De Guia v.

CA 413 SCRA 114 (2003)

Facts: A co-owner of an undivided parcel of land is an owner of the whole, and over the whole
he exercises the right of dominion but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is
truly abstract.
Issue: Considering such circumstance, is there co-ownership when the different portions owned
by different people are already concretely determined and separately identiable even if not
yet technically described?
Held: No. For that matter, any co-owner, may le an action under Art. 487 not only against a
third person but also against another co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts
exclusive ownership of the property. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of
the common property unless a co-owner has repudiated the co-ownership under certain
conditions.

Juan Gargantos v. Tan Yanon L-14652, June 30, 1960

FACTS: Francisco Sanz owned a parcel of land with some buildings. He subdivided the property
into 3 portions each of which was sold to a different person. One of the portions had a house
with door and windows overlooking another portion. In 1955, the buyer of the latter portion,
Gargantos, applied for a permit to construct a building on his lot. The buyer of the rst portion
opposed approval of the application unless Gargantos would respect the easement of light and
view, and would observe the 3-meter requirement under Art. 673 of the new Civil Code.
Gargantos alleged however, that no easement had ever been acquired in view of the lack of a
notarial prohibition.
Issue: does the argument tenable?
HELD: Gargantos should NOT construct, unless he observes the 3-meter rule. No notarial
prohibition was required, for the proper Article to apply is Art. 624 regarding the existence of
the apparent sign of an easement, namely, the existing doors and windows.

Province of Zamboanga Del Norte v. City of Zamboanga, et al. L-24440, Mar. 28, 1968
FACTS: After Zamboanga Province was divided into two (Zamboanga del Norte and Zamboanga
del Sur), Republic Act 3039 was passed providing that All buildings, properties, and assets
belonging to the former province of Zamboanga and located within the City of Zamboanga are
hereby transferred free of charge in favor of the City of Zamboanga. Suit was brought alleging
that this grant without just compensation was unconstitutional because it deprived the
province of property without due process. Included in the properties were the capital site and
capitol building, certain school sites, hospital and leprosarium sites, and high school
playgrounds.
Issues: a) Are the properties mentioned, properties for public use or patrimonial? b) Should the
city pay for said properties?
HELD: a) If we follow the Civil Code classi cation, only the high school playgrounds are for
public use (in the sense that generally, they are available to the general public), and all the rest
are PATRIMONIAL (since they are not devoted to public use but to public service; since they are
not for public use, under Art. 424 of the Civil Code, they are patrimonial.
LEONOR GRANA and JULIETA TORRALBA VS. THE COURT OF APPEALS,
AURORA BONGATO and JARDENIO SANCHEZ

GR L-12486 31 AUG 1960

Facts:

The herein Petitioners were sued by Bongato and Sanchez for the recovery of 87
square meters of residential land which they have inherited as the children of the
spouses Marcos Bongato and Eusebia. The former were ordered by the to vacate and
deliver it to said respondents and to pay a monthly rental of P10.00 from the filing of the
complaint until they actually vacate the same, plus attorney's fees and costs.

The Petitioners alleged that the said property became a subject of a cadastral survey
due to conflicts and overlapping of boundaries. In that survey, Gregorio Bongato's lot,
according to petitioners, was identified as Lot No. 311 and that of Isidaria Trillo, their
predecessor in interest, as Lot No. 310. Citing the fact that Original Certificate of Title
No. RO-72 (138) covers 295 square meters of land, while the sketch plan of the second
cadastral survey of Butuan shows that Lot No. 311 has only 230 square meters,
petitioners maintain that it is the latter area properly belongs to respondents and that the
land in question is part of the adjoining land, Lot No. 310, which belonged to their
predecessor in interest.

Issue:

Whether or not the first survey was erroneous or that it included part of the contiguous
land of petitioners' predecessor in interest?

Held:

Petitioners' stand is untenable. No proof was presented to show that the first survey was
erroneous or that it included part of the contigous land of petitioners' predecessor in
interest as part of the lot now covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RO-72 (138).
Note that the difference in area between the land covered by said title and Lot No. 311
of the resurvey plan is 65 square meters while the area of the land in dispute if 87
square meters. And what is more, the alleged sketch plan of the resurvey was not
presented in evidence.