Art. 539.

Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession;

and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to
said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of
Court.

A possessor deprived of his possession through forcible entry may within

ten days from the filing of the complaint present a motion to secure from
the competent court, in the action for forcible entry, a writ of preliminary
mandatory injunction to restore him in his possession. The court shall
decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof. (446a)

General Nature

This article speaks of three important things:

(a) right of a person to be respected in his possession (fi rst

effect of possession).
(b) protection in said right or restoration to said possession
thru legal means. [See discussion under Art. 428 which
speaks of the right of an owner (and also a possessor)
to recover the property from whoever is holding the
same.].
(c) the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction

Specific Right to be Respected in Possession

1. Reason for Protection of Possession:

1) Possession is very similar to ownership, and as matter of fact modifies
ownership.
2) Possession almost invariably gives rise to the presumption that the
possessor is the owner
2. Every possessor’’ is protected under Art. 539, whether
in the concept of owner or in the concept of holder.

Legal Means for Restoration to Possession

1. Reasons for requiring legal means:

1) to prevent spoliation or a disregard of public order
(Roxas v. Mijares, 9 Phil. 520);
2) to prevent deprivation of property without due process
of law;
3) to prevent a person from taking the law into his own
hands. (Yuson v. Guzman, 42 Phil. 22).

0. Thus,
 1) The owner should go to court, and not eject the
unlawful
possessor by force. (Bago v. Garcia, 5 Phil.
524).

2) A tenant illegally forced out by the owner-landlord

may institute an action for forcible entry even if he
had not been paying rent regularly. (Mun. of Moncada
v. Cajuigan, 21 Phil. 184).

3) The proper actions are forcible entry or unlawful

detainer (summary action or accion interdictal),
accion publiciana, accion reivindicatoria; replevin;
injunction (to prevent further acts of dispossession).
(See discussion under Art. 428). However, injunction
is GENERALLY not the proper remedy to recover
possession, particularly when there are confl icting
claims of ownership. An accion reivin-dicatoria
would be better. (Cirila Emilia v. Epifanio Bado,
L-23685, Apr. 25, 1968). A fi nal judgment in an unlawful
detainer case may be executed even if there
is still pending an accion reivindicatoria, for the two
actions can co-exist.
A mere trespasser, even if
ejected, has no right to institute an action of forcible
entry.

Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction

(a) As a rule, injunction cannot substitute for the other, actions

to recover possession. This is because in the meantime,
the possessor has in his favor, the presumption of
rightful possession, at least, till the case is fi nally decided.
(See Devesa v. Arbes, 13 Phil. 273; see also Rustia v.
Franco, 41 Phil. 280). The exception, of course, is a very
clear case of usurpation. Similarly, a receiver should not
ordinarily be appointed to deprive a party who is in possession
of the property in litigation of such possession.
(Mun. of Camiling v. Hon. Aquino and Simbre, L-11476,
Feb. 8, 1958).
(b) BUT the Civil Code allows in the meantime, the “writ
of preliminary mandatory injunction” because “there are
at present prolonged litigations between the owner and
the usurper, and the former is frequently deprived of his
possession even when he has an immediate right thereto.”
(Report of the Code Commission, p. 98).

Art. 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of
owner can serve as a title for acquiring dominion. (447)

Possession in the Concept of Owner

1. If a person possesses en concepto de dueño

2. Thus, a possessor merely in the concept of holder cannot acquire
property by acquisitive prescription.

Possession in the Concept of Holder

The following cannot therefore acquire ownership by prescription:

(a) Lessees. (Laureto v. Mauricio, [CA] 37 O.G. 68, p. 1287)

or those merely permitted to occupy. (Mos v. Lanuza, 5
Phil. 457). The mere fact of working over a parcel of land
without expressing the concept in which the land was being
worked on is no proof that the land is owned by the
one working nor proof that the possession is in the concept
of owner. The possession may have been as mere tenant.
(Alano, et al. v. Ignacio, et al., L-16434, Feb. 28, 1962).
(b) Trustees. (Camagun v. Allingay, 19 Phil. 415).
[These include:
1) parents over the properties of their unemancipated
minor children or insane children (Art. 1109);
2) husband and wife over each other’s properties, as
long as the marriage lasts, and even if there be a
separation of property which had been agreed upon
in a marriage settlement or by judicial decree. (Art.
1109).].
(c) Antichretic creditors. (Barreto v. Barreto, 37 Phil. 234).
(d) Agents. (De Borja v. De Borja, 59 Phil. 19).
(e) Attorneys (regarding their client’s properties). (Severino v.
Severino, 44 Phil. 343).
(f) Depositaries. (Delgado v. Arandez, 23 Phil. 308).
(g) Co-owners (unless the co-ownership is clearly repudiated
by unequivocal acts communicated to the other co-owners).
(See Cabello v. Cabello, 37 Phil. 328).
[NOTE: While a trust may be repudiated, this is not
allowed if the benefi ciary is a minor (or insane) because
it is hard for the latter to protect his rights. (See Castro
v. Castro, 57 Phil. 675).].
[NOTE: The reason is really to prevent the encouragement
of fraud and the legalization of usurpation.
(Camagun v. Allingay, 19 Phil. 415).].Payment of Land Taxes

Art. 541. A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal
presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged
to show or prove it. (448a)

Presumption that Possessor Has a Just Title

There are two requirements under this article to raise the disputable
presumption of ownership (of a thing or a right):

(a) One must be in possession (actual or constructive).

(b) The possession must be in the concept of owner
(not mere holder). (A tenant cannot avail himself
of the presumption of just title because he is not a
possessor in the concept of owner). (See Laureto v.
Mauricio, 37 O.G. 1287).

Meaning of Just Title

-Just title means true and valid title sufficient to transfer ownership
- title which by itself is sufficient to transfer ownership without need of
possessing
the property for the period necessary for acquiring title by
prescription. It is title that is true and valid (titulo verdadero y
valido). (Art. 1130.) The presumption of just title does not apply
in acquisitive prescription. The adverse possessor must prove his
just title. (Art. 1131
- refers to written documents, it must not be interpreted
in such restricted sense. The term “just title” should be construed as
referring to that which is legally suffi cient to transfer ownership of the
thing or the real right to which it relates.153 Consequently, it may be
proved orally by witnesses as well as through written documents or
evidences.

Reasons for the Presumption

(a) presumption that one is in good faith — or that one is

innocent of wrong.
(b) inconvenience of carrying proofs of ownership around. (See
4 Manresa 248).
1.
Difference Between Possession and Prescription

In Possession
just title here is presumed.
(Title refers either to document
or right). (4 Manresa
245). (The term “show’’ evidently
refers to a document;
while the term “prove’’ refers
to the right.)
just title here means “titulo
verdadero y valido’’ (true
and valid title suffi cient to
transfer ownership).
In Prescription
a) just title here must be
proved. (Title refers either
to document or right). (4
Manresa 245).
b) just title here means “titulo
colorado’’ (merely colorable
title although there
was a mode of transferring
ownership, the grantor
was NOT the owner).
(See Doliendo v. Biarnesa,
7 Phil. 232).

The Kinds of Titles

1. Titulo Verdadero y Valido

-
Here, there was a mode of transferring ownership
and the grantor was the owner. It is defi ned as a title
which by itself is suffi cient to transfer ownership without
the necessity of letting the prescriptive period elapse. (See
Doliendo v. Biarnesa, 7 Phil. 232).
Example: B bought a Ford Expedition Limited from
S, the owner thereof. Then S delivered the car to B. B
now has a true and valid title.
[NOTE: This is the just title referred to in Art. 541.
Thus, if B possesses the vehicle and drives it around as
an owner, other people cannot compel him to prove his
ownership over the same.].

2. Titulo Colorado
That title where, although there was a mode of
transferring ownership, still something is wrong, because
the grantor is NOT the owner.
Example: B bought a BMW car from S. S then delivered
the car to B. But it turns out that S never owned
the car, and that somebody else was its owner. Whether
B was in good faith or in bad faith is immaterial in deciding
if he (B) is the owner; what is important is that he is
not the owner because he did not acquire or purchase the
property from the owner, his title being merely “colorado’’
or colorable.

3. Putative Title (Titulo Putativo)

although a person believes himself to be the owner, he nonetheless is not,
because
there was no mode of acquiring ownership

Art. 542. The possession of real property presumes that of the movables
therein, so long as it is not shown or proved that they should be excluded.
(449)

Art. 543. Each one of the participants of a thing possessed in common

shall be deemed to have exclusively possessed the part which may be
allotted to him upon the division thereof, for the entire period during
which the co-possession lasted. Interruption in the possession of the
whole or a part of a thing possessed in common shall be to the prejudice
of all the possessors. However, in case of civil interruption, the Rules of
Court shall apply. (450a)

Contact English (US)

•
Art. 544. A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received before
the possession is legally interrupted.

Natural and industrial fruits are considered received from the time they
are gathered or severed.

Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily and belong to the possessor in good
faith in that proportion. (451)

Right of a Possessor in Good Faith

possessor in good faith is entitled

to the fruits received before the possession is legally interrupted

Reason
Justice demands that the fruits be
retained by the possessor who thought that he was really
the owner of the property, and who, because of such
thought had regulated his daily life, income, and expenses
by virtue of such fruits. Moreover, the possessor should
be rewarded for having contributed to the INDUSTRIAL
WEALTH, unlike the owner, who by his presumed negligence,
had virtually discarded his property (SALVAT).

When Natural and Industrial Fruits Are Considered Received

"Natural and industrial fruits are considered received from the time they are
gathered or severed."

(a) If at the time of legal interruption, the crops are still

growing, the rule on pending crops, not that on gathered
crops, should apply. (See Art. 545).
(b) If at the time of legal interruption, the crops have already
been gathered, but are sold only after such interruption,
the sale is immaterial, for the law requires only a gathering
or severance, so Art. 544 applies.When Civil Fruits Are Deemed Accrued

"Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily and belong to the possessor in good
faith in that proportion."

Art. 545. If at the time the good faith ceases, there should be any natural
or industrial fruits, the possessor shall have a right to a part of the
expenses of cultivation, and to a part of the net harvest, both in
proportion to the time of the possession.

The charges shall be divided on the same basis by the two possessors.

The owner of the thing may, should he so desire, give the possessor in
good faith the right to finish the cultivation and gathering of the growing
fruits, as an indemnity for his part of the expenses of cultivation and the
net proceeds; the possessor in good faith who for any reason whatever
should refuse to accept this concession, shall lose the right to be
indemnified in any other manner. (452a)

Sharing of Expenses and Charges

(a) The expenses for cultivation shall also be divided pro rata
(2 to 4). The law says “the possessor shall have a RIGHT
to a part of the expenses for cultivation in proportion to
the time of possession. (This may in certain cases be UNFAIR
because although he may have spent MORE than
the owner, still he will be entitled to a reimbursement
of LESS since his possession is shorter. The better rule
would be for the expenses to be borne in proportion to what
each receives from the harvest.) (See Art. 443). Otherwise,
unjust enrichment would result. (See 3 Manresa 187).
(b) The charges (those incurred because of the land and the
fruits, like TAXES, or INTEREST on MORTGAGES are
what are referred to as CHARGES, and not those incurred
on or in them, such as improvements) are also to be divided
in proportion to the time of possession. (Art. 545,
2nd par.; see also 4 Manresa 276).
(c) In the example given, B (the owner), if he so desires has
an option —
1) to get the right already discussed. (Art. 545, par. 1),
or
2) to allow A (the possessor in good faith) to FINISH
the cultivation and gathering of the growing crops,
as an INDEMNITY for his part of the expenses of
cultivation and the net proceeds. (If A refuses for
ANY REASON to accept this concession, A loses
the right to be indemnifi ed IN ANY OTHER MANNER).
(B is given this option because he may not be
interested in the pending fruits at all, or because he
realizes that to continue the cultivation might result
in a fi nancial LOSS for him.) (The refusal causes
LOSS of indemnity even if the fruits be LESS than
the expenses.)
(d) In the example given, if the fruits be LESS than the expenses,
it is but just to reimburse A and B for their respective
expenses, proportionate not to the time of possession (the
rule given in Art. 545 cannot apply for there is NO NET
HARVEST), but to the amount of their respective expenses.
And since said reimbursement must come from the value
of the fruits, it follows that each bears a pro rata LOSS.
This is equitable, and should be the rule applied unless B
exercises the option referred to in (c).

Applicability

Note that Art. 545 applies only to a possessor in GOOD

faith for a possessor in bad faith has no right whatsoever to
fruits already gathered nor to fruits still pending, except that
in the former case (gathered fruits), he gets back the necessary
expenses for production, gathering, and preservation of fruits.
(Art. 443; see also Director of Lands v. Abagat, 53 Phil. 147). In
the case of pending fruits, the principle of accession applies, and
the law clearly states that he who plants or sows in BAD FAITH
on the land of another, loses whatever is planted or sown without
right to indemnity. (Art. 449; see also 3 Manresa 219-220; Jison
v. Hernaez, O.G., May, 1943, p. 492).

Crops Not Yet Manifest

Art. 545 applies to pending crops. Suppose the crops have

already been planted but are not yet manifest at the time there
is a transfer of possession, should the article also apply? It is
submitted that the answer is YES, by the application of the
general rules stated in Art. 443. (See 4 Manresa 282).

Similar Rules

Art. 567 (Usufruct)

Art. 1617 (Conventional Redemption)

Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but

only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been
reimbursed therefor.

Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with
the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the
possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or
of paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by
reason thereof. (453a)

Necessary Expenses (Gastos Necesarios)

They are those without which the thing would physically
deteriorate or be lost; hence, those made for the preservation
of the thing. (4 Manresa 270-271).

Examples of Necessary Expenses

1.
(a) Those incurred for cultivation, production, and upkeep.
(Mendoza v. de Guzman, 52 Phil. 104).
(b) Those made for necessary repairs of a house.(Aneles v.

Examples of Expenditures that are NOT Necessary Expenses

a) Those incurred for the fi lling up with soil of a vacant or
deep lot. (This is not also a repair since the term “repair”
implies the putting back into the condition in which it
was originally, and not an improvement in the condition
thereof by adding something new thereto. The expenses
are indeed in the nature of USEFUL improvements. (Alburo
v. Villanueva, 7 Phil. 277).
(b) A house constructed on land possessed by a stranger (not
the owner), because the house cannot be said to preserve
the land. (Valencia v. Ayala de Roxas, 13 Phil. 45). (The
house is USEFUL.)
(c) Land taxes are, for the purposes of the Article, not necessary
expenses, for they are needed, not for preservation of
the land itself; but for its continued possession. Failure to
pay said taxes results not in destruction, but forfeiture,
therefore they should be merely considered CHARGES.
(4 Manresa 271-272; Cabigao v. Valencia, 53 Phil. 646).
Consequently, Art. 545 regarding PRO RATING of charges
should apply.
(d) Unnecessary improvements on a parcel of land purchased
at a sheriff’s auction sale, made just to prevent redemption
from taking place. (Flores v. Lim, 50 Phil. 738).
(e) Expenses made by the possessor — not to preserve the
property or to save it from being lost — but to enable him
to use the property for his own purposes. (Roberto Laperal
v. William Rogers, L-16590, Jan. 30, 1965).
Rights of a Possessor as to Necessary Expenses

(a) If in good faith — entitled to:

1) refund
2) retain premises till paid

(b) If in bad faith — entitled ONLY to a refund (no right of

RETENTION, as penalty). (Dir. of Lands v. Abagat, 53

Useful Expenses (Gastos Utiles)

They are those that add value to the property (Aringo
v. Arenas, 14 Phil. 263), or increase the object’s productivity
(Valenzuela v. Lopez, 51 Phil. 279), or useful for the satisfaction
of spiritual and religious yearnings (Anacleto Gongon v. Tiangco,
[CA] 36 O.G. 822), or give rise to all kinds of fruits. (Rivera v.
Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, 40 Phil. 717).

Examples of Useful Expenses

a) Those incurred for an irrigation system. (Valenzuela v.

Lopez, 51 Phil. 279).
(b) Those incurred for the erection of a chapel, because aside
from its possibility of conversion into such materialistic
things as a warehouse or a residence, the chapel satisfi es
spiritual and religious aspirations and the attainment
of man’s higher destinies. “To uphold the opposite view
would be to reduce life to a mere conglomeration of desires
and lust, when, as a matter of fact, life is also a beautiful
aggregate of noble impulses and lofty ideals.” (Gongon v.
Tiangco, [CA] 36 O.G. 822).
(c) Those incurred for the making of artifi cial fi shponds.
(Rivera v. Roman Catholic Church, 40 Phil. 717).
(d) Those incurred for the construction of additional rooms in
a house, for use as kitchen, bathroom, stable, etc. (Robles
v. Lizarraga, 42 Phil. 584).
(e) Those incurred for clearing up land formerly thickly
covered with

Rights of a Possessor as to Useful Expenses

(a) If in GOOD faith.

1) right to REIMBURSEMENT (of either the amount
2) right of RETENTION (till paid). (Art. 546).
3) right of REMOVAL (provided no substantial damage
or injury is caused to the principal, reducing its
VALUE) — UNLESS the winner (owner or lawful
possessor) exercises the option in (1). (Art. 547).
spent or the increase in value — “plus value” — at
OWNER’S OPTION). (Art. 546)

(b) If in BAD faith.

The possessor in BAD faith is NOT ENTITLED to

any right regarding the useful expenses. [BUT see Angeles
v. Guevara, L-15697, Oct. 31, 1960, where the Supreme
Court thru Justice Gutierrez David made the statement
that although a possessor in bad faith is NOT entitled to
reimbursements for expenses incurred, he may nevertheless
REMOVE the objects (repairs on buildings) provided
the things suffer NO INJURY thereby, and that the lawful
possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the
value they may have at the time he enters into possession.
Evidently, here, the Court was thinking NOT of
useful improvement, but of expenses for PURE LUXURY
or MERE PLEASURE. (See Art. 549).].
In the case however of Santos v. Mojica, L-25450,
Jan. 31, 1969, see facts and ruling in comments under
Art. 449 — the Court held that a builder or possessor
in bad faith is not entitled to indemnity for any useful
improvement on the premises — because of Art. 449.
.
Art. 547. If the useful improvements can be removed without damage to
the principal thing, the possessor in good faith may remove them, unless
the person who recovers the possession exercises the option under
paragraph 2 of the preceding article. (n)

Meaning of "Damage"
“Damage’’ here means a substantial one that reduces
the value of the property, thus a slight injury curable by an
ordinary repair does not defeat the right of removal, but the
repairs should be chargeable to the possessor, for it is he who
benefi ts by the removal and the object removed. (See 4 Manresa
296-297).

Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded
to the possessor in good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with
which he has embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury
thereby, and if his successor in the possession does not prefer to refund
the amount expended. (454)

Expenses for Pure Luxury

those which add
value to the thing only for certain determinate persons in
view of their whims. They are neither essential for
preservation nor useful to everybody in general.

Examples of Ornamental Expenses

a) hand paintings on the wall of a house

(b) a garage made of platinum
(c) water fountains in gardens

Rights of a Possessor as to Luxurious Expenses

1. If in GOOD faith, no right of refund or retention but canremove if no

substantial injury is caused. However, owner has OPTION to allow:
1. 1) possessor to remove
2. 2) or retain for himself (the owner) the ornament
by REFUNDING the AMOUNT SPENT.
 2. If in BAD faith, no right of refund or retention but can
1. remove if no substantial injury is caused. However, owner has OPTION to
allow:
1) possessor to remove
2) or retain for himself (the owner) the ornament
by REFUNDING the VALUE it has at the
TIME owner ENTERS INTO POSSESSION.

Art. 549. The possessor in bad faith shall reimburse the fruits received
and those which the legitimate possessor could have received, and shall
have a right only to the expenses mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article 546
and in Article 443. The expenses incurred in improvements for pure
luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in bad
faith, but he may remove the objects for which such expenses have been
incurred, provided that the thing suffers no injury thereby, and that the
lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they
may have at the time he enters into possession. (445a)

Suppose the value of the ornament at the time of change of possession is

higher (instead of lower) than the amount spent, should the possessor in bad
faith be paid the higher value?

Right of the Possessor Regarding Fruits

1. If in GOOD faith
1) Gathered or severed or harvested fruits are his own.
(Art. 544; see also Nacoco v. Geronimo, L-2899, Apr.
29, 1949).
2) pending or ungathered fruits — (pro-rating between
possessor and owner of expenses, net harvest, and
charges). (See Art. 545).

0. If in BAD faith
1) gathered fruits — must return value of fruits already
received as well as value of fruits which the owner or
legitimate possessor (not the possessor in bad faith)
could HAVE received with due care or diligence,
MINUS necessary expenses for cultivation, gathering,
and harvesting, to prevent the owner from being
unjustly enriched. (See Arts. 549, 443; Dir. of Lands
v. Abagat, 53 Phil. 147).

2) pending or ungathered fruits — no rights at all, not

even to expenses for cultivation because by accession,
all should belong to the owner, without indemnity.
(See Art. 449).
[NOTE: The possessor in bad faith is duty
bound to render an accounting of the fruits received
or could have been received (Dir. of Lands v. Abagat,
53 Phil. 147) and must pay damages amounting to
a reasonable rent for the term of his possession.
(Lerma v. de la Cruz, 7 Phil. 581).].
[NOTE: The rule as to fruits does not apply to a
defendant in a forcible entry case where the recoverable
damages are the reasonable compensation for
the use and occupation of the premises — the fair
rental value. (See Basia, et al. v. Espada, [CA] 50
O.G. 5896).].

Art. 550. The costs of litigation over the property shall be borne by every
possessor. (n)

Cost of Litigation

They are borne by the possessor of the property because they

redound to his benefit, the court action being necessary to maintain
his possession

“Every possessor’’ refers to one in good faith or bad faith,

in the concept of owner or in the concept of holder, in one’s
own name or in that of another, and not to the owner or
the person adjudged by the court to be lawfully entitled
to possess.

Litigation refers to a court action.

Art. 551. Improvements caused by nature or time shall always insure to

the benefit of the person who has succeeded in recovering possession.
(456)

Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall not be liable for the deterioration
or loss of the thing possessed, except in cases in which it is proved that
he has acted with fraudulent intent or negligence, after the judicial
summons.
A possessor in bad faith shall be liable for deterioration or loss in every
case, even if caused by a fortuitous event. (457a)

Liability for Loss or Deterioration

This article deals with liability for LOSS or DETERIORATION.
It should be noted that the law is more strict with
the possessor in bad faith (bad faith from the beginning) than
with a possessor in good faith who becomes in bad faith upon
receipt of the judicial summons.

(1) If the possessor is in good faith. —

(a) Before receipt of judicial summons, a possessor in
good faith is presumed to continue in the same character.
(Art. 529.) He is not liable to the owner for damages caused
to the property even if due to his fault or negligence.
(b) After receipt of judicial summons, his good faith is
converted into bad faith. Nevertheless, he is liable only in
case of fraud or negligence (foreseeing that he may lose the
suit) but not for damage due to a fortuitous event. Thus, a
possessor in good faith is liable only if it is proved that: 1)
the loss or deterioration occurred after judicial summons; and
2) he is guilty of fraud or negligence.

(2) If the possessor is in bad faith. — He is absolutely liable,

whether or not the loss or deterioration occurred before or after
receipt of judicial summons, and whether or not due to a fortuitous
event. Thus, the possessor in bad faith is liable in every case
until delivery is made to the lawful possessor even if the deterioration
was caused by a fortuitous event and even before judicial
summons, as punishment for his bad faith.

Rules Applicable

1. Possessor in GOOD FAITH -

1) BEFORE receipt of judicial summons — NOT LIABLE.
2) AFTER judicial summons
a) loss or deterioration thru fortuitous event — not
liable.
b) thru fraudulent intent or negligence — liable
[NOTE: The possessor may become negligent or
indifferent for he may sense that after all, he
may lose the case.].
 0. Possessor in BAD FAITH -
Whether before or after judicial summons, and
whether due to fortuitous event or not, such possessor is
LIABLE.

Art. 553. One who recovers possession shall not be obliged to pay for
improvements which have ceased to exist at the time he takes possession
of the thing. (458)

Art. 554. A present possessor who shows his possession at some previous
time, is presumed to have held possession also during the intermediate
period, in the absence of proof to the contrary. (459)

Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:

(1) By the abandonment of the thing;

(2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or gratuitous
title;
(3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing, or because it goes out
of commerce;
(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of Article
537, if the new possession has lasted longer than one year. But the
real right of possession is not lost till after the lapse of ten years.
(460a)

Ways of Losing Possession

Thru the Possessor’s Voluntary Will and Intent

1) Abandonment. (Art. 555).
2) Assignment (onerous or gratuitous conveyance). (Art.
555).

Against the Possessor’s Will

1) possession of another for more than one year. (Art.

555).
2) final judgment in favor of another (with a better
right).
3) expropriation.
4) prescription in favor of another.
5) recovery or reivindication by the legitimate owner
or possessor. (See 2 Castan 48).

Because of the Object

 1) destruction or total loss of the thing. (Art. 555).
2) going out of commerce. (Art. 555).
3) escaping from possessor’s control of wild animals.
(Art. 560)

Abandonment

Abandonment is the voluntary renunciation of a thing.

Requisites:

1) the abandoner must have been a possessor in the

concept of owner (either an owner or mere possessor
may respectively abandon either ownership or possession).
(See 4 Manresa 315).

2) the abandoner must have the capacity to renounce

or to alienate (for abandonment is the repudiation
of a property right).

3) there must be a physical relinquishment of the thing

or object. (Yu v. De Lara, L-16084, Nov. 30, 1962).

4) there must be no more spes recuperandi (expectation

to recover) and no more animus revertendi (intent to
return or get back

Assignment
(PARGAS) (a) Assignment as used in the article means the complete
(not merely a limited) transmission of ownership rights
to another person, onerously (as when a thing is sold and
delivered) or gratuitously (as in the case of a donation).

(b) While in assignment, at no time did the thing not have a

possessor (for possession merely changed hands or control);
in abandonment, there was a time, no matter how
short, when the object did not have any possessor at all.
(See 4 Manresa 315). Moreover, while assignment may in
some cases be by onerous title, abandonment is always
gratuitous, otherwise it becomes a virtual assignment.

(c) In assignment, both possession de facto and de jure are

lost, and no action will allow recovery. (Bishop of Cebu v.
Mangaron, 6 Phil. 286; see also 4 Manresa 321).
-(DE LEON) “Assignment’’, as used, is understood
to mean the complete transmission of the thing or right to
another by any lawful manner. It may either be by onerous or
gratuitous title. The effect is that he who was the owner or possessor
is no longer so. Abandonment is always gratuitous.

(RABUYA) involves
the transfer of all the rights of the possessor to another person. For
assignment to be validly made, it is necessary that the assignor be in the
concept of owner and that he has the capacity to alienate.226

Possession of Another

(a) If a person is not in possession for more than one year

(but less than 10 years), he loses possession de facto (possession
as a fact). This means that he can no longer bring
an action of forcible entry or unlawful detainer, since the
prescriptive period is one year for such actions. (Bishop of
Cebu v. Mangaron, 6 Phil. 286). Moreover, “constructive
possession” is also lost. (See Leola v. Ibañez, 48 O.G. 2811).
But he may still institute an accion publiciana (for the
better right of possession) to recover possession de jure
possession as a legal right, or the real right of possession.
(See Rodriguez v. Taino, 16 Phil. 301).

(b) If a person loses possession for more than 10 years, he

loses possession de jure, or the real right of possession.
(See Art. 555). An accion publiciana or reivindicatoria is
still possible unless prescription, either ordinary or extraordinary,
has set in. (See Rodriguez v. Taino, supra).

Destruction, Total Loss, and Withdrawal from Commerce

(a) A thing is lost when it perishes, or goes out of commerce,

or disappears in such a way that its existence is unknown,
or it cannot be recovered. (Art. 1189).

(b) Partial loss in general results only in the loss of possession

of the part lost, although the rule in obligations and
contracts is that “the courts shall determine whether,
under the circumstances, the partial loss of the object of
the obligation is so important as to extinguish the obligation.”
(Art. 1264).
(c) If by the erosive action of the sea, it is essential for a
landowner to set up a barrier or retaining wall to prevent
his land from being covered at high tide, this necessity
by itself constitutes as yet no loss. (See Aragon v. Insular
Gov’t., 19 Phil. 223).

(RABUYA)
As a mode of losing possession, destruction or loss may either be
physical or juridical. Hence, it is understood that a thing is lost when
it perishes, or goes out of commerce, or disappears in such a manner
that its existence is unknown or cannot be recovered.227 Since the term is
also used in a juridical sense, a thing is also considered lost when it is
expropriated by the government.

Art. 556. The possession of movables is not deemed lost so long as they
remain under the control of the possessor, even though for the time being
he may not know their whereabouts. (461)

Art. 557. The possession of immovables and of real rights is not deemed
lost, or transferred for purposes of prescription to the prejudice of third
persons, except in accordance with the provisions of the Mortgage Law
and the Land Registration laws. (462a)

Art. 558. Acts relating to possession, executed or agreed to by one who

possesses a thing belonging to another as a mere holder to enjoy or keep
it, in any character, do not bind or prejudice the owner, unless he gave
said holder express authority to do such acts, or ratifies them
subsequently. (463)

Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is

equivalent to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has
been unlawfully deprived thereof may recover it from the person in
possession of the same.

If the possessor of a movable lost or which the owner has been unlawfully
deprived, has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot
obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid therefor. (464a)

When Possession of a Movable is Equivalent to Title

Possession of movable property acquired:

 1. In BAD FAITH -
2. In GOOD FAITH -
1) D is equivalent to a title — as a general rule. (Hence,
the owner, if he wants to get it back, must REIMBURSE).

2) is NOT equivalent to title (as the exception to the

rule) when the owner had LOST it or had been UNLAWFULLY
DEPRIVED of it (as when it has been stolen), UNLESS the
possessor had acquired it in
good faith at a “public sale” (an auction sale, where
the public had properly been notifi ed).

[NOTE: This last case is considered an exception

to the exception, and is therefore considered as
somewhat equivalent to a title, that is even if the
property had been stolen from the owner, he must,
if he desires to get it back, still reimburse the possessor
who had acquired it in good faith at a public
sale. It is not however exactly a title, for the owner
has still the right to reimburse. (Art. 559, par. 2).].

(DELEON)

Possession in good faith

of a movable is presumed ownership. It is equivalent to a title.
No further proof is necessary. This is sometimes known as the
doctrine of irrevindicability. (Aznar v. Yapdiangco, 13 SCRA 486
[1965].) Thus, if X buys in good faith books from Y, an impostor,
who succeeded in purchasing the books from Z by falsely identifying
himself and paying the price by means of a check which
was dishonored, the law establishes an actual right thereto in
favor of X.

RABUYA
For possession of movables to be considered equivalent to title, the
following requisites must be present:
(1) the movable property must be
acquired in good faith;245 and
(2) the possession must be in the concept
of owner.
As a consequence of this principle, when a movable property
is in the possession of one who has acquired it and holds it in good faith,
the true owner cannot recover it as a general rule for the title is valid
even against him. This is the general rule of irrevindicability.
Question

A agreed to sell his car to B for ₱300,000.00, the price to be paid after the car
is registered in the name of B. After the execution of the deed of sale, A
together with B, proceeded to the Land Transportation Office where the
registration of the car in B's name was effected. When A asked for payment, B
told him that he was ₱10,000.00 short, and informed him that he would get
from his mother. Together, A and B rode in the car to the supposed residence
of B's mother. Upon entering the house, B told A to wait in the sala while he
asked his mother for the money. In the meanwhile, on the pretext that B had to
show his mother the registration papers of the car, A gave them to B, who
thereupon entered the supposed room of his mother, ostensibly to show her the
papers. That was the last time A saw B or his car. In the meantime, B
succeeded in selling the car to C who bought the same in good faith and for
value. May A recover the car from C?
ANS.: A may successfully recover the car of C because
despite C’s good faith, and despite the registration of the
car in B’s name, still A had been unlawfully deprived of it.
Consequently, A can recover the car, and he does not have to
reimburse anything to C. The doctrine of caveat emptor (let
the buyer beware) can apply here. C’s remedy would be to go
against B, his seller. The principle in common law that where of
two innocent persons defrauded by a stranger, the person who
makes possible the fraud by a misplaced confi dence should suffer
— cannot be applied in this problem because of the express
provisions of Art. 559.

Purpose
“For the purpose of facilitating transaction on movable
property which are usually done without special formalities,
this article establishes not only a mere presumption in favor of
the possessor of the chattel, but an actual right, valid against
the true owner, except upon proof of loss or illegal deprivation.’’
(Sotto v. Enage, 43 O.G. 17, p. 5075).

Requisites for Title

the movable property must be

1. acquired in good faith
2 . the possession must be in the concept of owner.
3. (di ko makita ang pang 3rd) hehehe

Art. 560. Wild animals are possessed only while they are under one's
control; domesticated or tamed animals are considered domestic or tame
if they retain the habit of returning to the premises of the possessor.
(465)
 Kinds of Animals
Animals may be:
(1) wild, or animals, whether terrestrial or aquatic, living in
a state of nature independently of and without the aid and care
of man;
(2) domesticated or tamed, or animals which are wild or savage
by nature but have been subdued and made use of by man
and become accustomed to live in a tamed condition; or
(3) domestic or tame, or any of the various animals (e.g., dog,
carabao, cow) which live and are born and reared, under the
control and care of man, lacking the instinct to roam freely.
Wild animals may be the object of hunting. (Art. 713.) They
are possessed only if they are under one’s control. Possession of
wild animals is lost when they regain their freedom or come
under another’s control. Domesticated animals are possessed if
they habitually return to the premises of the possessor. (see Arts.
715-716.)

Art. 561. One who recovers, according to law, possession unjustly lost,
shall be deemed for all purposes which may redound to his benefit, to
have enjoyed it without interruption. (466)

Summary on Possession As To Fruits

By Dean Hernando S. Perez, Jr.
Kinds of Fruits Possessor in Good Faith Possessor in Bad Faith
Civil Fruits Entitled to fruits pertaining
to the period from the start
of possession until it is
legally interrupted.
Natural / Industrial
a. Gathered Has right to retain fruits
b. Pending Owner’s option:
1. Pro-rating (based on
period of possession)
between possessor and
owner of:
a) expenses;
b) net harvest; and
c) charges
2. Allow possessor to stay in
possession until after he
gathers the fruits thereof,
which shall serve as
indemnity for his expenses
Usufruct
Usufruct In General
1. Not entitled to fruits;
2. Must pay DAMAGES as rental
from the time he started
possession until the time his
possession is defeated.
1. Must account for them and
RETURN THE VALUE of:
a) those already received
b) those which the legal
possessor could have
received with due care or
diligence
2. Must pay DAMAGES
amounting to a reasonable rent
for the term of possession
LESS: necessary expenses for
cultivation, gathering and
harvesting.
1. No rights at all, not even to
expenses for cultivation, because
by accession, all should belong
to the owner, without indemnity;
2. Must pay DAMAGES
amounting to a reasonable rent
for the term of the possession.
Art. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the
obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title
constituting it or the law otherwise provides. (467)

Three Fundamental Rights of Ownership

1. Jus disponendi (right to dispose)

2. Jus utendi (right to use)
3. Jus fruendi (right to the fruits)

Concept & Definition of Usufruct

(a) Usufruct is the right to enjoy the property of another, with

the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless
the title constituting it or the law provides otherwise. (Art.
562).

(b) Usufruct is a “real right, of a temporary nature, which

authorizes its holder to enjoy all the benefi ts which result
from the normal enjoyment (or exploitation) of another’s
property, with the obligation to return, at the designated
time, either the same thing, or in special cases, its equivalent.”
(De Buen, Derecho Comun, p. 225). (It includes
BOTH the jus utendi and the jus fruendi). (Eleizegui v.
Manila Lawn Tennis Club, 2 Phil. 309).

Characteristics or Elements of Usufruct

1. ESSENTIAL characteristics: (those without which it cannot

be termed USUFRUCT):
1) It is a REAL right (whether registered in the Registry
of Property or not). (See 2 Navarro Amandi
199-200).

2) It is of a temporary nature or duration (not perpetual,

otherwise it becomes emphyteusis). (See De Buen’s
Defi nition).

3) Its purpose is to enjoy the benefi ts and derive all

advantages from the object as a consequence of
NORMAL USE or EXPLOITATION. (See De Buen’s
Defi nition).
 0. NATURAL characteristic: (that which ordinarily is present, but a
contrary stipulation can eliminate it because it is not essential).
The natural — the obligation to preserve its
form or substance.
0. ACCIDENTAL characteristics: (those which may be present or absent
depending upon the stipulation of the parties).
1) whether it be a pure or a conditional usufruct;
2) the number of years it will exist;
3) whether it is in favor of one person or several,
etc.

Reasons

(a) to prevent extraordinary exploitation;

(b) to prevent abuse, which is frequent;
(c) to prevent impairment.

Usufruct’ Distinguished from ‘Easements’ (Servitudes)

Usufruct
(a) The object here may be
real or personal property.
(b) What can be enjoyed here
are ALL uses and fruits
of the property
(c) A usufruct cannot be constituted
on an easement;
but it may be constituted
on the land burdened by
an easement.
(d) Usually extinguished by
death of usufructuary.
Easement
(a) This involves only real
property.
(b) Easement is limited to a
particular use (like the
right of way).
(c) An easement may be
constituted in favor of, or
burdening, a piece of land
held in usufruct.
(d) Not extinguished by the
death of the owner of the
dominant estate.

Similarities

(a) Both are real rights, whether registered or not.

(b) Both rights may be registered, provided that the usufruct
involves real property. All easements of course concern
real property. (Thus, a usufruct over personal property
though a real right, cannot be registered because it is a
real right over personal property).
(c) Both may ordinarily be alienated or transmitted in accordance
 with the formalities set by law.

BASIS USUFRUCT LEASE

As to 1. covers all fruits 1. generally covers
EXTENT and uses as a only a particular
rule or specifi c use
As to 2. is always a real 2. is a real right only
NATURE of right if, as in the case of
the right a lease over REAL
PROPERTY, the
lease is REGISTERED,
or is for
MORE THAN
ONE YEAR, otherwise,
it is only a
personal right
As to the 3. can be created 3. the lessor may or
CREATOR of only by the may not be the
the right owner, or by a owner (as when
duly authorized there is a sublease
agent, acting or when the lessor
in behalf of the is only a usufructuary)
owner
As to 4. may be created 4. may be created as
ORIGIN by law, contract, a rule only by contract:
last will, or pre scription. (Art. and by way of exception by
563). law
(as in the case of
an implied new
lease, or when a
builder has built
in good faith on
the land of another
a building,
when the land
is considerably
worth more in
value than the
building, etc.).
(See Art. 448).
As to CAUSE 5. The owner is more 5. The owner or lessor
or less PASSIVE, is more or
 and he ALLOWS less ACTIVE,
the usufructuary and he MAKES
to enjoy the thing the lessee enjoy
given in usufruct — hace gozar.
— “deja gozar.”
As to 6. The usufructuary 6. The lessee generally
REPAIRS has the duty to has no
make the ordinary duty to pay for
repairs repairs.
As to TAXES 7. The usufructuary 7. The lessee generally
pays for the pays no
annual charges taxes.
and taxes on the
fruits.
As to other 8. A usufructuary 8. The lessee cannot
things may lease the constitute a
property itself to usufruct on the
another. (See Art. property leased
572).

Art. 563. Usufruct is constituted by law, by the will of private persons

expressed in acts inter vivos or in a last will and testament, and by
prescription. (468)

Classification of Usufruct As to Origin

(a) LEGAL (created by law). (Example: Usufruct of parents

over the property of their unemancipated children. (Art.
321.) Such usufruct cannot, because of family reasons, be
mortgaged or alienated by the parents. (See TS, July 7,
1892; TS, Sep. 27, 1893).

(b) VOLUNTARY (or CONVENTIONAL)

1) Created by will of the parties INTER VIVOS (as by
contract or donation). (Example: when an owner sells
or alienates the usufruct.)

[NOTE: If this is created by sale or for any valuable

consideration, the Statute of Frauds applies,
always in the case of real property; and in the case
of personal property, if the value is P500 or over.
(See Art. 1403, par. 2{e}.].
2) Created MORTIS CAUSA (as in last will and testament).
 [NOTE: The formalities of a will or codicil must
be complied with, either notarial or holographic.].

(c) MIXED (or PRESCRIPTIVE)

Created by both law and act of a person. Example
of usufruct acquired by prescription: I possessed in good
faith a parcel of land which really belonged to another.
Still in good faith, I gave in my will to X, the naked ownership
of the land and to Y, the usufruct. In due time, Y may
acquire the ownership of the USUFRUCT by acquisitive
prescription. (Manresa).

Art. 564. Usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part of the fruits
of the thing, in favor of one more persons, simultaneously or successively,
and in every case from or to a certain day, purely or conditionally. It may
also be constituted on a right, provided it is not strictly personal or
intransmissible. (469)

Classification of Usufruct As to Quantity or Extent

1. As to fruits - total or partial (depending on whether all the fruits are

given or not).
2. As to object - universal (if over the entire patrimony) (Art. 598) or
singular or particular (if only individual things are included).

Classification of Usufruct as to Number of Persons

(a) Simple — if only one usufructuary enjoys

(b) Multiple — if several usufructuaries enjoy
1) simultaneous — (at the same time)
2) successive — (one after the other)

BUT in this case, if the usufruct is created by

donation, all the donees must be alive, or at least
already conceived, at the time of the perfection of the
donation (Art. 756); and in the case of testamentary
succession, there must only be two successive usufructuaries;
moreover, both must be alive or at least
conceived at the time of the testator’s death. (See
Arts. 863 and 869).

Classification of Usufruct as to Quality or Kind

(a) usufruct over RIGHTS. (The right must not be strictly
personal or intransmissible in character, hence, the right
to receive present or future support cannot be the object of
a usufruct). (A usufruct over a real right is also by itself
a real right.)
(b) usufruct over THINGS
1) NORMAL (or perfect or regular) USUFRUCT: This
involves non-consumable things where the form and
substance are preserved.
2) ABNORMAL (or imperfect or irregular) USUFRUCT:

[Examples: Usufruct over consumable property,

like vinegar or money. This is also called quasi-usufruct
(See Alunan v. Veloso, 52 Phil. 545); usufruct
over non-consumable things that gradually deteriorate
by use. Example: the usufruct over furniture or
over an automobile; the usufruct over sterile or unproductive
animals. (See Art. 591 — which provides
that as to effects, a usufruct on sterile animals is to
be considered a usufruct over consumable or fungible
things.).].

Classification of Usufruct According to Terms or Conditions

1. Pure usufruct (no term or condition)

2. With a term or period
1. Ex die from a certain day
2. In diem up to a certain day
3. Ex die in diem - from a certain day up to a certain day
3. With a condition (conditional)

Art. 565. The rights and obligations of the usufructuary shall be those
provided in the title constituting the usufruct; in default of such title, or
in case it is deficient, the provisions contained in the two following
Chapters shall be observed. (470)