Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Article 415. The Following Are Immovable Property
Article 415. The Following Are Immovable Property
(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil;
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an
integral part of an immovable;
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot
be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in
buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals the
intention to attach them permanently to the tenements;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar
nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have
them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in
these places are included;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and
waters either running or stagnant;
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object
to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast;
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable
property. (334a)
Building subjected to a chattel mortgage will not lose its character as a real property. By
virtue of the principle of estoppel wherein there is inconsistent position of the parties, they
are barred from raising it as a defense the character of the real party. Applicable as long as
there is no third party affected.
Poles of meralco are personal because they can easily be disassembled
Trees – real property by incorporation – cultivated by people
- Real property by nature – grows on the land naturally
o Those uprooted by storm still form part of timberland if not yet removed
therefrom
must be the principal and essential element of the business, business cannot operate
without such
personalty – a real property which, under a special provision of law is considered as a personal
property
art 415 (6) animals are also considered personalty under RPC
- water in a swimming pool on the 8th floor of a building is personal property
art 415 (8) waters pertain to those which are in their natural bed
real right – enforceable against the whole world, no definite passive subject
6/20/15
- david collateral his house by chattel mortgage
- upon default, creditor foreclosed and acquired his house
- Uy Kim sold house to Tian Sai
- David defaulted in his payment to Marcos Mangubat, another creditor of David,
judgment was filed in favor of Marcos
- The house was levied upon in order to implement judgment
- Tian Sai said it is already owned by him having acquired it from Uy Kim
- Can Marcos Mangubat go after the house to have judgment in his favor?
- Issue: validity of chattel mortgage
If it was valid between David and Uy Kim, then Uy Kim acquired valid right to
Pian Sai and Pian Sai would have valid right
Art 415
- They do not fall under paragraph 1 because there is no permanent annexation because
they can be transferred by unscrewing bolts
- Not under art 3 and 5 because they are not machineries, receptacles, articles. Also,
even if machineries, it should be carried on business on building or land and MERALCO
doesn’t carry on business in land, even so, they could not meet essentially requirement
because business would go on
- SC said it will not fall in any enumeration
- Par 4 MERALCO is not owner of land or tenement
SIBAL vs VALDEZ
- WON sugar cane are considered as real or personal property
- Valdez refused redemption of sugar cane offered because they cannot be validly
redeemed because law does not allow debtor right to redemption
- Although growing fruits are considered real property but there is special law
considering them as personalty (real property but considered personal on special law
DAVAO SAWMILL – rented parcel of land and built a building where Sawmill was operated; in
contract of lease, upon expiration, buildings etc. except machineries will become property of
lessor
- Sawmill executed a mortgage
- ISSUE: characterization of machineries
- SC: one of the requirements is it must be placed by the owner of immovable but it was
by Davao Sawmill, it will not be immobilized if placed by tenant who has only
temporary right
BURGOS – search warrant was implemented and several properties seized
- In seizure of machineries, implementation of search warrant was questioned whether
the machineries were real or personal
- SC said it is valid, although heavily placed and bolted doesn’t convert it to real
properties
- It is not owner who placed the machineries on the land
CO UN JIENG – immobilized
- It must be intended for industry
MINDANAO – realty taxes for bus company questioning classification as real properties
- SC sided with the bus company because equipments are not essential principal
elements of the business in such a way that business will not continue to operate in the
absence of such equipments, they can have buses repaired in another repair shop
OWNERS:
1. STATE
a. Public dominion
b. Public use
c. Public service
d. Development of national wealth
2. Political subdivisions
a. Public use
b. Patrimonial property
3. Persons (private properties)
a. Natural
b. Juridical
4. Heaven
Difference of:
Public dominion for public use
- Indefinite public can have access
- Everybody can access indiscriminately ex.plaza
Political subdivision
For public use – ex. Provincial roads, city streets, squares etc.
- Cannot lease properties for public use because outside the commerce
of men
Patrimonial – can be used, abused, destroyed as long as no infraction of law
- Ownership is a matter of right, but owner cannot use property to injure
others
6/23/15
classification
acquisitive prescription – does not apply to public dominion for the state
state-owned minerals
- constitution allows state to profit share or joint venture
civil law allows lease contracts over fish ponds – viewed as state-owned
public use
Municipal bldgs. Police stations are not for public use because not used by public
MANILA LODGE vs CA
- transferred to Manila Lodge
- transferred log again to Tarlac Development Corporation
- city of manila filed petition in court during
- purchaser in good faith
- main contention pf reclaimed lands for part for affirming decision of lower court of
extension of Cuneta Park
- SC said in order for property to be classified as patrimonial – mere intention to devote
for public use is sufficient
VILLARICO vs SARMIENTO
- Strip of land owned by government
- Here, respondent constructed building and leased it to Andoks
- Legality of structure
- SC declared neither of them has right because they belong to government for public
use
- Roads constructed on public lands
- Requisites:
1. Owner of dominant state
2.
3. compensation
- no right of way for properties of public dominion none of them has better right
- occupation merely tolerated by gov.
- SC declared leases of these streets as null and void
- Lessees could not claim reimbursement because they benefited
DACANAY vs ASISTIO
- Pubic street thus public use, thus outside the commerce of man so not subject to lease
or of any other contract
- 208 scra 404 pg 70
- whether or not public street can be leased
CAPUTOL vs AQUINO
- It is sufficient (there is intention it does not matter if it is actually used for public service
- No positive act by
ANTIPOLO vs ZAPANTA
- Disputed property was claimed by applicants on basis of tax declaration where disputed
property was paid in their names
- They applied for a title
- Municipality of Antipolo questioned grant of petition
- Considering it is actually used for public service then it is property for public use of
municipality of Antipolo
- Non-registrable
- In case property is ACTUALLY USED for some public service or purpose, then its
property of that political subdivision for actual use
MACACIANO vs DIOKNO
- Closing streets
- Entered into contract for construction of markets
- He (macaciano) destroyed the stalls confiscated in the street
- Valid according to trial court
- SC said property of local government
- These streets are property of municipality for public use, they are utilized as
municipality streets
- Allow close streets but ordinance for closure must be for closure only
- Authority granted by LGC to close roads, its circumstances must be taken into
- Road or street must be no longer necessary for public use
- Here it was never established but they just pass ordinance
- Municipal streets were still used as streets when ordinance was passed
PROVINCE OF ZAMBOANGA
- Province of Zamboanga to City of Zamboanga
- WON properties are properties of province in its proprietary capacity
- If governmental capacity then Congress has absolute control and can transfer
- As long as intended for some public service they are intended for public use, law is valid
and constitutional
STATE OF NECESSITY
Article 432. The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the
same, if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage,
compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The
owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him
7/7/15
ACCESSION DISCRETA
- Right is included in bundle of rights
1. Accession to fruits (discreta)
2. Everything attached or incorporated naturally or artificially to ones property
3 kinds of fruits NIC
Natural – real properties as long as adhered to land
Industrial – same as above
Civil – personal property ex. Rentals, annuities; they accrue daily
Art 441
General rule – to the owner belongs all kinds of fruits
- Reinforcement of 440
- There are exceptions to art 441
1. Fruits naturally falling from its branches belong to owner of land from which it feel
Lease art 1654
Antichresis art 2132
Usufruct art 546
Good faith art 544
Possessor in good faith
2. Contract of lease of rural lands (lessee gets fruits, lessor gets rent)
3. Usufruct (entitled to all fruits) art 566
4. Antichresis (art 2132)
5. Pledge
Contract of antichresis – a formal contract; law requires that these be in writing or else void
contract to secure payment of obligation
- Debtor turns over possession of his immovable to antichresis
- Fruits belonging to debtor applied to interest then principal to creditor
Accession continua
Art 445
- Building, planting sowing
- 3 parties: landowner, owner of materials and builder planter sower
- important characteristics or basis of accession continua
Immovable art 456
BANGUS
Bad faith – party in bad faith shall be penalized ex. 449, 450, 451, if all are in bad faith, bad faith
of 1 neutralizes all others
Accessory follows principal
Neutralizes bad faith of one and bad faith of the other
Good faith – not penalized but may be held responsible
Unjust enrichment at the expense of another
Separation, attachment
Art 445 whatever built sown or planted on the land of another because of art 446
- presumed all works done by owner at expense of other person
art 447 – owner is also builder, planter, sower but not owner of materials
1. right of owner for appropriation of materials with obligation to pay their value
owner of materials has no right of removal or demand return, only demand indemnity
for materials
landowner can insist return materials if they haven’t been transformed or if no actual
incorporation or attachment, no accession continue yet
owner of materials cannot order demolition to get the materials
monetary obligation of landowner, if he cannot, owner of materials can go to court
bad faith if owner had knowledge he doesn’t own materials or seeds but still appropriate it,
owner of materials, still owner automatically owns materials
art 448 another person enters land of landowner and builds, plants or sows
both are in good or bad faith
solution: landowner exercise either option
art 449 landowner in good faith, owner of materials will lose his materials
PACIFIC FARMS – where landowner builds on his own land a building using materials of another
7/14/15
art 448 options available to owner if a stranger plants in good faith to his land
1. appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting after paying indemnity
a. necessary expenses
b. useful expenses
c. ornamental expenses
2. compel builder to buy land, if sower then rent the land
applicable only to stranger claiming ownership over the land
land is owned by another person
stranger thinking he owns the land, builds or sows
could the landowner sell in case the land is higher in value than that of building or trees?
Whether land is considerably more
- court decides, its not automatically taken out as option
RIGHT OF LESSEE
- 1678 introduces useful improvement in accord with use of promises and does not alter
substance
- ask payment one half of value of expenses
- do not have retention right
- could not be compelled to pay more than 1 hr
- only removal of useful improvements even if it damages leased premises
IF CO-OWNERSHIP TERMINATED
- after partition, building encroaches purchase of land 5 sqm by others, 448 is applicable
SARMIENTO vs AGANA – they knew they were not owners, 448 applied
- land was titled in the name of another person
IGNACIO vs HILARIO – after compulsory selling and buyer cannot pay, he cannot stay and he
can demolish
- change is irrevocable
TORRENS TITLE
TAYAG
- Lawyer was given land for legal services by donation not made in a public instrument.
Donation is void. Daughter of donor filed ejectment case. Before donor died, lawyer
already built residential house. Daughter won because donation is void.
art 443 no longer accession continua because fruits have already been gathered
art 447 who make use personally through another (builder, planter, sower)
2 options in case land owner bad faith builder good faith
art 445 rights and obligations of owner of materials in case he is party in bad faith
ACCESSION NATURAL
Art 457 alluvium vs accretion – is the process whereby alluvium is transferred from body of
water to land adjoining the banks
PRELIM ANSWERS
1. Yes it was ultra vires (not within their power to perform)
- Of public dominion
- Outside the commerce of man
a. Property involved was not noxious
- An ultra vires act no longer within their power to perform
- Plaza is public dominion which is outside the commerce of man
b. Municipal corporation has dual personalities
Proprietary and governmental
- Municipal corporations hold properties as trustees of state administered by them. In
this case, LBP vs Cahayuran, in the absence of proof all properties administered are
properties of…
- … even if acquisition is through its propriety capacity, they are depending on actual use,
here there is no proof where plaza came from whether by private person and donated
or state donated it to municipality
- records are bereft of any proof
- SC said municipality could not lawfully declare public plaza as public property. These
local government units could not convert it by ordinance but congress through
legislative act provided requisites are complied with
- Property already abandoned that is why it must be converted
Ordinances have no effect because it is na act ultra vires, not valid, case is not rendered moot
and academic
2 ALIDAMORES vs YUGO
A. Whether or not 448 will apply. No, contract will govern commodatum.
Yes, you can oust him and destroy house without indemnity except for
necessary expenses for preservation of the land
B. Unlawful detainer, real property, there is contract. Owner has right of
recovery, refusal of demand to vacate makes it unlawful
C. Mr. X is not builder in good faith – occupies land of another with claim
of ownership, possessor as owner, claims to be owner, his claim is
defective and he does not know
7 c. movable
PECSON vs CA
Determining principal
1. That to which other has been attached as ornament, establishment or for its use or
perfection (test of intention)
2. If could not be determined then thing of GREATER VALUE
3. GREATER VOLUME
4. Greater merits (utility and value)
Court determines
WIPES:
Writing
Inclusion
Printing
Engraving
Sculpture
Principal is obliged to pay value of accessory
Principal owner owns everything
2. MIXTURE
- There is greater interpenetration
- Things would lose their respective characteristics
- It results to co-ownership
- There must be good faith
- Maybe by fortuitous event
- Party in bad faith loses thing mixed plus damages
3. SPECIFICATION
- Owner of a thing in good faith employs materials of another to make a thing of
different kind, he should appropriate it as his own he must pay owner of materials the
value
- If material more precious, owner of material can appropriate new thing after first
paying value of work or demand its indemnity
- Making was in bad faith, owner of material can appropriate thing to himself without
paying maker OR demand latter indemnity for value plus damages
- If owner of material cannot appropriate work IF value of work for ARTISTIC or
SCIENTIFIC reasons is considerably more
If you use paint on canvass of another = adjunction if you use paint of another it is
SPECIFICATION because labor is the main
QUIETING of TITLE – an action in favor to owner of real property or person in interest. There
must be cloud of doubt on its title
PRICE:
Proceeding
Record
Instrument
Claim
Encumbrance
If agent not authorized in writing then sale is void. Instrument is valid on its face but in reality
its void.
Heirs of principal can file quieting of title because there is cloud on that title.
8/8/15 CABRERA vs CA
8/11/15
PARDEL vs BARTOLOME
- Matilde is entitled to rentals but only to portion of lower house
- May co-owner demand payment of rental from another co-owner if one will use the
entire property
- General Rule: co-owner cannot demand rentals from other co-owner for use of
property because he is co-owner of entire property and owner of ideal share
- If co-owners agree its for dwelling purposes
- 2 story house owned in common by 2 sisters
- agreement was that upper story is for dwelling and lower is for lease
- one of the sisters used entire upper dwelling with her husband
- husband used lower portion as his office
- sister came back and demanded payment of rentals
- one who used it for dwelling is not liable to pay because it is in accordance with
purpose, not injurious, does not deprive other sister from using
- made to pay1/2of rental because other sister is co-owner
AGUILAR vs CA
- 2 brothers purchased a house and lot
- agreement was that its for their father and to live with brother Senen and pay balance
of loan from SSS
- they agreed that it will be registered to one of them Senen
- after father died, Virgilio demanded that Senen vacate house so they could be sold and
proceeds divided
- he refused to vacate
- WON Senen is liable for rentals for use of house and lot since the time it was purchased
- From occupation till demand to vacate, not liable because he can use property as long
as in accordance with agreement etc.
- SC noted that Senen shall vacate so property can be sold he is liable for rentals after
decision of SC his right of use has already ceased
- General Rule: not to pay rentals as long as…
- Exception: one of the co-owners secured judgment, sold, proceeds divided
DE GUIA vs CA
- Can co-owner successfully eject or oust other co-owner from co-owned property
without joining others as long as its for benefit of all
- No. cannot eject others from possession because they are also owner of entire property
- Any action for ejectment is only action for recognition of co-ownership
- If he wants to identify his ideal share, it has to be action for partition
- Abejo can demand rentals, court examined purpose of former co-owners
- SC noted heirs intended land be leased as fishpond only as regards his ½ share of
rentals
repudiation