% before the *ureau of 9ands% 8ipolog "ity 8istrict 9andCDce @*C9 for brevity)% covering a parcel of land located at +ta.

' ( a g e


5/150

,ilomena% 8ipolog "ity with an area of .355 hectares anddescribed as a portion of 9ot &162 of 8ipolog "adastre #o. 23.

Cn 4uly A7% &57$% the 8istrict 9and CDcer of the *C9 approvedthe free patent application of ;orandarte and directed theissuance of a free patent in his favor. /ccordingly% ,ree (atent #o.@IG-2) 723 for 9ot #o. 7% "sd-15-13-11172-8 was issued in thename of ;orandarte. Cn +eptember A1% &57$% the egister of8eeds of Hamboanga del #orte issued the corresponding Criginal"erticate of !itle #o. @(-A&57A) 353.

+ubseuently% ;orandarte caused a subdivision survey of the lot%

dividing the same into 9ot #o. $72&-/% with an area of &6%565suare meters% and 9ot #o. $72&-*% with an area of 6A%2&5 suaremeters.

/s a result of the subdivision survey% !ransfer "erticates of !itle#os. !-&263 and !-&26$ covering 9ots $72&-/ and $72&-*%respectively% were issued in favor of ;orandarte on ;ay &A% &521by the egistry of 8eeds of 8ipolog "ity.

Cn ;ay AA% &52&% ;orandarte and his wife% ;arina ,ebrera%eecuted a real estate mortgage over 9ot $72&-*% sub?ect of !"!#o. &26$% in favor of the 8evelopment *ank of the (hilippines%8ipolog "ity branch @8*( for brevity)% in consideration of a loan inthe amount of (3A%&$1.11.

;ore than ten years after the issuance of the C"! in ;orandarte=s

name% or on ;arch &5% &527% respondent epublic of the(hilippines @epublic for brevity)% represented by the 8irector of9ands% led before the !" a "omplaint for /nnulment of !itle andeversion against the ;orandarte spouses% the egister of 8eedsof Hamboanga del #orte% the egister of 8eeds of 8ipolog "ity%and 8*(% docketed as "ivil "ase #o. 6251.

!he epublic alleged that the *C9 found that the sub?ect landincludes a portion of the ;iputak iver which cannot be validlyawarded as it is outside the commerce of man and beyond theauthority of the *C9 to dispose of. It claimed that the ;orandartespouses deliberately and intentionally concealed such fact in theapplication to ensure approval thereof. "onsidering that the;orandarte spouses are guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in

3 ' ( a g e


6/150

the procurement of their title% the epublic stressed that their titleis void.

!he egister of 8eeds of 8ipolog "ity led a ;otion to 8ismiss%dated /pril 7% &527% praying for the dismissal of the complaint asagainst her since the complaint failed to state a claim against her.

In their /nswer dated /pril &6% &527% the ;orandarte spousesdenied the allegations of the complaint and claimed that theywere able to secure the title in accordance and in compliance withthe reuirements of the law. !hey alleged that the land is aportion of inherited property from /ntonio 9. ;orandarte whose

ownership thereof is covered by !a 8eclaration #o. AA5$.

/s regards the ;iputak iver% they argued that the river changedits course brought about by the fact that a portion of the ;iputakiver was leased by the *ureau of ,isheries @*C, for brevity) to acertain /guido eali


7/150

Cn ;arch % &522% upon prior leave of court% herein respondentspouses irginio *. 9acaya and #enita 9acaya led their"omplaint-In-Intervention which alleged that they are holders of ashpond lease agreement covering a shpond area of about

3.1663 hectares% &.A$2& hectares of which have been included inthe title issued to the ;orandarte spouses. "onsidering that theland of the ;orandarte spouses encroaches on the area leased tothem% the 9acaya spouses submit that the formerJs title thereto isvoid.

In their /nswer to the complaint-in-intervention% dated ;arch &5%&522% the ;orandarte spouses denied the allegations of the9acaya spouses. !hey maintained that the portion of the shpond

originally belonged to /ntonio 9. ;orandarte% their predecessor-in-interest% and the 9acaya spouses have never been in possessionthereof but are actually suatters therein.

Cn the other hand% the epublic% in its /nswer to the complaint-in-intervention% dated ;arch A&% &522% adopted the allegations ofthe complaint-in-intervention to further support its claim that thetitle of the ;orandarte spouses is void. !he 9acaya spouses ledtheir eply and /nswer on ;arch 61% &522% denying thearguments of the ;orandarte spouses and reiterating the

allegations in their complaint-in-intervention.

,ollowing trial on the merits% on #ovember 3% &55A% the !"rendered a 8ecision in favor of the epublic and the 9acayaspouses. !he !" declared that while fraud in the procurement ofthe title was not established by the +tate% ;orandarteJs title is%nonetheless% void because it includes a portion of the ;iputakiver which is outside the commerce of man and beyond the

authority of the *C9 to dispose of. In addition% the !" sustainedthe shpond rights of the 9acaya spouses over a portion includedin ;orandarteJs title based on a 8eed of !ransfer of ,ishpondights from ,elipe *. 9acaya and a ,ishpond 9ease /greementwith the *C,. I

K

uling of the "ourt:

(refatorily% it must be stated that in petitions for review oncertiorari% only uestions of law may be raised by the parties andpassed upon by this "ourt. ,actual ndings of the trial court% whenadopted and conrmed by the "/% are binding and conclusiveupon the +upreme "ourt and generally will not be reviewed onappeal. Inuiry upon the veracity of the "/Js factual ndings and

7 ' ( a g e


8/150

conclusion is not the function of the +upreme "ourt for the "ourtis not a trier of facts.

&hile this 'ourt has recogni(ed several e)ceptions to thisrule, to wit !"# when the *ndings are grounded entirelyon speculation, surmises, or con+ectures !$# when theinference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, orimpossible !%# when there is grave abuse of discretion!# when the +udgment is based on a misapprehension offacts !# when the *ndings of facts are conicting !/#when in making its *ndings, the '0 went beyond theissues of the case, or its *ndings are contrary to theadmissions of both the appellant and the appellee !1#

when the *ndings are contrary to the trial court !2# whenthe *ndings are conclusions without citation of speci*cevidence on which they are based !3# when the facts setforth in the petition as well as in the petitioner4s main andreply briefs are not disputed by the respondent !"5#when the *ndings of fact are premised on the supposedabsence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence onrecord and !""# when the '0 manifestly overlookedcertain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which,

if properly considered, would +ustify a di6erentconclusion, none of these e)ceptions *nd applicationhere.

/ complaint for reversion involves a serious controversy% involvinga uestion of fraud and misrepresentation committed against thegovernment and it seeks the return of the disputed portion of thepublic domain. It seeks to cancel the original certicate ofregistration% and nullify the original certicate of title% including

the transfer certicate of title of the successors-in-interestbecause the same were all procured through fraud andmisrepresentation.

!he +tate% as the party alleging that fraud and misrepresentationattended the application for free patent% bears the burden ofproof. !he circumstances evidencing fraud and misrepresentationare as varied as the people who perpetrate it in each case. It

assumes dierent shapes and forms and may be committed in asmany dierent ways. !herefore% fraud and misrepresentation arenever presumed but must be proved by clear and convincingevidenceB mere preponderance of evidence not even beingadeuate.

2 ' ( a g e


9/150

In this case% the +tate failed to prove that fraud andmisrepresentation attended the application for free patent. !he!"% in fact% recogni


10/150

,elipe *. 9acaya on ;ay &% &53$. *y &5$1% the public land leasedfor shpond purposes had increased to 3.1663 hectares. ,elipe *.9acaya transferred his shpond rights to irgilio *. 9acaya onCctober A3% &577. !hus% the shpond rights have been in

eistence since &52% prior to the &57A free patent application of;orandarte.

egardless of the foregoing% /urelio ,. *ureros% concluded that;orandarte is a ualied applicant and recommended that a freepatent be granted to him. !his error culminated in the erroneousgrant of a free patent on 4uly A7% &57$ covering the ;iputak iverand land sub?ect of the shpond rights of ,elipe *. 9acaya.

*e that as it may% the mistake or error of the oDcials or agents ofthe *C9 in this regard cannot be invoked against the governmentwith regard to property of the public domain. It has been said thatthe +tate cannot be estopped by the omission% mistake or error ofits oDcials or agents.

It is well-recogni


11/150

The orandarte s+ouses cannot seek refuge in their claimthat 0ntonio 0. 7orandarte, their predecessor-in-interest,was already the owner of that portion of :ot "5%2 whenthe *shpond application of 0guido ;. 9eali(a was

approved in "32 because :ot "5%2 was still part of thepublic domain then. It was onl in &3!2, through -orestrAdministrati$e 0rder o. 4'&25!, which was a++ro$edAugust &4, &3!2, when Lot &7/ was declared aliena%le ordis+osa%le +ro+ert of the tate.

It is a settled rule that unless a +u%lic land is shown toha$e %een reclassi1ed as aliena%le or actuall alienated% the tate to a +ri$ate +erson, that +iece of landremains +art of the +u%lic domain. 8ence, Antonio A.

orandarte9s occu+ation thereof, howe$er long, cannotri+en into +ri$ate ownershi+.

The 7orandarte spouses also unsuccessfully harp on theinapplicability of 0rticle /$ of the 'ivil 'ode by claimingthat the change of course of the 7iputak 9iver was due toa man-made cause and not by natural means. Theyo6ered

no iota of evidence to substantiate this claim,other than the bare testimony of ce.

e need not delve on the uestion of whether the 9acayaspouses violated the terms of the shpond lease agreement. It isnot material in this case in the sense that it was not made anissue by the parties. #either is there evidence to corroborate thebare allegation of petitioners that the 9acaya spouses constructeddikes for the shponds which caused the ;iputak iver to

traverse 9ot 7. >hat is signicant here is the established fact thatthere was an eisting shpond lease agreement between ,elipe9acaya and the *ureau of ,isheries at the time of ;orandarteJsapplication for free patentB in eect% proving that the areacovering the shpond belongs to the 0overnment and petitionershave

no rights thereto.

&& ' ( a g e


12/150

In closing% we cannot but decry the carelessness of the *C9 inhaving issued the ,ree (atent in ;orandarteJs favor whichcovered the ;iputak iver and the shpond rights of ,elipe *.

9acaya. +urely% a more diligent search into their records andthorough ocular inspection of 9ot 7 would have revealed thepresence of the ;iputak iver traversing therein and an eistingshpond right thereon. Ead more vigilance been eercised by the*C9% the government agency entrusted specically with the taskof administering and disposing of public lands% the presentlitigation could have been averted. I+"8M

/

>EMM,CM% the petition is partly 0/#!M8. ---- +ps. *eder;orandarte N ;arina ,ebrera. vs. "ourt of /ppeals% 0.. #o.&A632$% /ugust &A% A11

"ase #o. 7&:

9iparian owner has better right but may be sub+ect toprescription

*etween the one who has actual possession of an islandthat forms in a non-navigable and non-otable river andthe owner of the land along the margin nearest theisland% who has the better right theretoO !his is the issue

to be resolved in this petition.

!he parties to this case dispute the ownership of a certain parcelof land located in +ta. "ruest P by the portion belonging to icente#eri.

&A ' ( a g e


13/150

(rivate respondents led with the egional !rial "ourt of ;isamisCriental & an action to uiet title andQor remove a cloud over theproperty in uestion against petitioners.

espondent "ourt of /ppeals summari


14/150

!he portion 9ot #o. $A-/% is described as follows:

T/ parcel of land @9ot #o. $A-/% (sd-&1-11&72Abeing a portion of 9ot $A% (ls-755% !agoloan (ublic 9and

+ubdivision) situated in *o. +ta. "ru% and on the # along lines -3-& by 9ot $A-* of thesubdivision plan-&1-11&72AB on the M by line &-A by 9ot$B (ls-755B on the +% along line A-6- by +aluksok "reek%containing an area of one thousand two hundred eightynine @&%A25) suare meters more or less.T

/ppellant also applied for concession with the *ureau of ;inesto etract A11 cubic meters of gravel @Mh. 0 N 0-&)B and after

an ocular inspection the permit was granted @Mh. F% and F-&and F-A). !hat the appellant after permit was granted enteredinto an agreement with !agoloan /ggregates to etract sandand gravel @Mh. 9B 9-&B and 9-A)% which agreement wasregistered in the oDce of the egister of 8eeds @Mh. ;B ;-&Band ;-A).

!he defendants-appellees Rpetitioners hereinS denied the claimof ownership of the appellant% and asserted that they are thereal owners of the land in litigation containing an area of&2%111 suare meters more or less. 8uring the typhoon Ineng

in &5$ the river control was washed away causing theformation of an island% which is now the land in litigation. !hedefendants started occupying the land in &5$5% paid land taesas evidenced by ta declaration #o. A$621 @Mh. ) and tareceipts @Mhs. 7 to 7-0)% and ta clearances @Mhs. 2 N 5).(hotographs showing the actual occupation of the land by thedefendants including improvements and the house werepresented as evidence @Mh. && to &&-M). !he report of the"ommissioner who conducted the ocular inspection was oeredas evidence of the defendants @Mh. 0).

!he sketch plan prepared by Mng. omeo Mscalderon @Mh. &A)shows that the plaintis= Rprivate respondents=S land was acrossthe land in litigation @Mh. &A-/)% and in going to the land of theplainti% one has to cross a distance of about $2 meters of the!agoloan river to reach the land in litigation.

Cn &7 4uly &527 the trial court dismissed the complaint for failureof private respondents as plaintis therein to establish bypreponderance of evidence their claim of ownership over the landin litigation. !he court found that the island is a delta forming partof the river bed which the government may use to reroute%redirect or control the course of the !agoloan iver. /ccordingly% itheld that it was outside the commerce of man and part of thepublic domain% citing /rticle A1 of the "ivil "ode. /s such itcannot be registered under the land registration law or beacuired by prescription. !he trial court% however% recogni


15/150

validity of petitioners= possession and gave them preferentialrights to use and en?oy the property. !he trial court added thatshould the +tate allow the island to be the sub?ect of privateownership% the petitioners have rights better than that of private

respondents.

uling of the "ourt:

>hat% then% about the adverse possession established bypetitionersO /re their rights as such not going to be recogni


16/150

abrupt segregation and washing away of the stockpile ofthe river control, which makes it a case of avulsion under

0rticle 3.

>e are not prepared% unlike the trial court% to concede that theisland is a delta which should be outside the commerce of manand that it belongs to the +tate as property of the public domainin the absence of any showing that the legal reuirements toestablish such a status have been satised% which duty properlypertains to the +tate. Eowever% >e are also well aware that thispetition is an upshot of the action to uiet title brought by theprivate respondents against petitioners. /s such it is nottechnically an action i- re or an action i- perso-a% but

characteri


17/150

of /lluvium under /rticle 37 of the #"" is applicable only toaccession on properties located near rivers.

6. / and * each owns separate parcels of land on oppositesides of a river. !he river changes it course and passedthrough 8Js land not ad?oining /Js or *Js land. /s a result ofthis change of course% 8 lost &1 hectares of his land./ssuming that the area of the abandoned river bed betweenthe land of / and * is also &1 hectares% who is entitled to theaccession. >hyO

/ns.: !he owner is 8. /rticle $& of the #"" provides that

river beds which are abandoned through the natural changeof course of the waters ipso facto belong to the ownerswhose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion tothe area lost. Eowever% / and * can acuire the abandonedriver bed because /rticle $& likewise provides that theowner of the land ad?oining the old be shall have the right toacuire the same by paying the value thereof% which valueshall not eceed the value of the area occupied by the newriver bed.

. /fter a week of torrential rains% a portion of /Js plantation%with an area of one hectare and planted with &11 coconuttrees% was eroded% while to *Js farm% on the other bank ofthe same river% a tract of land% also one hectare in area% onwhich stood 31 coconut trees was added. /n eual numberof trees% their roots epose% were found lying on the groundin *Js property. +even months later% /% alleging that the one

hectare lot and &11 coconut trees were his% demanded theirreturn but *. who had previously taken possession of themrefused% claiming that the land was formed by alluvion and%therefore% belongs to him and that / has lost his right to thecoconut trees because he did not lay claim to them in duetime. / thereupon sued * for the recovery of the land andthe coconuts. >ill the action prosperO +tate the legal basisof your answer.

/ns.: !he action will prosper with respect to the one hectaretract of land and all the coconut trees still planted on it eventhough their roots are eposed because the provision of the#"" that is applicable is /rticle 35 that grants to the ownerof the land who property suered from the avulsion is givenA years within which to recover his known portion of property

&7 ' ( a g e


18/150

that was sub?ected to avulsion. ,urthermore% the theory of *that the property is an accretion to his property by way ofalluvion is also not tenable because the manner the propertywas eroded into the property of * was not gradual but it was

sudden or abrupt. /s for the uprooted coconut trees% thesame can no longer be recovered for the right of / to recoverthe same has already prescribed.

ECTI0

Right of Accession with Res+ect to o$a%le

*ro+ert

ARTICLE 466. #hene$er two mo$a%le things

%elonging to di:erent owners are, without %ad

faith, united in such a wa that the form a single

o%;ect, the owner of the principal thing ac8uiresthe accessory, indemnifying the former owner

thereof for its value. (!5"

*asic rule: /ccession on movable properties eists only ifseparation is not feasible. If separation is possible without in?uryor damage then separation may be demanded% thus% there is noreal case of accession.

In accession% the owner of the principal thing acuires theaccessory% indemnifying the owner of the accession for its value.

Finds of accession continua as to movables:

&) /d?unction or "on?unctionBA) ;itureB and6) +pecication.

8istinction between the three kinds of accession continua formovables:

Ad;unction or

Con;unction

i


19/150

!his always involves twoor more things.

!his always involves twoor more things.

;ay involve one thing @ormore) but form ischanged.

/s a general rule%accessory follows the

principal.

!hings that are ?oinedretain their nature.

/s a general rule% co-ownership results.

!hings that are miedmay either retain or losetheir respective natures.

/s a general rule%accessory follows the

principal.

!he ob?ect is transformedbut the material usedretains its nature @e.g.wood remains wood)

/d;unction or Con;unction=

&"Re>uisites= a) !wo things must belong to dierent owners%and b) the two things form a single ob?ect% or that theirseparation would impair their nature.

2"?inds= a) Inclusion --- engraftment% b) soldadura ---

soldering% c) escritura --- writing% d) pintura ---- painting% e)te?ido --- weaving.

"Test to determine which is the +rinci+al and which is

the accessor@to be applied in the order given below):

a. ule of intention --- the principal is the one which thething is attached for ornamentation use or perfection@/rticle $7)B

b. !hat of greater value is the principal @/rticle $2)Bc. !hat of greater volume is the principal @/rticle $2)B

andd. !hat of greater merits is the principal @/rticle $2 last

paragraph).

ARTICLE 46!. The +rinci+al thing, as

%etween two things incor+orated, is

deemed to %e that to which the other has%een united as an ornament, or for its use

or +erfection. (!6"

ARTICLE 46/. If it cannot be determined% the rule gi$en in the +receding article

&5 ' ( a g e


20/150

which of the two things incor+orated is

the +rinci+al one, the thing of the greater

$alue shall %e so considered, and as

%etween two things of e>ual $alue, that

of the greater $olume.

In +ainting and scul+ture, writings,

+rinted matter, engra$ing and

lithogra+hs, the %oard, metal, stone,

can$as, +a+er or +archment shall %e

deemed the accessor thing. (!!"

9ights and ?bligation of the parties in 0d+unction

ARTICLE 463. #hene$er the things united can %e

se+arated without in;ur, their res+ecti$e owners

may demand their separation.

e$ertheless, in case the thing united for the use,embellishment or perfection of the other, is muchmore precious than the principal thing, the owner

of the former ma demand its se+aration, e$enthough the thing to which it has %een incor+orated

ma su:er some in;ur. (!/"

ule &: If it can be separated without in?ury% respective ownermay demand separationB

ule A: If it canJt be separated without causing in?ury but theaccessories used as embellishment or perfection of the principalare more precious than the principal% separation can bedemanded even if the principal will suer damage.

ARTICLE 4!7. #hene$er the owner of the

accessor thing has made the incor+oration in %ad

faith, he shall lose the thing incorporated and shallhave the obligation to indemnify the owner of theprincipal thing for the damages he may havesu6ered.

A1 ' ( a g e


21/150

If the one who has acted in %ad faith is the ownerof the principal thing, the owner of the accessorything shall have a right to choose between theformer paying him its value or that the thingbelonging to him be separated, even though forthis purpose it be necessary to destroy theprincipal thing and in both cases, furthermore,there shall be indemnity for damages.

If either one of the owners has made the

incor+oration with the nowledge and without the

o%;ection of the other, their res+ecti$e rights shall

%e determined as though %oth acted in good faith.(!3a"

ule 6: >hen the owner of the accessory is in bad faith% he willlose the accessory he caused to be incorporated and also beliable to the owner of the principal thing for the damages theprincipal suered.

ule : >hen the owner of the principal is in bad faith% the ownerof the accessory shall have the following options:

a) Ee can choose to demand from the owner of the principalto pay himQher for the value of the accessory plusdamages% or

b) Ee may choose to have the principal and accessoryseparate even if the same will necessarily cause the

destruction of the principal% plus damages.

ARTICLE 4!&. #hene$er the owner of the

material em+loed without his consent has a right

to an indemnit, he ma demand that this consist

in the deli$er of a thing e>ual in ind and $alue,

and in all other res+ects, to that em+loed, or else

in the +rice thereof, according to e


22/150

&) Ee may demand for the delivery of a thing eual in kind andvalue of his material employed without his consentB or

A) Ee can demand for the price of the material employedaccording to epert appraisal.

7i)ture

;iture is the union of materials where the components lose theiridentity.

Finds of miture: @&) "ommition --- miture of solids% and @A)"onfusion ---- miture of liuids.

ules:

@&) !he agreement of the parties regarding their rights tothe miture shall govern.

@A) In the absence of agreement% each owner acuires aninterest in proportion to the value of his material in any ofthe following: @a) if miture is by will of both owners% or @b) ifmiture is the result of accident and both parties are in goodfaith.

ARTICLE 4!2. If % the will of their owners

two things of the same or di:erent inds are

mi


23/150

ARTICLE 4!. If % the will of onl one owner,

%ut in good faith, two things of the same or

di:erent inds are mi


24/150

own, indemnifying the owner of the materialfor its value.

If the material is more precious than thetransformed thing or is of more value, its

owner ma, at his o+tion, a++ro+riate the newthing to himself, after 1rst +aing indemnit

for the $alue of the wor, or demand indemnit

for the material.

If in the maing of the thing %ad faith

inter$ened, the owner of the material shallhave the right to appropriate the work tohimself without paying anything to the maker,or to demand of the latter that he indemnifyhim for the value of the material and the

damages he may have su6ered. 8owe$er, theowner of the material cannot a++ro+riate the

wor in case the $alue of the latter, for artistic

or scienti1c reasons, is considera%l more than

that of the material. (/a"

"ase #o. 7&:

iari @alle Estate Inc $s. Lucasan (3! *hil 3/!" )

Re Article $*) NCC (Coi-gli-g i- !a3 fait 4 5ere3efe-3a-t ucasa- stole a-3 coi-gle3 cattle of plai-ti 7it3efe-3a-t8s cattle at te a3oi-i-g ra-c, te 3efe-3a-t lose issare of is o7- cattle 7ic 7ere coi-gle3 i- !a3 fait 7it

plai-ti8s cattle.

ARTICLE 4!5. In the +receding articles,

sentimental $alue shall %e dul a++reciated. (n"

(roblem:

;r. ;agabun and ;r. Crtelano each delivered &%111 kilos of palayto ;r. Fono for milling. ;agabunJs rice was ;ilagrosa uality andwas worth three times more per kilo than the rice of Crtelano.*efore ;r. Fono could mill the rice% an accidental re broke out inthe mill. Fono was able to save one-half of the rice of both

A ' ( a g e


25/150

;agabun and Crtelano but commingled. >hat are the respectiverights of ;agabun and Crtelano over the mitureO Mplain.

/ns.: ;agabun and Crtelano will own a share in the miture inproportion to the value of their respective rice. 0ood faith on the

part of both is presumed. +ince the portion of the value is 6:&@three times more per kilo) in favor of ;agabun% ;agabon shallown X of the miture while Crtelano shall own Y inters tint hemiture.

C8A*TER

uieting of Title (n"

ARTICLE 4!6. #hene$er there is a cloud on title

to real +ro+ert or an interest therein, by reasonof any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance orproceedingwhich is a++arentl $alid or e:ecti$e

%ut is in truth and in fact in$alid, ine:ecti$e,$oida%le, or unenforcea%le, and ma %e +re;udicial

to said title, an action ma %e %rought to remo$e

such cloud or to >uiet the title.

An action ma also %e %rought to +re$ent a cloud

from %eing cast u+on title to real +ro+ert or an

interest therein.

7eaning of 'loud---- Is said to be a semblance of a title% eitherlegal or euitable% or a cloud of an interest in land appearing insome legal form but which is% in fact% unfounded% or which it wouldbe ineuitable to enforce --- Iglesia ni Fristo vs. Eon. !helma /.(onferrada% 0.. #o. &$256% Cctober A7% A11$.

/rt. 7$ - /n action to uiet title may be brought when there

eists a cloud on the title to real property or any interest therein

/ction for Zuieting of !itle% euisites

A3 ' ( a g e


26/150

!here are two indispensable reuisites in order that an action touiet title could prosper:

!"# that the plainti6 or complainant has a legal or ane8uitable title to or interest in the real property sub+ectof the action and

!$# that the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceedingclaimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shownto be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its primafacie appearance of validity or legal e>cacy. --- osalina"lado-eyes vs. +ps. 4ulius and 9ily 9impe% 0.. #o. &$627$%

4uly 5% A112

!"# @lainti6 must return to the defendant all bene*ts hemay have received from the latter or reimburse him fore)penses that may have redounded to his bene*t.

(rescriptive period:

a) If the plainti is in possession --- imprescriptible.b) If plainti is not in possession --- if in good faith &1 years

@ordinary) but if in bad faith it is 61 years @etraordinary)

"ases #os. 7A N 76:

0 claim of right based on ac8uisitive prescription oradverse possession constitutes a removable cloud on title.

/s a general rule% a cloud which may be removed by suit to uiettitle is not created by mere verbal or parol assertion of ownershipof or an interest in property. !his rule is sub?ect to ualication%where there is a written or factual basis for the asserted right.

!hus% a claim of right based on acuisitive prescription or adverse

possession has been held to constitute a removable cloud on title.--- Mfren !andog% et al. vs. enato ;acapagal% et al.% 0.. #o.&A12% +eptember &&% A117

A$ ' ( a g e


27/150

>henever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interestin real property by reason of any instrument% record% claim%encumbrance% or proceeding that is apparently valid or eective%but is% in truth and in fact% invalid% ineective% voidable% or

unenforceable% and may be pre?udicial to said title% an action maybe brought to remove such cloud or to uiet the title. In suchaction% the competent court is tasked to determine the respectiverights of the complainant and the other claimants% not only toplace things in their proper places% and to make the claimant% whohas no rights to said immovable% respect and not disturb the oneso entitled% but also for the benet of both% so that whoever hasthe right will see every cloud of doubt over the propertydissipated% and he can thereafter fearlessly introduce the

improvements he may desire% as well as use% and even abuse theproperty as he deems t. --- !eosto C[o% et al. vs. icente #. 9im%0.. #o. &3A71% ;arch 5% A1&1

"ases #os. 7 N 73:

There is no prescription when in an action forreconveyance, the claimant is in actual possession of the

property because this in e6ect is an action for 8uieting oftitle

R+Since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actualpossession of the property% as the defendants are in the instant

case% the right to seek reconveyance% which in eect seeks touiet title to the property% does not prescribe. !he reason for thisis that one who is in actual possession of a piece of land claimingto be the owner thereof may wait until his possession is disturbedor his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right%the reason for the rule being% that his undisturbed possessiongives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of euity toascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a thirdparty and its eect on his own title% which right can be claimedonly by one who is in possession. --- (#* vs. "iriaco 4umamoy% etal.% 0.. #o. &$551&% /ugust 6% A1&&% citing da. de "abrera v."ourt of /ppeals% 663 (hil. &5 @&557)

A7 ' ( a g e


28/150

!he petitioner may vindicate its rights in the property through anaction for uieting of title% a common law remedy designed for theremoval of any cloud upon% or doubt% or uncertainty aecting titleto real property. !he action for uieting of title may be brought

whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interestin real property by reason of any instrument% record% claim%encumbrance% or proceeding that is apparently valid or eective%but is% in truth and in fact% invalid% ineective% voidable% orunenforceable% and may be pre?udicial to said title. In the action%the competent court is tasked to determine the respective rightsof the plainti and the other claimants% not only to put things intheir proper places% and make the claimant% who has no rights tothe immovable% respect and not disturb the one so entitled% but

also for the benet of both% so that whoever has the right will seeevery cloud of doubt over the property dissipated% and he canthereafter fearlessly introduce any desired improvements% as wellas use% and even abuse the property. --- 8are /dventure ,arm"orp. vs. "ourt of /ppeals% et al.% 0.. #o. &$&&AA% +eptember A%A1&A

"ase #o. 7$:

*ased on the foregoing% this "ourt deems it necessary to delvebriey on the nature of the action of uieting of title as applied inthis case. !his "ourt=s ruling in Calacala, et al. v. Repu!lic, et al.isinstructive on this matter% thus:

!o begin with% it bears emphasis that an action for 8uieting

oftitle is essentially a common law remedy grounded one8uity. /s we held inBaricuatro, /r. vs. CA:

egarding the nature

of the action led before the trial

court% uieting of title is a common law remedy for theremoval of any cloud upon or doubt or uncertainty withrespect to title to real property. Criginating in euity?urisprudence% its purpose is to secure =. . . anad?udication that a claim of title to or an interest inproperty% adverse to that of the complainant% is invalid% sothat the complainant and those claiming under him maybe forever afterward free from any danger of hostileclaim.= In an action for uieting of title% the competentcourt is tasked to determine the respective rights of thecomplainant and other claimants% =. . . not only to place

things in their proper place% to make the one who has norights to said immovable respect and not disturb theother% but also for the benet of both% so that he who hasthe right would see every cloud of doubt over theproperty dissipated% and he could afterwards without fearintroduce the improvements he may desire% to use% andeven to abuse the property as he deems best . . . .

A2 ' ( a g e


29/150

Lnder /rticle 7$ of the #ew "ivil "ode% the remedy may beavailed

of only when, by reason

of any instrument,record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding, whichappears valid but is, in fact, invalid, ine6ective,voidable, or unenforceable, a cloud is thereby cast on

the complainantAs

title to real property or any interesttherein. !he codal provision reads: Ec+a!I

/rticle 7$.>henever there is a cloud on

title to realproperty or any interest therein% by reason of anyinstrument% record% claim% encumbrance or proceedingwhich is apparently valid or eective but is in truth and infact invalid% ineective% voidable% or unenforceable% andmay be pre?udicial to said title% an action may be broughtto remove such cloud or to uiet the title.

An action ma also %e %rought to +re$ent a cloud from

%eing cast u+on title to real +ro+ert or an interesttherein.

In turn% /rticle 77 of the same "ode identies the party whomay bring an action to uiet title% thus:

/rticle 77.!he plainti must have legal or e8uitabletitle to, or interest in the real property which is thesub?ect-matter of the action. Ee need not be inpossession of said property.

It can thus be seen that for an action for uieting of title to

prosper% the plainti ust :rst ave a legal, or, at least, a-euita!le title o- te real propert; su!ect of te actio- a-3tat te allege3 clou3 o- is title ust !e so7- to !e i- facti-vali3.+o it is that inRo!les, et al. vs. CA,55we ruled:

It is essential for the plainti or complainant to have alegal title or an euitable title to or interest in the realproperty which is the sub?ect matter of the action. /lso%the deed% claim% encumbrance or proceeding that is beingalleged as a cloud on plainti=s title must be shown to bein fact invalid or inoperative despite its pria facieappearance of validity or legal eDcacy.

erily% for an action to uiet title to prosper% two@A) indispensable reuisites must concur%namely: !"# the plainti6 or complainant hasa legal or an e8uitable

title to or interestin the real property sub+ect

of the actionand !$# the deed, claim, encumbrance, or

proceeding claimed to be casting cloud onhis

title must be shown to be in factinvalid or inoperative despite its primafacie appearance

of validity or legale>cacy.

A5 ' ( a g e
http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/52926?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=52926&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=quieting+of+title&q%5Bissue_no%5D=G.R.+No.+173289&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote55_0http://cdasiaonline.com/jurisprudences/52926?hits%5B%5D%5Bid%5D=52926&hits%5B%5D%5Btype%5D=Jurisprudence&path=%2Fjurisprudences%2Fsearch&q%5Bcitation_finder%5D=&q%5Bfull_text%5D=quieting+of+title&q%5Bissue_no%5D=G.R.+No.+173289&q%5Bponente%5D=&q%5Bsyllabus%5D=&q%5Btitle%5D=&q%5Butf8%5D=%E2%9C%93&q%5Byear_end%5D=&q%5Byear_start%5D=#footnote55_0


30/150

espondents% in their "omplaint% claim that they have become theowners in fee-simple title of the sub?ect land by occupation andpossession under the provisions of +ec. 2 @b) of the (ublic 9and

9aw or "ommonwealth /ct #o. &&% as amended. !hus% it appearsthat the rst reuisite has been satised. /nent the secondreuisite% respondents enumerated several facts that would tendto prove the invalidity of the claim of the petitioner. /ll of theseclaims% which would correspond to the two reuisites for theuieting of title% are factualB and% as discussed earlier% thepetitioner interposed its ob?ections and duly disputed the saidclaims% thus% presenting genuine issues that can only be resolvedthrough a full-blown trial.

/nent the propriety of the ling of an action for the uieting oftitle% the indefeasibility and incontrovertibility of the decree ofregistration come into uestion. Lnder +ec. 6A of (.8. #o. &3A5 orthe (roperty egistration 8ecree:

+ection 6A.Revie7 of 3ecree of registratio-< '--oce-t purcaserfor value.P !he decree of registration shall not be reopened or

revised by reason of absence% minority% or other disability ofany person adversely aected thereby% nor by any proceedingin any court for reversing ?udgments% sub?ect% however% to theright of any person% including the government and the branchesthereof% deprived of land or of any estate or interest therein bysuch ad?udication or conrmation of title obtained by actualfraud% to le in the proper "ourt of ,irst Instance a petition forreopening and review of the decree of registration not laterthan one year from and after the date of the entry of suchdecree of registration% but in no case shall such petition beentertained by the court where an innocent purchaser for value

has acuired the land or an interest therein% whose rights maybe pre?udiced. >henever the phrase Tinnocent purchaser forvalueT or an euivalent phrase occurs in this 8ecree% it shall bedeemed to include an innocent lessee% mortgagee% or otherencumbrancer for value.

B+on the e


31/150

on ;arch 3% &552B hence% applying the above provisions, itwould seem that the period

of one !"# year from theissuance

of the decree of registration has not elapsed forthe review thereof. However, a closer e)amination

of the

above provisions would clearly indicate that the action*led, which was for

8uieting

of title , was not the properremedy.

'ourts may reopen proceedings already closed by *naldecision or decree when an application for review is *ledby the party aggrieved within one year from the issuance

of the decree of registration. However, the basis

of theaggrieved party must be anchored solely on actual fraud.

+hedding light on the matter is a discussion presented in one

ofthe recogni


32/150

they do not appear and oppose the registration

of their own estate or interest in the property inthe name

of another, +udgment is renderedagainst them by default, and, in the absence

of

fraud, such +udgment is conclusive. If aninterest in the land will not by itself operate tovacate a decree

of registration, a fortiori, fraudis not alone su>cient to do so.

/s further pointed out in the same book, the petition for reviewmust be *led within one year from entry

of the decree ofregistration. /s written:

/s long as a nal decree has not been entered by the 9andegistration /uthority and period of one year has not elapsedfrom the date of entry of such decree% the title is not nallyad?udicated and the decision in the registration case continuesto be under the control and sound discretion of the registrationcourt. /fter the lapse of said period% the decree becomesincontrovertible and no longer sub?ect to reopening or review.

ection 2 +ro$ides that a +etition for re$iew of thedecree of registration ma %e 1led not later than oneear from and after the date of entr of such decree ofregistration.0iving this provision a literal interpretation% itmay at rst blush seem that the petition for review cannot bepresented until the nal decree has been entered. Eowever% ithas been ruled that the +etition ma %e 1led at an timeafter the rendition of the courtDs decision and %efore thee


33/150

grounds stated in the ules of "ourt. /n appeal from thedecision of the trial court prevents the ?udgment frombecoming nal until that decree is aDrmed by the ?udgment ofthe appellate court.

A +etition for re$iew under ection 2 is a remed

se+arate and distinct from a motion for new trial andthe right to the remed is not a:ected % the denial ofsuch a motion irres+ecti$e of the grounds u+on which itma ha$e %een +resented. !hus% where petitioners acuiredtheir interest in the land before any nal decree had beenentered% the litigation was therefore in eect still pending and%in these circumstances% they can hardly be considered innocentpurchasers in good faith.

>here the petition for review of a decree of registration is ledwithin the one-year period from entry of the decree% it is error

for the court to deny the petition without hearing the evidencein support of the allegation of actual and etrinsic fraud uponwhich the petition is predicated. !he petitioner should beaorded an opportunity to prove such allegation.

In the present case, the one-year period before theTorrens title becomes indefeasible and incontrovertiblehas not yet e)pired thus, a review of the decree ofregistration would have been the appropriate remedy.

*ased on the above disuisitions% the other issues raised by thepetitioner are necessarily rendered inconseuential.

#8ERE-0RE% the petition for review on certiorari of petitioner Mland(hilippines% Inc. is hereby RATEF ----(=la-3 %ilippi-es, '-c. v. Garcia,G.R. No. 1*)2"9, [>e!ruar; 1*, 2010#, 626 %&' *)?+*6$

ARTICLE 4!!. The +lainti: must ha$e legal or

e>uita%le title to, or interest in the real +ro+ert

which is the su%;ect'matter of the action. 8e need

not %e in +ossession of said +ro+ert.

"ase #o. 77:

In aria a;ug @3a. 3e Cailles v.Doi-a3or a;uga, et.al.% the"ourt aDrmed the decision of the "ourt of /ppeals in "./.-

0..#o. 6&227-% conrming ownership over a fty- three @36) hectareparcel of land located in 9as (inas% i


34/150

referred to as 9ot 5 (su-&&&& /md-A% in favor of one 8ominador;ayuga. !he "ourt also etended the benet of such conrmationto the latter=s successor-in-interest% the late #icolas Crosa.

/fter the case was remanded to *ranch &3& of the egional !rial"ourt% (asig% where it was originally docketed in &532 as 9andegistration "ase @T9"T) #o. A265% the heirs of #icolas Crosa@petitioners herein) moved for eecution of ?udgment. !his motionwas granted by the lower court in its Crder dated A3 Cctober&525% directing the 9and egistration /uthority @T9/T) to submitthe property=s amended technical description for approval.

Eowever% the 9/ did not comply with said order because% amongothers% its records indicated that the property had previously beendecreed in favor of one 4ose !. elasue


35/150

/s the "ourt understands it% 0oldenrod attempts to augment theruling of the lower court by showing in its pleadings inintervention% as well as in its comment before the "ourt% theeistence of a legal interest in the land suDcient to ?ustify its

intervention.

0oldenrod claims that in &577% during the pendency of this casebefore the "ourt in 0.. #o. 9-61235% 8elta ;otors "orporation@8elta) acuired for value the contingent rights of #icolas Crosaover the property% as well as the conicting claims thereto of one

4ose elasue


36/150

must show that he will either gain or lose by the directlegal operation and e6ect of a +udgment.

In the present case% 0oldenrod has failed to meet this criteria and

the lower court gravely abused its discretion in permittingintervention after having overlooked this matter.

Cne of the other reasons invoked by the public respondent inpermitting intervention at the eecution stage of 9" #o. A265follows:

T!he Crosa heirs contend that intervention cannot be allowed at thisstage of the proceedings in this case. e; forget tat i- a la-3registratio- case eve- 7e- te 3ecree as !ee- issue3, te caseca- !e re+ope-e3 7iti- (1 ;ear fro issua-ce of sai3 3ecree toe-a!le a-; preu3ice3 part; to prese-t evi3e-ce i- support of isclai.T

It appears that the lower court cited +ection 6A of (.8. &3A5%permitting the reopening of a decree of registration within oneyear after its entry% if the same was procured through actual fraudand a person is thereby deprived of any interest over the aectedland.

!he diDculty with this view is that% as earlier noted% 0oldenrodhad not shown any actual interest in the land of which it couldhave been deprived% on the basis of an actual or etrinsic fraudperpetrated by petitioners in the course of procuring their decreeof conrmation. 0oldenrod had merely alleged% ratherambiguously% a cause of action against petitioners in that theyTsuddenly breached and disregarded the &577 /greementT @the

sale between #icolas Crosa and 8elta). Mven the publicrespondent made no nding that 0oldenrod was the apparentvictim of an actual fraud. Eence its invocation of the remedyprovided in +ection 6A of (.8. &3A5 was bereft of basis.

!he action of the lower court in permitting 0oldenrod=sintervention at this late stage of the proceedings in 9" #o. A265is also awed by another% more serious defect. It must beremembered that upon entry of the "ourt=s ?udgment in 0.. #o.9-61235% the conrmation of a registerable title% and theconseuent ad?udication of ownership over 9ot 5 (su-&&&& /md-A% in favor of petitioners= predecessors-in-interest became a naland settled matter. +uch entry of ?udgment operated ipso factotodivest the lower court of its general ?urisdiction to act in 9" #o.A265% save for the limited matter of supervising the process of

6$ ' ( a g e


37/150

eecuting the "ourt=s decision. !he public respondent simplycannot% as it appears to be trying to do in this case% interpret orreverse the implication of this "ourt=s ruling that petitioners areentitled to a !orrens title over 9ot 5 (su-&&&& /md-A% ?ust

because 0oldenrod seeks to recall eecution by making asupervening allegation that petitioners are no longer the ownersthereof.

0oldenrod attempted to broaden the ?urisdiction of the lowercourt% so as to enable the latter to take cogni


38/150

property which is the sub?ect matter of 9" #o. A265% the "ourtbelieves that 0oldenrod can and should protect such interest in aseparate proceeding.

!he public respondent invoked the following to support its viewthat the eecution stage of the land registration proceeding wasthe proper venue within which 0oldenrod can protect its interestin the property:

T;ovants also contend that the granting of leave to intervene will undulydelay the disposition of this case. e a3u3icatio- of Gol3e-ro3, '-c.Esi-terest i- te su!ect parcel of la-3 i- te i-sta-t case 7oul3 !e for te!e-e:t -ot o-l; of Gol3e-ro3, '-c. itself, (!ut also of te rosa eirs,!ecause tereafter tere 7ill !e -o clou3 i- te title of te part; to 7ote o7-ersip of sai3 parcel of la-3 a; !e a3u3icate3.

,inally% the movants contend that the intervenor=s interest can be protectedin a separate proceedings @sic). !he "ourt doubts if this is true. In any event%as above adverted to% everybody will be beneted by this "ourt ad?udicatingin this case the claim of the intervenor.T @Italic supplied)

It would appear that the public respondent premised its rulingsolely on the belief that a cloud had descended on the title overthe real property which is the sub?ect matter of 9" #o. A265 andthat this cloud had to be removed.

!his ?ustication does not persuade. Lnder /rticle 7 of the "ivil"ode% the plainti in an action for uieting of title must at leasthave euitable title to or an interest in the real property which isthe sub?ect matter of the action. Mvidence of 0oldenrod=s capacityon this point is ineistent because 0oldenrod is not asserting aclaim to the property. 0n the contrar, it had admittedha$ing alienated its interestin the land referred to as Lot3 *su'&&4&& Amd'2 to the consortium.!hus% 0oldenrod is not

an interested party capable of instituting an action to uiet title%either by intervening in 9" #o. A265 or by instituting a separateaction. !he right to commence such a separate action pertains toits endee% if the latter wishes to defend the validity of its &527purchase from 0oldenrod and to hold the endor 0oldenrod liableon its warranty of title.

>EMM,CM% the (etition for "ertiorari and (rohibition is hereby0/#!M8. !he Crders of the public respondent dated 7 8ecember&551 and && /pril &55&% being issued with grave abuse ofdiscretion amounting to ecess of ?urisdiction% are hereby/##L99M8 and +M! /+I8M. !he public respondent=s Crder datedA3 Cctober &525 is hereby MI#+!/!M8 and the !emporaryestraining Crder issued by the "ourt in this case is

62 ' ( a g e


39/150

correspondingly 9I,!M8. In view of the long pendency of 9" #o.A265% the public respondent is hereby en?oined to terminate theproceeding as soon as possible by completing the eecution ofthe "ourt=s 8ecision in 0.. #o. 9-61235 with all deliberate speed.

!his 8ecision is immediately eecutory. #o costs. --- Eeirs of#icolas U. Crosa vs. Mutropio ;igrino% 0.. #os. 55662-1%,ebruary &% &556

ARTICLE 4!/. There ma also %e an action to

>uiet title or remo$e a cloud therefrom when the

contract, instrument or other o%ligation has %eene


40/150

irrevocable. !he seller a retro failed to repurchase. !hepurchaser sold it to another person who asked the original ownerto eecute a deed of sale so that he could acuire a title. !heoriginal owner refused. >as the refusal correctO >hyO

/ns.:

#o. >hen the seller a retro failed to redeem the land within thestipulated period% its ownership became consolidated in the nameof the purchaser who can subseuently transfer ownershipthereof. >hile the successive sale was in a private instrument% it

was a valid sale.!he subseuent purchaser of the land may bring an action tocompel the prior owner to eecute a deed of sale in a publicinstrument to uite the title of the prior owner and to prevent anyfurther cloud from being case upon it. --- 0allar vs. Eassain% A1+"/ &2$)

C8A*TER 4

Ruinous Huildings and Trees in Fanger of -alling

ARTICLE 4/2. If a %uilding, wall, column, or an

other construction is in danger of falling, the

owner shall %e o%liged to demolish it or to e


41/150

+u%lic or +ri$ate road, the owner of the tree shall

%e o%liged to fell and remo$e it and should he notdo so, it shall be done at his e)pense by order ofthe administrative authorities. (37a"

TITLE III

Co'ownershi+

ARTICLE 4/4. There is co'ownershi+ whene$er

the ownershi+ of an undi$ided thing or right%elongs to di:erent +ersons.

In default of contracts, or of s+ecial +ro$isions, co'

ownershi+ shall %e go$erned % the +ro$isions of

this Title. (32"

"haracteristic of "o-ownership:

a) (lurality of sub?ects @two or more owners)Bb) Lnity of or material indivision% which means that there is a

single ob?ect which is not materially dividedB andc) ecognition of ideal shares% which determines the rights and

obligations of the co-owners.

Eow "o-ownership is created:

a) 8onation inter vivosBb) 9awBc) CccupationBd) "ontractBe) "hance% andf) +uccession or !estamentary disposition.

/rt. 2 - "o-ownership

Lnder /rticle 2 of the "ivil "ode% Tthere is co-ownershipwhenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs todierent persons.B 0 co-owner of an undivided parcel of landis an Bowner of the whole, and over the whole hee)ercises the right of dominion, but he is at the same time

& ' ( a g e


42/150

the owner of a portion which is truly abstract.B Cn the otherhand% there is no co-ownership when the dierent portions ownedby dierent people are already concretely determined andseparately identiable% even if not yet technically described. ---

;anuel !. 8e 0uia vs. "ourt of /ppeals% 0.. #o. &A12$% Cctober2% A116

In order that a co-owner=s possession may be deemed adverse tothat of the cestui ue trust or the other co-owners% the followingelements must concur:

&. !he co-owner has performed uneuivocal acts of repudiationof the co-ownership amounting to an ouster of the cestui uetrust or the other co-ownersB

A. +uch positive acts of repudiation have been made known tothe cestui ue trust or the other co-ownersB

6. !he evidence on the repudiation is clear and conclusiveB and

. Eis possession is open% continuous% eclusive% and notorious.--- Eeirs of 4ose eyes% 4r. vs. /manda +. eyes% et al.% 0..#o. &32677% /ugust % A1&1

8istinction between co-ownership and partnership:

C0'0#ER8I* *ARTER8I*

"an be created without the

formalities of contract.

"reated only by contract%

epress or implied.Eas no separate ?uridical orlegal personality.

Eas ?uridical personalitydistinct from the partners.

(urpose is collective en?oymentof the thing.

(urpose is to obtain prots.

"o-owner can dispose of hisshares without the consent ofthe others with the transferee

automatically becoming a co-owner.

/ partner% unless authori


43/150

proportional to the respectiveinterests of co-owners.

to the stipulation of the parties.

/ co-ownership is not dissolvedby the death or incapacity of a

co-owner.

8eath or incapacity dissolvesthe partnership.

#o public instrument neededeven if real property is theob?ect of the co-ownership.

;ay be made in any formecept when real property iscontributed.

ights and Cbligations of "o-owners --- !he co-owners has

interest @&) over the thing itself% and @A) over his undividedinterest over the thing.

ights of each co-owner as to the thing owned in common:

a) !o use the thing owned in common sub?ect to the followinglimitations:

a. It must be used according to the purpose for which itwas intendedB

b. !he use must not pre?udice the interest of the co-ownershipB

c. !he other co-owners must not be prevented from usingit according to their own rights.

ARTICLE 4/6. Each co'owner ma use

the thing owned in common,provided hedoes so in accordance with the purposefor which it is intended and in such a wayas not to in+ure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-ownersfrom using it according to their rights.The +ur+ose of the co'ownershi+ ma %e

changed % agreement, e


44/150

ARTICLE 4/5. The share of the co'

owners, in the %ene1ts as well as in the

charges, shall %e +ro+ortional to their

res+ecti$e interests. An sti+ulation in acontract to the contrar shall %e $oid.

The +ortions %elonging to the co'owners

in the co'ownershi+ shall %e +resumed

e>ual, unless the contrar is +ro$ed.

(3a"

c) !o benet from prescription that pertains to one co-owner as

such.

"ase #o. 72:

"ase reference:

!he original complaint led by 9un involves an action for partition

and damages. 0 division of property cannot be ordered bythe court unless the e)istence of co-ownership is *rstestablished. In ?campo v. ?campo, we held that an actionfor partition will not lie if the claimant has

no rightfulinterest over the property.


45/150

between "haco% as buyer% and 0abriel 0redona and Mngracia9egata% as sellers% involving a price consideration of (&%A11.

Cn the other hand% respondents presented notari


46/150

It is also presumed unless contrary is proved that co-owners inthe co-ownership are of eual share in the property or sub?ect ofthe co-ownership.

>hat is the right of the co-owner to the thing owned in commonO

/ns.:

&) The right to use: Mach co-owner may use the thing ownedin common provided: @&) that he does so in accordance withthe purpose for which it is intendedB @A) that he does so insuch a way as not to in?ure the interest of the co-ownershipB@6) that he does so in such a way that he will not prevent theother co-owners form using it according to their rightsB

!he purpose of the co-ownership may be changed byagreement: epress or impliedB by the co-owners.

ARTICLE 4/!. An one of the co'owners ma

%ring an action in e;ectment. (n"

"ase #o. 75:

!his article covers all kinds of action for the recovery ofpossession% i.e.% forcible entry and unlawful detainer @accioninterdictal)% recovery of possession @accion publiciana)% andrecovery of ownership @accion de reivindicacion). --- 9eo >ee vs.0eorge 8e "astro% et al.% 0.. #o. &7$13% /ugust A1% A112

"ase #o. 21:

0 co-owner is not even a necessary party to an action fore+ectment, for complete relief can be a6orded even in hisabsence, thus

$ ' ( a g e


47/150

In sum% in suits to recover properties% all co-owners are realparties in interest. Eowever% pursuant to /rticle 27 of the "ivil"ode and the relevant ?urisprudence% any one of them may bringan action% any kind of action for the recovery of co-owned

properties. !herefore only one of the co-owners% namely the co-owner who led the suit for the recovery of the co-ownedproperty% is an indispensable party thereto. !he other co-ownersare not indispensable parties. They are not even necessary

parties, for a complete relief can be a6orded in the suiteven without their participation, since the suit is

presumed to have been *led for the bene*t of all co-owners. --- ey "astigador "atedrilla vs. ;ario and ;argie9auron% 0.. #o. &751&&% /pril &3% A1&6 citing >ee vs. 8e "astro%

et al.% 0.. #o. &7$13% /ugust A1% A112

"ase #o. 2&:

!he sub?ect shpond has a total area of 75%AA1 suare meters%co-owned by (rimitiva 9e?ano and 9oren


48/150

shpond the veried "omplaint for /nnulment of eal Mstate;ortgage and "ontract of 9ease (Iasu-3ua- -g a-glaa- a-3Iasulata- -g %ag!u!u7is -g %alais3aa- with (reliminaryIn?unction signed by the heirs of (rimitiva 9e?ano which he led

for himself and in representation as attorney-in-fact of said heirs.Ee alleged that he acuired his &QA undivided share in theshpond from the 9e?ano Eeirs in &52$% and that they led thecomplaint for annulment of said document because (rimitiva9e?ano allegedly signed these documents under duress andwithout consideration.

!he trial court rendered ?udgment against 8e 0uia% holding: a) that /*M4C has theright to demand that 8M 0LI/ vacate and surrender an area euivalent to /*M4C=+.share in the shpond% but in the meantime% due to lack of evidence of ?udicial oretra?udicial partition of the property% 8M 0LI/ was ordered to pay a reasonableamount as rental for the use of /*M4C=s shareB @b) that 8M 0LI/ and the 9e?ano Eeirsas well as their successors-in-interest are not entitled to the relief prayed for in theamended complaint to annul the Iasu-3ua- -g a-glaa- a-3 Iasulata- -g%ag!u!u7is -g %alais3aa- and D''=D the same for lack of cause of action. !hetrial court likewise declared the JIasu-3ua- -g a-glaa-J as valid and ordered thesheri to proceed to foreclose the aforesaid mortgage.

!he "ourt of /ppeals aDrmed the decision of the trial court and held% among others%that: @a) there is no irregularity in the eecution of the aforementioned contract ofmortgageB and @b) /*M4C=s right over his &QA undivided share in the shpond?ustied the action for recovery of possession. !he trial court=s decision eectively

enforces /be?o=s right over the property which was violated by 8M 0LI/ bypossession and use without paying compensation. /ccording to the "ourt of/ppeals% partition would constitute a mechanical aspect of the decision% ?ust likeaccounting when necessary.

Cn reviewB the ;upreme 'ourt ruled that the petition ispartly meritorious, and held !a# that any co-owner may*le an action under 0rticle 21 not only against a third

person, but also against another co-owner who takes

e)clusive possession and asserts e)clusive ownership ofthe property. In the latter case, however, the only purposeof the action is to obtain recognition of the co-ownership,but the plainti6 cannot recover a material or determinate

part of a common property prior to partition !b# thecourts cannot proceed without the actual partitioning ofthe property, hence, +udicial or e)tra+udicial partition isnecessary !c# despite DE GFI0A; ac8uisition of his "$undivided share in the *shpond on =ov. $$, "32%, afterthe e)piration of his lease of the entire *shpond which

was agreed upon by the :e+ano heirs and Teo*lo 0be+o in"313, DE GFI0 should pay reasonable rent to 0


49/150

"ase #os. 2A to 27:

Iglesia ni Cristo $s. *onferrada (575 CRA /44"

As suc co+o7-ers, eac of te eirs a; properl; !ri-g a-actio- for eecte-t, forci!le e-tr; a-3 3etai-er, or a-; Hi-3 ofactio- for te recover; of possessio- of te su!ect properties.us, a co+o7-er a; !ri-g suc a- actio-, eve- 7itout oi-i-gall te oter co+o7-ers as co+plai-tis, !ecause te suit is

3eee3 to !e i-stitute3 for te!e-e:t of all.

endoJa $s. Coronel (4/2 CRA 5"

Re Article $"* NCC 4 %ursua-t to Article $"* NCC, a co+o7-er 7itout oi-i-g te oter co+o7-ers as co+plai-tis, a;alo-e, !ri-g a- actio- for eecte-t, 7ic is a 3eparture fro

%alarca vs. Baguisi ()" %il 1**. e certi:catio- agai-st forusoppi-g !; te attor-e;+i-+fact 7o 7as autoriKe3 !; o-e ofte co+o7-ers is also sucie-t.

CruJ $s. Cata+ang (544 CRA 5&2"

Re Article $"* NCC 4 0 co-owner cannot give valid

consent to another person, not a co-owner, to !uil3 isouse o- co+o7-e3 propert; as tis 7ill i-ure te i-terest of teco+o7-ersip a-3 preve-t te oter co+o7-ers fro usi-g te

propert; i- accor3a-ce 7it teirrigts.

This constitutes as an act of alteration which needs theconsent of the other co-owners. e -o-+co-se-ti-g co+o7-er a; alo-e a; :le a- actio- for eecte-t agai-st te

!uil3er of te ouse.

Co-se-t !; o-e co+o7-er 7ill -ot 7arra-t 3isissal of forci!lee-tr; case :le3 !; oter co+o7-ers agai-st te !uil3er. No co+o7-er ca- aHe alteratio-s 7itout co-se-t of all co+o7-ers.

5 ' ( a g e


50/150

*ardell $s. Hartolome (2 *hil 457"

A co+o7-er ca--ot carge a co+o7-er for lease of resi3e-tialupper Loor if suc co+o7-er is -ot preve-te3 fro usi-g portio-as resi3e-tial space< !ut co+o7-er a; carge co+o7-er a-3 erus!a-3 for usi-g a portio- of te lo7er Loor as oce. @intendedpurpose of co-ownership rule)

Adille $s. CA (&5! CRA 455"

e re3eptio- !; o-e of te eirs of te ve-3or a retro ofte 7ole of a parcel of la-3, 3uri-g te re3eptio- perio3, willnot terminate co-ownership. e eir 7o re3eee3 te7ole la-3 is deemed a trustee of the shares of the otherheirs. &o7ever, after te re3eptio- perio3 as epire3, te co+o7-ersip cease3. A-; su!seue-t acuisitio- !; a forer co+o7-er 7ill vest full o7-ersip of te propert; o- suc perso-.

Tan $s. CA (&!2 CRA 667"

Re Co+o7-ersip 4 5ere te la-3 7as ortgage3 !; te3ecease3 pare-ts, a co+o7-ersip eiste3 ao-g te eirs a-3 are3eptio- !; o-e 3uri-g te re3eptio- perio3 7oul3 i-ure tote !e-e:t of all te co+o7-ers (A3ille vs. CA, 1?* CRA $??.

&o7ever, co+o7-ersip 7as eti-guise3 after te o-e (1

;ear re3eptio- perio3 as epire3, after 7ic te ortgagee!a-H acuire3 full o7-ersip of te la-3, a-3 pa;e-t !; o-eforer co+o7-er 7ill vest sole o7-ersip to er alo-e of te la-3,-ot7itsta-3i-g a-; attept !; te !a-H to revive te co+o7-ersip !; aHi-g it appear tat sale !; te !a-H 7as i- favorof all te forer co+o7-ers.

ARTICLE 4//. Each co'owner shall ha$e a right tocom+el the other co'owners to contri%ute to the

e


51/150

renouncing so much of his undivided interest asmay be e8uivalent to his share of the e)pensesand ta)es. o such wai$er shall %e made if it is+re;udicial to the co'ownershi+. (35a"

>hat are the rights and obligation of co-owners as to epensesand taesO

/ns.: Mach co-owner have the right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the epenses for preservation of the thingor right owned in common and to share in the payment of thetaes on the eercise of the right or en?oyment of the thing owned

in common.

>hat are the option of the co-owners in case one or two or moreco-owners refuses to pay his share in the epenses and taes ofthe common property or rightO

/ns.: !he co-owner who refuses to share may be made torenounce so much of his undivided interest as may be euivalentto his share of the epenses and taes. (rovided further that the

same shall not be pre?udicial to the co-ownership.

ARTICLE 4/3. Re+airs for +reser$ation ma %e

made at the will of one of the co'owners, %ut he

must, if +ractica%le, 1rst notif his co'owners of

the necessit for such re+airs. E


52/150

at the will of only one co-owner% but if practicable% heQshemust rst notify his co-owners of the necessity for suchrepairs.

A) Eowever% with respect to epenses to improve or embellish

the thing owned in common% the same can only beundertaken and to be decided rst upon a ma?ority decisionof the co-owners pursuant to the rules laid down in /rticle5A of the #"".

ARTICLE 437. #hene$er the di:erent stories of a

house %elong to di:erent owners, if the titles of

ownershi+ do not s+ecif the terms under whichthe should contri%ute to the necessar e


53/150

though %ene1ts for all would result therefrom.

8owe$er, if the withholding of the consent by oneor more of the co-owners is clearly pre+udicial tothe common interest, the courts may a6ordade8uate relief. (3!a"

It necessarily follows that none of the co-owners can% without theconsent of the other co-owners% validly consent to the making ofan alteration by another person in the thing owned in common.

/lterations include any act of strict dominion or ownership andany encumbrance or disposition has been held implicitly to be anact of alteration. --- 9eonor *. "ru< vs. !eola ;. "atapang% 0..#o. &$&&1% ,ebruary &A% A112. !his mean that all of the co-owners must approved before any of the co-owners can make anyalteration in the thing owned in common% and this isnotwithstanding that if will benet the co-ownership.Lnreasonable refusal to give their consent will entitle theinitiating co-owner to seek relief from the courts.

ARTICLE 432. -or the administration and %etter

en;oment of the thing owned in common, theresolutions of the ma+ority of the co-owners shallbe binding.

There shall %e no ma;orit unless the resolution is

a++ro$ed % the co'owners who re+resent the

controlling interest in the o%;ect of the co'

ownershi+.

hould there %e no ma;orit, or should the

resolution of the ma;orit %e seriousl +re;udicial

to those interested in the +ro+ert owned in

common, the court, at the instance of aninterested party, shall order such measures as it

may deem proper, including the appointment of anadministrator.

#hene$er a +art of the thing %elongs e


54/150

owned in common, the +receding +ro$isions shall

a++l onl to the +art owned in common. (3/"

>hat is the rule in co-ownership with respect to administrationand en?oyment of the things owned in commonO

/ns.:

Cn matters of administration @liHe ca-ge of te color of pai-that is the remedy if the co-ownership canJt achieve ma?oritydecision or when the parties holding controlling interest refused togive consent and said unreasonable decision poses a serious

pre?udice to those interested in the property owned in commonO

/ns.:

!he minority co-owners may resort to the court so as to cause thecourt to issue an order or measures as it may deem property inorder to protect to co-owned property% and the same may includethe appointment of an /dministrator.

ARTICLE 43. Each co'owner shall ha$e the full

ownershi+ of his +art and of the fruits and %ene1ts

+ertaining thereto, and he ma therefore alienate,

assign or mortgage it, and even substitute anotherperson in its en+oyment, e)cept when personal

rights are involved. Hut the e:ect of the alienationor the mortgage, with res+ect to the co'owners,

shall be limited to the portion which may beallotted to him in the division upon the terminationof the co-ownership. (33"

3 ' ( a g e


55/150

"ase #os. 22 to 5$:

Lnder a co-ownership% the ownership of an undivided thing orright belongs to dierent persons. During the e)istence of theco-ownership, no individual can claim title to any de*nite

portion of the community property until the partitionthereofB andprior to te partitio-, all tat te co+o7-er as is a-i3eal or a!stract uota or proportio-ate sare i- te e-tire la-3 orti-g. --- 4ulita ombaua (anganiban% et al. vs. 4ulita +. Camil% 0..#o. &56&6% 4anuary AA% A112

Lnder /rticle 56 of the "ivil "ode% the sale or otherdisposition a6ects only the seller4s share pro indiviso, andthe transferee gets only what corresponds to his grantor4sshare in the partition of the property owned in common .+ince a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share% a sale ofte e-tire propert; !; o-e co+o7-er 7itout te co-se-t of teoter co+o7-ers is -ot -ull a-3 voi3. Eowever% only the rights ofthe co-ownerQseller are transferred% thereby making the buyer aco-owner of the property. The +ro+er action in a case liethis% is not for the nullication of the sale% or for the recovery ofpossession of the property owned in common from the thirdperson% %ut for di$ision or +artition of the entire +ro+ert ifit continued to remain in the +ossession of the co'owners

who +ossessed and administered it. +uch partition should

result in segregating the portion belonging to the seller and itsdelivery to the buyer. --- *en?amin "oronel vs. ,lorentino"onstantino% 0.. #o. &A&1$5% ,ebruary 7% A116

/rticle 56 therefore gives te o7-er of a- u-3ivi3e3 i-terest i-te propert; te rigt to freel; sell a-3 3ispose of is u-3ivi3e3i-terest. !he co-owner% however% has no right to sell or alienate aconcrete specic or determinate part of the thing owned in

common% because his right over the thing is represented by auota or ideal portion without any physical ad?udication. If the co-owner sells a concrete portion% this% nonetheless% does not renderthe sale void. +uch a sale aects only his own share% sub?ect tothe results of the partition but not those of the other co-owners

33 ' ( a g e


56/150

who did not consent to the sale. --- eynaldo /guirre vs. "ourt of/ppeals% 0.. #o. &AAA5% 4anuary A5% A11

>here a parcel of land% forming part of the undistributedproperties of the dissolved con?ugal partnership of gains% is soldby a widow to a purchaser who merely relied on the face of thecerticate of title thereto% issued solely in the name of the widow%the purchaser acuires a valid title to the land even as against theheirs of the deceased spouse. !he rationale for this rule is that Taperson dealing with registered land is not reuired to go behindthe register to determine the condition of the property. Ee is onlycharged with notice of the burdens on the property which are

noted on the face of the register or the certicate of title. !oreuire him to do more is to defeat one of the primary ob?ects ofthe !orrens system.T --- +ps. /leander and /delaida "ru< vs.Mleuterio 9eis% 0.. #o. &A3A66% ;arch 5% A111

/lthough the right of an heir over the property of the decedent isinchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled andpartitioned% the law allows a co-owner to eercise rights of

ownership over such inchoate right. -- ;auricia /le?andrino vs."ourt of /ppeals% 0.. #o. &&&3&% +eptember &7% &552

In 0o Cng vs. "ourt of /ppeals% this "ourt ruled that the heirs% asco-owners% shall each have the full ownership of his% part and thefruits and benets pertaining to it. /n heir may% therefore%alienate% assign or mortgage it% and even substitute anotherperson in its en?oyment% ecept when the personal rights are

involved. *ut the eect of the alienation or mortgage% withrespect to the co-owners% shall be limited to the portion whichmay be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of theco-ownership. --- ,elicidad da. 8e "abrera. vs. "ourt of /ppeals%0.. #o. &1237% ,ebruary 6% &557

(ursuant to this law% a co-owner has the right to alienate his pro-indiviso share in the co-owned property even without the consentof the other co-owners. #evertheless% as a mere part owner% hecannot alienate the shares of the other co-owners. !he prohibitionis premised on the elementary rule that Tno one can give what hedoes not haveT @#emo dat uod non habet). --- #ilo ;ercado vs."ourt of /ppeals% 0.. #o. &1235A% 4anuary A$% &553

3$ ' ( a g e


57/150

In amire< vs. *autista% this "ourt held that every co-heir has theabsolute ownership of his share in the community property andmay alienate% assign% or mortgage the same% ecept as to purely

personal rights% but the eect of any such transfer is limited tothe portion which may be awarded to him upon the partition ofthe property. --- ;aria da. 8e eyes vs. "ourt of /ppeals% 0..#o. 5A6$% 4uly A$% &55&

!he law does not prohibit a co-owner from selling% alienating ormortgaging his ideal share in the property held in common. !helaw merely provides that the alienation or mortgage shall belimited only to the portion of the property which may be allottedto him upon termination of the co-ownership R+ee ;ercado v.9iwanag% 0.. #o. 9-&A5% 4une 61% &5$AB (#* v. !he Eonorable"ourt of /ppeals% 0.. #o. 9-61% 4une A3% &521B 0o Cng v. !heEonorable "ourt of /ppeals% 0.. #o. 7322% +eptember A% &527Sand% as earlier discussed% that the remaining co-owners have theright to redeem% within a specied period% the shares which mayhave been sold to the third party. R/rticles &$A1 and &$A6 of the

#ew "ivil "ode.S ---;arina H. eyes vs. /lfredo *. "oncepcion%0.. #o. 3$331% Cctober &% &551

"ase #o. 57:

>hen 8onato (aulmitan sold on ;ay A2% &57 9ot #o. &15& to hisdaughter 4uliana (. ,anesa% he was only a co-owner with

respondents and as such% he could only sell that portion whichmay be allotted to him upon termination of the co-ownership.

!he sale did not pre?udice the rights of respondents to one half@&QA) undivided share of the land which they inherited from theirfather. It did not vest ownership in the entire land with the buyerbut transferred only the seller=spro i-3ivisoshare in the propertyand conseuently made the buyer a co-owner of the land until itis partitioned.

'- Bailo-+Casilao v. Court of Appeals% the "ourt% through 4usticeIrene . "ortes% outlined the eects of a sale by one co-ownerwithout the consent of all the co-owners% thus= The rights of aco'owner of a certain +ro+ert are clearl s+eci1ed inArticle 43 of the Ci$il Code. Thus= Art. 43. Each co'ownershall ha$e the full ownershi+ of his +art and of the fruits

37 ' ( a g e


58/150

and %ene1ts +ertaining thereto, and he ma thereforealienate, assign or mortgage it and e$en su%stituteanother +erson in its en;oment, e


59/150

56 is not the technical Vpersonal rightW as distinguished fromVreal rightW

ARTICLE 434. =o co-owner shall be obliged toremain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner maydemand at any time the partition of the thingowned in common, insofar as his share isconcerned.

e$ertheless, an agreement to keep the thingundivided for a certain period of time

, not

e)ceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term ma%e e


60/150

be subdivided or its subdivision would pre?udice the interests ofthe co-owners% and

@A) the co-owners are not in agreement as to who among themshall be allotted or assigned the entire property upon proper

reimbursement of the co-owners. ---- irgilio *. /guilar vs. "ourtof /ppeals% 0.. #o. 7$63&% Cctober A5% &556

"ase #o. 55:

It has been said that /rticle 5 of the "ivil "ode which provides

that each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of thecommon property implies that an action to demand partition isimprescriptible or cannot be barred by laches. Theimprescriptibility of the action cannot, however, beinvoked when one of the co-owners has possessed the

property as e)clusive owner and for a period su>cient toac8uire it by prescription. --- emedios 0. +alvador vs. "ourtof /ppeals% 0.. #o. &155&1% /pril 3% &553

"ase #o. &11:

5ile as a ge-eral rule te actio- for partitio- ao-g co+o7-ers3oes -ot prescri!e so lo-g as te co+o7-ersip is epressl; oriplie3l; recog-iKe3 @/rt. 5% "ivil "ode)% +etitioners hereinhad ne$er recogniJed res+ondent as a co'owner or co'heir

either euentl, the rule on

non'+rescri+tion of action for +artition of +ro+ert owned

in common (Art. 434" does not a++l to the case at %ar. ---#atividad 8el osario da. 8e /lberto vs. "ourt of /ppeals% 0..#o. A5735% ;ay &2% &525

"ase #o. &1&:

!he condition set by the decedent on the property=s indivisibilityis sub?ect to a statutory limitation. !he provisions of law%particularly Articles 434, /!7, and &7/ of the Ci$il Code+ro$ide that the +rohi%ition to di$ide a +ro+ert in a co'

ownershi+ can onl last for twent (27" ears -- In e:

$1 ' ( a g e


61/150

(etition for (robate of 9ast >ill and !estament of *asilio +antiago%0.. #o. &75235% /ugust 5% A1&1

"ase #o. &1A:

#either shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.

+econd% respondent has repeatedly claimed that the sub?ecthouse was built by the deceased. (etitioners never controvertedsuch claim. !here is then no dispute that the sub?ect house is part

of the estate of the deceasedB as suc

property part 2

Documents