No. The foreclosure is not valid.
Generally, the Quieting of Titles is a remedy for the removable
contract of chattel mortgage is binding upon
contracting parties which in this case are A and
B, applying the doctrine of estoppel. However,
as far as the law and third persons are
concerned, it is void because the house is still
considered as an immovable property under
Article 415 of the New Civil Code whether the
house was constructed on a rented land or on a
land belonging to the owner of said land.
Consequently, the requirement of Rule 39 of the
Revised Rules of Court with regards to
publication in the newspaper of general
circulation as condition precedent to public sale
of real property must be complied with.
Otherwise, the sale without any previous
publication in a newspaper of general circulation
is void. Therefore, the foreclosure of the chattel
mortgage and its subsequent sale made by the
sheriff is void.
Since the bad faith of one is neutralized with the
bad faith or the other, then both should be
considered in good faith. Thus, Article 448 of the
New Civil Code should be applied regarding the
right and obligations of the parties.
In this case, the landowner Yani has right to
appropriate what the garage that was built but
has to pay the necessary and useful expenses
to the owner of material Xirco. Alternatively, Yani
may sell the land to the owner of materials Xirco.
However, Xirco cannot be obliged to buy the
land if the value thereof is more than that of the
garage that was built in which case, Xirco may
be obliged to pay the rental on the land based
on the agreement of both parties, or if there is a
disagreement between the parties, the Court will
fix the terms
If formed on the sea within the jurisdiction of the
Philippines or formed on lakes or navigable or
floatable rivers, the island belongs to the State
as provided under Article 464 of the New Civil
Code.
On the other hand, Article 465 of the New Civil
Code states that if formed on non-navigable or
non-floatable rivers, in which case is nearer in
margin to one bank, the island belongs solely to
the owner of nearer margin. However, if it is
equidistant or equal in distance, the island shall
be divided longitudinally in halves and thus,
each owner of the bank gets half.
of any cloud, upon a doubt or uncertainty with
respect to the title of the real property.
The following are the requisites that must be
present in order that a suit for quieting of title
would prosper: REFER TO WALL
No. Pedro has no right to recover possession of
the cow without paying the amount of P20,000 to
Juan despite the fact that the cow was stolen
from him.
The New Civil Code provides that when an
owner had lost a movable or had been
unlawfully deprived thereof as when it has been
stolen, but a subsequent possessor acquired it
in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot
obtain its return without reimbursing the price
paid for the thing.
In here, Juan acquired the stolen cow in good
faith at a public sale and consequently, his
possession of the cow is equivalent to title.
Thus, Pedro must reimburse the purchase price
of P20,000 to Juan to obtain the return the cow.
The following are the causes/sources of co-
ownership:
a. By law: This means that there must be a law
that will govern the application of co-ownership.
For example, in case of co-ownership of
earnings by a man and woman whose marriage
is void, or who are living together without the
benefit of marriage provided that there is no
existing and valid conjugal partnership. In such a
case, their properties shall be considered
conjugal property which are deemed coowned.
Likewise, in case of co-ownership of party walls,
the cost of repairs and construction of party
walls will be borne by all the owners of the lands
or tenements having the party wall in their favor,
in proportion to the right of each.
b. By contract: This means that there must be a
contract which will become the law between the
parties. Obligations arising from contracts have
the force of law between the contracting parties
and should be complied with in good faith.
Unless
the stipulations in a contract are contrary to law,
morals, good customs, public order or public
policy, the same are binding as between the
parties.
For example, a stipulation in a contract of sale of
a parcel of land entered into by buyers, A and B
indicating therein an agreement to share in the
purchase price of the subject land and not to
divide it for a period of 10 years is valid and will
result to co-ownership of the land.
c. By succession: This applies in case of
intestate heirs before partition, the successional
estate being a co-ownership prior to partition.
For example, the property left by decedent T,
before the same is partitioned, is owned in
common by the decedent's heirs X and Y. Thus,
co-ownership is created. According to the law on
co-ownership, each of the co-owners X and Y
may at any time demand partition of the thing
owned in common.
d. By chance: As in the case of hidden treasure,
when the discovery of such is made by chance
on the property of another, one-half of said
hidden treasure shall go to the finder and the
other shall go to the owner of the property from
where it was
found.
For example, if F discovers by chance a bar of
gold in the land owned by O, F will be entitled to
one-half as the one who discovered it and the
other half will go to O being the owner of the
land from which it was discovered. As such, the
gold
bar shall be co-owned by the two in equal
shares.
e. By occupation: As in the case of hunting
expedition where a wild beast was caught by
several persons provided that there is an
agreement, express or implied.
For example, hunters C and D went to a hunting
expedition and was able to kill a wild boar. Co-
ownership is presumed because of an implied
agreement between the two hunters.
f. Testamentary disposition or Donation inter
vivos
According to Sec. 8 of the Condominium Law,
when several persons own condominiums in a
condominium project, an action may be brought
by one or more such persons for partition by
sale of the entire project, as if the owner of all of
the condominiums in such project were co-
owners of the entire project in the same
proportion as their interests in the common
areas. Provided, however. That a partition shall
be made only upon a showing:
(1) That three (3) years after damage or
destruction to the project which renders a
material part thereof unfit for its use prior
thereto, the project has not been rebuilt or
repaired substantialy to its state poor to ih
damage or destruction; or
(2) That damage or destruction to the project
has rendered one-half or more of the units
therein untenantable and that condominium
owners holding in aggregate more than 30%
interest in the common areas are opposed to
repair or restoration of the project or
(3) That the project has been in existence in
excess of 50 years, that it is obsolete and
uneconomical and that condominium owners
holding in aggregate more than 50% interest in
the common areas are opposed to repair,
restoration or modelling or modernizing of the
project or
(4) That the project or a material part thereat has
been condemned or expropriated and that the
project is no longer viable, or that the
condominium owners holding in aggregate more
than 70% interest in the common areas are
opposed to continuation of the condominium
regime after expropriation or condemnation of a
material portion thereof; or
(5) That the conditions for such partition by sole
set forth in the declaration of restrictions duly
registered in accordance with the terms of this
Act have been met
No. The fact that a co-owner redeems a co-
owned property in its entirety, shouldering the
expenses therefore, does not make said co-
owner the owner of it all. The redemption made
by him does not put an end to the existing state
of co-ownership. The property remains to be in a
condition of co-ownership. The redemption of
property, however, entails a necessary expense.
Necessary expenses may be incurred by one
co-owner but this is subject to his right to collect
reimbursement from the remaining co-owners.
As to the fruits received, the New Civil Code
provides that a possessor in good faith is entitled
to the fruits received before the possession is
legally interrupted. Consequently, the fruits
received by Farmo as possessor in good faith
should be retained.
As to the pending fruits, the New Civil Code
provides that a possessor in good faith shall
have a right to a part of the expenses of
cultivation and to a part of the net harvest in
proportion to the time of possession. As such,
Farmo will be entitled to a part of the net harvest
in proportion to the time of his possession up to
the time his
possession was legally interrupted by Xander.
As to necessary expenses, the New Civil Code
provides that a possessor in good faith is entitled
to a right of reimbursement and right of
retention. Thus, the cost pertaining to the tilling
and cultivating of the agricultural land are
considered
necessary expenses that would entitle Farmo for
reimbursement or retention pending such
reimbursement.
As to useful expenses, the New Civil Code
provides that a possessor in good faith is entitled
to a right of reimbursement, right of retention
and a limited right of removal of such useful
improvement. Ergo, the cost of the fence,
farmhouse and fruit-bearing trees are
considered useful expenses which entitles
Farmo to a right of
reimbursement if Xander decided to retain such
improvements. Pending reimbursement, Farmo
is entitled to retain said land. Farmo may
likewise opt to remove such useful
improvements provided that it would not cause
damage the land.
As to ornamental expenses, the New Civil Code
merely affords a possessor in good faith a
limited right of removal. Therefore, the cost of
the flowering plants and natural ornamentation
will not be reimbursed to Farmo but he has the
option to remove such provided no substantial
injury is caused. However, if Xander retains for
himself the ornament, he must refund the
amount spent by Farmo.
As to necessary expenses, the New Civil Code
provides that a possessor in bad faith is entitled
to a right of reimbursement only. Thus, the cost
pertaining to the tilling and cultivating of the
agricultural land are considered necessary
expenses that would only entitle Farmo for
reimbursement.
As to useful expenses, the New Civil Code
provides that a possessor in bad faith is not
entitled to any right. Ergo, the cost of the fence,
farmhouse and fruit-bearing trees incurred by
Farmo will not entitle him for reimbursement and
removal.
As to ornamental expenses, the New Civil Code
merely affords a possessor in bad faith a limited
right of removal. Therefore, the cost of the
flowering plants and natural ornamentation will
not be reimbursed to Farmo but he has the
option to remove such provided no substantial
injury is caused.
The following are the different classes of
possession:
a. Possession in one’s own name or possession
in the name of another. Possession in one’s own
name is evidenced by a rightful claim to a thing
itself. For example, when a person registered or
obtained title to a parcel of land in one’s own
name. On the other hand, possession in the
name of another presupposes that the
possessor has no rightful claim to a thing. For
example,
in a contract of agency, a person, acting as an
agent, was authorized by the owner-principal to
possess his property for purposes of
administration.
b. Possession in the concept of an owner or
possession in the concept of a holder.
Possession in the concept of an owner is shown
when a person shows through his possession
that he is the owner of the property making other
people believe that he is owner thereof. For
example, A constructed a building on a piece of
land and proceeds to collect rents after leasing
the constructed building. On the contrary,
possession in the concept of a holder is
illustrated in usufruct where the usufructuary is
merely holding a thing for enjoyment of its fruits,
however, the ownership thereof pertains to the
naked owner.
c. Possession in good faith or possession in bad
faith. Possession is deemed in good faith when
the possessor is not aware that there
exists in his title a defect which invalidates it. For
example, when a person is in possession of a
stolen movable property without knowledge of
such fact. Conversely, possession is deemed in
bad faith when a possessor is aware of that
there exists a defect in his title which invalidates
it. For example, when a person knows that a
parcel of land has been previously sold to
another person.
EXAM
Aristotle and Plato are partly correct. The New
Civil Code provides that none of the co-owners
shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership
and it is the right of the co-owner to ask for
partition of the co-ownership at any time. One
exception to this rule is if the co-owners agreed
to keep the thing undivided which period shall
not exceed ten years.
In this case, the agreement of Socrates, Aristotle
and Plato to keep the thing undivided is valid
only for ten years. In excess thereof, the
agreement is not valid. Therefore, Socrates can
get out of the co-ownership only after ten years
to receive his 1/3 share of the property.
Since Tured, the owner of the lot, acted in bad
faith and Bannuar is a builder in good faith, Art.
454 of the NCC shall apply which provides that
the rights and obligations of the parties are
governed by Art. 477 of the NCC.
Thus, the owner of the land shall pay the value
of the materials or return the materials and
obliged for the reparation of damages in any
event. On the other hand, the owner of the
material can remove the materials with the right
to be indemnified.
Carl cannot obtain a certificate of title on the
accretion on the south of the sea because it is
part of public dominion owned by the State.
Thus, it is outside the commerce of man and
cannot be appropriated and acquired by
prescription.
However, the accretion on the east of the river,
assuming the requisites of alluvion are present,
Carl is ipso jure the owner of such accretion. In
order that he can acquire a certificate of title, he
should comply with all the procedures dictated
under PD 1529 in order for the judicial
confirmation of his title over the accretion.
The wooden image of the resurrected Christ
belongs to Alnos.
The New Civil Code provides that one who is in
good faith employs the material of another in
whole or in part in order to make a thing of a
different kind shall appropriate the thing thus
transformed as his own indemnifying the owner
of the material for its value. The wood shall only
be considered as accessory.
Applying the foregoing, the wood which was
owned by Pino was transformed by Alnos to a
wood sculpture. The wood is considered merely
as accessory. Hence, by applying the principle
that accessory follows the principal, the wooden
sculpture shall belong to Alnos. However, he
must indemnify Pino for the value of the wood.
The New Civil Code defines hidden treasure as
those money, precious objects and jewelries in
which the ownership of which does not appear.
In this case, the vault containing the old Banco
de las Islas Filipinas has been long buried and
thus, the BPI cannot succeed by inheritance.
The ownership of the vault together with notes
and coins can now be legally considered as
hidden treasures because its ownership is not
apparent. The contractor Ador is not a
trespasser therefore entitled to ½ of the hidden
treasure. Bona the owner of property is entitled
to the other half. Since the notes and coins have
historical value, the government may acquire
them at their just price which in turn will be
divided equally between Ador and Bona.
The machineries are movables. In order that a
machinery may be classified as movable under
Art 415 of the NCC, the following requisites must
be present: (a) The machinery must be placed
by the owner of the tenement; b) an industry or
works must be carried on the tenement; (c) the
machinery must be intended for such industry or
works; (d) the machinery must tend directly to
meet the needs of such industry or works.
As such, the machineries are clearly movables
as they were installed by the lessee Baldwin and
not the owner of the building Amado.
The following are the remedies available to a
property owner or possessor in order to protect
his ownership or possession:
a. Accion interdictal or summary ejectment
proceeding which is either forcible entry and
unlawful detainer for the recovery of material
possession of property;
b. Accion publiciana is a plenary action to
recover better right of possession;
c. Accion reinvindicatoria an action for recovery
of ownership;
d. Writ of preliminary mandatory injunction is an
order prohibiting an action to preserve the status
quo while the underlying court case is
decided;
e. Writ of possession is a writ of execution
employed to enforce judgment to recover
possession of land.
f) Replevin or recovery of personal property
Patrimonial property refers to those property of
the State which are not intended for public use
or for public service or for the development of
national wealth, as well as those property of the
LGUs which are not intended for public use.
The New Civil Code provides that river beds
which are abandoned through the natural
change in the course of waters ipso facto belong
to the owners whose land are occupied by the
new course in proportion of the areas lost.
The owners of the land adjoining the old bed
shall have the right to acquire the same by
paying the value thereof which shall not exceed
the value
occupied by the new bed.
Applying the foregoing, the rights of each
claimant are as follows:
a. Melchor has no right to the ownership of the
abandoned river bed. However, being the owner
of the adjacent land, shall have the right to
acquire proportionate part of the abandoned bed
by paying the value thereof which shall not
exceed the value of the area occupied by the
new bed since Carlos is the owner of the
abandoned bed.
b. Carlos is ipso facto the owner of the
abandoned river bed. His right of
ownership is limited to the right of Melchor to
compel him to sell a proportionate part of the
abandoned bed.
c. The government has no right over the
abandoned river bed. However, the new bed
running through the estate of Carlos became
part of public dominion.
A. Yes. Anthony can acquire of the property by
acquisitive prescription which requires just title
and good faith. There was just title because a
deed of sale was issued in his favor even though
it was forged, which he was not aware of.
However, Anthony needs to possess the land in
good faith for a total of ten years to acquire
ownership. Since he possessed it only for one
year and even if he adds the eight-year period of
possession by Carlo, the period is still short of
the ten-year requirement.
B. No. Carlo cannot require Anthony to account
for all the fruits he has received from the
property.
The New Civil Code provides that a possessor in
good faith is entitled to the fruits received before
the possession is legally interrupted.
Since Anthony is a possessor in good faith, he
cannot be required to account for the fruits he
gathered before he was served with summons.
C. Yes. The value of the standing crops must be
pro-rated depending upon the period of
possession and the period of growing and
producing the fruits.
Anthony is entitled to a part of the net harvest
and a part of the expenses of the cultivation in
proportion of his period of possession.
Therefore,
Carlo may appropriate them.
A. The platform is an immovable property by
destination. It was intended by the owner in a
fixed placed in a river or a coast. The New Civil
Code provides that docks and structures which
although floating are intended by their nature to
remain at a fixed place on a river, lake or coast
is
immovable.
B. With respect to the equipment, the same are
immovable property. It is intended to meet the
needs of the industry undertaken by Langis
Petroleum Company. The equipment partakes
an immovable by destination.
The living quarters if attached to the immovable
platform with permanence becomes an
immovable as well.
C. The trees, plants and vegetables and flowers
are also immovables having been planted in the
garden area. Art. 415 of the NCC provides that
trees, plants and growing fruits while they are
attached to the land or formed an integral part of
the immovable are immovable properties.
No. Where a lot and improvements thereon were
mortgaged by the deceased parents, a co-
ownership existed among the heirs during the
period given by law to redeem the foreclosed
property. Redemption by one during this period
would inure to the benefit of all.
Yes. Where the heir purchased the property
from the mortgagee (to whom the property was
sold at the foreclosure sale) after the redemption
period had expired and after the mortgagee had
consolidated its ownership, and a new title had
been issued in its name, there was no longer
any co-ownership to speak of. When the heirs
allowed the one-year period of redemption to
expire without redeeming their parents' former
property and permitted the consolidation of
ownership and issuance of a new title, the co-
ownership was extinguished.
The possession of a co-owner cannot ripen into
ownership for the reason that the possession
was merely in the concept of a trustee for the
other co-owners. Thus, in order that a co
owner's possession may be deemed adverse to
the cestui que trust or the other co-owners, the
following elements must occur: (1) that he has
performed unequivocal acts of repudiation
amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust or
the other co owners; (2) that such positive acts
of repudiation have been made known to the
cestui que trust or the other co-owners; and (3)
that the evidence thereon must be clear and
convincing.