OWNERSHIP

NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CASTILLO

G.R. No. 196140, 27 January 2016

If property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court
having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interests on its just
value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is
actually paid or deposited with the court. The valuation of the land for purposes of
determining just compensation should not include the inflation rate of the Philippine Peso
because the delay in payment of the price of expropriated land is sufficiently recompensed
through payment of interest on the market value of the land as of the time of taking from the
landowner.

Additional compensation in the form of exemplary damages and attorney's fees should
likewise be awarded as a consequence of the government agency's illegal occupation of the
owner's property for a very long time, resulting in pecuniary loss to the owner.

GO v. LOOYUKO
G.R. No. 196529, 01 July 2013

A person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to its possession. Resolving
the question of ownership is relevant only when the question of possession cannot be decided
without resolving the issue of ownership. In this case Looyuko has a TCT which cannot be
collaterally attacked via unlawful detainer case and is sufficient evidence to entitle him the
right to possession of the townhouse. Prior physical possession is not required.

NENITA QUALITY FOODS v. GALABO

G.R. No. 174191, 30 January 2013

This was a forcible entry case where the possession in issue is not exactly the same as
the possession contemplated by the concept of ownership. The possession in forcible entry
refers to physical possession/possession de facto. The party who can prove prior possession
can recover such possession even against the owner himself. Notwithstanding the character of
his possession, as long as he has prior possession in time, he has the security that entitles him
to remain on the property until a person with a better right lawfully ejects him. In this case,
NQF’s tax declaration are not conclusive proof of possession. Neither the principle of tacking
of possession, (e.g. when it bought the land from the owner, its possession is by operation of
law tacked to the owner and predecessor owners), applies because possession in this regard
pertains to possession de jure and tacking is made to complete the time required for acquiring
or losing ownership through prescription. Physical Possession of the land should remain with
Galabo without prejudice to an appropriate action for recovery of possession based on
ownership in favor of NQF

URIETA v. ALFARO
G.R. No. 164402, 5 July 2010
 It is settled that a Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of
the person in whose name the title appears. It is conclusive evidence with respect to the
ownership of the land described therein. It is also settled that the titleholder is entitled to all
the attributes of ownership of the property, including possession. Urieta is the holder of a
Torrens title over the entire lot. Alfaro relies solely on the notarized but unregistered
Kasulatan sa Bilihan to support their claim of ownership. Thus, even if respondents’ proof of
ownership has in its favor a juris tantum presumption of authenticity and due execution, the
same cannot prevail over petitioner’s Torrens title.1

SUPAPO v. DE JESUS
G.R. No. 198356, 20 April 2015

De Jesus et. al. admit that the land was registered under the Torrens system in favor of
Spouses Supapo. Lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession. The person who holds a Torrens Title over a land is also entitled to the possession
thereof. The right to possess and occupy the land is an attribute and a logical consequence of
ownership. Corollary to this, is the imprescriptible right of the holder of a Torrens Title to
eject any person illegally occupying their property.

1
Note on accion publiciana: It is to recover possession only, not ownership. Still, where the parties raise the
issue of ownership, the courts may pass upon the issue to determine who between the parties has the right to
possess the property. The adjudication is not a final and binding determination of the issue of ownership; it is
only for the purpose of resolving the issue of possession, where the issue of ownership is inseparably linked to
the issue of possession. The adjudication of the issue of ownership is provisional and cannot bar an action
between the same parties involving title to the property.