ARAGON v.
THE INSULAR GOVERNMENT ISSUE: Did the owners lose their possession of the land in question
G.R. No. L-6019, 25 March 1911
FACTS:
In 1892 a possessory title to the land in question was duly registered
in favor of Inocencio Aragon, one of the predecessors in interest of
these applicants; that for a long period of years, the applicant and
their predecessors in interest have been in possession of the parcel
of land in question, under and undisputed claim of ownership; that
for many years a house stood upon this land, and was occupied by
some of the predecessors in interest of the applicants in these
proceedings; that the adjoining lots extend toward the bay to a line
formed by the extension of the outer boundary line of the lot in
question, and that these adjoining lots would be in substantially the
same physical condition, by relation to the ebb and flow of the tide,
as lot in question, but for low retaining walls which protect them
against the incoming sea; that the water which spreads over the lot
in question at high tide is of but little depth, and would be wholly
excluded by a very limited amount of "filling" materials or a low
retaining wall; that there are strong reasons to believe that the land
in question was originally well above the ebb and flow of the tide;
and that only in later years have the waters risen to such a height
along the shores of the Bay of Manila at this point as to cover the
land in question completely at high tide; though it does not
definitely appear whether this is due to changes in the current and
flow of the waters in the bay, or to the gradual sinking of the land
along the coast. The Government of the Philippine Islands, through
its proper representatives, objected to the application for registry
on the ground that, as it alleges, the land in question is a part of the
public domain.
as provided under Article 555 of the New Civil Code?
RULING:

NO. If the Government is justified in disturbing the
possession of the applicants, it can only be on the ground that they
have abandoned their property, or that it has been totally destroyed
and has now become a part of the public domain by the erosive
action of the sea. It is quite clear that applicants have never
abandoned their possession under a claim of ownership of this land.
There has been no such destructive or total loss of the property as
would justify a holding that the owners have lost possession.
Doubtless the property has been injured by the erosive action of the
sea. Doubtless the owners in order to profitably enjoy the
possession of this property will be compelled to make some
relatively small expenditure by way of a "fill" or a retaining wall. If
the applicants have not lost their right of possession, the
Government's claim of ownership, on the ground that this is a part
of the playa (shore) of Manila Bay, necessarily falls to the ground. It
affirmatively appears that the owners of the land in question have
never in fact nor in intent abandoned it, and that keeping in mind its
location and actual condition it can not be said to have been totally
destroyed for the purposes for which it was held by them, so as to
have become a part of the playa (shore) of the Bay of Manila.
 CATHOLIC VICAR APOSTOLIC OF THE MOUNTAIN PROVINCE v. predecessors' house was borrowed by petitioner Vicar after the
COURT OF APPEALS church and the convent were destroyed. They never asked for the
return of the house, but when they allowed its free use, they

G.R. NO. 80294-95, 21 September 1988
 became bailors in commodatum and the petitioner the bailee. The
bailees' failure to return the subject matter of commodatum to the
FACTS: bailor did not mean adverse possession on the part of the borrower.
The bailee held in trust the property subject matter of
The whole controversy started when the herein petitioner filed an commodatum. The adverse claim of petitioner came only in 1951
application for registration of lands 1, 2, 3 and 4 in La Trinidad, when it declared the lots for taxation purposes. The action of
Benguet on September 5, 1962. The heirs of Juan Valdez and the petitioner Vicar by such adverse claim could not ripen into title by
heirs of Egmidio Octaviano filed an opposition on lots 2 and 3, way of ordinary acquisitive prescription because of the absence of
respectively. On November 17, 1965, the land registration court just title.
confirmed the registrable title of the petitioner. On May 9, 1977,
the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and dismissed the Vicar’s
application. The heirs filed a motion for reconsideration, praying
that the lots be ordered registered under their names. The Court of
Appeals denied the motion for lack of sufficient merit. Both parties
then came before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a
minute resolution, denied both petitions. The heirs filed the instant
cases for the recovery and possession of the lots.

Respondents argue that the petitioner is barred from setting up the

defense of ownership or long and continuous possession by the
prior judgment of the Court of Appeals under the principle of res
judicata. Petitioner contends that the principle is not applicable
because the dispositive portion of the judgment merely dismissed
the application for registration.

ISSUE: Did ownership of Lots 2 and 3 transfer to petitioner Vicar

through acquisitive prescription?

RULING:
NO. Private respondents were able to prove that their

 EDCA PUBLISHING & DISTRIBUTING CORP v. SANTOS demand payment or to rescind the contract, or to criminal
prosecution in the case of bouncing checks. But absent the
G.R. No. 80298, 26 April 1990 stipulation above noted, delivery of the thing sold will effectively
transfer ownership to the buyer who can in turn transfer it to
FACTS: another.

Jose Cruz ordered 406 books from EDCA through telephone,

payable on delivery. Cruz issued a personal check covering the
purchase price for the books. Cruz sold 120 books to Santos who,
upon verifying the seller’s ownership from the invoice he showed
her, paid him the purchase price. Upon investigation, EDCA
confirmed that Cruz was an impostor and had no intention of paying
the books ordered (the check issued bounced). Thus, with the
assistance of police, EDCA forcibly seized the books from Santos and
threatened her with prosecution for buying stolen property. Santos
sued for the recovery of the books after demand for their return
was rejected by EDCA. EDCA argued that pursuant to Article 559 of
the Civil Code, it has the right to recover the books since it was
unlawfully deprived thereof.

ISSUE: Was EDCA unlawfully deprived of the books because the

check issued by the impostor in payment therefor was dishonored?

RULING:
NO. There was no unlawful deprivation of property, which would
entitle the petitioner to recover a property from the person
possessing it in good faith. Actual delivery of the books having been
made, Cruz acquired ownership over the books, which he could
then validly transfer to the private respondents. The fact that he
had not yet paid for them to EDCA was a matter between him and
EDCA and did not impair the title acquired by the private
respondents to the books. Non-payment only creates a right to