**missing: notes for Aug and Sept 21 (no notes for sep28 - asked for a cf)

September 07 Notes
> classification of properties
> fungibles same as consummables? NO
> example of intangible property
> are there incorporeal rights? no, rights are incorporeal property themselves
> properties of public domain are they same as the properties of local govt units? No, Art.424
specifies them
> properties for public service by lgus do they belong to the property of public dominion?
> do lgus have properties for public service? if they are, are they considered of public dominion
or patrimonial property?
> can a province decide to sell to a private enterprise or corporation without any condition? NO
> define ownership
> what are included in the rights of ownership
> what may be the subject of ownership?
> different classes/classification/kinds of ownership?
> characteristics of ownership? (memaid)
> limitations on rights of ownership?
> how is the police power of the state a limitation
> can police power regulate(limits right to the property) without taking the property away?
> suddenly asked abt the difference of eminent domain and police power
> limitations under the civil code
> i bought a videoke system therefore i have the right to use and abuse it. can i use it till 2am?
no, art.431
> rights that are within rights of ownership
> protections given for the rights of ownership
> State of Necessity/Doctrine of Incomplete Privelege
> Doctrine of Self-Help
> State of Necessity must it always refer to cases where there is destruction of property?
> who is to reimburse the owner of a sacrificial property? (vicarous liability of parents to the acts
of their minor children)
> Requisites of Doctrine of Self-Help
> "immediately after the dispossession" "there must be no delay" what do you mean by those esp
by the word "delay"
> what complain will you file for the usurpation of your property?
> what is accion interdictal?
> difference between forcible entry and unlawful detainer
> which court has jurisdiction for accion interdictal
> difference between accion interdictal and accion publiciana
> judgement of accion interdictal will it bind parties to an accion publiciana?
> Javier v Veridiano (the doctrine)
 September 09 Notes
> besides actions to recover real/personal properties, what other protections are available for the
owners of a property?
> will judgement for forcible entry bar a judgement for accion reinvindicatoria? no
> can the court likewise discuss an issue of ownership in a forcible entry case
> protections afforded by the code to the owners of property
> what are surface rights
> limits provided by the law on subterreanean rights of the owner
> assuming that the state digs a tunnel under properties of citizens, are they entitled to
compensation?
> what are hidden treasures
> A dug in property of B and found iron ores/minerals. rule on hidden treasures apply?
> Requisites for Property to be considered as Hidden Treasure
> A buried necklaces in his land. He leased his land to B. B by chance was able to find it.
Considered as hidden treasure? NO, there must be no lawful owner that will appear.
> same as above but A died. Can B claim it as his?
> A found treasure in B's property. B is A's employer. Is A entitled to a share? depends on his
employment (if employed for the purpose of finding it then no only salary lang share nya)
> If A who was married and not employed by B, what is the rule? forms part of conjugal property
> will hidden treasure always belong to the finder and the owner? give the exception
> division on rules on treasure hunting same as provided in the code?
> division for public lands 70gov-30finder? private lands 75landowner-25finder?
shipwreck/sunken vessles 50-50?
> definition of accession
> 2 kinds of accessions
> diff kinds of accession continua
> most questions will come from accession industrial (midterms and bar exam)
> is accession a mode of acquiring ownership? no, only a consequence of ownership
> general rule in accession
> ART.451 who owns the fruits - owner of the thing
> Exceptions to the general rule in accession
> what are natural fruits?
> the female dog belongs to A and the male dogs belong to B. who owns the puppies? Partus
Sequitur Ventrem - owner of female dog
> A leased to B a female cow and during the lease, the cow gives birth. who has the right to the
calf?
> If the borrowing was gratuitous(ex.:commodatum), to whom does the calf belong?
> difference between the natural and industrial fruits?
> what if the pregnancy is through artificial insemination? natural or industrial?
> "spontaneous products" does not care abt how the offspring is produced; it does not pertain to
the young of the animals, doesnt matter if it was induced by science - still natural fruits
 September 14 Notes
> what is accession?
> different kinds of accession discreta (yung fruits-natural,civil,industrial)
> what are natural and industrial fruit
> when are plants/crops deemed manifest? (De Leon)
> when are animals deemed manifest?
> what are civil fruits?
> how will you distinguish civil fruits from natural/industrial fruits other than its definition?
> what is accession continua?
> different kinds of accession continua
> rule in art.445
> exception to art.445
> art.120 Family Code
> reverse accession
> what do you mean by "building"? "planting"? difference of "planting" from "sowing"
> why distinguish between planting and sowing?
> planting - plant once and just wait for the fruits/products; sowing - depositing seeds in a land
and harvesting it and need to replant again
** LO - landowner; BPS - builder/planter/sower; OM - owner of materials
> art.446 has two presumptions
1) LO who built/planted/sowed on his land
2) it is at his expense
> ART. 447
> art.447 refers to what circumstance? LO is the same person as the BPS - OM is the 2nd person
> when can the LO in 447 be in good faith? bad faith?
> when can the OM in 447 be in good faith? bad faith?
> X owns a piece of land and Y owns the cement and construction materials.
X wants to build a house on her land and used the materials of Y.
> LO is in good faith if he thought that he owns the construction materials;
LO is in bad faith if he knew that he wasnt the owner but still used it
> OM is in good faith if he knew someone was using his materials and told/informed them that the
materials is his OR if he did not know that someone was using his materials;
OM is in bad faith if he knew that someone was using his materials and did nothing
> if both in good faith = LO can acquire the materials by paying value thereof/reimbursement;
OM is entitled to payment; he is also entitled to removal of the materials without damaging/injuring
the bldg or work (if possible)(no real accession daw in that case)
> if LO is in bad faith and OM is in good faith = OM has the right to let LO acquire it with payment
of materials and also damages OR he may actually remove the materials even if it causes
damage/injury plus damages
> if LO is in good faith and OM is in bad faith = nothing in 447 BUT the rule is the LO will acquire
the materials without paying for the value; OM will lose the materials without any indemnity AND
may be liable for damages if the materials are defective
> if both in bad faith = in pari delicto / one's bad faith negates the other's bad faith / treat them as
if they are both in good faith
> ART.448
> what's the rule in art.448
> rights of the LO in 448; rights of BPS in 448
> what is the "indemnity" being talked about in 448? arts.546 and 548
> art.546 - what are necessary expenses? - those that are made/paid for preservation of the thing
(ex: tax);
> art. 546 - what are useful expenses? - those that add value to property or increase the object's
productivity
> art.548 - what are luxurious expenses? - those that add value to the thing only for a certain
person in view of their particular whim (not essential for preservation or useful to everybody in
general)
> price of luxurious expenses? - if the BPS is in good faith he is entitled to whatever he spent for
the luxurious expense (time he introduced such thing in property);
if the BPS is in bad faith, he is only entitled to the depreciated value of the luxurious expense
(time of taking)
> art.448 - when is the "value of the land considerably more than the value of the bldg"? what
value do we consider?
> LO in good faith does he have the right to demolish/remove the bldg even if the OM is in good
faith?
Answer: YES if the BPS does not pay for the value of the land (if BPS did not pay for the 2nd
option of 448)
 September 16 Notes
> what is provided in art.448?
> contemplates where there are 2 parties (LO and BPS)and both of them are in good faith. why
is the option given to the LO and not to the BPS if they are both in good faith? ANS: older right
AND accdg to right of accession, the owner is entitled to the accessory (accessory follows
principal)
> LO was in good faith and did not know the bldg B built on his land. He chose to exercise the
first option (acquire property of B). House was worth 5M. LO raised the amt but could not pay it
immediately and eventually gave it after 6mos. Pending the payment, is B entitled to stay in the
land/house that he built? ANS:YES (right of retention)
> is there a rent required? NO, included in the right of retention.
> what other rights can BPS exercise? what is included in the right of retention?
> BPS improved the house; installed aircons in the house. what can he do pending the payment
of the house?
> what do you call those aircons? what kind of improvement?
> can BPS remove the useful improvement pending the payment? does the right of retention
include the right to remove the useful improvement?
> what are luxurious improvement?
> do you need to pay for the luxurious improvement?
> 2nd option of 448. what is the value in 448?
> The planter planted 20 seedlings worth 100/each on a land valued at 1M pesos. can the LO
chose the 2nd option to sell the land to the BPS?
> If the LO does not want to acquire the seedlings? RENT; who will determine the amount of rent
that the BPS will pay to the LO?
> LO and BPS entered into lease agreement but BPS could not pay the rent. what remedy is
given to the LO? ANS: file an ejectment suit (unlawful detainer case) - recovery price of the land
OR have the improvements removed
> art.449 onwards what are the rules?
> LO in good faith as against a BPS who is in bad faith - rules/rights
> LO is not responsible to indemnify BPS if he chose to acquire the bldg? liable to only pay the
necessary expenses?
> is LO in good faith liable to pay the luxurious expense of the BPS in bad faith? pay the luxurious
expense at the time of taking
> Planters and Sower in Bad Faith - 443 speaks of reimbursement and does not distinguish
between good faith or bad faith sower? what expenses are mentioned in 443? production,
gathering, preservation
> how will you reconcile 443 with 449 for Planters/Sower in Bad Faith?
Growing Fruits - 449; not entitled to anything bcos none of the 3 was done
Gathered/Preserved the Fruits - 443; Planter is entitled to reimbursement for the preservation
(avoid unjust enrichment)
> 443 - already gathered/produced/preserved fruits
449 - still growing fruits
> is 448 applicable to co-owners?
> in cases of co-ownership, the BPS is himself a LO. we dont have a 3rd person so 448 does not
apply. but 448 can be applied by analogy if there is partition and both is in good faith.
> (2nd option to rent land to sower) if Planter (bad faith) knew that it was his brother's land and
still planted in that land 100 seedling worth 100 each (10k). the land is 10M. can his brother
compel/insist the planter to buy his land? is the right to sell - will it matter if the land is more
valuable than the planted if the Planter is in bad faith? art.450 the right to sell the land is absolute
regardless of the price because Planter is in bad faith.
> in case the LO choses any of his right under 449-450, in all cases is he entitled to damages?
YES art.451
> what if the LO is in bad faith and BPS is in good faith? art.447 will apply
> 449-450 again. Can the BPS in bad faith ask that instead of having what he built demolish, can
he insist on buying the land? NO, right of choice is with LO
> 448 pending right of retention - BPS in good faith is entitled to remove useful expenses; BPS in
bad faith is he entitled to the same right? he has NO right to remove such
> both BPS and LO in bad faith? 453 - 448 will apply
> 455 - three personalities involved - BPS, LO, OM - when is the LO subsidiarily liable to the
OM(good faith)? when BPS is insolvent AND LO appropriates the building of the BPS
> when can OM exercise the right of removal?
> can OM exercise his right of removal if the LO chose to acquire? why or why not? NO, because
LO is only subsidiarily liable to the OM.
> the 3 parties are in good faith. if the LO chose the 2nd option (sell to BPS), is the OM entitled
to the removal?
> what else can OM ask? indemnity. what else is his right? material rent(??)
> If there are 3 personalities involved, the OM in good faith only has the right of removal:
(1) when the BPS ends up with the land, i.e., the LO chooses the 2nd option (to sell to the BP or
lease the S); and
(2) the removal will not cause any injury to the property.
The second condition is not required if the BPS is in bad faith. The most important condition is
the first.
 September 23 Notes

> rules with regard to Change of Course of Rivers

> art.461 - owners of the land that are now occupied by the new course
> riverbeds are all owned by the State
> who are riparian owners
> a river flowing between the lands of X and Y. after a violent storm, the river got swollen/bigger
and divided to 4 branches. the 4 branches are occupying lands of 4 different owners (a,b,c,d). the
old riverbed is 1 hectare. each owner of the lands occupied by the riverbed lost 1 hectare each.
how much do they have in the old bed? - ANS: in proportion of their lost
> X and Y, do they have any right to the old bed?
> how much should they pay for the old bed?
> can a,b,c,d refuse to sell the old bed?
> what if X and Y wants to purchase the property? how much should they each get for the
property?
> because of the storm, the river separated a known portion from X's land and segragated to the
middle of the river. who owns the island? will he lose ownership if he does not do anything to put
it back to his estate (not required to physically return that within 2 year)?
> difference of 459 and 463? - ANS: 459 the river did not separate into branches/no change in
courses or features of the river; 463 there was a permanent change into the course or features of
the river
> art.464-465 : cause of formations of these islands
> 464 mentioned floatable and navigable rivers. what do they mean? who determines whether a
river is navigable?
> what if an island is formed in the middle of the river and the riverbank if it is non-navigable/non-
floatable? who owns it?
> Successions with regard to Movable Property?
> difference between the 3?
> adjunction/conjunction - what it is exactly?
> different kind of adjunction
> rules on adjunction
> diamond(a) and a gold bond(b). B used the diamond to make a diamond ring. rights and options.
> ownership/right is given to the person who caused the adjunction?
> tests to determine principal to adjunction
> test of merit? combined value,volume,utility (??)
> in the diamond and gold bond example, which is the principal?
> should the owner of the gold bond given the right to retain the thing?
> if the accessory is more valuable, the owner of it is given the right/option (good faith both).
option is to separation only if it wont cause any injury. do u agree? ANS: no, can insist regardless
of the injury that may be caused to the principal thing
> if the gold bond owner caused the adjunction, who will shoulder/pay the separation of the
diamond to the gold bond? ANS: person who caused the adjunction
> diamond(a) sapphire(b) pearl(c) gold bond(d). who is given the right? ANS: given to A but his
right is not to acquire entire thing but to ask the separation
> 3 kinds of colored textile(cottons,nylon,microfiber) weaved into a single cloth by A. what is the
principal in this case? what rule will govern?
> rule of adjunction when it comes to 3 or more things that are joined together? is it necessary to
consider the principal? YES (accessory follows principal)
> what if the accessory owner is in bad faith? principal owner in bad faith?
> indemnity on rules of adjunction - 471
> what is mixture?
> different kinds of mixture?
> rules with respect to mixture
> co-ownership will happen in proportion to the value of the things owned by the parties? will of
the owners - will it matter? ANS: mixture can happen by chance, by will of one party, by will of
both parties;
> Will of Both Parties - may be governed by their agreement/stipulation of the parties(primary
rule); absence of stipulation then in proportion to the value of the material as in co-ownership
> party who is negligent, will he be a co-owner of the mixed property?
> by chance, a 10ml coconut oil(a) costs 10pesos and is mixed with an essential oil(b) that costs
2k. how much will A and B own in the mixture? 472 - value of the things confused
 September 30 Notes
> definition of co-ownership
> how is co-ownership created
> give instances where the law creates co-ownership
> provisions in the Family Code that provides co-ownership
> how does occupation create co-ownership
> elements of co-ownership
> what do you mean by "ideal share"
> A and B chipped in 400pesos each and decided to buy a pizza with 2 flavors. Can A say that
he owns the Hawaian part of the pizza and B the vegetarian part of the pizza?
> May A eat more than 1/2 of the pizza? Can they agree that A will eat 3/4 of the pizza?
> If they paid 5M each for a land (10M total land price). they agreed that A will own 2/3 interest of
the lot while B with only 1/3. For the taxes, they agreed that A will shoulder 1/3 of the taxes and
B will shoulder 2/3 of it. Is their agreement valid?
> 485 only prohibits the different proportion to the charges with their interest. charges and benefit
must be proportionate to their interest in the property. so A, having 2/3 interest, shall contribute
2/3 to the taxes. their 1st agreement is invalid but their 2nd agreement is invalid.
> Assuming that A and B co-own a parcel of land, does it have a separate juridical personality?
Can A hire X to manage their parcel of land?
> How is co-ownership different from a partnership?
> A and B co-owners and X usurps their land. B filed an accion publiciana against X. The court
ruled in favor of X. Can A file an accion reinvindicatoria against X? Can A file without impleading
his other co-owner?
> the term "action in ejectment" in 487 covers accion publiciana and accion reinvindicatoria?
> why is the unimpleaded co-owner not barred by res judicata?
> A and B co-owner and X is their neighbor and X wants to gain the right of way on their land. B
granted it. Can A object to the right of way?
> If A disagrees can the right of way be created? Is it an act of alteration?
> X wanted to lease the property. B agreed to lease to X the land. A has 2/3 interest in the property
and B only 1/3. If A objects to the lease, can the lease contract be executed in favor of X?
> if the lease contract is valid, can X use the whole property?
> is the lease valid even if without consent of A in relation to B's portion of the land?
> when is a lease an act of alteration or act of administration? if registered and less than a year?
if unregistered but more than a year?
> what if B thinks that leasing the property is beneficial to them? what remedy is available to him?
B can ask the Court to approve the lease if he proves that A's denial is prejudicial to the common
interest.
> lease registered regardless of length - alteration
> had it been A who wanted to have the lease, he did not need the consent of B since A has the
controlling interest.
> A and B acquired a 2 storey building. the 2nd floor is residential the 1st floor is commercial bldg
(with 3 units, 10k rent each). A uses the 2nd floor as his residence and one unit of the 1st floor as
a store. Can he be asked to pay the rent?
> Limitations of a Co-Owners use of a Common Property
> A registered the property in his own name. After 12yrs he filed a quieting of title against B. Can
A now have the right to claim absolute ownership of the property? Will acquisitive prescription
run?
> requirements for a co-owner to acquire the acquisitive prescription
> Where, however, a co-owner or co-heir repudiates the co-ownership, prescription begins to run
from the time of repudiation (requisites):
i. He had performed unequivocal acts of repudiation of the co-ownership amounting to an ouster
of the beneficiary or the other co-owners
ii. Such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the beneficiary or other co-owners
iii. Evidence thereon is clear, complete and conclusive in order to establish prescription without
any shadow of doubt; and
iv. Possession is open, continuous, exclusive and notorious for 10 years
> in our example, there are 2 acts of repudiation. the registration of the title in his name and the
2nd is the quieting of title. when do we count the 10 year prescriptive period?
> recon the running from the time the registration BUT sometimes it is on the moment the actual
knowledge of the other co-owner. in those cases, the other co-owner made the other believe that
there is still a co-ownership. he concealed the repudiation.
> in our example, as he was still paying the rent to B, he is impliedly recognizing the co-ownership.
B does not have constructive notice of the repudiation
 October 05 Notes
> Co-owner has absolute full ownership of his portion and joint ownership with others with respect
to the whole
> Partition, effect and meaning
> Judicial (when there are no creditors) and extrajudicial partition, when?
> Creditors do not have right to stop partition, only to prevent fraud to ensure that they will be paid
> If notified after partition, they cannot have it annulled. They can only go after the now assignees
and ask for payment.
> Partition need not be formal, not subject to statute of frauds bc it is not conveyance to another
person.
> Art 494 par5 – no prescription shall run… “as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the
co ownership” if he repudiates, he prescription may run
> Requisites of repudiation
> Requisites of prescription – 10yrs, rules on implied trust, count 10yrs from (case of delima)
actual registration of co-owned property in only one of the co owners name because that is itself
constructive notice
> Exception: co owner who registered property in his name engages in acts that impliedly
recognizes co ownership or acts that leads other co owners that he still recognizes co ownership
> Kinds of expenses, how should these be accounted for and who should pay?
> Necessary – usually done as an act of preservation; can be paid even without consent of other
co owners and can demand contribution
> Useful and Luxurious – check whether they were incurred pursuant to admin or alter and check
if consent required has been satisfied; if consent not satisfied, co owner has no right to ask for
reimbursement for expenses from others
> Co owner who spent can levy on interest of others(?), co owners who do not want to contribute
can renounce interest (check requisites of proper renunciation)
> Expenses made by 3rd party – co owner can still renounce his share and 3rd party becomes
the co owner
> Art 490 in connection with condo act – take note of the difference
> Take note if condo act can be applied to horizontal condo (if horizontal condo is a thing) and if
horizontal condo is allowed, what is the implication on foreign ownership, if condo is owned by
corporation or association
 October 07 Notes
> what is a condominium
> "interest" only real right of ownership only or does it refer to anything else?
> condominium project does it only refer to vertical condo projects? or can the units be physically
separated from each other?
> the layout of the subdivision can be considered as a condo proj (because a subd is horizontal)
> "common areas"
> difference of Condo Act and art.490
> so art.490 can only cover bldgs where each floor has diff owners? besides that what else?
> what must be registered in the registry of deeds?
> what is a declaration of restrictions?
> undivided interest - when is it direct and indirect
> can foreigners own a unit in a condo proj
> stockholdings in a condo - how is it computed
> 100 units - how many units can foreigners own in that condo proj? why are they not allowed to
buy if there is no condo corp established?
> a corp 40% owned by a foreigner is still filipino owned?
> condo corps are stock corps? what law governs a condo corp? is the corporation code
applicable?
> voting scheme - 1 vote per owner?
> how many votes does a unit owner have in the condo corp?
> a unit owner is he given the same appraisal right as ordinary stockholders in the condo act?
> lifetime of a condo corp
> is it valid that upon regis of master deed and during the sale, the sale likewise include an
authority (SPA) -
> A Corp sold a unit to X. in the sale, X gives his right to vote to the developer (A Corp). is that
valid?
> 40 units are unsold. So A Corp owns the minority. 60% of the share belongs to the unit owners.
A Corp decided that for the unsold units that the dues is 100 pesos for square while for the sold
units the dues is 200 pesos for square
> is it allowed on assigning different dues?
> dissolution of a condo corp - how is it effected
> when is it voluntary and involuntary (dissolution) (secs.13-15)
> grounds of involuntary dissolution
> effect of dissolution
> is it possible to partition a condo proj?
> how do you partition?
> possible assessments on a condo unit
> real property tax on each unit, is there one? (sec.25)

Midterms Coverage: from Art.414 to Condominium Act