CIVIL CASE PART II

PROPERTY

1. Property of public dominion are those property intended for public use, public service and for the
development of the national wealth. Property of public dominion has the following characteristics: it is
outside the commerce of man, inalienable, cannot be acquired by prescription, not subject to attachment
or execution and cannot be burdened with easements.

2. Patrimonial property are those property owned by the State in its private or proprietary capacity. The
State has the same rights over this kind of property as a private individual in relation to his own private
property.

3. The doctrine of self-help authorizes an owner or lawful possessor of a property to use reasonable means
to prevent or stop another person from taking the former’s property. There must be no delay in the
pursuit, otherwise, his recourse will be to go to the court for the recovery of the property. For this
principle to apply, the following elements must be present: (a) the force must be employed by the owner
or lawful possessor; (b) there must be an actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation of property;
(c) the invasion or usurpation must be unlawful; and (d) the force employed must be reasonably
necessary to repel the invasion or usurpation.

4. The doctrine of state necessity provides that the owner of a thing or property has no right to prohibit
interference of another with the same if: (a) the interference is necessary to prevent an imminent danger;
and (b) the threatened damage, compared to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is
much greater. In this case, the owner may demand compensation from the person who interfered to the
property and who benefited for the damage to him.

5. Hidden treasure are unknown deposits of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership
of which does not appear. As a rule, if hidden treasures are found by the owner of the land, building or
other property where it is found, the entire treasure shall belong to him. However, if the finder is not the
owner or is a stranger who is not a trespasser (includes the lessee or usufructuary), he is entitled to ½ of
thereof. If the hidden treasure is found to be of interest to science or the arts, the State may acquire them
at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rules.

6. In order that a finder be entitled to any share in the hidden treasure, it is required that: (1) the discovery
was made on the property of another, or of the State or any of its political subdivisions; (2) it is made by
chance; and (3) the finder is not a trespasser or agent of the landowner.

7. If the branches of any tree should extend over a neighboring estate, tenement, garden or yard, the owner
of the neighboring estate shall have the right to demand that they be cut off insofar as they may spread
over his property, and, if it be the roots of the tree which should penetrate into the land of another, the
latter may cut them off himself those which extends within his property.

8. Fruits naturally falling upon adjacent land belongs to the owner of the land. If the fruits still hang on the
tree, they are still owned by the tree owner. It is only after they have naturally fallen that they belong to
the owner of the invaded land.

9. Where anything has been built, planted or sown on a land belonging to another, x x x. In case the
landowner acted in bad faith and the builder acted in good faith, the builder may demand the value of
his materials and reasonable compensation for his labor plus damages, or demand the return of his
materials in any event, plus damages.

10. Where a landowner builds, plants or sows using materials that belong to another, if both the
landowner/builder and the owner of the materials acted in good faith, the landowner/builder may
appropriate what he has built, planted or sown and is not liable for damages for acting in good faith.
However, the landowner must pay the value of the materials, otherwise unjust enrichment will result. If
the materials can be returned in exactly the same form and substance, and without causing injury to the
land, the landowner may return the materials to its owner. However, if the landowner/builder acted in
good faith and the owner of the material acted in bad faith, the owner of the material loses his materials
without any right whatsoever and is furthermore liable to the landowner for damages. If both of them
acted in bad faith, both should be considered as having acted in good faith.
11. Where anything has been built, planted or sown on the land of another using materials belonging to a
third person, the remedy will depend whether a party acted in good faith or in bad faith. Thus, if both the
landowner and the builder acted in good faith, and the owner of the material acted in bad faith, the
landowner can claim what has been built, planted or sown without any obligation to indemnify the owner
of the materials. In this situation, the builder would be considered merely as an agent of the owner of the
material, as such, he may claim from the landowner reasonable compensation for his labor.
Consequently, the owner of the material loses what has been built, planted or sown without any right to
indemnity.

12. To the owners of the lands adjoining the banks of the rivers belong the accretion which they gradually
receive from the effects of the current of the waters. This pertains to alluvium where the additional soil
deposit becomes private property and shall belong to the owner of the land adjoining the banks of the
rivers. For this rule to apply, the following requisites must be present: (1) the accumulation of soil or
sediment be gradual and imperceptible; (2) that it be as a result of the waters of river; and (3) the land
where accretion takes place is adjacent to the bank of the river. The alluvion must be the exclusive work
of nature, thus when the land was formed with the help of human intervention, it becomes part of the
public domain. The alluvium, by mandate of Art. 457 of the Code, is automatically owned by the riparian
owner from the moment the soil deposit can be seen but is not automatically a registered property, hence,
subject to acquisition through prescription by third persons.

13. Avulsion occurs when a known portion of land is segregated from one estate by the forceful current of a
river, creek or torrent and transferred to another. For avulsion to apply, it requires the concurrence of the
following requisites: (1) it takes place only along the banks or rivers, creeks, streams or lakes; (2) the
segregation and transfer of land is sudden and abrupt; (3) caused by the current of the water; and (4) the
portion of land transported must be known and identifiable. As a rule, the owner of the segregated portion
land retains ownership provided he removes the same within a period of two years.

14. Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the waters belong to the owner of the land upon which
they may be cast, if the owners do not claim them within six months. If such owners claim them, they
shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering them or putting them in a safe place.

15. Rivers and their natural beds are property of public dominion of the State, except for river beds which
are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters, they ipso facto belong to the
owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the owners
of the lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof,
which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed. For this rule to apply, the
claimant must prove three key elements by clear and convincing evidence: (1) the old course of the river
or creek; (2) the new course of the river or creek; and (3) the change of course of the river or creek from
the old location to the new location by natural occurrence.

16. If the river simply dries up without and did not change its course or without opening a new bed, Art. 461
will not apply. Instead, the dried up river bed continues to belong to the State, whether the drying up of
a river is by reason of nature or as a result of the active intervention of man.

17. When a current of a river divides itself into branches resulting in the formation of island, they belong to
the State if: (1) formed on the seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines; (2) formed on lakes; or (3)
form on navigable or floatable rivers. On the other hand, they belong to the riparian owner if: (1) formed
through successive accumulation of alluvial deposits in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers.

18. Owners of the buildings, walls, columns, or other constructions in danger of falling are obliged to either
demolish it or to execute the necessary work in order to prevent it from falling. If he does not comply
with the foregoing obligation, the administrative authorities may order the demolition of the structure at
his expense, or to take necessary measures to insure public safety.

19. All waters in their natural beds are considered property of public dominion, whether or not the waters
are found on private lands, including subterranean or ground waters. Appropriation of water is not
authorized without a water permit, which is granted by the government. A water permit, however, need
not be secured in the following instances: (1) for use of waters found on private lands by the owner
thereof but only for domestic purposes; and (2) use of natural bodies of water for any of the following:
(a) hand carried receptacles; (b) bathing or washing of domestic or farm animals; and (c) navigation of
watercrafts or transportation of logs.
 CO-OWNERSHIP

20. A co-owner has full ownership of his share or undivided interest and the fruits and benefits arising
therefrom. Being the full owner thereof, he may alienate, assign or mortgage it; he can also substitute
another person in the enjoyment of his share, except only when personal rights are involved. Others may
seek for partition at any time, the same is imprescriptible.

21. In co-ownership, a co-owner is entitled to possess and enjoy the entire property. Hence, he cannot be
ejected from the property but subject to certain limitations: (1) it is used for the purpose intended; (2) it
must be used in such a way as not to injure the interest of the other co-owners; and (3) such use does not
prevent the other co-owners from making use thereof according to their own right. Hence, if there is an
agreement to lease the house, the co-owners can demand rent from the co-owner who dwells in the house,
but the latter cannot be ejected from the property.

22. As a general rule, every co-owner has the right to demand partition at any time, except in the following
cases: (1) when partition would render the thing unserviceable; (2) when the thing is essentially
indivisible; (3) when partition is prohibited by law by reason of their origin or juridical nature; (4) when
the co-owners agree to keep the property undivided for a period of time but not more than 10 years; (5)
when partition is prohibited by the transferor but not more than 20 years; (6) when a co-owner possessed
the property as an exclusive owner for a period sufficient to acquire it through prescription; (7) when co-
owners may agree that it be allowed to one of them reimbursing the others; and (8) if they cannot agree,
they may sell the thing and distribute the proceeds.

POSSESSION

23. Possession is acquired: (1) by material occupation which is applicable only to corporeal objects; (2) by
exercise of right which is applicable to acquisition of possession over rights; (3) by subjecting the things
or right to the action of our will; and (4) by proper acts and legal formalities.

24. Doctrine of Constructive Possession provides that the possession and cultivation of a portion of a tract
under claim of ownership of all is a constructive possession of all, if the remainder is not in the adverse
possession of another. For this doctrine to apply, the following requisites must concur: (1) the alleged
possessor must be in actual possession of a portion or part of the property; (2) he is claiming ownership
of the whole area; (3) the remainder of the area must not be in the adverse possession of another person;
and (4) the area claimed must be reasonable.

25. Possession is not acquired: (1) if acquired through force or intimidation, as long as there is a possessor
who objects thereto; (2) acts which are merely tolerated; and (3) acts which are executed clandestinely
and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing.

26. In order that there be possession, two things are paramount: (1) there must be occupancy, apprehension
or taking; and (2) there must be intent to possess or animus possidendi.

27. Possession in the concept of holder acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes to be
ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong; while a possessor in the concept of an owner may be
the owner himself or one who claims to be so, provided he does not acknowledge in another a superior
right.

28. Possession in the concept of an owner has the following effects: (1) it raises a disputable presumption of
ownership; (2) it creates a disputable presumption that the possessor has just title, which he cannot be
obliged to show; and (3) it may ripen into ownership thru acquisitive prescription upon compliance with
the other requisites mentioned under Art. 1118 of the Civil Code.

29. A possessor is considered in good faith if he is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of
acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. On the other hand, a possessor in bad faith is one in possession
of property knowing that his title thereto is defective. Thus, a possessor by mere tolerance is not a
possessor in good faith. One whose interest is merely that of a holder, such as a mere tenant, agent or
usufructuary, is not qualified to become a possessor in good faith.
30. A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received by him before his possession is legally
interrupted; while a possessor in bad faith has the obligation to reimburse the legitimate possessor for
everything that he may have received and those which the legitimate possessor could have received. But
whether the possessor is in good faith or bad faith, he is entitled to recover from legitimate possessor the
expenses he incurred in the production, gathering and preservation of the fruits upon return of the same.

USUFRUCT

31. Usufruct is the right to enjoy the property of another temporarily, including both the jus utendi and the
jus fruendi, with the owner retaining the jus disponendi or the power to alienate the same. It may be
constituted over a corporeal object or rights. With respect to rights, it may be the object of usufruct
provided that: (1) it is not strictly personal; (2) it is not intransmissible; and (3) it has its own independent
existence. Hence, a servitude cannot be the object of usufruct because it has no existence independent of
the tenements.

32. Usufruct includes the right to enjoy the property of another temporarily, including both the jus utendi
and the jus fruendi. Hence, he may lease the object held in usufruct which the owner must respect so
long as the usufruct exists. However, the owner of the property retains the jus disposidendi or the power
to alienate, encumber, transform, and even destroy the same. Hence, the owner may validly mortgage
the property in favor of a third person, may impose, without the consent of the usufructuary, a voluntary
easement upon the tenement or piece of land held in usufruct, and may construct any works and
improvements thereon. He may not, however, exercise such right in a manner that will have an adverse
effect upon the usufructuary.

33. A usufructuary may alienate or encumber his right of usufruct without the consent of the owner of the
property whether by onerous or gratuitous title. All such contracts, however, shall terminate upon the
expiration of the usufruct. The transfer of alienation of the right of usufruct does not result in the
termination of the relation between the usufructuary and the naked owner. Hence, the former shall be
personally liable to the latter for any damage to the thing in usufruct caused by the fault or negligence
of the transferee or lessee.

34. Usufruct may be extinguished by: (1) death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly
appears; (2) by expiration of the period or by fulfillment of any resolutory condition creating the usufruct;
(3) by merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person; (4) by renunciation of the usufructuary;
(5) by total loss of the thing in usufruct; (6) by the termination of the right of the person constituting the
usufruct; (7) by prescription.

EASEMENT OR SERVITUDE

35. Easement may be acquired either by title or by prescription. All kinds of easements, whether continuous
or discontinuous, apparent or non-apparent, positive or negative, can be acquired by title. As to
prescription, only continuous and apparent easements may be acquired by virtue thereof.

36. The owner of the dominant estate, or any person with real right to cultivate or use the dominant estate,
may demand an easement of right of way if the following requisites are present: (1) estate is surrounded
by other immovables without adequate access to public highway; (2) isolation was not due to own act;
(3) payment of proper indemnity; and (4) must be established at the point least prejudicial to the servient
estate, where the distance from the dominant estate to a public highway is shortest.

37. The lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and without intervention of man
descend from the higher estates, as well as the owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which
will impede the easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will increase the
burden.

38. As held by jurisprudence, the easement of light and view requires that the owner of the servient estate
shall not build to a height that will obstruct the window. As a general rule, when a window or any similar
opening affords a direct view of an adjoining land, the distance between the wall in which such opening
is made and the border of the adjoining land should be at least two meters. By way of exception, where
an easement is established or recognized by title or prescription, affording the dominant estate the right
to have a direct view overlooking the adjoining property, the owner of the servient estate cannot build
thereon at less than a distance of three meters, not two meters, from the property line.
 NUISANCE

39. A nuisance is defined as any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of property, or anything
else which: (1) injures or endangers the health or safety of others; (2) annoys or offense the senses; (3)
shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality; (4) obstructs or interferes with the free passage of any
public highway or street, or any body of water; or (5) hinders or impairs the use of property.

40. Nuisance per se, that which is a nuisance under any and all circumstances, because it constitutes a direct
menace to public health or safety, and, for that reason, may be abated summarily under the undefined
law of necessity. On the other hand, nuisance per accidens is that which will become a nuisance
depending upon certain conditions and circumstances, and its existence being a question of fact, it cannot
be abated without due hearing thereon in a tribunal authorized to decide whether such a thing does in
law constitute a nuisance.

41. The doctrine of attractive nuisance provides that one who maintains on his premises dangerous
instrumentalities or appliances of a character likely to attract children in play, and who fails to exercise
ordinary care to prevent children from playing therewith or resorting thereto, is liable to a child of tender
years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a trespasser in the premises.

42. In a number of cases, the Supreme Court clarified, that the abatement of nuisance without judicial
proceedings is possible only if it is a nuisance per se. Unless a thing is a nuisance per se, however, it
may not be abated via an ordinance, without judicial proceedings. Generally, LGUs have no power to
declare a particular thing as a nuisance unless such a thing is a nuisance per se.

43. Under Art. 700 of the Civil Code, a City and/or Municipal Health Officer is charged with the
responsibility of abating public nuisances. A private person may likewise abate a public nuisance which
is specially injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing if it is a nuisance per
se; prior to the abatement, it is necessary that: (1) demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of
the property to abate the nuisance; (2) such has been rejected; (3) the abatement be approved by the
district health officer and executed with the assistance of the local police; and (4) the value of the
destruction does not exceed Php3,000.

MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP

47. Occupation is a mode of acquiring ownership when the following elements concur: (1) there must be a
seizure of a thing; (2) which must be a corporeal personal property; (3) it must be susceptible of
appropriation by nature; (4) the thing must be without an owner; and (5) there must be an intention to
appropriate.

48. Donation is an act of pure liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in favor
of another who accepts it. A donation is valid with the concurrence of the following requisites: (1) donor
must have the capacity to make the donation; (2) he must have donative intent; (3) there must be delivery
in certain cases; and (4) donee must accept or consent to the donation of the donation during the lifetime
of the donor and of the donee in case of donation inter vivos. In case of donation mortis causa, acceptance
is made after donor’s death because they partake of a will.

49. As a mode of acquiring ownership, donation results in an effective transfer of title over the property form
the donor to the donee and is perfected from the moment the donor is made aware of the acceptance by
the donee. Once the donation is accepted, it is generally considered irrevocable, and the donee becomes
owner of the property, except on account of officiousness, failure of the done to comply with the charge
imposed on the donation, or ingratitude.

50. Donation inter vivos takes effect during the lifetime of the donor, while mortis causa takes effect upon
the donor’s death. An inter vivos donation is generally irrevocable, while a donation mortis causa is
revocable during the lifetime of the donor. The law further requires that a donation inter vivos must
comply with the formalities of donation. Thus, if the donation involves immovable property, it must be
in a public document and there must be a deed of acceptance which must be in the same deed of donation.
If the acceptance is in a separate instrument, it has to be noted in both instruments. On the other hand, a
donation mortis causa must comply with the formalities of a will. A donation inter vivos is subject to a
donor’s tax, while a donation mortis causa, is subject to an estate tax.
51. Under the Family Code, every donation or grant of gratuitous advantage, direct or indirect, between the
spouses during the marriage shall be void, except moderate gifts which the spouses may give each other
on the occasion of any family rejoicing. The prohibition shall also apply to persons living together as
husband and wife without a valid marriage.

52. Revocation affects the whole donation and is allowed during the lifetime of the donor, while reduction
generally affects a portion only of the donation and is allowed during the lifetime of the donor or after
his death.

53. In acquisitive prescription, one acquires ownership and other real rights through the lapse of time in the
manner and under the conditions laid down by law. There are two kinds of acquisitive prescription: first,
the ordinary acquisitive prescription which requires the concurrence of the following requisites: (a)
capacity to acquire by prescription; (b) the object must be susceptible of prescription; (c) the possession
must be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted; (d) the possession
must be in good faith; (e) the possession must be by virtue of a just title; and (f) the period of possession
must be four (4) years if the object is movable, or ten (10) years if the it is immovable. Second, the
extraordinary acquisitive prescription which requires the concurrence of the following: (a) capacity
to acquire by prescription; (b) the object must be susceptible of prescription; (c) the possession must be
in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful, continuous and uninterrupted; and (d) the period of
possession must be eight (8) years if object is movable, or thirty (30) years if it is immovable.

54. No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as
he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. Until repudiation of the co-ownership was made
known to the other co-owners, no right has been violated for the said co-owners to vindicate. Here, even
assuming that the sale in 2000 where Ramon claimed he was the sole heir of his parents amounted to
repudiation of the co-ownership, the prescriptive period began to run only from that time. Not more than
30 years having lapsed since then, the claim of Rosario has not as yet prescribed.

55. A title once registered under the Torrens System cannot be defeated even by adverse, open and notorious
possession; neither can it be defeated by prescription. It is notice to the whole world and as such all
persons are bound by it and no once can plead ignorance of the registration.

QUIETING OF TITLE

56. Quieting of title is a common-law remedy for the removal of any cloud or doubt or uncertainty on the
title to real property by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding that is
apparently valid or effective, but is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable,
and may be prejudicial to the title. For an action to quiet title to prosper, two indispensable requisites
must concur: (1) the plaintiff has a legal or equitable title or interest in the real property subject of the
action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting a cloud on the title
must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal
efficacy.

57. Raising the invalidity of a certificate of title in an action for quieting of title is not a collateral attack
because it is central, imperative and essential in such an action that the complainant shows the invalidity
of the deed which casts cloud on his title.

58. In an action to quiet title, the plaintiff need not be in possession of the property. If plaintiff is not in
possession, the action is indubitably a real action and shall prescribe in 30 years. The filing of an action
to quiet title is imprescriptible if the disputed property is in the possession of the plaintiff because he
may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.

ANTICHRESIS

59. By the contract of antichresis, the creditor acquires the right to receive the fruits of an immovable of his
debtor, with the obligation to apply them to the payment of the interest, if owing, and thereafter to the
principal of his credit. In antichresis, there is no need to transfer possession. What is essential is the grant
of the use of the fruits.
60. The creditor does not acquire ownership of the immovable for non-payment of the debt within the period
agreed upon. Every stipulation to the contrary is void. The creditor may petition the court to foreclose
the property.

PLEDGE

61. There is a contract of pledge if the following elements are present: (1) it be constituted to secure the
fulfillment of a principal obligation; (2) the pledgor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged; (3) that
the persons constituting the pledge have the free disposal of the property and in the absence thereof, that
they be legally authorized for the purpose; (4) the pledge is perfected by the delivery of the thing pledged;
and (5) when the principal obligation becomes due, the things subject of the pledge, may be alienated
for the payment of the creditor.

62. In order to constitute the contract of pledge, it shall be necessary that the thing subject of the pledge be
placed in the possession of the creditor or of a third person appointed by common consent. This requisite
is most essential and is indispensable in a contract of pledge without which the contract cannot be
regarded as entered into or completed because, precisely, in this delivery lies the security of pledge.

REAL ESTATE MORTGAGE

61. To constitute a mortgage, the following requisites must concur: (1) to secure the fulfillment of a principal
obligation; (2) the mortgagor should be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged; (3) the mortgagor
should have free disposal of the thing; (4) when the principal obligation becomes due, the thing
mortgaged may be alienated to secure payment; and (5) for the mortgaged to be validly constituted and
to prejudice third persons, it should be recorded with the Registry of Property.

62. One of the essential requisites of the contract of mortgage is that the mortgagor should be the absolute
owner of the property. An exception to this rule is the doctrine of mortgagee in good faith. Under this
rule, a mortgagee has the right to rely on good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor to the
property given as security and in the absence of any sign that might arouse suspicion, has no obligation
to undertake further investigation. For a mortgagee to be in good faith, jurisprudence requires that they
should take necessary precaution expected of a prudent man to ascertain the status and condition of the
properties offered as collateral and to verify the identity of the persons they transact business with.

63. A real estate mortgage constituted on an immovable property is not limited to the property itself but also
extends to all its accessions, improvements, growing fruits, and rents. To exclude them, it is necessary
that there be an express stipulation to the effect.

64. It is well-settled that the purchaser in an extra-judicial foreclosure of real property becomes the absolute
owner of the property if no redemption is made within one year from the registration of the certificate of
sale by those entitled to redeem. As absolute owner, he is entitled to all the rights of ownership over a
property recognized in Article 428 of the Civil Code, not least of which is possession or jus possidendi.

65. Foreclosure of mortgage is the process by which a property covered may be subjected to sale to pay
demand for which mortgages stand as security. The mortgage can be foreclosed only when the debt
remains unpaid at the time it is due or in case of default in the payment of obligation. Demand, however,
is necessary for default to exist and which gives the right to collect debt and foreclose the mortgage.
Default commences upon judicial or extrajudicial demand

CHATTEL MORTGAGE

61. By a chattel mortgage, personal property is recorded in the Chattel Mortgage Register as a security for
the performance of an obligation. If the movable, instead of being recorded, is delivered to the creditor
or a third person, the contract is a pledge and not a chattel mortgage.

62. Chattel mortgage would not be valid and binding as against third persons absent any registration. If what
is mortgaged is a car, registration with the LTO is also needed. Absent this, again, it would not be binding
and valid as against third persons.
63. Chattel mortgage covers only those obligations that existed when the mortgage was constituted. The
only time after-incurred obligations can be included in the agreement is if the old contract was amended
or a new one is drawn up. The amended or new contract must be made observing the formalities of a
chattel mortgage.

64. Can a chattel mortgage be constituted on a building? Ordinarily, the answer would be no. However, if
both parties entered into a chattel mortgage contract over a piece of real estate, they are now in estoppel
and the contract becomes effective. A chattel mortgage on a building may be valid between the parties,
but not against third persons.

LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

65. It is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein.
It becomes the best proof of ownership of a parcel of land. Such principle of indefeasibilty has long been
recognized in our jurisdiction and it is only when the acquisition of the title is attended with fraud or bad
faith that the doctrine finds no application.

66. Is there a need for a positive government act in order to prove reversion of alienable and disposable land
to forest land? YES. Case law provides that a land registration proceeding is the manner through which
an applicant confirms title to a real property. In this proceeding, the applicant bears the burden of
overcoming the presumption of State ownership. Accordingly, the applicant is bound to establish,
through inconvertible evidence, that the land sought to be registered has been declared alienable or
disposable through a positive act of the government. Conversely, reversion proceeding is the manner
through which the State seeks to revert land to the mass of the public domain. Thus, owing to the nature
of reversion proceedings and the outcome which a favorable decision therein entails, the State bears the
burden to prove that the land previously decreed or adjudicated constitutes land which cannot be owned
by private individuals.