Pages 253-260: ISSA

ARTICLE 523. Possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.

● REQUISITES
○ Soledad v. People
■ The acquisition of possession involves 2 elements
● 1) material holding of the thing (corpus)
● 2) intent to posses it (animus possidendi)
○ State of mind
○ May be inferred from prior or contemporaneous acts of
the accused and surrounding circumstances

ARTICLE 524. Possession may be exercised in one’s own name or in that of another.

● Santos v. Manalili
Who has a better right of possession between the 2? Respondent
Manalilis
■ Court upheld the finding of the Board of Liquidators (BOL)based on
the respondent’s evidence:
● Affidavit of Occupancy w/ BOL as early as 1970
● Administered the land before leaving for Manila in 1972 and
appointed an administrator thereafter to oversee the land
● Paid real estate taxes even before the sale of the petitioner
■ [On administrator] see codal.
● Rights of Possession: not necessary that the owner or holder
of the thing exercise it personally
○ May be exercised through agents
■ Petitioner’s claim:
● bought the land from a certain Ernesto Abalahin who, in turn,
bought it from one Col. Agsalud, allegedly a guerrilla veteran
who occupied the lot from 1956 to 1959 [no basis]
○ No proof on Col. Agsalud’s alleged title
○ Deed of Absolute Sale between petitioner and Ernesto
doesn’t sufficiently identify the lot which was the
subject of the sale
 ○ Thus, in 1982, they illegal cut the trees of the land
prompting the Manalilis to report their unlawful entry
● A sale of a piece of land appearing in a private deed cannot
be considered binding on third persons if it is not embodied
in a public instrument and recorded in the Registry of Deeds

ARTICLE 525. The possession of things or rights may be had in one of two concepts:
either in the concept of owner, or in that of the holder of the thing or right to keep or
enjoy it, the ownership pertaining to another person.

ARTICLE 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there
exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.

He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the
foregoing.

Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.

● GOOD FAITH
○ Fuentes et. al v. Roca et. al
■ The contract of sale of a conjugal property was void in the absence
of spousal consent. Nevertheless, the SC rules that the buyers, Sps.
Fuentes were possessors in good faith. (see codal Art. 526 par. 1)
● Sps. Fuentes only entered the property and built on it AFTER:
○ Atty. Plagata, whom the parties mutually entrusted with
closing and documenting the transaction, represented
that he got Rosario's signature on the affidavit of
consent. The Fuentes spouses had no reason to
believe that the lawyer had violated his commission
and his oath. They had no way of knowing that Rosario
did not come to Zamboanga to give her consent.
○ notarized Deed of Absolute Sale
○ Was issued a new title to the land by Registry of
Deeds
■ Right to recover from the Rocas, the Tarcianos heirs, the P200k
paid w/ legal interest + No obligation to pay for their stay on the
property prior to its legal interruption by a final judgment against
them
 ■ Right to indemnity under Art. 448 for the improvements they
introduced with a right of retention until the reimbursement is made
● DIFFICULT QUESTION OF LAW
○ Example: W/N plaintiffs-appellants' possession in good faith (Art. 526),
under their Torrens Titles acquired in good faith, does not lose this
character (Art. 528) except in the case and from the moment their Titles
are declared null and void by the Courts (doctrine of indefeasibility of a
Torrens Title).
■ CA decision:
● Reconciliation of the issue can only be achieved by holding
that the possessor with a Torrens Title (TT) is not aware of
any flaw in his TItle which invalidates it until it is declared
VOID.
● Even if the doctrine of indefeasibility of a TT were not
reconciled, the result would be the same based on Art. 526
(3).
■ The court had several sessions before they came to their answer:
● In this case, especially where the subdivision plan was
originally approved by the Director of Lands, we are not
ready to conclude that the above reasoning of the CA on this
point is a reversible error. Needless to state, as such
occupants in good faith, plaintiffs have the right to the
retention of the property until they are reimbursed the
necessary expenses made on the lands.
■ Hence, even if the SC would find that the law is not as we have
stated it in the next preceding paragraph and that the plaintiffs-
appellants made a mistake in relying thereon, such mistake on a
difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. Hence, their
possession in good faith does not lose this character except in the
case and from the moment their Torrens Titles are declared null and
void by the Courts.

ARTICLE 527. Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith
on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof.

ARTICLE 528. Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character except
in the case and from the moment facts exist which show that the possessor is not
unaware that he possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully.

● Daclag v. Macahilig
○ Possession in Good Faith ceases from the moment defects in the title are
made known to the possessors, by extraneous evidence or by suit for
recovery of the property by the true owner.
○ Receipt of summons of the defendant - one of the events that terminates
good faith
■ In this case, the Petitioners received a Summons + Respondent’s
complaint on August 5, 1991
● Good faith ceased on said date
● Petitioners should pay the respondents 10 canvas of palay
per annum beginning said date
○ Basis is Art. 544 - possessor in GF is entitled to the
fruits so long as his possession is not legally
interrupted

ARTICLE 529. It is presumed that possession continues to be enjoyed in the same

character in which it was acquired, until the contrary is proved.

● BEGINNING OF BAD FAITH

○ Pen Development Corporation v. Martinez Leyba Inc.
■ While defendant was in GF when it bought the land from the
Republic Bank as a foreclosed property, the plaintiff in a letter
dated as early as March 11, 1968 x x x advised the defendant that
the land it was trying to fence is within plaintiff's property and that
the defendant should refrain from occupying and building
improvements thereon and from doing any act in derogation of
plaintiff's property rights.
● Defendant cannot dispute the letters sent because it sent a
response dated July 31, 1970
■ Defendant may have been [in] good faith when it purchased the land
from Republic Bank on December 6, 1977, such good faith ceased
upon being informed in writing about plaintiff's title or claim over the
same land, and, worse, it acted with evident bad faith when it
proceed [sic] to build the structures on the land despite such notice.
ARTICLE 530. Only things and rights which are susceptible of being appropriated
may be the object of possession.

● OBJECT OF POSSESSION
○ Villarico v. Sarmiento
■ A staircase was built on property of public dominion can not be
burdened by a voluntary easement of right of way in favor of
petitioner. Its use by the public is by mere tolerance of the gov’t
through the DPWH. Petitioner cannot appropriate it for himself.
Verily, he can not claim any right of possession over it (see codal).

Pages 261-268: KAT

ARTICLE 531. Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the

exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the
proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.
● NATURE OF POSSESSION
○ Delarosa v Carlos
■ physical/material possession (possession de facto) v juridical
possession (possession de jure).
● In cases of forcible entry, it is mere physical/material
possession is the principal issue.
■ Sps. Dela Rosa claim that they have been in possession of the
property since 1966 upon their execution of a deed of sale in their
favor. Santiago and teofila claim that they have been continuously
occupying that property since birth and that the sps were never in
possession of the property.
■ Santiago and Teofila admit that the sps visit the property.
■ This visitation is evidence of actual or physical possession. Even if
sps were already residing in manila they can still continue
possession of the property in Bulacan. Just because they own a
parcel of property in Manila doesnt mean that they lose possession
of the Bulacan property. Law does not require that one should
reside in the house to maintain possession,
● PROPER ACTS AND LEGAL FORMALITIES
○ Pharma industries v Pajarilla
■ The summary action provided above is one to obtain possession
only, filed in a municipal court within 1 year after the unlawful
 deprivation or withholding of possession complained of have taken
place.
■ Remedy has 2 distinct causes of action
● Forcible entry in which the defendant’s possession of the
property is illegal ab initio
● Unlawful detainer where the defendant’s possession was
originally lawful but ceased to be si by the expiration of his
right to possess.
● TAX DECLARATION AND REALTY TAX PAYMENTS
○ Republic v CA
■ Although tax declarations or realty tax payments are not conclusive
evidence of ownership. BUT they are a good indicia of possession in
the concept of an owner since no one would be paying taxes for
property that is not in his actual or constructive possession.
● Constitute proof that the holder has a claim of title over the
property.
● Delos reyes v municipality: for tax declaration to be solid
indicia of ownership, actual occupancy must also be proven,
○ As between a tax declaration and a transfer certificate of title, the transfer
certificate of title shall prevail to prove ownership barring any evidence of
infirmities invalidating it.

ARTICLE 532. Possession may be acquired by the same person who is to enjoy it, by
his legal representative, by his agent, or by any person without any power whatever;
but in the last case, the possession shall not be considered as acquired until the
person in whose name the act of possession was executed has ratified the same,
without prejudice to the juridical consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper
case. (439a)
● LEGALITY AND ILLEGALITY
○ Possession may be had in one of two ways:
■ possession in the concept of an owner
● May be the owner himself or one who claims to be so
■ Possession in the concept of a holder
● Acknowledges in another a superior right which he believes
is ownership, whether his belief is right or wrong.
● NEGOTORIUM GESTIO
○ Quasi-contract
 ○ legal trespassing where a person intending to save or preserve without any
purpose to gain, an abandoned property enters into such property
■ Law allows it and the person doing so is called the officious
manager
● Once he takes charge of it, he, as a general rule, must take
care of it with the diligence of a good father of a family, until
the owner arrives. When it happens, he surrenders the
property to the owner who is obliged to reimburse him for all
the costs of preservation.
ARTICLE 533. The possession of hereditary property is deemed transmitted to the
heir without interruption and from the moment of the death of the decedent, in case
the inheritance is accepted.

One who validly renounces an inheritance is deemed never to have possessed the
same. (440)
● INHERITANCE
○ Succession is a mode of acquisition by virtue of which the property, rights
and obligations to the extent of the value of the inheritance, of a person are
transmitted through his death to another or to others either by his will or
by operation of law
○ Transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent
○ One who renounces he inheritance is deemed to have never possessed
the same because the effect of repudiation shall always retroact to the
moment of the death of the decedent

ARTICLE 534. One who succeeds by hereditary title shall not suffer the
consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is not shown that he
was aware of the flaws affecting it; but the effects of possession in good faith shall
not benefit him except from the date of death of the decedent. (442)
● POSSESSION BY HEIRS
○ Escritor v intermediate appellate court
■ Possessor in bad faith is one who is in possession of property
knowing that his title thereto is defective.
● CASE: escritor did not know there was any defect. Nor was
escritor aware that their predecessor had any defect.
■ Assuming, however, that escritor was in bad faith, this should not
prejudice his successors-in-interest
 ● RULE: only personal knowledge of the flaw in one’s title or
mode of acquisition can make him a possessor in bad faith
○ Bad faith is not transmissible from one person to
another, not even to an heir.
■ Note that good faith is always presumed —> the one alleging bad
faith has to prove it.

Pages 269-276: SANTIAGO

ARTICLE 535. Minors and incapacitated persons may acquire the possession of
things; but they need the assistance of their legal representatives in order to
exercise the rights which from the possession arise in their favor. (443)
● MINORS AND INCAPACITATED
○ A legitimate minor child upon birth has his parents as his legal
representatives.
○ The father and mother shall jointly exercise legal guardianship of their
unemancipated common child’s property without the need of a court
appointment.
○ If the child is illegitimate, only the mother has parental authority.
○ Other incapacitated persons (ex. insane) must have a guardian appointed
by the court.

ARTICLE 536. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation

as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto. He who believes that he has an
action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of
the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing. (441a)
● DAMAGES
○ If a person believing that he has a right to take possession of property
forcibly removes another from the place, he may be held liable for
damages for the destruction of the properties which the possessor may
suffer.
○ He must request the assistance of the proper authority.
 ○ He cannot violate the law and circumvent the proper procedure which
should be obtained before the court.

ARTICLE 537. Acts merely tolerated, and those executed clandestinely and without
the knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession.
● TOLERANCE
○ Possession by tolerance even for several years does not create a right
leading to ownership. It has no effect on possession.
○ Persons in possession by mere tolerance or permission, without any
contract between them and the owners, are bound by an implied promise
to vacate upon demand of their owner.
○ Possession for tolerance falls under unlawful detainer because a
possession that was initially lawful but later became unlawful when the
possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with the owner’s demand to
vacate.
○ With more reason can a person who clandestinely entered and without the
knowledge of the owner took possession of the property be ejected.
● EFFECT
○ Department of Education v. Heirs of Regino Banguitan: SC explained the
effect of tolerance on a claim of ownership.
○ Petitioner contended that the government thru CNES was in possession of
the property in the concept of an owner since the 1940s.
○ Lower courts found that it was owned by Banguitan.
○ CNES knew from the beginning someone else owned it and their
possession was not in the concept of an owner.
○ Possession over the property by anyone other than the registered owner
gives rise to the presumption that the said possession is only by mere
tolerance
○ CNES couldn’t overturn the presumption that its occupation was by mere
tolerance.
○ Respondents were able to show: 1) OCT registered under Regino
Banguilan, 2) Tax declarations, and 3) Sketch plans of the lot.
○ Since CNES’s possession was merely tolerated, respondents cannot be
said to have delayed in asserting their rights.
○ A registered owner who is merely tolerating another’s possession of his
land is not required to perform any act in order to recover it.
■ OCCUPATION IS ONLY THROUGH CONTINUING PERMISSION
 ○ Those who occupy another land through another’s permission is
necessarily bound by an implied promise that the occupants will vacate
the property upon demand.

ARTICLE 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two
different personalities except in the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise
regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there
are two possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates of the possession are
the same, the one who presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal, the
thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or
ownership through proper proceedings. (445)
● Cequena v. Bolante:
○ Involved unregistered property
○ Two claimants
○ The person who was able to present proof of possession such as a tax
declaration longer than the other should be preferred.

277-284: DEOMANO

ARTICLE 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.

● REMEDIES
○ 3 remedies available to one who has been dispossessed of property
■ An action for ejectment to recover possession whether for unlawful
detainer or forcible entry
● Forcible Entry
○ One is deprived of physical possession of real
property by means of force, intimidation, strategy,
threats, stealth
○ Possession is ILLEGAL from the beginning
● Unlawful Detainer
 ○ One illegally withholds possession after the expiration
or termination of his right to hold possession under
any contract
○ Originally legal then became illegal due to the
expiration of the right to possess
■ Accion publiciana or a plenary action to recover the right of
possession
■ Accion reivindicatoria or an action to recover ownership
○ What differentiates ejectment and accion publiciana?
■ Ejectment
● Filed within 1 year from the date of dispossession
● Summary in nature, filed with the Municipal Trial Courts
■ Accion Publiciana
● Dispossession lasts for more than 1 year, should be accion
publiciana
● Only the Regional Trial Court
○ Jurisdiction of filing
■ Jurisdiction over subject matter is conferred by the allegations
stated in the complaint
● For a valid unlawful detainer case, there needs to be
possession that was originally lawful and the possession
turned unlawful only upon the expiration of the right to
possess
○ If the possession was unlawful from the start, an action
for unlawful detainer would be an improper remedy
○ If possession was illegal from the start: proper
remedies would be accion publiciana or accion
reivindicatoria
○ Mandatory Injunction
■ Injunction must be issued only at the instance of a party who
possesses sufficient interest in or title to the right or the property
sought to be protected
■ Proper only when the applicant appears to be entitled to the relief
demanded in the complaint
■ Conditions:
● Right to be protected exists prima facie
● The act sought to be enjoined is violative of that right
 ● There is an urgent and paramount necessity for the writ to
prevent serious damage
■ The right here must be clearly founded on or granted by law or is
enforceable as a matter of law
○ Remedies for one who has been deprived of possession of real property
■ Accion Interdictal (Unlawful Detainer and Forcible Entry)
● Summary ejectment suits where the only issue to be
determined is who between them has a better possession
of the contested property
■ Accion Publiciana
● Determines the better and legal right to possess,
independently of title
● Brought in the Regional Trial Court
■ Accion Reivindicatoria
● Not only possession but ownership of a property
● Plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks
recovery of its full possession
○ Nature of Judgment: IN PERSONAM
■ Conclusive NOT against the whole world, but only BETWEEN THE
PARTIES AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
■ Binds only particular individuals
■ EXC: non-parties being bound
● 1) Trespasser, 2) squatter, 3) guest or occupant of the
premises, 4) transferee pendente lite, 5) sublessee, 6) co-
lessee, 7) member of the family, 8) relative
○ Recovery of Personal Property: REPLEVIN
■ Return to or recovery by a person of goods or chattels claimed to be
wrongfully taken or detained upon the person’s giving security to try
the matter in court and return the goods if defeated in the action
■ Tform of action which lies to regain the possession of personal
chattels which have been taken from the plaintiff unlawfully
■ To replevy - to redeliver goods which have been distrained to the
original possessor of them

ARTICLE 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of owner
can serve as a title for acquiring dominion.
● CONCEPT OF AN OWNER
 ○ Title for acquiring dominion means a mode of acquisition that will lead to
ownership to the exclusion of all others

285-293: UY

ARTICLE 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.
● Article 541, a disputable presumption
○ The presumption in 541 only lasts until the contrary is proven.
● Espina-Lanuza et al v. Luna et al
○ The heirs in this case orally partitioned the property. The court ruled that
where the oral partition has been consummated by the heirs’ taking of
possession in severalty (separately) of their respective portions, equity will
recognize and enforce the partition and the rights of the parties under said
partition. One such right is Article 541.
● Maglucot-Aw v. Maglucot
○ Actual possession + exercise of dominion over definite portions of the
property in accordance with an alleged partition are considered strong
proof of an oral partition. Against the bare claim that co-ownership still
exists between the parties, this proof prevails, especially when the
possessor in the concept of an owner has in his favor the legal
presumption that he possesses with just title.

ARTICLE 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.
● Movable Property
○ Article 542 only raises a disputable presumption. If evidence shows that
the movables belong to another, then the possession of the immovable will
not include possession of these movables.

ARTICLE 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.
● Retroactive Effect
○ After partition of the co-ownership, co-owners are deemed to have taken
possession of their respective shares at the time the co-possession was
constituted and not the time of the division.
○ In a co-ownership, before partition/division, the property cannot be
deemed to have been exclusively possessed by the possessor with
respect to his share. Before partition, all co-owners have the same right to
enjoy and possess the property.

ARTICLE 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.
● Entitlement
○ Natural and industrial fruits belong to the possessor if they are
gathered/severed before possession is interrupted (which removes them
from the coverage of being in good faith).
○ Example: Diana believed in good faith that she owned the property. She
may enjoy all fruits already gathered before Mary officially tells her that
she owns said property.
○ As for civil fruits, if Vicky, believing that the property is hers, leases it to
Julie, she is entitled to the rentals. But if she is informed in the second
month by Lani that she is the real owner, Vicky will only be entitled to the
rentals prior to the notification.

ARTICLE 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.
● Expenses and Harvest
○ Example: Maria believed in good faith that she validly had usufructuary
rights over the property, and continued planting fruits on it for ten months.
The fruits would have been ready to harvest in 5 more months. But at the
end of the tenth month, Maria learned that the usufruct was invalid and
Belen is the rightful possessor. In such a case, Maria will be entitled to
the expenses of cultivation up to the tenth month. Once the harvest is
made 5 months later, Maria will be entitled to the harvest proportionately
on the basis of a 2:1 ratio with Belen (since she spent 10 months and the
fruits were ready for harvest in 5). The charges/expenses will be divided in
the same ratio.
○ Belen may choose another option, if he does not want to pay for the
charges. He may tell Maria that she can continue cultivating the property up
to harvest time, and that all the fruits she gathers will belong to her
exclusively. If Maria refuses this, she loses her right to be indemnified in
any other manner.
○ This article only applies to growing fruits.
ARTICLE 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
therefore.

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.
● Reason
○ This provision exists to administer justice between the parties involved.
Neither should enrich himself with that does not belong to him. Thus, the
current market value of the improvements should be made the basis of
reimbursement.
● Right of Retention
○ Even the possessor in bad faith may recover necessary expenses.
However, only the possessor in good faith may exercise the right of
retention. He may hold the property until the one with the better right to
 possess has reimbursed him for the necessary and useful expenses
made on the property. The creditor (old possessor previously in good faith)
may secure reimbursement from the fruits of the property by applying its
proceeds to the principal and interest while he remains in possession. This
right is similar to an antichresis if the property is immovable, and a pledge if
the property is movable.

POSSESSION CONTINUE: 294 - 309 (16)

Modes of acquiring + Occupation: 518 - 525 (8)
Registry of property: 516-517 (2)
Nuisance: 495 - 515 (21)
26 + 21 = 47/6 = 1 person has 7, the rest have 8

ISSA: 294-301
ARTICLE 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.
● REMOVAL
○ GR: see codal
○ EXC: one who recovers appropriates the thing by either refunding the
amount of the expenses or paying the increased value

ARTICLE 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.
● PURE LUXURY
○ Example: Diana (GF Possessor) built a golden gazebo for ornamental
purposes in Maria’s garden. Diana cannot ask for reimbursement if it is
permanently fixed on the land if it will cause damage. But if it can be
removed if it does not cause damage, UNLESS the owner buys it from her.

ARTICLE 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.
● POSSESSOR IN BAD FAITH
○ Entitled to necessary expenses incurred for the production, gathering, and
preservation of the property
○ See codal for the rest

ARTICLE 550. The costs of litigation over the property shall be borne by every
possessor.
● LITIGATION COST
○ Presumption is that he is the one enjoying the property

ARTICLE 551. Improvements caused by nature or time shall always inure to the
benefit of the person who has succeeded in recovering possession.
● IMPROVEMENTS
○ See codal

ARTICLE 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.
● DETERIORATION
○ GF Possessor
■ Not responsible for the deterioration/loss of the thing whether
before and after the receipt of judicial summons
■ EXC: caused by his own fault/negligence
○ BF Possessor
■ Always liable

ARTICLE 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.
● NON-EXISTENT IMPROVEMENTS
○ See codal

ARTICLE 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.
- No notes

ARTICLE 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.
● ABANDONMENT
○ total relinquishment of the right to possession
○ BUT, registered land is protected under the law
● ASSIGNMENT
○ can be done onerously (akin to a sale) or gratuitously
● DESTRUCTION, LOSS, OR GOING OUT OF COMMERCE
○ Examples:
■ Expropriated Property (going out of commerce)
■ House destroyed by volcanic eruption
● POSSESSION OF ANOTHER
○ Acquisitive Prescription (10 or 30 year rule)
■ EXC: tolerance and clandestine intrusion (Art. 537)

ARTICLE 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.
● MOVABLES
 ○ Example: A lent B his car. B can go anywhere and A may not always know
where exactly. Nevertheless, A does not lose possession of his car and is
still in control.

ARTICLE 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.
● MORTGAGE LAW AND LAND REGISTRATION LAW
○ Example: Possessor of a land abandons it but it was lawfully mortgaged.
Even if there was abandonment, for the mortgagee, it shall not be deemed
lost and he can still foreclose the same in case of non-payment by the
debtor-possessor.

ARTICLE 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.
● POSSESSION BY ANOTHER FROM INITIAL POSSESSOR
○ See codal
○ A lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor, unless
there is a stipulation to the contrary

ARTICLE 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.
● MONEY
○ Money that is generic and deposited in a bank does not fall under Article
599
■ Primary function: pass from hand to hand as a medium of exchange
○ BPI Family Bank v. Franco
■ Money bears no earmarks of peculiar ownership which is more
manifest in cases of banking transactions
 ■ The Civil Code provisions on simple loan or mutuum as there is a
debtor-creditor relationship between a bank and its depositor
■ BPI-FB ultimately acquired ownership of Franco’s deposits, but such
ownership is coupled with a corresponding obligation to pay him an
equal amount on demand
■ Thus, when Franco issued checks drawn against his current account,
he had every right as creditor to expect that those checks would be
honored by BPI-FB as debtor.
■ More importantly, BPI-FB does not have a unilateral right to freeze
the accounts of Franco based on its mere suspicion that the funds
were proceeds of the multi-million peso scam Franco was allegedly
involved in. To grant BPI-FB, or any bank for that matter, the right to
take whatever action it pleases on deposits which it supposes are
derived from shady transactions, would cause public distrust in the
banking industry.
○ EDCA Publishing v. Sps. Santos: When a person is deemed “Unlawfully
Deprived”
■ Facts:
● Books were bought from the petitioner by an impostor (i.e.
Prof. Cruz, aka Dela Peña) who sold it to the private
respondents.
● Cruz/Dela Peña ordered 450 books from petitioner EDCA
and issued check as payment but later dishonored by the
bank.
● Cruz sold 120 books to private respondent Santos and paid
him the amount of 1,700 after an issuance of a sales invoice.
● Cruz/Dela Peña was arrested.
● EDCA through the assistance of the police threatened Santos
of buying stolen property.
○ seized the 120 books without warrant
● The private respondents sued for recovery of the books after
demand for their return was rejected by EDCA.
■ W/N the respondent has the right of ownership of the (books)
movable property in question – YES
■ Ruling:
● Yes. Santos acted in GF when he bought the books from
Cruz/Dela Peña.
 ● Actual delivery of the books having been made, Cruz
acquired ownership over the books which he could validly
transfer to the private respondents. The fact that he had not
yet paid for them to EDCA was a matter between him and
EDCA and did not impair the title acquired by the private
respondents to the books.

KAT: 302-309

ARTICLE 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)
● WILD AND DOMESTICATED ANIMALS
○ Control is the test for wild animals
■ If a person has control over the animal, he will be considered to be
in possession of it even if it has no habit of returning to him
ARTICLE 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)
● NO INTERRUPTION
○ For this article to apply, these are requisites
■ Property was unjustly lost
■ It was recovered
■ Recovery must be in accordance with the law
○ Ex. A owned a race dog, B stole it. B then entered it into a contest and won.
Before the awarding A filed a case to recover the dog and won.
■ Who is entitled to the winning? A is even if B entered the dog into
the competition.

JAKE: 518-525

ARTICLE 712. Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual creation.

Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law,
by donation, by testate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain
contracts, by tradition.
They may also be acquired by means of prescription.

● LAW
○ Many laws especially those relating to land reforms are the source of
ownership
■ Example: Power of Eminent Domain of the State
● DONATION
○ Act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously of a thing or right in
favor of noahter who accepts it
● TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION
○ Deal with inheritance, legacies and devisees
● CONTRACT
○ Regulated by the provisions on obligations and contracts of the Civil Code
○ Other special contracts like sales are also governed by the Civil Code
○ The law states: contract by tradition
■ A contract alone is not a mode of acquisition
● There needs to be tradition / delivery whether constructive
or actual which transfers ownership
● PRESCRIPTION
○ Governed by Book 3 Title V of the CC
● OCCUPATION
○ Governed by Book 3 Title 1 of the Civil Code
● INTELLECTUAL CREATION
○ Book 3 Title 11 relates to Intellectual Creation
○ RA 8293 or the Intellectual Property Code is a special law governing
copyrights and patents
● WAIVER
○ SC held that a stranger to the deceased cannot obtain ownership of part of
the inherited land just because of a waiver of the heirs in her favor
■ An asserted right or claim to ownership or a real right over a thing
arising from a juridical act is not per se sufficient to give rise to
ownership over the res
■ The right or title must be completed by fulfilling certain conditions
imposed by law; acquired only pursuant to a legal mode or process
■ Title - juridical justification
■ Mode - actual process of acquisition or transfer of ownership
■ 712 modes of acquiring ownership are classified into
 ● Original Mode (occupation, acquisitive prescription, law,
intellectual creation)
● Derivative Mode (succession, tradition, sale, barter, donation,
assignment, mutuum)
■ Sale of Hereditary Rights is different from a Waiver of Hereditary
Rights
● Sale: presumes existence of a contract of sale between the
parties
● Waiver: a mode of extinction of ownership where there is an
intentional relinquishment of a known right in favor of other
persons who are co-heirs in the succession
○ A stranger cannot use solely a waiver document which
does not contain elements of a sale, donation or any
other derivative mode of acquiring ownership

ARTICLE 713. Things appropriable by nature which are without an owner, such as
animals that are the object of hunting and fishing, hidden treasure and abandoned
movables, are acquired by occupation.
● MOVABLES
○ Only movables can be the object of occupation for purposes of acquiring
ownership; Immovables are not included

ARTICLE 714. The ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by occupation

● LAND
○ In prescription, there is a just title when the adverse claimants came into
possession of the property through one of the modes recognized by law
for the acquisition of ownership or other real rights
○ Ownership of a piece of land cannot be acquired by occupation
○ Heirs of Seraspi v CA
■ Respondent could not have acquired ownership over the property
● No succession because the property was not part of those
distributed to the heirs of the third marriage to which he
belongs
● As the heir even if he had co-ownership rights to the intestate
estate of his father, the partition dissolved this co-ownership
 ● No good faith because he entered the property without
consent of the previous owner; he is a mere usurper

ARTICLE 715. The right to hunt and to fish is regulated by special laws

ARTICLE 716. The owner of a swarm of bees shall have a right to pursue them to
another's land, indemnifying the possessor of the latter for the damage. If the owner
has not pursued the swarm, or ceases to do so within two consecutive days, the
possessor of the land may occupy or retain the same. The owner of domesticated
animals may also claim them within twenty days to be counted from their
occupation by another person. This period having expired, they shall pertain to him
who has caught and kept them.

● SWARM OF BEES AND DOMESTICATED ANIMALS

○ Whoever catches a swarm of bees shall own them
■ If the swarm flies to another property, the owner of the bees can
pursue them paying indemnity to the possession of the land where
the swarm is
● If the owner of the bees does not make pursuit within 2 days,
possessor of the land may retain the bees
● For domesticated animals, their owner must claim them within
20 days to be counted from their occupation by another
person; after this expires they shall pertain to the person who
has caught and kept them

ARTICLE 717. Pigeons and fish which from their respective breeding places pass to
another pertaining to a different owner shall belong to the latter, provided they have
not been enticed by some article or fraud.
● Pigeon and fish can be owned by the person whose property the fish transferred
from their breeding places
○ Not apply if the animals were enticed to go to such other place

ARTICLE 718. He who by chance discovers hidden treasure in another's property

shall have the right granted him in article 438 of this Code.

ARTICLE 719. Whoever finds a movable, which is not treasure, must return it to its
previous possessor. If the latter is unknown, the finder shall immediately deposit it
with the mayor of the city or municipality where the finding has taken place.
The finding shall be publicly announced by the mayor for two consecutive weeks in
the way he deems best. If the movable cannot be kept without deterioration, or
without expenses which considerably diminish its value, it shall be sold at
public auction eight days after the publication. Six months from the publication
having elapsed without the owner having appeared, the thing found, or its value,
shall be awarded to the finder. The finder and the owner shall be obliged, as the
case may be, to reimburse the expenses.
● NO LEGAL POSSESSION
○ When a person who finds a thing that has been lost by the owner takes it
into his hands, he acquires physical custody only and does not become
vested with legal possession
■ In assuming such custody, he is charged with the obligation of
restoring the thing to its owner
■ He should report this to the proper authorities
● THEFT
○ Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against or intimidation of persons shall take personal property of
another without the latter’s consent
■ This includes: any person having found lost property to shall fail to
deliver the same to the local authorities

ARTICLE 720. If the owner should appear in time, he shall be obliged to pay, as a
reward to the finder, one-tenth of the sum or of the price of the thing found.
● REWARD
○ Not a matter of generosity but a right enforceable in a court of law
■ Reward is equivalent to 10% of the sum of the price of the thing
found

ANTON: 516-517; 495-500

ARTICLE 708. The Registry of Property has for its object the inscription or
annotation of acts and contracts relating to the ownership and other rights over
immovable property.
● REGISTRATION
○ Agricultural Cooperative Association of Hinigaran v. Yusay
○ Registration is the mere ministerial act by which a deed, contract or
instrument is sought to be inscribed in the records of the Office of the
Register of Deeds and annotated at the back of the certificate of title
covering the land subject of the deed, contract or instrument.
○ Registration NOT a declaration that the instrument is valid.
○ It is merely a declaration that the record of the title appears to be burdened
with the lease or mortgage described, according to the priority set forth in
the certificate.
○ The mere fact that a lease or mortgage was registered does not stop any
party to it from setting up that it now has no force and effect.

ARTICLE 709. The titles of ownership, or of other rights over immovable property,
which are not duly inscribed or annotated in the Registry of Property shall not
prejudice third persons.
● PROTECTION
○ Registration is intended to protect the buyer against claims of third
persons arising from subsequent alienations by the vendor, and is certainly
not necessary to give effect as between the parties to their deed of sale.
○ The purpose of registration is merely to notify and protect the interests of
strangers to a given transaction, who may be ignorant thereof, and the
non-registration of the deed evidencing said transaction does not relieve
the parties thereto of their obligations thereunder.
●

ARTICLE 710. The books in the Registry of Property shall be public for those who
have a known interest in ascertaining the status of the immovables or real rights
annotated or inscribed therein.

ARTICLE 711. For determining what titles are subject to inscription or annotation, as
well as the form, effects, and cancellation of inscriptions and annotations, the
manner of keeping the books in the Registry, and the value of the entries contained
in said books, the provisions of the Mortgage Law, the Land Registration Act, and
other special laws shall govern.

NUISANCE
ARTICLE 694. A nuisance is any act, omission, establishment, business, condition of
property, or anything else which:

(1) Injures or endangers the health or safety of others; or

(2) Annoys or offends the senses; or

(3) Shocks, defies or disregards decency or morality; or

(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.

ARTICLE 695. Nuisance is either public or private. A public nuisance affects a

community or neighborhood or any considerable number of persons, although the
extent of the annoyance, danger or damage upon individuals may be unequal. A
private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition.

● KINDS OF NUISANCE
○ A nuisance is classified in two ways:
1. According to the object it affects
a. Public nuisance
b. Private nuisance
2. According to its susceptibility to summary abatement
a. A nuisance per se - affects the immediate safety of persons
and property, which may be summarily abated under the
undefined law of necessity
b. A nuisance per accidens - depends 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.

● AC Enterprise Inc v. Frabelle Inc.

○ Petitioner ran its business on a building along Herrera Street. Respondent
was the developer of a condo. The buildings were close to each other.
○ Respondent was complaining of the unbearable hot air from the blowers of
Petitioner’s air-conditioning towards their building as well as the loud and
annoying noise generated by the blowers.
○ The occupants of the condo were then forced to go elsewhere
○ Respondent filed an abatement of nuisance.

JAREL: 501-508

Noise is not a nuisance per se. Noise becomes actionable only when it passes the
limits of reasonable adjustment to the conditions of the locality, the needs of the
maker, and the needs of the listener. If noise is complained of, its intensity or volume is
not the determining factor. It is that the noise is of such a character that it produces
actual physical discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities,
rendering adjacent property less comfortable and valuable.

The test is whether rights of property, health, or comfort are so injuriously affected by
the noise in question that the sufferer is subjected to a loss which goes beyond the
reasonable limit imposed upon him by the condition of living or holding of property in a
particular locality. Essentially, there is no fixed standard of what a nuisance is, and it is
determined based on the circumstances and conditions of a particular situation. The
question is one of reasonableness.

A finding by the LGU that the noise quality standards under law or ordinance are not
complied with is only corroborative proof and not necessary for a finding of liability for
damages and that the thing complained of is a nuisance. The exercise of due care by the
owner of a business is not a defense when the business as conducted seriously affects
the rights of those around it.

Attractive Nuisance. An attractive nuisance is any instrumentality or appliance of a

character likely to attract or entice children to play on it or near it. One who fails to
exercise ordinary care to prevent children from playing with the attractive nuisance is
liable to a child of tender years who is injured thereby, even if the child is technically a
trespasser. The attractiveness is an implied invitation to children. However, the attractive
nuisance doctrine is generally not applicable to bodies of water, whether natural or
artificial, like swimming pools. This is because nature has always created streams,
lakes, and pools which attract children. Children are taught about this danger at an early
age, so that they are sufficiently presumed to know the danger. The same reason applies
to artificial bodies which are replicas of natural bodies of water.

MISSING BUZZWORD: “unusual”

EXC: unusual condition or artificial feature other than mere water and its location

ARTICLE 696. Every successive owner or possessor of property who fails or refuses
to abate a nuisance in that property started by a former owner or possessor is liable
therefor in the same manner as the one who created it.

ARTICLE 697. The abatement of a nuisance does not preclude the right of any
person injured to recover damages for its past existence.

ARTICLE 698. Lapse of time cannot legalize any nuisance, whether public or
private.

JIANA: 509-515

Article 699. The remedies against a public nuisance are:

(1) A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or

(2) A civil action; or

(3) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

Article 700. The district health officer shall take care that one or all of the remedies
against a public nuisance are availed of.
Article 701. If a civil action is brought by reason of the maintenance of a public
nuisance, such action shall be commenced by the city or municipal mayor.

Article 702. The district health officer shall determine whether or not abatement,
without judicial proceedings, is the best remedy against a public nuisance.

● Summary abatement: Cruz v. Pandakan Hikers Club

○ FACTS:
■ A basketball court and the activities thereon allegedly caused
disturbance to the public.
■ Petitioners are the Punong Barangay and Barangay Tanod. They
completely destroyed and rendered the basketball ring unusable.
○ ISSUE: Whether or not the basketball court is susceptible to abatement?
○ HELD:
■ NO. The basketball ring was not a nuisance per se as it does not
pose an immediate threat upon the safety of persons and property.
■ It can merely be, at most, a nuisance per accidens. Some examples
of nuisance per se:
● Mad dog on the loose, pornographic materials,
contaminated meat, narcotic drugs
■ Even assuming that the basketball ring was a nuisance per se, the
destruction or abatement by petitioners failed to observe the proper
procedure for such an action.
● Art. 700 and 702 says that the abatement of a public
nuisance is the responsibility of the district health officer. It is
not the Barangay Tanod or the Punong Barangay who have
the power to do this.
■ The power that the petitioners were claiming here was police power
under the general welfare clause.
● They were to justify the abatement via an order because
police power is exercised by the government through its
legislative, and not the executive branch.
● There was no ordinance that stated that a basketball court
was a nuisance per se that may be summarily abated. (Note
ordinances can only declare nuisances are nuisance per se)
 ■ Moreover, where a less damaging action, such as the mere
padlocking, removal or confiscation would have sufficed, Their good
intentions do not justify the destruction of private property without a
legal warrant.
○ Perez v. Madrona

Nuisance per se One which affects the May be summarily abated

immediate safety of under the defined law of
persons and property necessity. Does not need
judicial intervention.

Nuisance per Does not immediately May NOT be summarily

accidens affect the safety of abated. Instead, he should
persons and property go to court and prove the
supposed violations.

○ Pampanga Bus Co., Inc. v. Municipality of Tarlac

■ Even if abatement may be made through an Ordinance, it should still
follow the provisions of the Civil Code on nuisance.
○ Santos v. Santos
■ A smoked fish factory is not a nuisance per se because it is a
legitimate industry.
■ If it would be a nuisance due to the manner of its operation, it
would be a nuisance per accidens.
○ Homeowner’s Association v. Lood
■ A public nuisance can be summarily abated without judicial
proceedings based on the police power of the state (in this case,
through a municipal ordinance)
■ Cannot be ex post facto law, because it does not seek to punish an
action done which was innocent before the passage, it punishes the
present and continuing act.
■ The nuisance here was a nuisance per se because it was a
construction that did not account for the accumulated waste that
would pollute a main water pipeline. It may be abated without
judicial proceedings.
■ The police power of the state justifies the abatement or destruction
by summary proceedings of public nuisances per se.
ARTICLE 703. A private person may file an action on account of a public nuisance, if
it specially injurious to himself.

ARTICLE 704. Any private person may abate a public nuisance which is specially
injurious to him by removing, or if necessary, by destroying the thing which
constitutes the same, without committing a breach of the peace, or doing
unnecessary injury. But it is necessary:

(1) That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to abate
the nuisance;

(2) That such demand has been rejected;

(3) That the abatement be approved by the district health officer and executed with
the assistance of the local police; and

(4) That the value of the destruction does not exceed three thousand pesos.

ARTICLE 705. The remedies against a private nuisance are:

(1) A civil action; or

(2) Abatement, without judicial proceedings.

ARTICLE 706. Any person injured by a private nuisance may abate it by removing, or
if necessary, by destroying the thing which constitutes the nuisance, without
committing a breach of the peace or doing unnecessary injury. However, it is
indispensable that the procedure for extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by
a private person be followed.

ARTICLE 707. A private person or a public official extrajudicially abating a nuisance

shall be liable for damages:

(1) If he causes unnecessary injury; or

(2) If an alleged nuisance is later declared by the courts to be not a real nuisance.
NOVEMBER 2, 2022
 ISSA: 310-320
USUFRUCT IN GENERAL

ARTICLE 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.

● PROPERTY
○ can be constituted on both immovable and movable property
○ the law does not distinguish
● RIGHT TO ENJOY (NHA v. CA)
○ Manila Seedling Bank Foundation (MSBF) abused the privilege given to it
under the law when it exercised enjoyment BEYOND the boundaries of
the property subject to the usufruct and intruded into the benefactor’s
property
○ MSBF must vacate the area not part of its usufruct

ARTICLE 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.

● USUFRUCT (Moralidad v. Pernes)

○ Allowing one to enjoy another’s property temporarily with the right to use
and enjoy the same (i.e., jus utendi and jus fruendi respectively)
○ BUT, the owner retains the power to alienate/transform the same (jus
disponendi) [e.g. mortgage property to a 3rd person]
■ EXC: cannot alter the property's form or substance, or do anything
prejudicial to the usufructuary
● EXTENT OF ENJOYMENT (Hemedes v. CA)
○ The usufructuary is entitled to all the natural, industrial and civil fruits of
the property and may personally enjoy the thing in usufruct, lease it to
another, or alienate his right of usufruct, even by a gratuitous title, but all
the contracts he may enter into as such usufructuary shall terminate upon
the expiration of the usufruct.

ARTICLE 564. Usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part of the fruits of the
thing, in favor of one or 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.
 ● KINDS
○ Usufruct can be constituted as follows:
■ See codal
■ It’s a combination of ALL or SOME of them

ARTICLE 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.

● NHA v. CA
○ Even if the right to determine the place of the usufruct is given to the
usufructuary, the SC held that he could not extend beyond 7 hectares
because the title constituting it clearly provided such limitation

RIGHTS OF THE USUFRUCTUARY

ARTICLE 566. The usufructuary shall be entitled to all the natural, industrial and civil
fruits of the property in usufruct. With respect to hidden treasure which may be
found on the land or tenement, he shall be considered a stranger.

● STOCKS (Bachrach v. Seifert)

○ SC held that any dividend, whether cash or stock, represents surplus
profits and belongs to the usufructuary
○ Stock dividends are civil fruits of the original investment
■ Akin to an offspring of an animal sold independently from its mother

ARTICLE 567. Natural or industrial fruits growing at the time the usufruct begins,
belong to the usufructuary.

Those growing at the time the usufruct terminates, belong to the owner.

In the preceding cases, the usufructuary, at the beginning of the usufruct, has no
obligation to refund to the owner any expenses incurred; but the owner shall be
obliged to reimburse at the termination of the usufruct, from the proceeds of the
growing fruits, the ordinary expenses of cultivation, for seed, and other similar
expenses incurred by the usufructuary.
The provisions of this article shall not prejudice the rights of third persons, acquired
either at the beginning or at the termination of the usufruct.

● GROWING FRUITS
○ EX: Diana (usufructuary) entered Jane’s property where the latter spent
P10K to cultivate growing fruits. Diana is entitled to enjoy them with NO
obligation to reimburse Jane for the P10K.
■ BUT at the end of the usufruct, if the property has growing fruits
through Diana’s efforts costing her P15K for cultivation expenses,
Jane has the duty to reimburse Diana P15K
■ On 3rd persons
● If Helen (creditor of Jane)’s credit is paid thru the growing
fruits on the property subject to the usufruct, Diana shall
respect Helen’s right

ARTICLE 568. If the usufructuary has leased the lands or tenements given in
usufruct, and the usufruct should expire before the termination of the lease, he or
his heirs and successors shall receive only the proportionate share of the rent that
must be paid by the lessee.

● LEASE
○ EX: Jose (owner) granted his rural land to Pedro (usufructuary) in usufruct.
Pedro leased the land to Carlos for 30 days for P100/day. But the usufruct
ends on the 7th day. Nevertheless, the lease subsists despite the
termination of the usufruct. BUT, Pedro is only entitled to P700 of rentals
for the 7 days in which the usufruct was still subsisting.

ARTICLE 569. Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily, and belong to the usufructuary
in proportion to the time the usufruct may last.

● CIVIL FRUITS
○ EX: The shares of Pedro in a corporation are given to Jaime in usufruct for
300 days. The shares’ yearly cash dividend is equal to P182k or P500 per
day. Thus, Jaime is only entitled to P150k which is equal to 300 days and
not the whole amount of P182k.
■ Note: Cash dividends are civil fruits
ARTICLE 570. Whenever a usufruct is constituted on the right to receive a rent or
periodical pension, whether in money or in fruits, or in the interest on bonds or
securities payable to bearer, each payment due shall be considered as the proceeds
or fruits of such right.

Whenever it consists in the enjoyment of benefits accruing from a participation in

any industrial or commercial enterprise, the date of the distribution of which is not
fixed, such benefits shall have the same character.

In either case they shall be distributed as civil fruits, and shall be applied in the
manner prescribed in the preceding article.

ARTICLE 571. The usufructuary shall have the right to enjoy any increase which the
thing in usufruct may acquire through accession, the servitudes established in its
favor, and, in general, all the benefits inherent therein.

● ACCESSION (Gobaya v. Cui)

○ Alleged accession under usufruct: rentals of lessees in a subsequently
constructed building on the land
■ Appellant asserts that the building constructed by appellees was an
accession to the land
○ SC rejected the interpretation that the word “accession” in Art. 571 is the
same as used in Arts. 445 to 456 dealing w/ industrial accession.
■ Arts 445 to 456 of the CC (on industrial accession by modification
on the principal land): accession is limited either to buildings
erected on the land of another, or buildings constructed by the
owner of the land w/ materials owned by someone else.
● Extra Info:
○ Basis for 1st type: Arts. 445 and 449
○ Basis for 2nd type: Arts. 445 and 447
■ Nowhere is there any mention of the case of the landowner
building on his own land with materials owned by himself (not
covered by rules on accession)
● Rationale: ownership of the land and materials are in the
same person

ARTICLE 572. The usufructuary may personally enjoy the thing in usufruct, lease it
to another, or alienate his right of usufruct, even by a gratuitous title; but all the
contracts he may enter into as such usufructuary shall terminate upon the expiration
of the usufruct, saving leases of rural lands, which shall be considered as subsisting
during the agricultural year.

● INTEREST (Reyes v. Grey et. al)

○ A usufructuary right is an interest which can be levied upon execution
■ It is an “interest” in real property
● See Section 450 of the Code of Civil Procedure
○ “Property” - every species of title, inchoate or
complete; legal or equitable
○ The statute authorizes the sale under execution of
every kind of property and every interest in property
which is, or may be, the subject of private ownership
and transfer
● Test as to w/n property can be attached and sold upon
execution: Does the judgment debtor hold such a beneficial
interest in such property that he can sell or otherwise
dispose of it for value?
○ It was the plaintiff's usufructuary right in real property which was sold under
execution. This right was conferred upon him at the death of his wife by
operation of law…He was the real owner of this interest, and article 572,
gives him the right to enjoy the possession of the property or lease it to
another or to sell such interest outright.

KAT: 321-332 (until art. 593)

ARTICLE 573. Whenever the usufruct includes things which, without being
consumed, gradually deteriorate through wear and tear, the usufructuary shall have
the right to make use thereof in accordance with the purpose for which they are
intended, and shall not be obliged to return them at the termination of the usufruct
except in their condition at that time; but he shall be obliged to indemnify the owner
for any deterioration they may have suffered by reason of his fraud or negligence.

● NORMAL AND ABNORMAL USUFRUCT

○ Normal usufruct: when the usufructuary shall preserve the property and
return it intact in the same condition
○ Abnormal usufruct: the usufructuary, at the end of the usufruct, will not
return the same object in the same condition as received but in the
 condition with all its deterioration as a result of normal wear and tear on
the property.
■ Note that he will be liable if he was negligent and the deterioration
was not a result of normal wear and tear

ARTICLE 574. Whenever the usufruct includes things which cannot be used without
being consumed, the usufructuary shall have the right to make use of them under
the obligation of paying their appraised value at the termination of the usufruct, if
they were appraised when delivered. In case they were not appraised, he shall have
the right to return the same quantity and quality, or pay their current price at the
time the usufruct ceases. (482)

● CONSUMABLES
○ EXAMPLE
■ J is a usufructuary of mangoes produced by P’s orchard. If this was a
normal usufruct, J would need to return the mangoes in its exact
condition. But this is impossible because the nature of mango is
consumable. In this case, J need not return the same mangoes to P.
● If appraised when usufruct was delivered then J would pay
the appraised value at the end of the lease
● Not appraised: return same quantity and quality or pay the
current price at the time usufruct ceases.

ARTICLE 575. The usufructuary of fruit-bearing trees and shrubs may make use of
the dead trunks, and even of those cut off or uprooted by accident, under the
obligation to replace them with new plants. (483a)

ARTICLE 576. If in consequence of a calamity or extraordinary event, the trees or

shrubs shall have disappeared in such considerable number that it would not be
possible or it would be too burdensome to replace them, the usufructuary may leave
the dead, fallen or uprooted trunks at the disposal of the owner, and demand that
the latter remove them and clear the land. (484a)
● FRUIT BEARING TREES AND SHRUBS
○ Normally, loss of the thing in usufruct extinguishes the usufruct. But if the
usufructuary decides to use the dead and uprooted trunks, the usufruct
continues and his obligation to replace them with new plants
■ Abnormal usufruct
ARTICLE 577. The usufructuary of woodland may enjoy all the benefits which it may
produce according to its nature.

If the woodland is a copse or consists of timber for building, the usufructuary may
do such ordinary cutting or felling as the owner was in the habit of doing, and in
default of this, he may do so in accordance with the custom of the place, as to the
manner, amount and season.

In any case the felling or cutting of trees shall be made in such manner as not to
prejudice the preservation of the land.

In nurseries, the usufructuary may make the necessary thinnings in order that the
remaining trees may properly grow.

With the exception of the provisions of the preceding paragraphs, the usufructuary
cannot cut down trees unless it be to restore or improve some of the things in
usufruct, and in such case he shall first inform the owner of the necessity for the
work. (485)

● WOODLAND AND CORPSE

○ A woodland and a corpse are areas filled with trees.
○ If the woodland consists of timber for lumber, the usufructuary can cut,
fell, and use them.
■ He can do so in the manner that the owner habitually undertook it,
or in default, in accordance with the customs of the place, as to
manner, amount, season.
○ Note: he must not exhaust the timber
○ No obligation for the usufruct to replace the felled trees.
○ If the real owner has no habit of felling trees and there is no custom in the
place regarding the same,the usufructuary cannot cut down trees
■ Unless it be to restore or improve some of the things in usufruct
● He has to inform the owner of the necessity

ARTICLE 578. The usufructuary of an action to recover real property or a real right,
or any movable property, has the right to bring the action and to oblige the owner
thereof to give him the authority for this purpose and to furnish him whatever proof
he may have. If in consequence of the enforcement of the action he acquires the
thing claimed, the usufruct shall be limited to the fruits, the dominion remaining
with the owner. (486)
 ● ACTION
○ example
■ Nora was given a usufruct to recover a row apartment of wilma.
● Nora is entitled to be given SPA and all evidence to pursue
the case
● After nora obtains favorable judgment, property shall
continue to belong to wilma
● Nora is entitled to the rentals on the apartment

ARTICLE 579. The usufructuary may make on the property held in usufruct such
useful improvements or expenses for mere pleasure as he may deem proper,
provided he does not alter its form or substance; but he shall have no right to be
indemnified therefor. He may, however, remove such improvements, should it be
possible to do so without damage to the property.
● USEFUL IMPROVEMENTS AND EXPENSES FOR MERE PLEASURE
○ Usufructuary has no right to be reimbursed for useful expenses and those
spent for mere pleasure.
■ HOWEVER, according to the law, he may remove them if no injure to
the property will result

ARTICLE 580. The usufructuary may set off the improvements he may have made
on the property against any damage to the same.

● IMPROVEMENT AND DAMAGE

○ EXAMPLE
■ Elise, the usufructuary, made improvements in the amount of 10,000.
If at the end of the usufruct, Janice, the owner of the property
informed Elise that there are damages to the property in the amount
of 15,000, a set off between the improvement and the damage can
happen so only 5,000 needs to be paid.

ARTICLE 581. The owner of property the usufruct of which is held by another, may
alienate it, but he cannot alter its form or substance, or do anything thereon which
may be prejudicial to the usufructuary.
● ALIENATION
○ A owns property given in usufruct to L, the usufructuary. A can still alienate
the property.
■ HOWEVER, since the usufruct is a real right in favor of L who must
enjoy the property, A cannot alter its form or substance, or do
something which may be prejudicial to L.

ARTICLE 582. The usufructuary of a part of a thing held in common shall exercise all
the rights pertaining to the owner thereof with respect to the administration and the
collection of fruits or interest. Should the co-ownership cease by reason of the
division of the thing held in common, the usufruct of the part allotted to the co-
owner shall belong to the usufructuary.
● PARTITION
○ E, M, L, AND J are co-owners of a resort consisting of a gym, a resthouse , a
bowling alley, and a racetrack. E made K a usufructuary of her share in the
co-ownership.
■ K is entitled to all the fruits to which E is entitled.
■ HOWEVER, should the co-ownership be partitioned with the rest
house adjudicated to E, K can only enjoy the benefits of the rest
house to the exclusion of the others formerly belonging to the co-
ownership.

CHAPTER 3
Obligations of the usufructuary

ARTICLE 583. The usufructuary, before entering upon the enjoyment of the
property, is obliged:

(1) To make, after notice to the owner or his legitimate representative, an inventory
of all the property, which shall contain an appraisal of the movables and a
description of the condition of the immovables;

(2) To give security, binding himself to fulfill the obligations imposed upon him in
accordance with this Chapter.
● ENTRY REQUIREMENTS
○ After the usufruct is constituted or contracted, the relationship of the owner
and the usufructuary begins.
 ■ The usufructuary can enter upon the enjoyment of the property only
after he has made an inventory and given a security
○ The purpose of the inventory: make certain all the things or objects.
Movable and immovable, that are included in the usufruct
■ The movables shall be appraised
■ Immovables must be properly described
○ Notices of the inventory shall be given to the owner or his legitimate
representative so that they can be present while the inventory is being
made
○ Inventory shall specify what properties are in good order and what are in
bad conditions
■ Necessary because a usufructuary shall be liable for for the undue
damages caused by him on the property
○ The security is necessary to answer for whatever the usufructuary may
have damaged during the existence of the usufruct

ARTICLE 584. The provisions of No. 2 of the preceding article shall not apply to the
donor who has reserved the usufruct of the property donated, or to the parents who
are usufructuaries of their children’s property, except when the parents contract a
second marriage.
● SECURITY NOT NEEDED
○ A donor need not give a security for the usufruct of his donated property
○ With respect to the parents, they are no longer usufructuary of the property
of their minor children under the FC.
■ Mere administrators
● Legitimate: both parents
● Illegitimate: mom only

ARTICLE 585. The usufructuary, whatever may be the title of the usufruct, may be
excused from the obligation of making an inventory or of giving security, when no
one will be injured thereby.
● INVENTORY AND SECURITY NOT NEEDED
○ When no one will be prejudiced, making and inventory and giving a
security may be excused
○ Merely directory in nature so there is nothing to prevent the owner from
requiring an inventory and a security
ARTICLE 586. Should the usufructuary fail to give security in the cases in which he
is bound to give it, the owner may demand that the immovables be placed under
administration, that the movables be sold, that the public bonds, instruments of
credit payable to order or to bearer be converted into registered certificates or
deposited in a bank or public institution, and that the capital or sums in cash and the
proceeds of the sale of the movable property be invested in safe securities.

The interest on the proceeds of the sale of the movables and that on public
securities and bonds, and the proceeds of the property placed under administration,
shall belong to the usufructuary.

Furthermore, the owner may, if he so prefers, until the usufructuary gives security or
is excused from so doing, retain in his possession the property in usufruct as
administrator, subject to the obligation to deliver to the usufructuary the net
proceeds thereof, after deducting the sums which may be agreed upon or judicially
allowed him for such administration.
● FAILURE TO GIVE SECURITY
○ If the usufruct has already been constituted but the usufructuary cannot
enter into the enjoyment of the properties because of failure to give
security, owner, to protect the properties can do the ff:
■ Immovables: demand that they be placed under his administration
■ Movables: demand that they be sold and the proceeds invested in
safe securities
■ Public bonds, instruments of credit payable to order of to bearer:
demand their conversion to registered certificates or their deposit
in a bank or public institution
■ capital/sums in cash: demand their investment in safe securities
○ In the alternative, the owner can just opt to be the administrator in
possession of all the movables and immovables in usufruct
■ As administrator he will undertake the preservation and care of the
properties
■ When the usufructuary gives the security or has been excused to do
so, law states that delivery by the owner shall be made to the
usufructuary of only the net proceeds, after deducting the sums
which may be agreed upon or judicially allowed him for such
administration
■ All interests from whatever source in relation to the properties given
in usufruct shall belong to the usufructuary
● Interest constitutes civil fruits —> belong to usufructuary
ARTICLE 587. If the usufructuary who has not given security claims, by virtue of a
promise under oath, the delivery of the furniture necessary for his use, and that he
and his family be allowed to live in a house included in the usufruct, the court may
grant this petition, after due consideration of the facts of the case.

The same rule shall be observed with respect to implements, tools and other
movable property necessary for an industry or vocation in which he is engaged.

If the owner does not wish that certain articles be sold because of their artistic
worth or because they have a sentimental value, he may demand their delivery to
him upon his giving security for the payment of the legal interest on their appraised
value.
● NECESSITY
○ Caucion Juratoria: When the usufructuary is in need already of the house
and furniture which are part of the property given in usufruct and he has no
security to give and at the same time not excused from giving the same,
he/she can go to court and petition, under oath, to already deliver the
house and furniture to him
● OWNER SECURITY
○ When movable property is the object of the usufruct and no security is
given by the usufructuary, the owner may sell the movable property.
■ HOWEVER, if it has sentimental or artistic value, he can demand its
delivery to him.
● The owner has to put up security
○ Answers for the legal interest on the appraised value
which is due to the usufructuary once he is allowed to
enjoy the movable property

ARTICLE 588. After the security has been given by the usufructuary, he shall have a
right to all the proceeds and benefits from the day on which, in accordance with the
title constituting the usufruct, he should have commenced to receive them.

ARTICLE 589. The usufructuary shall take care of the things given in usufruct as a
good father of a family.
ARTICLE 590. A usufructuary who alienates or leases his right of usufruct shall
answer for any damage which the things in usufruct may suffer through the fault or
negligence of the person who substitutes him.

● ALIENATION OR LEASE
○ The right of usufruct may be alienated or leased
○ Original usufructuary is liable for damages cause by the fault or negligence
of the substitute

ARTICLE 591. If the usufruct be constituted on a flock or herd of livestock, the

usufructuary shall be obliged to replace with the young thereof the animals that die
each year from natural causes, or are lost due to the rapacity of beasts of prey.

If the animals on which the usufruct is constituted should all perish, without the fault
of the usufructuary, on account of some contagious disease or any other uncommon
event, the usufructuary shall fulfill his obligation by delivering to the owner the
remains which may have been saved from the misfortune.

Should the herd or flock perish in part, also by accident and without the fault of the
usufructuary, the usufruct shall continue on the part saved.

Should the usufruct be on sterile animals, it shall be considered, with respect to its
effects, as though constituted on fungible things.
● FLOCK OR HERD OF LIVESTOCK
○ EXAMPLE
■ J has been given the usufruct of 100 pigs
● He is entitled to all piglets sired by the pigs.
○ Piglets = natural fruits
● If 10 dies during the year due to natural causes
○ J has to replace the 10 dead
● Should all 100 die due to contagious diseases
○ Return all the dead pigs in his possession
● If he was able to save or gather 20 dead pigs
○ Return only these
● If 60 die w/o fault of J
○ Usufruct continues on the 40 pigs alive
● Pigs are sterile and perish w/o his fault,
 ○ it is his obligation to replace them with other pigs of
the same kind and quality
■ However there is no prohibition that indemnity
be instead made in favor of the owner should
there be no pigs of the same kind and quality

ARTICLE 592. The usufructuary is obliged to make the ordinary repairs needed by
the thing given in usufruct.

By ordinary repairs are understood such as are required by the wear and tear due to
the natural use of the thing and are indispensable for its preservation. Should the
usufructuary fail to make them after demand by the owner, the latter may make
them at the expense of the usufructuary.

ARTICLE 593. Extraordinary repairs shall be at the expense of the owner. The
usufructuary is obliged to notify the owner when the need for such repairs is urgent.

JAKE: 333-340 (start art. 594); 355-356 (end w/ art 613)

ARTICLE 594. If the owner should make the extraordinary repairs, he shall have a
right to demand of the usufructuary the legal interest on the amount expended for
the time that the usufruct lasts.

Should he not make them when they are indispensable for the preservation of the
thing, the usufructuary may make them; but he shall have a right to demand of the
owner, at the termination of the usufruct, the increase in value which the immovable
may have acquired by reason of the repairs.

● ORDINARY REPAIRS
○ Ordinary Repairs: the usufructuary is obliged to undertake it
■ Pedro gave Jose the usufruct or his house and lot
● Jose (usufruct) is obliged to make repairs on the roof caused
by natural wear and tear
● Pedro (owner) can demand from Jose that he undertakes the
repair
○ Extraordinary Repairs: chargeable to the owner
■ Half of the roof given in usufruct was blown-off: charge Pedro
 ● Jose (usufruct) can undertake the extraordinary repair but it is
necessary that he notifies Pedro immediately because it is
urgent
○ Other non-urgent extraordinary repairs do not need
prior mandatory notification to the owner
○ If extraordinary repair is indispensably needed for the
preservation of the house and owner does not
undertake the repair, Jose may make it and shall be
paid the increase in value of the house
● If Pedro makes the repair, he is entitled to legal interest on
the amount expended for the time that the usufruct lasts
○ Legal interest paid to him because he would be
replacing the old destroyed materials with brand new
ones; legal interest answers for the new materials (not
contemplated at the start of the usufruct) that
replaced the old ones

ARTICLE 595. The owner may construct any works and make any improvements of
which the immovable in usufruct is susceptible, or make new plantings thereon if it
be rural, provided that such acts do not cause a diminution in the value of the
usufruct or prejudice the right of the usufructuary.
● RENTALS
○ Gaboya v Cui: usufruct only covers the land but it is claimed that the
rentals of the building constructed over the land should be given to the
usufructuary as well
○ SC ruled that: rentals paid by lessees of the units in a building are not
part of the usufruct BUT the owner was ordered to pay the usufructuary
rentals because the use of land by the owner diminished the land which
was supposed to be enjoyed by the usufructuary (ART 595)
■ Scaveola (authority) Usufructuary vis-a-vis constructions made by the
landowner with his own materials
● The limitations set by ART 595 to the construction rights of
the naked owner of the land are premised upon the fact that
such constructions would necessarily reduce the area of the
land under usufruct, for which the usufructuary should be
indemnified
ARTICLE 596. The payment of annual charges and taxes and of those considered as
a lien on the fruits, shall be at the expense of the usufructuary for all the time that
the usufruct lasts.

ARTICLE 597. The taxes which, during the usufruct, may be imposed directly on the
capital, shall be at the expense of the owner.

If the latter has paid them, the usufructuary shall pay him the proper interest on the
sums which may have been paid in that character; and, if the said sums have been
advanced by the usufructuary, he shall recover the amount thereof at the
termination of the usufruct.
● TAXES
○ Taxes as to the property given in usufruct = paid by the owner
■ Real estate taxes on land - shouldered by the owner
○ Usufructuary pays proper interest on the sums which may have been paid
in that character
■ If sums were advanced by the usufructuary, he shall recover
■ Annual charges, taxes and those considered as liens on the fruits
= expense of the usufructuary for the time that the usufruct lasts

Article 598. If the usufruct be constituted on the whole of a patrimony, and if at the
time of its constitution the owner has debts, the provisions of articles 758 and 759
relating to donations shall be applied, both with respect to the maintenance of the
usufruct and to the obligation of the usufructuary to pay such debts.

The same rule shall be applied in case the owner is obliged, at the time the usufruct
is constituted, to make periodical payments, even if there should be no known
capital.
● PAYMENT OF DEBTS
○ For the usufructuary to be liable for the debts of the naked owner, there
must be an express stipulation
■ No stipulation = usufructuary not liable unless the usufruct was
made to defraud creditors
■ Example: Jose (owner) gave his property valued at 1,500,000 to
Pedro (usufructuary) in usufruct on March 1, 2020
● Jose is indebted to Carlos the amount of P500K payable on
Feb 1, 2020
 ● Jose is also indebted to Juan in the amount of P500K
payable on August 1, 2020
● Pursuant to the terms of the usufruct, Pedro shall pay the
debts of Jose; limited to Carlos’ debt because it was
contracted prior to the usufruct; if expressly stated that he will
also pay that incurred after the constitution of the usufruct
then he will also pay Juan
● If each of the indebtedness of Jose amounts to 2,000,000,
Pedro is not obliged to pay Carlos and Juan the amount in
excess of their credit
■ If there is no stipulation as to payment of debts, Pedro and Carlos
will pay only in case Juan was defrauded and Carlos with Jose and
Pedro connived in such defraudation

ARTICLE 599. The usufructuary may claim any matured credits which form a part of
the usufruct if he has given or gives the proper security. If he has been excused
from giving security or has not been able to give it, or if that given is not sufficient,
he shall need the authorization of the owner, or of the court in default thereof, to
collect such credits.

The usufructuary who has given security may use the capital he has collected in any
manner he may deem proper. The usufructuary who has not given security shall
invest the said capital at interest upon agreement with the owner; in default of such
agreement, with judicial authorization; and, in every case, with security sufficient to
preserve the integrity of the capital in usufruct.
● MATURED CREDITS
○ Usufructuary of mature credits can claim collectible money from a debtor if
he has given the necessary security
■ If he has given security = use money collected for any use as he may
deem proper
○ No security or is excused from giving = needs the consent of the owner or
the court to collect from debtor
■ No security = he must invest it with the agreement of the owner or
with the authorization of the court

ARTICLE 600. The usufructuary of a mortgaged immovable shall not be obliged to

pay the debt for the security of which the mortgage was constituted.

Should the immovable be attached or sold judicially for the payment of the debt, the
owner shall be liable to the usufructuary for whatever the latter may lose by reason
thereof.
● MORTGAGE DEBT OF THE OWNER
○ If the owner has a loan which the real property under usufruct is
mortgaged, usufructuary shall not pay for the loan
■ If real property is foreclosed, owner shall pay damages to the
usufructuary for his inability to make him enjoy the property

ARTICLE 601. The usufructuary shall be obliged to notify the owner of any act of a
third person, of which he may have knowledge, that may be prejudicial to the rights
of ownership, and he shall be liable should he not do so, for damages, as if they had
been caused through his own fault.
● DUTY
○ Supreme Court: usufruct has a duty to protect the owner’s interests
● REPORTING
○ Usufructuary must report to the owner any act of a third person causing
damage to the property in usufruct; failure makes the usufructuary liable

ARTICLE 602. The expenses, costs and liabilities in suits brought with regard to the
usufruct shall be borne by the usufructuary.
● LITIGATION COST
○ Expenses, costs, and liabilities in maintaining a suit shall be chargeable to
the usufructuary

EXTINGUISHMENT OF USUFRUCT

ARTICLE 603. Usufruct is extinguished:

(1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly appears;

(2) By the expiration of the period for which it was constituted, or by the fulfillment
of any resolutory condition provided in the title creating the usufruct;

(3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person;

(4) By renunciation of the usufructuary;

(5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct;

(6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting the usufruct;

(7) By prescription.
● DEATH
○ Calingasan et. al v. Rivera et. al
■ SC held that even if the forcible entry case was a real action that
survived the death of the parties, the heirs of the usufructuary
cannot get back into the property because the usufructuary’s
death pending the case terminated the usufruct. This development
deprived the heirs the right to retain or to reacquire possession of
the property even if the ejectment judgments directs its restitution.
● GR: a real action is not extinginguished by the death of a
party. The judgment in an eject case is conclusive and
enforceable between the parties and their successors-in-
interest.
○ Winning party gets: a) restitution of the premises; b)
reasonable compensation/arrears of rent for the use
and occupation of the premises; c) attorney’s fees and
costs
● RESOLUTORY CONDITION (Moralidad v. Pernes)
○ CA’S CONCLUSION: It is undisputed that petitioner expressly authorized respondents
occupy portion of her property on which their house may be built. Thus – "it is my desire
that Mr. and Mrs. Diosdado M. Pernes may build their house therein and stay as long as
they like." While petitioner had already demanded from the respondents the surrender of
the premises, the usufructuary rights of respondents had not been terminated by the said
demand considering the clear statement of petitioner that she is allowing respondents to
occupy portion of her land as long as the latter want to.
○ SUPREME COURT DECISION: We disagree with the CA’s conclusion of law on
the matter. The term or period of the usufruct originally specified provides only
one of the bases for the right of a usufructuary to hold and retain possession of
the thing given in usufruct. There are other modes or instances whereby the
usufruct shall be considered terminated or extinguished, such as —
■ ART. 603. Usufruct is extinguished:
● (2) By expiration of the period for which it was constituted, or by
the fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in the title
creating the usufruct;
■ Here, according to the title constituting the usufruct, the occurrence of any
of the following: the loss of the atmosphere of cooperation, the bickering
 or the cessation of harmonious relationship between/among kin
constitutes a resolutory condition which, by express wish of the petitioner,
extinguishes the usufruct.
● Thus, the Court rules that the continuing animosity between the
petitioner and the Pernes family and the violence and humiliation
she was made to endure, despite her advanced age and frail
condition, are enough factual bases to consider the usufruct as
having been terminated.
● MERGER
○ Example:
■ A owns a resort. A gives it to B, her daughter, in usufruct. B inherited
the resort and became the owner.
● RENUNCIATION
○ Right of the usufructuary to opt out BUT must inform the owner about his
renunciation
● TOTAL LOSS
○ Complete destruction of a the thing in usufruct deprives the usufrutuary of
enjoying the same
● TERMINATION OF RIGHT
○ Example:
■ Owner gives usufructuary a right to give the right to another as sub-
usufructuary
■ If the right of the first usufructuary terminates, the right of the sub-
usufructuaty also terminates
● PRESCRIPTION
○ Passage of time + Possession = Prescription

ARTICLE 604. If the thing given in usufruct should be lost only in part, the right shall
continue on the remaining part.
● DIVISIBILITY
○ For as long as there remains of the thing in usufruct as a result of any event
that diminishes it, the usufruct shall continue as to the remaining parts

ARTICLE 605. Usufruct cannot be constituted in favor of a town, corporation, or

association for more than fifty years. If it has been constituted, and before the
expiration of such period the town is abandoned, or the corporation or association is
dissolved, the usufruct shall be extinguished by reason thereof.
● CORPORATION, ASSOCIATION, AND TOWN
○ Usufruct shall be coterminous with the legal life of a corporation or
association
○ For towns, also up to 50 years only unless sooner abandoned
■ Usufruct is extinguished upon abandonment

ARTICLE 606. A usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third person
attains a certain age, shall subsist for the number of years specified, even if the third
person should die before the period expires, unless such usufruct has been
expressly granted only in consideration of the existence of such person.
● AGE
○ EXAMPLE
■ J gave property to P in usufruct up to the time that A reaches 30.
● Usufruct subsist even if A dies before that unless the
existence of the usufruct is dependent upon the existence of
A

ARTICLE 607. If the usufruct is constituted on immovable property of which a

building forms part, and the latter should be destroyed in any manner whatsoever,
the usufructuary shall have a right to make use of the land and the materials.

The same rule shall be applied if the usufruct is constituted on a building only and
the same should be destroyed. But in such a case, if the owner should wish to
construct another building, he shall have a right to occupy the land and to make use
of the materials, being obliged to pay to the usufructuary, during the continuance of
the usufruct, the interest upon the sum equivalent to the value of the land and of
the materials.
● EXPLANATION
○ Grey v Fabie
■ Since the usufruct has not been extinguished by the destruction of
the building and the usufruct is for life in this case, it is but fair that
the usufructuary continue to enjoy the use of land and the materials
that may be constructed on the land. To hold otherwise would be to
affirm that the usufruct had been extinguished.
 ■ Who is called upon to undertake the new construction and at whose
cost?
● Discretion of usufructuary who, to all intents and purposes is
deems the administrator of the property.

ARTICLE 608. If the usufructuary shares with the owner the insurance of the
tenement given in usufruct, the former shall, in case of loss, continue in the
enjoyment of the new building, should one be constructed, or shall receive the
interest on the insurance indemnity if the owner does not wish to rebuild.

Should the usufructuary have refused to contribute to the insurance, the owner
insuring the tenement alone, the latter shall receive the full amount of the insurance
indemnity in case of loss, saving always the right granted to the usufructuary in the
preceding article.
● INSURANCE
○ EXAMPLE:
■ Therese is the owner, Patty is the usufructuary who shares with
the owner in putting up an insurance for the property
● If the property is destroyed and Therese rebuilds, Patty has
the right to enjoy the new building
○ If Therese does not rebuild, Patty is entitled to the
interest on the insurance
● If Patty refused to contributed to the insurance, Therese
(owner) shall be the only one entitled to the insurance
indemnity
○ But if Therese builds a new building, Patty has the
right to enjoy it

ARTICLE 609. Should the thing in usufruct be expropriated for public use, the owner
shall be obliged either to replace it with another thing of the same value and of
similar conditions, or to pay the usufructuary the legal interest on the amount of the
indemnity for the whole period of the usufruct. If the owner chooses the latter
alternative, he shall give security for the payment of the interest.
● EXPROPRIATION
○ If the government exercises its power of eminent domain on the property
given in usufruct; Owner can:
■ replace it with another of the same value and similar condition
 ■ Pay the usufructuary the legal interest on the indemnity during the
duration of the usufruct but the owner must give security to be
availed of in case of non-payment

ARTICLE 610. A usufruct is not extinguished by bad use of the thing in usufruct; but
if the abuse should cause considerable injury to the owner, the latter may demand
that the thing be delivered to him, binding himself to pay annually to the
usufructuary the net proceeds of the same, after deducting the expenses and the
compensation which may be allowed him for its administration.
● BAD USE
○ If the usufructuary causes considerable damage to the property, the
usufruct is not extinguished
○ The owner has a right to have the property returned to him, owner shall
pay annually to the usufructuary the net proceeds of the same after
deducting the expenses and compensation which may be allowed him
for the administration

ARTICLE 611. A usufruct constituted in favor of several persons living at the time of
its constitution shall not be extinguished until the death of the last survivor.
● Policarpio v Salamat
○ Won the 11 surviving usufructuaries of the fishpond are the ones entitled to
the fruits that would have corresponded to the 3 deceased usufructuaries
or the naked owner? YES
■ SC: Spanish commentators are unanimous: there is accretion
among usufructuaries who are constituted at the same time when
one of them dies before the end of the usufruct
● EXC: if the usufruct is constituted on a last will and testament
and the testator makes a contrary provision
● Here, the testatrix constituted the usufruct in favor of the
children of her 3 cousins with the particular injunction that
they are the only ones to enjoy it as long as they live and
should any of them die, the shares should accrue to the
surviving ones
● The 11 surviving usufructuaries are declared to be entitled
shares of the 3 deceased usufructuaries
ARTICLE 612. Upon the termination of the usufruct, the thing in usufruct shall be
delivered to the owner, without prejudice to the right of retention pertaining to the
usufructuary or his heirs for taxes and extraordinary expenses which should be
reimbursed. After the delivery has been made, the security or mortgage shall be
cancelled.
● RIGHT OF RETENTION
○ Usufructuary shall have a right of retention over the property at the time of
the termination of the usufruct until he is reimbursed of the extraordinary
expenses and taxes which he has advanced
NOVEMBER 4, 2022
EASEMENTS IN GENERAL - Different Kinds of Easements

ARTICLE 613. An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an

immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner.
The immovable in favor of which the easement is established is called the dominant
estate; that which is subject thereto, the servient estate.
● CONCERN
○ Absolute and unlimited dominion is unthinkable; the proper enjoyment of
property requires mutual service and forbearance among adjoining estates

● REAL RIGHT AND AN ENCUMBRANCE

○ Easement - real right on another’s property, corporeal and immovable; the
owner of it must refrain from doing or allowing somebody else to do
something to be done on his property, for the benefit of another person or
tenement
■ An encumbrance upon an immovable for the benefit of another
immovable belonging to a different owner or for the benefit of a
community to whom the encumbered estate does not belong
● NO JUDICIAL EASEMENT
○ There are 2 kinds of easements; established by law or by will of the
owners
■ The Court cannot impose or constitute any servitude, only declare
its existence by law or by the will of parties

ARTICLE 614. Servitudes may also be established for the benefit of a community, or
of one or more persons to whom the encumbered estate does not belong.
● PERSONAL AND REAL SERVITUDE
○ Personal servitude - established for the benefit of the community
■ Pertains to persons without a dominant estate
○ Real servitude - constituted for particular persons
○ Jabonete v Montverde
■ The easement was a personal one because the right of way
expressly stated: family, friends, drivers, servants and jeeps
● The parties did not intend to pass this to the successor-in-
interest, they only acquired a personal servitude
 JAREL: 357-362; 479-482 (finish until “TERMINATION”)

ARTICLE 615. Easements may be continuous or discontinuous, apparent or

nonapparent.
Continuous easements are those the use of which is or may be incessant, without
the intervention of any act of man.

Discontinuous easements are those which are used at intervals and depend upon
the acts of man.

Apparent easements are those which are made known and are continually kept in
view by external signs that reveal the use and enjoyment of the same.

Nonapparent easements are those which show no external indication of their

existence.
IMPORTANCE - The classification in the article is important for purposes of determining
the mode of acquisition. Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by
virtue of title or by prescription of 10 years. Continuous nonapparent easements, and
discontinuous ones (whether apparent or not) are acquired only by virtue of a title.

ARTICLE 616. Easements are also positive or negative.

A positive easement is one which imposes upon the owner of the servient estate the
obligation of allowing something to be done or of doing it himself, and a negative
easement, that which prohibits the owner of the servient estate from doing
something which he could lawfully do if the easement did not exist.
POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EASEMENT - The easement of right of way is an example of
a positive easement because the servient estate is required to allow the dominant estate
to pass through his property.
The easement of light and view where the dominant owner opens a window in his wall is
a negative easement because it prohibits the owner of the servient estate to construct
anything that will block the dominant estate’s owner’s view from that window.

ARTICLE 617. Easements are inseparable from the estate to which they actively or
passively belong.
INSEPARABLE - In Solidbank Corp. v. Bio Hong Trading Co. Inc, where the property-
owner closed the alley where the public regularly passed, the SC ruled that the closure is
not proper considering that the alley was a servitude as constituted in the deed of sale
of the property owner and the previous owner. The deed of sale did not exclude the
alley, since as a mere right of way, it cannot be separated from the tenement and
maintain an independent existence. Especially since the TCT itself was annotated to say
that the alley shall remain open at all times and that the owner on the lot on which the
alley was constructed shall allow the public to use it.

Servitudes are merely accessories to the tenements of which they form part and cannot
be alienated or mortgaged separately.

ARTICLE 618. Easements are indivisible. If the servient estate is divided between
two or more persons, the easement is not modified, and each of them must bear it
on the part which corresponds to him.

If it is the dominant estate that is divided between two or more persons, each of
them may use the easement in its entirety, without changing the place of its use, or
making it more burdensome in any other way.
INDIVISIBILITY - If A, B, and C live in a sloping location, and A owns the topmost
property, B owns the middle, and C owns the lower property, B and C must allow and
receive the waters which naturally and without human intervention descend from A’s
property because of the natural easement of natural drainage.

On the other hand, if A and B own an estate that has an entrance and exit only through
C’s property via a right of way, A and B must both use the same right of way, and cannot
ask for a separate right of way through the property of C that will make it more
burdensome for C.

ARTICLE 619. Easements are established either by law or by the will of the owners.
The former are called legal and the latter voluntary easements.
Legal/compulsory easements are those constituted by law for public use or private
interest, and becomes a continuing property right. They are also called easements by
necessity. A voluntary easement is constituted simply by will or agreement of the
parties. These are also called easements by grant. Like any other contractual stipulation,
it cannot be extinguished except by voluntary rescission of the contract establishing
the servitude or renunciation by the owner of the dominant lots.
Even if an easement by grant (voluntary) may also qualify as an easement by necessity,
its permanency as property right is not affected, since such status survives the
determination of the necessity.
VOLUNTARY EASEMENTS

ARTICLE 688. Every owner of a tenement or piece of land may establish thereon the
easements which he may deem suitable, and in the manner and form which he may
deem best, provided he does not contravene the laws, public policy or public order.
VOLUNTARY EASEMENT - In the case of North Negros Surigao Co. v. Hidalgo, the SC
said that voluntary easements under Art. 594 are not contractual in nature; they
constitute the act of the owner. If he adds any condition, like the payment of a certain
indemnity for the use of the easement, any person willing to pay it may use the
easement. If it is contended that a contract is necessary, it may be stated that a contract
exists from the time all those who desire to make use of the easement are disposed to
pay the required indemnity.

ZONING - In Tris v. Araneta, where a property owner claimed that the restrictions in her
title for the building of a factory (in a residential area) was illegal because it restricted her
right of ownership, the SC upheld the restrictions created in the title. The owner was
questioning the validity of the prohibition and the effect of the zoning ordinance. The SC
ruled that every owner of real estate may validly impose under Art. 594 or Art. 688 of the
Civil Code the easements which he may deem suitable. The limitation is essentially a
contractual obligation which the seller imposed and the purchaser agreed to accept.
These limitations are sustained by courts as long as they are reasonable and not contrary
to public policy (like in this case).

JIANA: 509-515: 483-494 (start with “EXTENT”)

● EXTENT. Valderrama v. North Negros Sugar Company, Inc. discusses the scope of
voluntary easement created by a contract:
○ Plaintiffs and Defendants entered mutually beneficial milling contract,
wherein Defendant corporation agreed to install in a sugar central of a
minimum capacity of 300 tons, for grinding and milling all the sugar cane,
and plaintiffs were to provide the cane. Plaintiffs alleged that the purpose
of creating the easement and the establishment of the railroad was only in
favor of their respective haciendas. They could not transport through the
easement that of Platers Cadiz
○ SC Held:
■ It is supposed to be a mutually beneficial contact, but the contract
would not be beneficial to the defendants if the reasoning of
plaintiffs were to be admitted.
 ■ It is against the nature of the easement to pretend that it was
established in favor of the servient estates, because it is a well
settled rule that things serve their owner by reason of ownership
and not by reason of easement.
■ This is a case of an easement for the benefit of a corporation,
voluntarily created by the plaintiffs upon their respective estates for
the construction of a railroad. Once the road is constructed, the
easement is apparent because it is continuously exposed to view by
the rails.
■ The easement may cause its wagons to pass upon the road as many
times as it may deem fit, according to the needs of the Central. If the
plaintiffs do not produce enough cane to cover the capacity of the
central, it would be unjust to prohibit the corporation from obtaining
cane from another source.
■ Transporting the cane of Planter Cadiz would not alter the
easement.
● What is prohibited is if the defendant corporation built outside
of what is provided for in the contract; i.e., if it was outside the
area of 7 meters. This is because the easement would (1) be
altered; (2) be more burdensome.
● DIFFERENCE BETWEEN LEGAL EASEMENT AND VOLUNTARY EASEMENT
○ La Vista Association v. CA
LEGAL EASEMENT VOLUNTARY EASEMENT

As to how it is constituted

That which is constituted by law for public That which is constituted by will or
use of private interest agreement of the parties.

As to requisites

1. The estate is surrounded by other Since it is constituted by will, there are

immovables and is without none.
adequate outlet to a public
highway;
2. After payment of the proper
indemnity;
3. The isolation was not due to the
proprietor’s own acts; and
4. The right of way clamed is at a
point lease prejudicial to the
 servient estate, and insofar as
consistent with this rule, where the
distance from the dominant estate
to a public highway may be the
shortest.

As to extinguishment

Can be extinguished by the opening of Can only be extinguished by:

an adequate outlet 1. Voluntary rescission
2. Renunciation by the owner of the
dominant lots

Cannot be extinguished by the opening of

an adequate outlet

● How it was a voluntary easement in this case:

○ TUASONS and Philippine Building Corporation stipulated in their Deed of
Sale the boundary line between the property sold and the adjoining
property of the vendors shall be 15 meters wide, ½ of which will be taken
from the property sold to the vendee, and the other half from the adjoining
vendors.
○ Vendees expressly agreed to the assignment of an obligation to ATENEO
to contribute 7 and ½ meters of the property to form part of the 15m
roadway.
○ Vendees filed a complaint against ATENEO and MARYKNOLL for breach of
contract and enforcement of reciprocal easement;
○ La Vista President clarified in a letter to Ateneo’s president that there was a
reciprocal easement created in each other’s favor.
● No such thing as a judicial easement. Court merely declares the existence of an
easement.
● There was no contract in this case between LA VISTA and SOLID HOMES.
However, their predecessors-in-interest i.e., the TUASONS and PHILIPPINE
BUILDING CORPORATION clearly established a contractual easement of right-of-
way over Mangyan Road. In sum, when the easement in this case was established
by contract, the parties unequivocally made provisions for its observance by all
who in the future might succeed them in dominion.
Article 689. The owner of a tenement or piece of land, the usufruct of which belongs
to another, may impose thereon, without the usufructuary, any servitudes which will
not injure the right of usufruct.
● RIGHT OF OWNER
○ A usufruct involves a real right that imposes certain limitations on the
owner.
○ The owner, even without the consent of the usufructuary, can impose a
servitude on the property in usufruct.
■ Servitude should not injure the right of the usufruct.

Article 690. Whenever the naked ownership of a tenement or piece of land belongs
to one person and the beneficial ownership to another, no perpetual voluntary
easement may be established thereon without the consent of both owners.

● UNANIMITY
○ A perpetual voluntary easement must be consented to by the naked owner
and the beneficial owner in case such dual ownership is the arrangement
over the property.

Article 691. In order to impose an easement on an undivided tenement, or piece of

land, the consent of all the co-owners shall be required.

The consent given by some only, must be held in abeyance until the last one of all
the co-owners shall have expressed his conformity.

But the consent given by one of the co-owners separately from the others shall bind
the grantor and his successors not to prevent the exercise of the right granted.

● UNANIMOUS
○ Example. Dina, Jane, Felice and Ana are co-owners of a piece of land. A
right of way is being requested by Nena on their property. Dina, Jane and
Felice agreed but Ana cannot make up her mind. They voluntary easement
cannot be made. In the meantime, the consent of the three will not be
revoked or invalidated, and will bind their successors-in-interest.
■ Once Ana will give her consent, the right of way can be constituted.
■ Since it is a real right, it will be respected by each of the grantors
and their successors-in-interest.
Article 692. The title and, in a proper case, the possession of an easement acquired
by prescription shall determine the rights of the dominant estate and the obligations
of the servient estate. In default thereof, the easement shall be governed by such
provisions of this Title as are applicable thereto.

● GOVERNING RULES
○ Voluntary easement shall be governed by whatever is stipulated in the
grant of easement.
■ If granted by a contract, the rules in the Civil Code will apply in
suppletory character.
○ If acquisition is by prescription - the rules on prescription in the Civil Code
apply.

Article 693. If the owner of the servient estate should have bound himself, upon the
establishment of the easement, to bear the cost of the work required for the use and
preservation thereof, he may free himself from this obligation by renouncing his
property to the owner of the dominant estate.

● RENUNCIATION
○ If aside from being burdened, the owner of the servient estate bound
himself to bear the cost for the use and preservation, the law states that he
may free himself from obligation by renouncing his property to the owner of
the dominant estate.

NOVEMBER 14, 2022

363-422
 Issa: 363-374 (till end of 628 only; dont start 629)
MODES OF ACQUIRING EASEMENTS

ARTICLE 620. Continuous and apparent easements are acquired either by virtue of
a title or by prescription of ten years.

ARTICLE 621. In order to acquire by prescription the easements referred to in the

preceding article, the time of possession shall be computed thus: in positive
easements, from the day on which the owner of the dominant estate, or the person
who may have made use of the easement, commenced to exercise it upon the
servient estate; and in negative easements, from the day on which the owner of the
dominant estate forbade, by an instrument acknowledged before a notary public,
the owner of the servient estate, from executing an act which would be lawful
without the easement.

● Gargantos v. Tan Yanon

○ SC: Article 621 does not apply to a situation where the land was formed
owned by the same person
■ Facts: Two estates, one belonging to the petitioner, the other the
respondent, were formerly owned by just one person, Francisco
Sanz. Sanz introduced improvements on both properties. On the
respondent’s portion, he constructed a house in such a way that the
northeastern side thereof extends to the wall of the portion now
belonging to petitioner. On said northeastern side of the house,
there are windows and doors which serve as passages for light and
view. These windows and doors were in existence when respondent
purchased the house and lot from Sanz. The deed sale did not
provide that the easement of light and view would not be
established.
● Petitioner Gargantos: Yanon never acquired any easement
either by title or prescription
○ On title: There was neither a final judgment nor a deed
recognizing the easement by the petitioner or
petitioner’s predecessors-in-interest
○ On Prescription: Yanon never formally forbade PET
from performing any act
■ Issue: W/N respondent has an easement of light and view against
the petitioner’s property – YES, basis is Art. 624
 ■ Ruling: See codal for Article 624
● The existence of the doors and windows on the respondent’s
house, is equivalent to a title, for the visible and permanent
sign of an easement is the title that characterizes its
existence
● However, while the law declares that the easement is to
"continue" the easement actually arises for the first time
only upon alienation of either estate because there was no
easement before when both estates had the same owner

ARTICLE 622. Continuous nonapparent easements, and discontinuous ones,

whether apparent or not, may be acquired only by virtue of a title.

● ACQUISITION OF EASEMENT
○ Continuous and apparent → title or prescription
○ Continuous non-apparent and Discontinuous → title only
○ On Title
■ Juridical justification for the acquisition of a right
■ EXAMPLES: law; will; donation; contract
● RIGHT OF WAY (ROW)
○ Discontinuous easement
■ Acquired only by title or by an agreement with the owners of the
lands where the road ROW is
● EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT
○ By Law: continuous and apparent; acquired by title or prescription
■ By Nature: discontinuous easement
● CONTINUOUS, APPARENT, DISCONTINUOUS, NON-APPARENT (Bicol Agro-
Industrial Producers Cooperative v. Obias)
■ Under civil law and jurisprudence, easements are either continuous
or discontinuous according to the manner they are exercised, not
according to the presence of apparent signs or physical indications
of the existence of such easements.
● Continuous: use is, or may be, incessant without the
intervention of any act of man
○ EXAMPLE: drainage
● Discontinuous: used at intervals and depends on the act of
man
 ○ EXAMPLE: right of way, permanent railroad tracks
■ In this case, the presence of railroad tracks for the passage of
petitioner's trains denotes the existence of an apparent but
discontinuous easement of right of way. And under Article 622,
discontinuous easements, whether apparent or not, may be
acquired only by title. Unfortunately, petitioner Bomedco never
acquired any title over the use of the railroad right of way whether
by law, donation, testamentary succession or contract.

ARTICLE 623. The absence of a document or proof showing the origin of an

easement which cannot be acquired by prescription may be cured by a deed of
recognition by the owner of the servient estate or by a final judgment.

● CURE
○ Curative documents are executed by the owner of the servient estate (i.e.
the one burdened), not that of the dominant estate as the latter is the one
favored

ARTICLE 624. The existence of an apparent sign of easement between two estates,
established or maintained by the owner of both, shall be considered, should either
of them be alienated, as a title in order that the easement may continue actively and
passively, unless, at the time the ownership of the two estates is divided, the
contrary should be provided in the title of conveyance of either of them, or the sign
aforesaid should be removed before the execution of the deed. This provision shall
also apply in case of the division of a thing owned in common by two or more
persons.

● DIVISION OF ESTATE (Privatization & Management Office v. Legal Towers Inc.)

○ when the owner of two properties alienates one of them and an apparent
sign of easement exists between the two estates, entitlement to it
continues, unless there is a contrary agreement, or the indication that the
easement exists is removed before the execution of the deed.
○ Thus, when the subject property was assigned to the National Government
thru the APT, no easement arose or was voluntarily created from the
transfer of ownership, considering that the parties, more particularly, Caruff,
pledged that it was assigning, transferring, and conveying the subject
property in favor of the National Government thru the APT "free from any
and all liens and encumbrances."
ARTICLE 625. Upon the establishment of an easement, all the rights necessary for
its use are considered granted.

● RIGHTS
○ Rights are immediately exercisable because an easement is there to
provide a remedy from a difficult situation usually not caused by the owner
of the dominant estate
○ Indemnity
■ Right of the owner of the servient estate unless the law does not so
require
● EX GR: easement of right of way
● EX OF EXC: easement of drainage

ARTICLE 626. The owner of the dominant estate cannot use the easement except
for the benefit of the immovable originally contemplated. Neither can he exercise
the easement in any other manner than that previously established.

● EXCLUSIVE USE
○ Nature and kind of the burden of the servient estate must remain.
Otherwise,the servient estate will be unduly inconvenienced by a situation
not allowed by law and/or contract.

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNERS OF THE DOMINANT AND SERVIENT

ESTATES

ARTICLE 627. The owner of the dominant estate may make, at his own expense, on
the servient estate any works necessary for the use and preservation of the
servitude, but without altering it or rendering it more burdensome.

For this purpose he shall notify the owner of the servient estate, and shall choose
the most convenient time and manner so as to cause the least inconvenience to the
owner of the servient estate.

● DOMINANT OWNER DUTIES (Golden Crest Realty Corporation v. Cypress)

○ The owner of the dominant estate cannot violate any of the following
prescribed restrictions on its rights on the servient estate:
■ (1) it can only exercise rights necessary for the use of the easement;
 ■ (2) it cannot use the easement except for the benefit of the
immovable originally contemplated;
■ (3) it cannot exercise the easement in any other manner than that
previously established;
■ (4) it cannot construct anything on it which is not necessary for the
use and preservation of the easement;
■ (5) it cannot alter or make the easement more burdensome;
■ (6) it must notify the servient estate owner of its intention to make
necessary works on the servient estate; and
■ (7) it should choose the most convenient time and manner to build
said works so as to cause the least convenience to the owner of the
servient estate.
■ Any violation of the above constitutes impairment of the easement.

○ In this case, Goldcrest has no right to erect an office structure on the

limited common area despite its exclusive right to use the same. Not only
did Goldcrest’s act impair the easement, it also illegally altered the
condominium plan, in violation of Section 2218 of PD 957.

ARTICLE 628. Should there be several dominant estates, the owners of all of them
shall be obliged to contribute to the expenses referred to in the preceding article, in
proportion to the benefits which each may derive from the work. Any one who does
not wish to contribute may exempt himself by renouncing the easement for the
benefit of the others.

If the owner of the servient estate should make use of the easement in any manner
whatsoever, he shall also be obliged to contribute to the expenses in the proportion
stated, saving an agreement to the contrary.

● PROPORTIONAL SHARING
○ EXAMPLE: If A, B and C, for irrigation purposes, need to build a sluice gate
that can be operated manually to control the flow of water from the stream,
they can ask D, who owns the respective bank, to allow them to construct
such a sluice gate. If D agrees and the necessary damages are paid and
the sluice gate is operational, A, B and C must share the costs of
maintaining the sluice gate.
■ If A no longer wants to contribute to the expenses, she can exempt
herself by refusing to use the sluice gate.
● If A does not refuse, his share of the costs is demanded.
 ■ If D uses the sluice gate, she must also contribute proportionately to
the costs unless she agrees to build her bank, with a stipulation that
she does not have to share.

Kat: 375-386 (start 629 at 374)

ARTICLE 629. The owner of the servient estate cannot impair, in any manner
whatsoever, the use of the servitude.

Nevertheless, if by reason of the place originally assigned, or of the manner

established for the use of the easement, the same should become very inconvenient
to the owner of the servient estate, or should prevent him from making any
important works, repairs or improvements thereon, it may be changed at his
expense, provided he offers another place or manner equally convenient and in
such a way that no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant estate or
to those who may have a right to the use of the easement.

● NO IMPAIRMENT
○ Once an easement is established, the owner of the dominant estate must
be able to use it without being hampered.
○ Servient owner cannot undertake anything that will impede the use of the
easement.
○ EXAMPLE: easement of natural drainage involving the natural flow of water
and pebbles from a higher dominant estate to a lower servient estate
■ Owner of the servient estate can't build a wall to block the water
from going down
● CHANGE IN SERVITUDE
○ Requirements - done by the owner of the servient estate
■ 1. By reason of the place originally assigned, or of the manner
established for the use of the easement, the same should become
very inconvenient to the owner of the servient estate, or should
prevent him from making any important works, repairs or
improvements thereon, and
■ 2. He offers another place or manner equally convenient and in such
a way that no injury is caused thereby to the owner of the dominant
estate or to those who may have a right to the use of the easement
■ 3. Does the change at his expense

ARTICLE 630. The owner of the servient estate retains the ownership of the portion
on which the easement is established, and may use the same in such a manner as
not to affect the exercise of the easement.

SECTION 4
MODES OF EXTINGUISHMENT OF EASEMENT

ARTICLE 631. Easements are extinguished:

(1) By merger in the same person of the ownership of the dominant and servient
estates;

(2) By nonuse for ten years; with respect to discontinuous easements, this period
shall be computed from the day on which they ceased to be used; and, with respect
to continuous easements, from the day on which an act contrary to the same took
place;

(3) When either or both of the estates fall into such condition that the easement
cannot be used; but it shall revive if the subsequent condition of the estates or
either of them should again permit its use, unless when the use becomes possible,
sufficient time for prescription has elapsed, in accordance with the provisions of the
preceding number;

(4) By the expiration of the term or the fulfillment of the condition, if the easement is
temporary or conditional;

(5) By the renunciation of the owner of the dominant estate;

(6) By the redemption agreed upon between the owners of the dominant and
servient estates.

● MERGER
○ Solid Manila Corporation
■ According to the civ.code, merger exists when ownership of the
dominant estate and servient estates is consolidated in the same
person
■ Merger requires FULL ownership of both estates
■ Merger presupposes the existence of prior dominant-servient
owner relationship and the termination of that relation leaves the
easement of no use
 ● In personal servitudes, there is no owner of a dominant
tenement, the easement pertains to persons without a
dominant estate, in this case, the public at large so unless the
owner conveys the property in favor of the public - if that is
even possible - no genuine merger can happen
○ Cabacuan: co-owners built structures on the co-owned properties is not
merger
■ Defendants did not become sole owners of the servient estate
■ Manresa: easement is not extinguished by acquisition of a share in
property held in common.
● NON-USER
○ Non-user may extinguish an easement but only with respect to the actual
form or manner in which they had been exercised, and the right or the
power to claim the exercise of legal easement does not prescribe, as
occurs especially in the case of right of way and easement of aqueduct
○ Must be proven by clear evidence
● FALLING IN BAD CONDITION
○ If either the dominant estate or servient estate has fallen into unusable
condition to the point that the easement cannot be used, easement will be
extinguished
■ Can be revived if the conditions for its use occurs
● Subject to the 10 year period under non-use (see codal)
● RENUNCIATION OR WAIVER
○ Renunciation is a waiver
○ Francisco v Paez
■ In case of intermittent easements, such as the right of way, the
waiver must be, if not formal and solemn, at least such as may be
obviously gathered from positive acts
■ Mere refraining from claiming the right is NOT a positive act of
waiver
● REDEMPTION
○ EXAMPLE
■ D entered into a contact with S for S to have a right of way on the
property of D. S will pay indemnity subject to the right of redemption
within 5 years, otherwise the right of way will continue for another 10
years
● On the 3rd year, D paid S
○ Redemption has occurred
 ● REGISTRATION
● ALIENATION
○ Alienation of the dominant and servient estates to different persons is not
one of the grounds for extinguishment of an easement
○ On the contrary, use of easement is actually continued by operation of law
(CC, art. 624 - SEE CODAL FOR THIS)

ARTICLE 632. The form or manner of using the easement may prescribe as the
easement itself, and in the same way.

ARTICLE 633. If the dominant estate belongs to several persons in common, the use
of the easement by any one of them prevents prescription with respect to the
others.

Jake 387-403 (jake im sorry i had to assign this because it’s weird to end in the middle of
the case. Will lessen your pages by 5 pages in the next assignment)

ARTICLE 634. Easements imposed by law have for their object either public use or
the interest of private persons.

● BENEFICIARIES
○ Purpose of a Legal Easement can be public or for the interest of private
persons
■ Public
● Banks of rivers and streams (even if they are of private
ownership) are subject to their entire length and within a
zone of 3 meters along their margins to the easement of
public use in navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage
■ Private Interest
● Legal right of way (private interest of adjacent owner who
needs to pass through the estate of his neighbor)

ARTICLE 635. All matters concerning easements established for public or communal
use shall be governed by the special laws and regulations relating thereto, and, in
the absence thereof, by the provisions of this Title.

● EASEMENT GOVERNED BY SPECIAL LAW

○ Jurisprudence
■ SC ruled that: land originally granted by free patent by the
government is subject to a legal easement of right of way in favor
of the government as provided by the PUBLIC LAND ACT
● The government can use a big portion of the land as a right
of way without indemnity except for damages to the
improvement; since the SC held that the remaining smaller
portion of the servient estate would be useless, it should be
subject to eminent domain with just compensation
● The property in this case was granted by a free patent;
jurisprudence provides that one of the conditions under the
OCT of land granted by a free patent = land is subject to all
conditions and public easements and servitudes recognized
and prescribed by law
○ Sec 112 of CA No. 141 or the Public Land Act states that
lands granted by patent shall be subjected to a right of
way in favor of the government not exceeding 60
meters on width

ARTICLE 636. Easements established by law in the interest of private persons or for
private use shall be governed by the provisions of this Title, without prejudice to the
provisions of general or local laws and ordinances for the general welfare. These
easements may be modified by agreement of the interested parties, whenever the
law does not prohibit it or no injury is suffered by a third person.

● PRIVATE INTEREST
○ Legal easements that may be created are also subject to the local laws of
the municipality, city or province where they are located
○ Parties may also modify the easements when the law does not prohibit it
or no injury is suffered by a third person: example: right of way should be
the shortest route, if the parties agree that it will be the longest route it
should be respected and observed

EASEMENTS RELATING TO WATERS

Article 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the waters which naturally and
without the intervention of man descend from the higher estates, as well as the
stones or earth which they carry with them.

The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which will impede this
easement; neither can the owner of the higher estate make works which will
increase the burden

● NATURAL DRAINAGE
○ Jurisprudence: Remman Enterprise
■ SC: where the water of the man-made lagoon of the upper-estate
overflowed to the lower estate destroying the fruits in the lower
estate, Article 637 does NOT apply
● There is a natural easement upon the lower estate to receive
waters which naturally and without the intervention of man
descent; those which flow from artificial man-made lagoons
entitles the owner of the servient/lower estate to
compensation
○ Jurisprudence: Spouses Ermino
■ Spouses Ermino are residents of Alco Homes (servient / lower
estate)
● There was continuous heavy rain which caused a
large volume of water to fall from Hilltop City
Subdivision to the subdivisions below → this
damaged Spouses Ermino’s fence, furniture,
appliances and car
● They filed a complaint for damages against Hilltop
Subdivision and Villarosa (developer of the subdivision)
● SC: owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which
will impede this easement; owner of the higher estate cannot
make works which will increase the burden
○ Alco Homes (where Spouses Ermino live) is legally
obliged to receive waters which naturally flow from the
higher estate (Hilltop City Subdivision)
○ HOWEVER, based on the ocular inspection, the area
in the Hilltop City Subdivision was bulldozed and
flattened which changed the course of the water and
 made the soil soft this made the obligation of the
lower estates MORE burdensome
■ Villarosa liable for damages
● Art. 637 - statutory nature, the law has imposed it for the
common public utility in view of the difference in altitude of
the lands
● NO INDEMNITY
○ Natural drainage of water does not require the owner of the dominant
estate to pay any indemnity to the owner of the servient estate

Jarel: 404 - 416 (sorry jarel i had to give an extra page for you because it’s weird to stop
in the middle of a case. Will lessen your pages next time by 1)

ARTICLE 638. The banks of rivers and streams, even in case they are of private
ownership, are subject throughout their entire length and within a zone of three
meters along their margins, to the easement of public use in the general interest of
navigation, floatage, fishing and salvage.

Estates adjoining the banks of navigable or floatable rivers are, furthermore, subject
to the easement of towpath for the exclusive service of river navigation and
floatage.

If it be necessary for such purpose to occupy lands of private ownership, the proper
indemnity shall first be paid.

MANDATORY MEASUREMENT - The requirement in Art. 638 is mandatory and cannot be

defeated by a city ordinance. A city may not enter into a contract that will violate the
measurements in 638.

INDEMNITY - If private lands need to be occupied to create and use the easement under
638, proper indemnity must first be paid.

ARTICLE 639. Whenever for the diversion or taking of water from a river or brook, or
for the use of any other continuous or discontinuous stream, it should be necessary
to build a dam, and the person who is to construct it is not the owner of the banks,
or lands which must support it, he may establish the easement of abutment of a
dam, after payment of the proper indemnity.
EASEMENT OF ABUTMENT OF A DAM - The requisites are: 1) there is a need for
diversion ro taking of water from a river or brook, or for use of any other continuous or
discontinuous stream; 2) the dam is not to be constructed by the owner of the banks and
lands which must support it; 3) there is payment of proper indemnity.

ARTICLE 640. Compulsory easements for drawing water or for watering animals can
be imposed only for reasons of public use in favor of a town or village, after
payment of the proper indemnity.

PUBLIC USE - Although easements may have for its object public use or the interest of
private persons, the compulsory easement in Art. 640 is limited to public use in favor of a
town or village. The LGU where the easement is located must pay indemnity ot the
owner of the servient estate.

ARTICLE 641. Easements for drawing water and for watering animals carry with
them the obligation of the owners of the servient estates to allow passage to
persons and animals to the place where such easements are to be used, and the
indemnity shall include this service.

PURPOSE AND INDEMNITY - The easement must be for a public purpose and, although
compulsory, there must be payment of proper indemnity.
ARTICLE 642. Any person who may wish to use upon his own estate any water of
which he can dispose shall have the right to make it flow through the intervening
estates, with the obligation to indemnify their owners, as well as the owners of the
lower estates upon which the waters may filter or descend.

ARTICLE 643. One desiring to make use of the right granted in the preceding article
is obliged:

(1) To prove that he can dispose of the water and that it is sufficient for the use for
which it is intended;

(2) To show that the proposed right of way is the most convenient and the least
onerous to third persons;

(3) To indemnify the owner of the servient estate in the manner determined by the
laws and regulations. (558)
EASEMENT OF WATER - In the case of Gonzales v. De Dios, where the fishpond of the
plaintiff was cut off from the main source of water, by the fishpond of the defendants, the
plaintiff may draw the water she needs for her fishpond through the land of the
defendants if she has obtained the necessary permit to use the water from the
government (pursuant to Articles 642 and 643 of the Civil Code).

ARTICLE 644. The easement of aqueduct for private interest cannot be imposed on
buildings, courtyards, annexes, or outhouses, or on orchards or gardens already
existing.

NOVEMBER 17, 2022

ARTICLE 645. The easement of aqueduct does not prevent the owner of the
servient estate from closing or fencing it, or from building over the aqueduct in such
manner as not to cause the latter any damage, or render necessary repairs and
cleanings impossible.

ARTICLE 646. For legal purposes, the easement of aqueduct shall be considered as
continuous and apparent, even though the flow of the water may not be continuous,
or its use depends upon the needs of the dominant estate, or upon a schedule of
alternate days or hours.
EASEMENT OF AQUEDUCT - The passage of water must be allowed through properties.
For this purpose, aqueducts (channels or long tubes) are built. The owner of the servient
estate may fence or build structures to protect his own property, but must do so without
causing damage to the aqueducts.

Also, the law prohibits the building of aqueducts over certain areas for different reasons
(so the plants do not get destroyed in case of overflow in gardens, so the water is not
contaminated in the case of outhouses, etc.)

An aqueduct is considered by law to be a continuous and apparent easement which may

be acquired by virtue of a title of prescription of 10 years, even if it is underground and
dependent on the acts of man.
No indemnity is required to be paid for aqueducts.

ARTICLE 647. One who for the purpose of irrigating or improving his estate, has to
construct a stop lock or sluice gate in the bed of the stream from which the water is
to be taken, may demand that the owners of the banks permit its construction, after
payment of damages, including those caused by the new easement to such owners
and to the other irrigators.
Stop locks and sluice gates regulate the flow of water. The owner of the dominant estate
may demand that the servient owner permit its construction. However, the right must be
for irrigation or improvement of his estate only. Before construction can be undertaken,
the necessary damages must first be paid.

ARTICLE 648. The establishment, extent, form and conditions of the servitudes of
waters, to which this section refers, shall be governed by the special laws relating
thereto insofar as no provision therefor is made in this Code.
Special laws relating to the rules under easements only apply suppletorily.

EASEMENT OF RIGHT OF WAY

ARTICLE 649. The owner, or any person who by virtue of a real right may cultivate
or use any immovable, which is surrounded by other immovables pertaining to other
persons and without adequate outlet to a public highway, is entitled to demand a
right of way through the neighboring estates, after payment of the proper
indemnity.

Should this easement be established in such a manner that its use may be
continuous for all the needs of the dominant estate, establishing a permanent
passage, the indemnity shall consist of the value of the land occupied and the
amount of the damage caused to the servient estate.

In case the right of way is limited to the necessary passage for the cultivation of the
estate surrounded by others and for the gathering of its crops through the servient
estate without a permanent way, the indemnity shall consist in the payment of the
damage caused by such encumbrance.

This easement is not compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the
proprietor’s own acts.
Villanueva v. Velasco - The respondent-owner of the dominant estate required the
petitioner-new owner of the property to respect the voluntary easement of right of way
entered into by him (dominant estate) and the former-owner, and thus demanded that the
small house obstructing the right of way be removed. The new-owner contended that he
need not honor the right of way since it was not annotated in the title of the servient
estate.
The Court ruled that the easement in question was both a voluntary easement and a
legal easement. It is a voluntary easement because the right of way was voluntarily
constituted by agreement between the Gabriels and the Espinolas. It is also legal
because the essential requisites for a compulsory easement were met: that 1) the
dominant estate is surrounded by other immovables and has no adequate outlet to a
public highway, 2) property indemnity was paid, 3) the isolation was not due to the acts of
the owner of the dominant estate, 4) the right of way claimed is at a point least prejudicial
to the servient estate, and 5) to the extent consistent with rule 4, the distance from the
dominant estate to a public highway is the shortest possible distance. Of course, the
burden of proof rests with the owner of the dominant estate.

Because of the existence of the house, the entry of the vehicles of the respondents was
obstructed. The needs of the dominant estate determine the width of the easement,
thus, the petitioner has to destroy whatever obstructs the easement in view of the
needs of the estate of the respondents. Also, the fact that the easement was not
recorded with the Register of Deeds is irrelevant. Legal easements bind the servient
estate to provide the dominant estate ingress and egress to and from the public highway,
with or without annotation.

Legal Easement - In the case of Alolino v. Flores, where a neighbor built a house on a
barrio road covering the light and view of the adjacent neighbor, the SC ruled that it
should be removed since it was a nuisance per se that obstructed a public passageway.
However, the adjacent owner did not acquire a right of way with respect to the
passageway, since the land itself is public property which is not susceptible to
prescription and cannot be burdened with voluntary easements. An easement of a right
of way is discontinuous and cannot be acquired through prescription. Since none of
the legal easements provided by law apply to Alolino’s property, there is no easement at
all.

INDEMNITY - The law does not provide a specific formula for the valuation of the land.
Nor does it state that the value should be computed at the time of taking. All that matters
is that the indemnity consists of the value of the land and the amount of the damage
caused to the servient estate, which is to be left to the discretion of the RTC. In a case
where the servient owners were deprived of the use of their rice fields due to the
construction of a road by the dominant owner, the Court ruled that it is proper to
compensate the servient owners for this deprivation, over and above the prevailing
market value of the affected property.

Jiana 417 - 422 (you will get the extra jake pages in the next assugnment)

Article 650. The easement of right of way shall be established at the point lease
prejudicial to the servient estate, and, insofar as consistent with this rule, where the
distance from the dominant estate to a public highway may be the shortest.

LEASE PREJUDICIAL AND SHORTEST.

● Quiemn v. CA – If the two circumstances (shortest and least prejudicial) do not
concur in a single tenement, the way where damage will be leaset shall be used
even if not the shortest route. Lease prejudice prevails over shortest distance.

CONVENIENCE NOT THE GAUGE

● Dichoso et al. v. Marcos et al. – The standard for providing a right of way is
adequacy, not convenience
○ Illustrated in this case when the passage to the highway was longer,
circuitous, and have to pass through a lot by different owners before they
could get to the highway; the court refused to grant another right of way
that was convenient because there was already an adequate outlet to the
highway.

Article 651. The width of the easement of right of way shall be that which is
sufficient for the needs o the dominant estate, and may accordingly be changed
from time to time.

MEASUREMENT
● Needs of the dominant estate determine the width of the easement; and may be
changed from time to time.
● Encarnacion v. CA – The court granted tthe increase in the measurement of the
right of way by the dominant estate because:
○ Access was grossly inadequate. Generally, the right of way may be
demanded:
 1. When there is absolutely no access to a public highway;
2. When, even if there is one, it is difficult or dangerous to use or is
grossly insufficient;
○ In this case, for the jeep to reach the level of the highway, it must jump four
to five meters across the river bed. During rainy season, it is is impassable.

ISSA - 423-433

ARTICLE 652. Whenever a piece of land acquired by sale, exchange or partition, is

surrounded by other estates of the vendor, exchanger, or co-owner, he shall be
obliged to grant a right of way without indemnity.

In case of a simple donation, the donor shall be indemnified by the donee for the
establishment of the right of way.

● ONEROUS AND GRATUITOUS

○ The donee does not need to pay indemnity in an onerous donation
■ EXAMPLE: A donates to B an easement with the obligation to pay for
the unpaid realty taxes of the property
● Jariol et. al v. CA
○ A Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, which included a provision of right of way
was questioned on the ground that there were undue insertions and should
thus be cancelled
○ SC: It is immaterial to delve into whether the insertions in the extrajudicial
partition are illegal and unauthorized. The right of the dominant estate to
demand a right-of-way springs not from any voluntary concession but
from law. Appellees must provide the owners of the dominant estate
egress to the public road.

ARTICLE 653. In the case of the preceding article, if it is the land of the grantor that
becomes isolated, he may demand a right of way after paying an indemnity.
However, the donor shall not be liable for indemnity.

● GRANTOR ENCLOSED
○ See codal
ARTICLE 654. If the right of way is permanent, the necessary repairs shall be made
by the owner of the dominant estate. A proportionate share of the taxes shall be
reimbursed by said owner to the proprietor of the servient estate.

● NECESSARY REPAIRS AND TAXES

○ See codal
○ In cases where the servient estate paid the total taxes for the road R.O.W,
the owner of the dominant estate must reimburse him/her

ARTICLE 655. If the right of way granted to a surrounded estate ceases to be

necessary because its owner has joined it to another abutting on a public road, the
owner of the servient estate may demand that the easement be extinguished,
returning what he may have received by way of indemnity. The interest on the
indemnity shall be deemed to be in payment of rent for the use of the easement.

The same rule shall be applied in case a new road is opened giving access to the
isolated estate.

In both cases, the public highway must substantially meet the needs of the
dominant estate in order that the easement may be extinguished.

● EXTINGUISHMENT
○ See codal
○ Buying other adjacent property leading to the public road
■ A means by which the dominant owner connects his estate with the
public road
○ Owner of the Servient Estate has the choice to terminate or not terminate
the ROW
■ If he chooses to terminate:
● Return the indemnity but keep the interest as rent

ARTICLE 656. If it be indispensable for the construction, repair, improvement,

alteration or beautification of a building, to carry materials through the estate of
another, or to raise therein scaffolding or other objects necessary for the work, the
owner of such estate shall be obliged to permit the act, after receiving payment of
the proper indemnity for the damage caused him.

● TEMPORARY EASEMENT (Preysler v. CA)

 ○ SC: “Indispensable" in this instance is not to be construed literally. Great
inconvenience is sufficient. In the present case, the trial court found that
irrespective of which route petitioner used in gaining access to his
property, he has to pass private respondent's subdivision. Thus we agree
that petitioner may be granted a temporary easement. This temporary
easement in the original writ differs from the permanent easement of right
of way now being tried in the main case.
○ Case also found that electric power lines, which are permanent
easements, are not covered by Art. 656

ARTICLE 657. Easements of the right of way for the passage of livestock known as
animal path, animal trail or any other, and those for watering places, resting places
and animal folds, shall be governed by the ordinances and regulations relating
thereto, and, in the absence thereof, by the usages and customs of the place.

Without prejudice to rights legally acquired, the animal path shall not exceed in any
case the width of 75 meters, and the animal trail that of 37 meters and 50
centimeters.

Whenever it is necessary to establish a compulsory easement of the right of way or

for a watering place for animals, the provisions of this Section and those of articles
640 and 641 shall be observed. In this case the width shall not exceed 10 meters.

● ANIMAL PATH AND ANIMAL TRAIL

○ Animal Path - passages where a number of animals habitually pass
○ Animal Trail - where only a small number customarily pass
○ EXC: Measurement can exceed those provided in the law IF vested rights
have already been acquired
○ Animal Folds - place where animals are enclosed

EASEMENT OF PARTY WALL

 ARTICLE 658. The easement of party wall shall be governed by the provisions of
this Title, by the local ordinances and customs insofar as they do not conflict with
the same, and by the rules of co-ownership.

ARTICLE 659. The existence of an easement of party wall is presumed, unless there
is a title, or exterior sign, or proof to the contrary:

(1) In dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the point of common elevation;

(2) In dividing walls of gardens or yards situated in cities, towns, or in rural

communities;

(3) In fences, walls and live hedges dividing rural lands.

PRESUMPTION OF PARTY WALL

● Valenzuela v. Unson
○ As was said above, the wall in question seems to be a solid wall, with
buttresses, built upon each side of it. It is a very old wall. It is built on or
rear the dividing line between the lots in question. It contains no openings.
Under these facts, judging from the outward signs presented by the wall
itself, certain presumptions arise under the express provisions of the Civil
Code. (Article 572, Old Civil Code.) When there is no little presumption
that a dividing wall between two adjoining properties is a party wall.
(Case vs. Heirs of Tuason)
○ Considering the fact that the wall is supported by buttresses on both
sides, and considering that both parties have used the wall for the
purpose of supporting the structures on their respective lots, and
considering the fact that the plaintiffs have a wall joined to the wall in
question as a partial support for the kitchen, and considering the conflicting
character of the testimony with reference to the ownership of the wall,
together with the exterior signs of the same, we are of the opinion that the
said wall is a party wall — that it belongs to the petitioners and objectors
jointly. The wall being a party wall, and considering the fact that one of the
joint owners objects to its registration, the same cannot be registered in
the present proceeding. One of two or more joint owners of land cannot
have the same registered against the opposition of the other joint owner
● Case v. Heirs of Tuason
○ ISSUE: W/N the wall is a party/dividing wall? – NO
 ○ Article 573 (Old Civil Code) provides that the legal presumption as to party
walls is limited to the three cases dealt with in the said article of the code,
and is that of juris tantum unless the contrary appears from the title of
ownership of the adjoining properties. That is to say, that the entire wall in
controversy belongs to one of the property owners, or where there is no
exterior sign to destroy such presumption and support a presumption
against the party wall.
○ It cannot be presumed that the aforesaid portion was a party wall, and that
it was not exclusively owned by the defendants, inasmuch as the latter
have proven by means of a good title that has not been impugned by the
petitioner, that when one of their ancestors and principals acquired the
property the lot was already inclosed by the wall on which the building was
erected; it must therefore be understood that in the purchase of the
property the wall by which the land was inclosed was necessarily included.
The above documentary evidence has not been overcome by any other
presented by the petitioner, but apart from that the record discloses the
existence of certain unquestionable signs. These consist of constructions
made by the petitioner himself on his own property which entirely
destroy any presumption that it is a party wall, and indeed gives rise to a
presumption against it.
KAT - 434-442

ARTICLE 660. It is understood that there is an exterior sign, contrary to the

easement of party wall:

(1) Whenever in the dividing wall of buildings there is a window or opening;

(2) Whenever the dividing wall is, on one side, straight and plumb on all its
facement, and on the other, it has similar conditions on the upper part, but the lower
part slants or projects outward;

(3) Whenever the entire wall is built within the boundaries of one of the estates;

(4) Whenever the dividing wall bears the burden of the binding beams, floors and
roof frame of one of the buildings, but not those of the others;

(5) Whenever the dividing wall between courtyards, gardens, and tenements is
constructed in such a way that the coping sheds the water upon only one of the
estates;

(6) Whenever the dividing wall, being built of masonry, has stepping stones, which
at certain intervals project from the surface on one side only, but not on the other;

(7) Whenever lands inclosed by fences or live hedges adjoin others which are not
inclosed.

In all these cases, the ownership of the walls, fences or hedges shall be deemed to
belong exclusively to the owner of the property or tenement which has in its favor
the presumption based on any one of these signs.
● EXCLUSIVE WALL
○ ISSUE: W/N the wall should be registered exclusively in favor of one lot
owner?
■ YES. CC provides that the easement of party walls is presumed
unless there is a title or exterior mark or proof to the contrary in
the dividing walls of adjoining buildings up to the common point
of elevation. Also that it should be understood that there are
exterior signs which conflict with the easement of party wall, when,
among other circumstances the entire wall is built on one of the lots
and not on the line dividing the 2 adjoining parcels; when the
dividing wall, being constructed of stone and cement, has stone
projecting at intervals from the surface on one side only and not on
the other; and when it supports joists, beams, floors and the roof
timbers of one of the houses but not of the adjoining building.
■ In this case: there were signs that showed that IT WAS NOT a party
wall
● Some signs
○ One-half of the top of the said wall is covered by the
roos of the applicant’s building
○ The supports of the wall project towards the side of
the land and none of the buttresses are on the side of
the objectors’ lot

ARTICLE 661. Ditches or drains opened between two estates are also presumed as
common to both, if there is no title or sign showing the contrary.

There is a sign contrary to the part-ownership whenever the earth or dirt removed to
open the ditch or to clean it is only on one side thereof, in which case the ownership
of the ditch shall belong exclusively to the owner of the land having this exterior
sign in its favor.
● Ditch and drains
 ○ Ditch: narrow elongated stretching some distance and usually for drainage
purposes
○ Drain: elongated structure for emptying water

ARTICLE 662. The cost of repairs and construction of party walls and the
maintenance of fences, live hedges, ditches, and drains owned in common, shall 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.

Nevertheless, any owner may exempt himself from contributing to this charge by
renouncing his part-ownership, except when the party wall supports a building
belonging to him.
● PROPORTIONAL BURDEN
○ A party wall is a co-ownership where co-owners must share the burden and
benefits in accordance with the extent of the interest
○ Part owner can exempt himself from contributing by renouncing his interest
■ If inextricably beneficial to him - he cannot renounce
● Happens when a party wall supports a building belonging to
him
○ If he does not want to contribute nor renounce
■ Charges are a collectible claim from such co-owner

ARTICLE 663. If the owner of a building supported by a party wall desires to

demolish the building, he may also renounce his part-ownership of the wall, but the
cost of all repairs and work necessary to prevent any damage which the demolition
may cause to the party wall, on this occasion only, shall be borne by him.

ARTICLE 664. Every owner may increase the height of the party wall, doing so at his
own expense and paying for any damage which may be caused by the work, even
though such damage be temporary.

The expenses of maintaining the wall in the part newly raised or deepened at its
foundation shall also be paid for by him; and, in addition, the indemnity for the
increased expenses which may be necessary for the preservation of the party wall
by reason of the greater height or depth which has been given it.

If the party wall cannot bear the increased height, the owner desiring to raise it shall
be obliged to reconstruct it at his own expense and, if for this purpose it be
necessary to make it thicker, he shall give the space required from his own land.

ARTICLE 665. The other owners who have not contributed in giving increased
height, depth or thickness to the wall may, nevertheless, acquire the right of part-
ownership therein, by paying proportionally the value of the work at the time of the
acquisition and of the land used for its increased thickness.
● IMPROVEMENT ON THE PARTY WALL
○ If a co-owner of a party wall desires to increase the height of a party wall or
deepen its foundation, he may do so
■ All at his expense
■ Responsible for putting up support structures - at his expense
■ Additions not enough to support the integrity of the party wall? Co-
owner must reconstruct at his own expense
■ Need to thicken wall? He must do so using the space of his land
○ Improvements will be owned by only by the co-owner who made them
■ Others can acquire a right of part-ownership by paying
proportionally the value of the work at the time of the acquisition
and of the land used for its increased thickness

ARTICLE 666. Every part-owner of a party wall may use it in proportion to the right
he may have in the co-ownership, without interfering with the common and
respective uses by the other co-owners.
● PROPORTIONAL
○ Right to use party wall of each co-owner depends on the extent of his/her
interest in the party wall
■ Can be by agreement
○ BUT NOTE: cannot interfere with the or negate the common objectives for
which the party wall was made, such as foundation for which an
underground common aqueduct should pass

JAKE - 443-455

EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW

ARTICLE 667. No part-owner may, without the consent of the others, open through
the party wall any window or aperture of any kind.
● PARTY WALL
○ If it is a party wall and therefore, co-owned by the owners of the properties
adjacent to the other, a part-owner must get the consent of the other to
open a window or aperture of any kind through the party wall

● EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW

○ Jurisprudence: Spouses Garcia v. Santos
■ Sps. Garcia bought Lot 2, in Southville Subdivision from Sps. Santos.
They occupied this property for about 11 years. At the time of
purchase, there was a one-storey house already constructed on the
property. The adjoining lot, Lot 1, is owned by the Santos. At that
time, it was an idle land without improvements but then they started
the construction of a two-storey residential house on the land.
■ The two-storey construction was taller than the residential house
of Sps. Garcia. It obstructed their right to light, air and view which
is why they filed the case seeking that the Court declare them as
having acquired the easement of light, air and view against Lot 1
■ The SC Held:
● The legal easement of light and view refers to an easement
whereby the dominant estate enjoys the right to have free
access to light, a little air, and a view overlooking the
adjoining estate; the servient estate
● The easement of light or jus luminum
○ Has the purpose of admitting light and a little air, as
in the case of small windows, not more than 30 sq
centimeters immediately under the ceiling
○ Right to make openings under certain conditions in
order to receive light from another’s tenement
● The easement of view or jus servidumbre prospectus
○ Has the purpose of affording view, as in the case of full
or regular windows overlooking the adjoining estate
○ Right to make openings to enjoy the view through
the estate of another and the power to prevent all
constructions that would obstruct such view
○ Broader because the easement of light is always
included here
● Easement of Light and View is intrinsically intertwined with
the easement of the servient estate NOT to build higher or
altius non tollendi
○ The owner of the servient estate should not build a
structure that obstructs the view
● EASEMENT OF LIGHT AND VIEW MAY BE POSITIVE OR
NEGATIVE
○ GR: POSITIVE IF SITUATED IN A PARTY WALL,
NEGATIVE IF IT IS THROUGH ONE’S OWN WALL
■ Positive Example: even if the window is on
one’s own wall, it would still be positive if the
window is ON a BALCONY or PROJECTION
EXTENDING OVER INTO THE ADJOINING
LAND
■ Negative example: through the wall of the
dominant estate
○ Past Jurisprudence has held that: the easement of
light and view in the case of windows opened in one’s
own wall is negative - cannot be acquired except
where sufficient time of possession has elapsed after
the owner of the dominant estate by a formal act has
prohibited the owner of the servient estate from
doing something which would be lawful
■ Formal Act - not merely any writing, but one
executed in due form and/or with solemnity
(notarial prohibition)
○ While it is the general rule that windows or openings
on the wall of the dominant estate involves a negative
easement which may only be acquired by prescription,
easements may also be acquired through title -
juridical act or law sufficient to create the
encumbrance (EXCEPTION)
■ One such way is through Art. 624 - legal
presumption or apparent sign
● Estates wherein 2 or more estates were
previously owned by a singular or even a
single estate but with 2 or more portions
being owned by a singular owner where
 there is an apparent sign of an
easement, then a title arises to an
easement of light and view even in the
absence of any formal act undertaken
by the owner of the dominant estate; if
the apparent visible sign continues to
remain and subsist unless when divided
the contrary is provided in the title of
conveyance or the sign should be
removed before the execution of the
deed
■ Apparent sign: if the existence of the windows
and openings on the dominant estate continue
to remain even after the transfer of the property
to the new owner, unless the apparent sign is
removed or there is an agreement to the
contrary

JAREL - 464-468

Three-Meter Distance Rule

There are two kinds of windows: 1) regular/full/direct view windows, and 2)
restricted/oblique/side view windows. As for openings, they may be 1) direct views (made
on a wall parallel or almost parallel to the line that divides the estates, in such a way that
the neighboring tenement can be seen without putting out or turning the head), or 2)
oblique views (those openings in a wall which form an angle to the boundary line, and
requires one to thrust his head out of the opening and look right or left in order to see
the neighboring tenement).

For direct view windows or openings, there are two rules that must be observed before
they can be established. First is the two-meter distance rule under 670, which states
that when a window or any similar opening affords a direct view of adjoining land, the
distance between the wall in which the opening is made and the border of the adjoining
land should be at least two meters (this is the general rule).
The three-meter distance rule is found in 673, which states that when by any title a right
is acquired to have direct views, balconies, or belvederes overlooking an adjoining
property, the owner of the servient estate cannot build thereon at less than a distance of
3 meters from the property line (this is the exception, and it applies when the easement
is established or recognized by title or by prescription). In such a case, the distance
between the structures erected on the servient estate and the boundary line of the
adjoining estate must be at least 3 meters.
The distance is mandatory and any construction that violates it should be demolished or
renovated.

ARTICLE 668. The period of prescription for the acquisition of an easement of light
and view shall be counted: (1) From the time of the opening of the window, if it is
through a party wall; or (2) From the time of the formal prohibition upon the
proprietor of the adjoining land or tenement, if the window is through a wall on the
dominant estate.

WINDOWS - If the window is opened through the wall owned by the dominant estate
inside such estate, it is a negative easement. Prescription will run from the time of
formal prohibition against the adjacent owner.

Example: A opens a window through his own wall. B, his neighbor, has the right to build
on his land, as high as he wants, even if this may prevent light from passing through A’s
window. This right will not cease because B can do whatever he wants on his property.
But if A gives B a notarized letter (which is a formal prohibition) telling B not to build
anything that will cover A’s light and view, and B consents to the prohibition and does
not do anything for 10 years, A acquires an easement of light and view, and B can no
longer build anything to impede the light going into A’s window. If B does not consent,
the 10-year period will not run.

If the window is opened through a party wall, the 10 year period will start to run from the
time of opening. There is no need for a notarial prohibition, because the act of opening
made by a co-owner of the party wall is the basis of acquisition of a prescriptive title
since it always presupposes the express or implied consent of the other part owner of
the wall, which in turn implies their voluntary waiver of the right to oppose the making
such openings or windows in the party wall.

NONCREATION OF LEGAL EASEMENT - In Alolino v. Flores, where a neighbor erected a

structure on a barrio road covering the light and view of the adjacent neighbor, the SC
ruled that the structure should be removed because it was a nuisance per se as it
obstructed a public passageway. However, the mere erection of the structure did not
create an easement of light and view in favor of the adjacent neighbor. None of the
provisions on easement of light and view actually create a legal easement of light and
view, which may only be acquired by prescription or by virtue of voluntary title.

JIANA -469-477

ARTICLE 669. When the distances in article 670 are not observed, the owner of a
wall which is not party wall, adjoining a tenement or piece of land belonging to
another, can make in it openings to admit light at the height of the ceiling joints or
immediately under the ceiling, and of the size of thirty centimeters square, and, in
every case, with an iron grating imbedded in the wall and with a wire screen.

Nevertheless, the owner of the tenement or property adjoining the wall in which the
openings are made can close them should he acquire part-ownership thereof, if
there be no stipulation to the contrary.

He can also obstruct them by constructing a building on his land or by raising a wall
thereon contiguous to that having such openings, unless an easement of light has
been acquired.

ARTICLE 670. No windows, apertures, balconies, or other similar projections which

afford a direct view upon or towards an adjoining land or tenement can be made,
without leaving a distance of two meters between the wall in which they are made
and such contiguous property.

Neither can side or oblique views upon or towards such conterminous property be
had, unless there be a distance of sixty centimeters.

The nonobservance of these distances does not give rise to prescription.

ARTICLE 671. The distance referred to in the preceding article shall be measured in
cases of direct views from the outer line of the wall when the openings do not
project, from the outer line of the latter when they do, and in cases of oblique view
from the dividing line between the two properties.

DISTANCES.
 ● For example, Jose and Pedro are adjacent neighbors. If Jose is to open a window
on the side of his house facing Pedro’s property, he must have at least two (2)
meters between the wall where the window has been opened and the boundary
line separating Jose’s property from that of Pedro’s.
○ If balcony is constructed, then distance will be measured from the edge of
that balcony.
○ If Jose’s window is obliquely located from the property of Pedro, the
distance must be at least 60 centimeters.
● In violation of this rule, Pedro can demand that window be closed at anytime.
● If Jose makes a wall just before the boundary separating his property from Pedro’s
property, which is also the outer wall of his house, Jose can make a 3cm opening
with iron grating and wire screen to let air pass to his house.
○ Pedro can obstruct the opening by building a wall or constructing a
building, but this cannot be done if Jose had already acquired the
easement of light and view.
○ If Pedro becomes co-owner of the party wall, however, he can close the
opening unless there is an agreement to the contrary.
● Non-observance of these distances does not give use to prescription.

ARTICLE 672. The provisions of article 670 are not applicable to buildings separated
by a public way or alley, which is not less than three meters wide, subject to special
regulations and local ordinances.

ARTICLE 673. Whenever by any title a right has been acquired to have direct views,
balconies or belvederes overlooking an adjoining property, the owner of the servient
estate cannot build thereon at less than a distance of three meters to be measured
in the manner provided in article 671. Any stipulation permitting distances less than
those prescribed in article 670 is void.

TITLE.
● For example, if Jose and Pedro are neighbors, Jose cannot have his window less
than three meters away from the boundary.
● Any agreement permitting the latter is void.

SECTION 6
DRAINAGE OF BUILDINGS
 ARTICLE 674. The owner of a building shall be obliged to construct its roof or
covering in such manner that the rain water shall fall on his own land or on a street
or public place, and not on the land of his neighbor, even though the adjacent land
may belong to two or more persons, one of whom is the owner of the roof. Even if it
should fall on his own land, the owner shall be obliged to collect the water in such a
way as not to cause damage to the adjacent land or tenement.

PROHIBITION
● For example, Jose owns a house constructed in such a way that the water from his
roof flows into the adjacent property co-owned by him and Pedro. (Same case
even if Jose co-owns the adjacent property with Pedro)
○ Pedro can demand that the roof be reconstructed so that the water will not
fall on the co-owned property of Jose and Pedro.
○ Jose must reconstruct the roof so that the water will fall solely in his
property before the boundary.

ARTICLE 675. The owner of a tenement or a piece of land, subject to the easement
of receiving water falling from roofs, may build in such manner as to receive the
water upon his own roof or give it another outlet in accordance with local
ordinances or customs, and in such a way as not to cause any nuisance or damage
whatever to the dominant estate.

EASEMENT/ ABUSE OF RIGHT

● Servient estate may subject his property to receive the water of the dominant
estate, however, the dominant estate cannot build a structure extending by 98
meters into the property of the servient estate contrary to the agreed easement in
order that the water will fall on the servient owner’s estate.

ARTICLE 676. Whenever the yard or court of a house is surrounded by other houses,
and it is not possible to give an outlet through the house itself to the rain water
collected thereon, the establishment of an easement of drainage can be demanded,
giving an outlet to the water at the point of the contiguous lands or tenements
where its egress may be easiest, and establishing a conduit for the drainage in such
manner as to cause the least damage to the servient estate, after payment of the
property indemnity.

YARD AND COURT

 ● Yard and courts are normally wide and open spaces where people can play or
meet
● Requisites for the easement of drainage to be demanded in a yard or court:
1. Water must be rain water;
2. Yard or court surrounded by other hosues;
3. No outlet for rain water collected thereon;
4. The outlet should be at the point of the contiguous lands or tenements
where its egress may be easiest;
5. And establishing a conduit for the drainage in such a manner as to cause
the least damage to the servient estate;
6. Prior payment of damages.

SECTION 7
INTERMEDIATE DISTANCES AND WORKS FOR CERTAIN CONSTRUCTIONS AND
PLANTINGS

ARTICLE 677. No constructions can be built or plantings made near fortified places
or fortresses without compliance with the conditions required in special laws,
ordinances, and regulations relating thereto.

ARTICLE 678. No person shall build any aqueduct, well, sewer, furnace, forge,
chimney, stable, depository of corrosive substances, machinery, or factory which by
reason of its nature or products is dangerous or noxious, without observing the
distances prescribed by the regulations and customs of the place, and without
making the necessary protective works, subject, in regard to the manner thereof, to
the conditions prescribed by such regulations. These prohibitions cannot be altered
or renounced by stipulation on the part of the adjoining proprietors.

In the absence of regulations, such precautions shall be taken as may be considered

necessary, in order to avoid any damage to the neighboring lands or tenements.

MANDATORY AND PROHIBITORY

● The requirements under Article 677 are prohibitory. There must be strict
compliance with special laws, ordinances, and regulations relating thereto.
○ Custom and usage cannot be availed of.
● Article 678 is both mandatory and prohibitory.
○ Prohibitions cannot be altered or renounced by stipulation on the part of
the adjoining proprietors.
 ○ Absence of regulations – such precautions shall be taken as considered
necessary to avoid damage to neighboring lands or tenements.
● Article 4 of the Civil Code – acts executed against the provision of mandatory or
prohibitory laws shall be void, except when the law itself authorizes its validity.

ARTICLE 679. No trees shall be planted near a tenement or piece of land belonging
to another except at the distance authorized by the ordinances or customs of the
place, and, in the absence thereof, at a distance of at least two meters from the
dividing line of the estates if tall trees are planted and at a distance of at least fifty
centimeters if shrubs or small trees are planted.

Every landowner shall have the right to demand that trees hereafter planted at a
shorter distance from his land or tenement be uprooted.

The provisions of this article also apply to trees which have grown spontaneously.

TREES
● Tall trees must be planted 2 meters away from the boundary separating the owner
of the land where the trees were planted and his/her adjacent neighbor.
● If shrubs or small trees, the distance must be 50cm.
● If there are other distances required by ordinances or the custom of the place,
such distance will prevail.
● Any violation gives a cause of action to adjacent neighbors to uproot the same.

ARTICLE 680. If the branches of any tree should extend over a neighboring estate,
tenement, garden or yard, the owner of the latter 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 a neighboring tree which should penetrate into the land of another, the
latter may cut them off himself within his property.

ARTICLE 681. Fruits naturally falling upon adjacent land belong to the owner of said
land.

BRANCHES AND ROOTS

● If the branches of trees extend to the neighbors, the latter can demand that they
be cut.
● If the roots intruded into the property, the latter may cutt off those within their
property.
 SECTION 8
EASEMENT AGAINST NUISANCE

ARTICLE 682. Every building or piece of land is subject to the easement which
prohibits the proprietor or possessor from committing nuisance through noise,
jarring, offensive odor, smoke, heat, dust, water, glare and other causes.

RESPECT
● Neighbors must respect the tranquility of the community.
● If Jose starts a sardine business in the community and it emits offensive order
detrimental to the health of people, that can be stopped.

ARTICLE 683. Subject to zoning, health, police and other laws and regulations,
factories and shops may be maintained provided the least possible annoyance is
caused to the neighborhood.

FACTORIES AND SHOPS

● Just because the factories and shops have been given business permits by the
municipality or city does not mean that they can already be at the liberty to make
as much annoyance to the neighborhood.
● If the annoyance constitutes a nuisance, it can be stopped regardless of the
degree, and remedies can be had under the Chapter on Nuisance.

SECTION 9
LATERAL AND SUBJACENT SUPPORT

ARTICLE 684. No proprietor shall make such excavations upon his land as to
deprive any adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support.

Castro v. Monsod
● The owner of a property had been making excavation endangering the house of
the adjacent owner to lose its lateral support.
○ Court allowed the permanent injunction against the owner of the land
being excavated.
 ● An owner, by virtue of his surface right, may make excavations on his land, but his
right is subject to the limitation that he shall not deprive any adjacent land or
building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support.
● In this case, the continued excavations could cause the foundation of the rear
portion of the house of respondent to collapse.

ARTICLE 685. Any stipulation or testamentary provision allowing excavations that

cause danger to an adjacent land or building shall be void.

VOID STIPULATION
● For example, in her last will and testament, Jane gave a legacy to Julia who in
turn, was charged of making an excavation adjacent to a historic 19th century
house, whose foundations are very weak.
○ Void because it endangers the house.

ARTICLE 686. The legal easement of lateral and subjacent support is not only for
buildings standing at the time the excavations are made but also for constructions
that may be erected.

See codal

ARTICLE 687. Any proprietor intending to make any excavation contemplated in the
three preceding articles shall notify all owners of adjacent lands.

NOTIFICATION
● Important so that the adjacent owners will have the chance to comment w/n the
excavation posts a danger to their property
VOLUNTARY EASEMENTS (SEE EARLIER NOTES; ARTS 688-693)
 DONATION

CHAPTER 1 - NATURE OF DONATIONS

ARTICLE 725. Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes

gratuitously of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it.

CONTRACT
● Catalan v. Basa: A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes
gratuitously a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it. Like any other
contract, an agreement of the parties is essential. Consent in contracts
presupposes the following requisites: (1) it should be intelligent or with an exact
notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it should be free; and (3) it should be
spontaneous. The parties' intention must be clear and the attendance of a vice of
consent, like any contract, renders the donation voidable.
○ Examples of vices: fraud and misrepresentation

Heirs Florencia v. Heirs De Leon:

● The essential elements of donation are as follows:
○ (a) the essential reduction of the patrimony of the donor;
○ (b) the increase in the patrimony of the donee; and
○ (c) the intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi.
● When applied to a donation of an immovable property, the law further requires
that the donation be made in a public document and that the acceptance thereof
be made in the same deed or in a separate public instrument; in cases where the
acceptance is made in a separate instrument, it is mandated that the donor be
notified thereof in an authentic form, to be noted in both instruments.
● As a mode of acquiring ownership, donation results in an effective transfer of
title over the property from the donor to the donee, and is perfected from the
moment the donor is made aware of the acceptance by the donee, provided
that the donee is not disqualified or prohibited by law from accepting the
donation.
● Once the donation is accepted, it is generally considered irrevocable, and the
donee becomes the absolute owner of the property, except on account of
officiousness, failure by the donee to comply with the charge imposed in the
donation, or ingratitude. The acceptance, to be valid, must be made during the
lifetime of both the donor and the donee. It must be made in the same deed or in
a separate public document, and the donees acceptance must come to the
knowledge of the donor.
DONATIVE INTENT
● Abello v. CIR (donative intent): The Supreme Court held that the existence of
other motives did not negative donative intent to qualify as a donation and
therefore any gift to a political candidate for his election made prior to the
ammendment of the law exempting election-donations from donor's tax, was a
donation subject to donor's tax.
○ Petitioners' argument is not tenable. First of all, donative intent is a
creature of the mind. It cannot be perceived except by the material and
tangible acts which manifest its presence. This being the case, donative
intent is presumed present when one gives a part of ones patrimony to
another without consideration. Second, donative intent is not negated
when the person donating has other intentions, motives or purposes
which do not contradict donative intent. This Court is not convinced that
since the purpose of the contribution was to help elect a candidate, there
was no donative intent. Petitioners' contribution of money without any
material consideration evinces animus donandi. The fact that their purpose
for donating was to aid in the election of the donee does not negate the
presence of donative intent.
● Republic v. Guzman (no donative intent): Not all the elements of a donation of
an immovable property are present in the instant case. A perusal of the two (2)
deeds of quitclaim reveals that Helen intended to convey to her son David certain
parcels of land located in the Philippines, and to re-affirm the quitclaim she
executed in 1981 which likewise declared a waiver and renunciation of her rights
over the parcels of land. The language of the deed of quitclaim is clear that Helen
merely contemplated a waiver of her rights, title and interest over the lands in
favor of David, and not a donation. That a donation was far from Helen's mind is
further supported by her deposition which indicated that she was aware that a
donation of the parcels of land was not possible since Philippine law does not
allow such an arrangement. She reasoned that if she really intended to donate
something to David it would have been more convenient if she sold the property
and gave him the proceeds therefrom. It appears that foremost in Helen's mind
was the preservation of the Bulacan realty within the bloodline of Simeon from
where they originated and the benefit that would accrue to David by reason of
her renunciation.
● Nat’l Power Corporation v. Delta (donative intent): It is clear that NAPOCOR's
motivation for supplying the fuel was the power crisis in Palawan and the request
of the local government to intervene. While this may not be as absolute an act of
 liberality as NAPOCOR had a personal agenda for doing so, such reason does not
take away from the fact that the supplying of fuel was done without the annexing
of any condition to be complied with by Delta P. There was not even an
annotation in any document that Delta P would have to pay any amount back, nor
any indication whatsoever that the supply was a mere loan. Absent any these, for
whatever reason, the Court agrees to the finding that the supplying of fuel was a
donation

REGISTRATION
● Registration of the deed of donation w/ the Registry of Deed is not an essential
nor formal requirement to give validity and efficacy to the parties to a donation
and their assigns for as long as the requirements of the CC are met.

TYPES OF DONATION ACCORDING TO PURPOSE (Yulo and Sons v. Roman Catholic

Church)
● Donations, according to its purpose or cause, may be categorized as:
○ (1) pure or simple
■ underlying cause is plain gratuity; donation in its truest form
○ (2) remuneratory or compensatory
■ made for the purpose of rewarding the donee for past services,
which services do not amount to a demandable debt
○ (3) conditional or modal
■ made in consideration of future services or where the donor
imposes certain conditions, limitations or charges upon the donee,
the value of which is inferior than that of the donation given
○ (4) onerous
■ imposes upon the donee a reciprocal obligation or, to be more
precise, this is the kind of donation made for a valuable
consideration, the cost of which is equal to or more than the thing
donated.

ARTICLE 726. When a person gives to another a thing or right on account of the
latter’s merits or of the services rendered by him to the donor, provided they do not
constitute a demandable debt, or when the gift imposes upon the donee a burden
which is less than the value of the thing given, there is also a donation.
SALARIES FOR UNPERFORMED WORK (Olaguer v. Puruganan)
● An arrangement whereby petitioner will receive "salaries" for work he will not
perform, which is not a demandable debt since petitioner was on an extended
 leave of absence, constitutes a donation under Article 726 of the CC. Under
Article 748 of the CC, if the value of the personal property donated exceeds
P5,000, the donation and the acceptance shall have to be made in writing.
Otherwise, the donation will be void. In the present case, petitioner admitted in his
testimony, that such arrangement was not made in writing and, hence, is void.

ARTICLE 727. Illegal or impossible conditions in simple and remuneratory donations

shall be considered as not imposed.

ILLEGAL OR IMPOSSIBLE CONDITION (Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. CA)

● The cause of action of private respondents is based on the alleged breach by
petitioners of the resolutory condition in the deed of donation that the property
donated should not be sold within a period of one hundred (100) years from the
date of execution of the deed of donation. Said condition, in our opinion,
constitutes an undue restriction on the rights arising from ownership of petitioners
and is, therefore, contrary to public policy.
● Although the donor may impose certain conditions in the deed of donation, the
same must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order and
public policy. The condition imposed in the deed of donation in the case before
us constitutes a patently unreasonable and undue restriction on the right of the
donee to dispose of the property donated, which right is an indispensable
attribute of ownership. Such a prohibition against alienation, in order to be valid,
must not be perpetual or for an unreasonable period of time.
● Certain provisions of the Civil Code illustrative of the aforesaid policy may be
considered applicable by analogy. Under Article 494 (3), a donor or testator may
prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty (20) years. Article
870, on its part, declares that the dispositions of the testator declaring all or part
of the estate inalienable for more than twenty (20) years are void.

ARTICLE 728. Donations which are to take effect upon the death of the donor
partake of the nature of testamentary provisions, and shall be governed by the rules
established in the Title on Succession.

NOVEMBER 26, 2022

NEXT SET OF ASSIGNMENTS:

 JIANA: 539-553

ARTICLE 729. When the donor intends that the donation shall take effect during the
lifetime of the donor, though the property shall not be delivered till after the donor’s
death, this shall be a donation inter vivos. The fruits of the property from the time of
the acceptance of the donation, shall pertain to the donee, unless the donor
provides otherwise.
● KINDS OF DONATIONS
1. Inter vivos
● The act is immediately operational even if the actual execution may
be deferred until the death of the donor
2. Mortis Causa
● Nothing is conveyed to or acquired by the donee until death of the
donor-testator
Ganuelas v. Cawed
Inter vivos Mortis Causa

Takes effect during the lifetime or Nothing is conveyed to or acquired by the

independently of the donor’s death donee until death of the donor-testator.

As to time full or naked ownership passes

Full or naked ownership of the donated
properties passess to the donee during
the donor’s lifetime, not by reason of his
death but because of the deed of
donation.
Full or naked ownership of the donated
properties will pass to the donee only
because of the donor’s death.

As to form

Must be executed and accepted with the
formalities prescribed in Articles 748 and
749 of the Civil Code.
XPN: It is onerous, then the rules on
contract will apply.
Must be in the form of a will, with all the
formalities for the validity of wills,
otherwise it will be void.

● Austria-Magat v. CA
○ Austria-Magat argued that the donation was mortis causa, however, the
contents of the deed of donation stated that the donation would be
irrevocable.
○ Characteristics of a donation mortis causa:
 1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of
the transferor; or, what amounts ot the same thing, that the
transferor should retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of
the property while alive;
2. That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the
transferor at will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided
indirectly by means of a reserved power in the donor to dispose of
the properties conveyed.
3. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the
transferee.
○ What is most significant in determining the type of donation is the absence
of stipulation that the donor could revoke the donations; on the contrary,
the deeds expressly declared them to be irrevocable, a quality absolutely
incompatible with the idea of conveyances mortis causa, where revocability
is of the essence of the act, to the extent that a testator cannot lawfully
waive or restrict his right of revocation.
○ Donation in this case intervivos because:
■ Contained irrevocability provision
■ Contained an acceptance clause, which is also an indication of
donation inter vivos

554-568:KAT
● OTHER GUIDELINES IN DETERMINING THE NATURE OF DONATION
○ PUIG V PENAFLORIDA
■ Donation mortis causa of the roman law and spanish pre-codal has
been eliminated as a juridical entity from and after the enactment of
the spanish civil code as well as the PH civil code.
● PH civ code now only accepts donations inter vivos or by last
will and testament
■ An essential characteristic of disposition mortis causa is that the
conveyance or alienation should be revocable at the discretion of
the grantor or donor
■ In consequence, the specification in a deed of the cause whereby
the act may be revoked by the donor indicates that the donation is
inter vivos rather than mortis causa
■ That the designation of the donation as mortis causa or a provision
in the deed to the effect that the donation is “to take effect at the
 death of the donor” are not controlling criteria - construed words
considering the rest of the instrument
■ Conveyance for onerous consideration is governed by the rules of
contracts and not by those of donation or testament
■ In case of doubt, the conveyance should be deemed donation inter
vivos rather than mortis causa
● To avoid uncertainty as to who owns the land
● REVOCABLE OR NOT
○ CASE: what is most significant in determining what type of donation it is is
whether it is revocable or not.
■ Irrevocable: donation inter vivos
■ Revocable: donations mortis causa
● Testator cannot lawfully restrict/waive his right of revocation
● EFFECTIVITY OF DONATIONS INTER VIVOS
○ Case: where the property was already donated prior to the execution of
and extrajudicial partition, SC ruled that there was nothing to partition
because the donor was no longer the owner of the property

Article 730. The fixing of an event or the imposition of a suspensive condition, which
may take place beyond the natural expectation of life of the donor, does not destroy
the nature of the act as a donation inter vivos, unless a contrary intention appears.
(n)
● SUSPENSIVE CONDITION
○ Future and uncertain even, the happening of which creates the right and
once the condition is fulfilled, effect retroacts to the day of the constitution
of the obligation

Article 731. When a person donates something, subject to the resolutory condition
of the donor's survival, there is a donation inter vivos. (n)

● RESOLUTORY CONDITION
○ Future and uncertain events the happening of which extinguishes a right.
The obligation which contains a resolutory condition is demandable, w/o
prejudice to the effects of the happening of the event.
Article 732. Donations which are to take effect inter vivos shall be governed by the
general provisions on contracts and obligations in all that is not determined in this
Title.

Article 733. Donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on
contracts and remuneratory donations by the provisions of the present Title as
regards that portion which exceeds the value of the burden imposed.
● RULE ON CONTRACTS
○ A simple or pure donation is one whose cause is pure liberality while
onerous ones are subject to burdens, charges or future services equal to or
more than the value of the thing donated
■ Onerous: governed by rules on contracts
● ONEROUS DONATIONS
○ For a donation to be considered onerous, it must be shown that the donor
intended to make the donee undertake payments or to comply with
certain conditions
○ CASE: donee paid unpaid taxes of donated property - not onerous
(voluntary act of donee)
● LAW ON CONTRACTS
○ CASE: donation had a burden imposed upon the donee to build a school
on the donated property - law on contract applies.
■ Rescission is an available remedy (substantial breach)

569-583: JAKE
Hi pls start w non-fulfillment on p 568 - gotcha

● NON-FULFILLMENT OF CONDITION
○ Jurisprudence:
■ The donation was onerous, one that was executed for a valuable
consideration which is considered the equivalent of the donation
itself
● A gift of land to the City of Manila requiring it to erect schools,
construct a children’s playground, open streets is a onerous
donation - in this case it was a Medical College
○ When a person donates land to another on the
condition that he would build a school, the condition
imposed was a RESOLUTORY CONDITION
 ○ The donation had to be valid BEFORE the fulfillment
of the condition
○ If there was no fulfillment or compliance with the
condition, the donation may be revoked and all rights
which the donee may have acquired shall be deemed
lost and extinguished

● On Prescription:
○ When the donee accepted the donation, and the time
within which the condition should be fulfilled depends
upon the will of the donee, absolute acceptance was
sufficient to prevent prescription
■ A cause of action arises when that which should
have been done is not done, or that which
should not have been done is done
● Period must be counted from the day on
which the corresponding action could
have been instituted - it is the legal
possibility of bringing the action which
determines the starting point
■ Starting point for the computation of the period:
the expiration of a reasonable period and
opportunity for the donee to fulfill the
obligation

○ The time for the establishment of a medical college

and the necessary buildings cannot be quantified due
to the presence of several factors and circumstances
(government laws and regulations)
■ When the obligation does not fix a period but
from its nature and circumstances it can be
inferred that a period was intended, the Courts
may fix the duration
● PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
○ For DONATIONS with an ONEROUS CAUSE
■ Not governed by the law on donations but BY THE RULES ON
CONTRACTS
 ■ Jurisprudence has held that the general rules on prescription
applies
■ Art. 733 - Donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the
rules on contracts, and remuneratory donations by the provisions of
the present Title as regards that portion which exceeds the value of
the burden imposed
● The rule that actions for the revocation of a donation must be
brought within 4 years DOES NOT APPLY TO ONEROUS
DONATIONS
● SUBSTANTIAL BREACH
○ Substantial breach justifies the revocation of a donation
■ Example: 36m wide access road will be built but only a 20m wide
was built eventually

ARTICLE 734. The donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the
acceptance by the donee.
● PERFECTION
○ ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE DONOR of the acceptance of the donee

ARTICLE 735. All persons who may contract and dispose of their property may make
a donation.

ARTICLE 736. Guardians and trustees cannot donate the property entrusted to
them.
● Jurisprudence
○ Owners paid for the purchase of the property but placed it under the name
of Dominga but she donated it, the donation was void

ARTICLE 737. The donor's capacity shall be determined as of the time of the making
of the donation. (n)

ARTICLE 738. All those who are not specially disqualified by law therefor may
accept donations. (625)
● CAPACITY TO DONATE
○ Jurisprudence
■ Donor was claimed to be schizophrenic at the time of the donation,
but the SC rejected the claim that he was incapacitated
■ In order for donation to be valid, the donor’s capacity to give
consent at the time of the donation is crucial
■ Burden of proving incapacity rests upon the person alleging it
■ SC: schizophrenia improves and worsens in cycles, a person
suffering from it does not necessarily lost his competence to
intelligently dispose of his property, merely alleging schizophrenia
is not enough there must be substantial proof that he was
incapacitated at the time of the donation
● Can be proven through other acts done or contracts
executed

ARTICLE 739. The following donations shall be void:

(1) Those made between persons who were guilty of adultery or concubinage at the
time of the donation;

(2) Those made between persons found guilty of the same criminal offense, in
consideration thereof;

(3) Those made to a public officer or his wife, descendants and ascendants, by
reason of his office.

In the case referred to in No. 1, the action for declaration of nullity may be brought
by the spouse of the donor or donee; and the guilt of the donor and donee may be
proved by preponderance of evidence in the same action.

● ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE

○ If the paramour had no knowledge that his/her partner is married, she
cannot be guilty of adultery and concubinage, the donation will not be
void
○ Action to declare nullity of the donation may only be brought by the
innocent spouse - in a case of a donation of a husband to his second wife,
his first wife has standing to file a nullity case
○ No need for criminal prosecution or conviction for this article to apply
 ■ Just needs a preponderance of evidence, no need for a full blown
trial or the quantum of proof in criminal cases
● BETWEEN PERSONS FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME IN CONSIDERATION
THEREOF
○ Dina persuaded Thelma to inflict physical injuries on Julie. In doing so, Dina
will give a donation to Thelma of P10,000
○ Dina and Thelma were convicted of physical injuries.
○ Dina (donor) died. The heirs of Dina can claim the donation on the ground
that it was void for being in consideration of a crime
● DONATIONS TO PUBLIC OFFICERS
○ Form of graft and corruption, for the donation to be void the donation must
have been made by reason of the office of the public officer

ARTICLE 740. Incapacity to succeed by will shall be applicable to donations inter

vivos.

Article 1027. The following are incapable of succeeding:

(1) The priest who heard the confession of the testator during his last illness, or the
minister of the gospel who extended spiritual aid to him during the same period;

(2) The relatives of such priest or minister of the gospel within the fourth degree, the
church, order, chapter, community, organization, or institution to which such priest or
minister may belong;

(3) A guardian with respect to testamentary dispositions given by a ward in his favor
before the final accounts of the guardianship have been approved, even if the testator
should die after the approval thereof; nevertheless, any provision made by the ward in
favor of the guardian when the latter is his ascendant, descendant, brother, sister, or
spouse, shall be valid;

(4) Any attesting witness to the execution of a will, the spouse, parents, or children, or
any one claiming under such witness, spouse, parents, or children;

(5) Any physician, surgeon, nurse, health officer or druggist who took care of the testator
during his last illness;

(6) Individuals, associations and corporations not permitted by law to inherit.

Article 1032. The following are incapable of succeeding by reason of unworthiness:

(1) Parents who have abandoned their children or induced their daughters to lead a
corrupt or immoral life, or attempted against their virtue;

(2) Any person who has been convicted of an attempt against the life of the testator,
his or her spouse, descendants, or ascendants;

(3) Any person who has accused the testator of a crime for which the law prescribes
imprisonment for six years or more, if the accusation has been found groundless;

(4) Any heir of full age who, having knowledge of the violent death of the testator,
should fail to report it to an officer of the law within a month, unless the authorities
have already taken action; this prohibition shall not apply to cases wherein, according to
law, there is no obligation to make an accusation;

(5) Any person convicted of adultery or concubinage with the spouse of the testator;

(6) Any person who by fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence should cause
the testator to make a will or to change one already made;

(7) Any person who by the same means prevents another from making a will, or from
revoking one already made, or who supplants, conceals, or alters the latter's will;

(8) Any person who falsifies or forges a supposed will of the decedent.

ARTICLE 741. Minors and others who cannot enter into a contract may become
donees but acceptance shall be done through their parents or legal representatives.
● MINORS
○ Minors cannot give consent to a contract but they can become donees
○ For a legitimate child, the father and mother shall jointly exercise legal
guardianship over the property of their unemancipated common child
without necessity of court appointment
○ For a illegitimate child, only the mother has parental authority over the
property of the child
 ○ With respect to others who cannot enter into a contract, a a legal
representative: guardian must be appointed by the Court

ARTICLE 742. Donations made to conceived and unborn children may be accepted
by those persons who would legally represent them if they were already born.
● CONCEIVED CHILD
○ A conceived child has provisional personality
○ The civil personality of the child shall commence from the time of
conception for all purposes favorable to him
○ Fetus is considered born if it is a live at the time it is completely delivered
from the mother’s womb
○ If the fetus had an intrauterine life of less than 7 months and dies within 24
hours after completely delivery then it is not deemed born

ARTICLE 743. Donations made to incapacitated persons shall be void, though

simulated under the guise of another contract or through a person who is
interposed.
● INCAPACITATED PERSONS
○ Donations to incapacitated persons are null and void
■ However, if they are represented by a guardian appointed by the
Court then they can validly receive a donation through the guardian

ARTICLE 744. Donations of the same thing to two or more different donees shall be
governed by the provisions concerning the sale of the same thing to two or more
different persons.

Article 1544. If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the
ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession
thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it
who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.

Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good
faith was first in the possession; and, in the
absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.
ARTICLE 745. The donee must accept the donation personally, or through an
authorized person with a special power for the purpose, or with a general and
sufficient power; otherwise, the donation shall be void.

ARTICLE 746. Acceptance must be made during the lifetime of the donor and of the
donee.

ARTICLE 747. Persons who accept donations in representation of others who may
not do so by themselves, shall be obliged to make the notification and notation of
which article 749 speaks.

● ACCEPTANCE
○ Donation is essentially a contract
○ Acceptance must be made by the donee and in accordance with the
formalities in the law

ARTICLE 748. The donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing.

An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or of the document
representing the right donated.

If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the
donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing. Otherwise, the donation shall
be void.

● MOVABLES
○ Demetria is intending to donate a Rolex worth P100,000 to Cynthia
○ The donation and the acceptance must be in writing, if not it is void
○ If the Rolex watch is less than P5,000 there must be simultaneous delivery
of the thing OR even if less than P5,000 but made in writing of the
document representing the donation

584-601: JAREL
ARTICLE 749. In order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be
made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated and the value
of the charges which the donee must satisfy.

The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate public
document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done during the lifetime of the
donor.

If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be notified

thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in both instruments.
● MANDATORY REQUIREMENT - The requisites of a valid donation of immovable
property are: a) essential reduction of the patrimony of the donor, b) increase in
the patrimony of the donee, c) intent to do an act of liberality/animus donandi, d)
the donation must be contained in a public document, and e) the acceptance must
be made in the same deed or in a separate public instrument, in which case the
donor must be notified of it in an authentic form, to be noted in both instruments.
● Legasto v. Verzosa - An aunt donated land to her nieces. These nieces affirmed
the donation in sworn statements, claiming that they purchased said lands from
their aunt, and such purchase constituted the gift and acceptance at the same
time. The Court ruled that the sworn statements refer to a sale and not a gift, and
cannot be considered as public instruments of gifts showing the acceptance of
the donees. Even if the sworn statements could be construed as separate deeds
of acceptance, the legal requisite of notification in due form to the donor of the
donee’s acceptance and the annotation thereof in the deed of the gift and the
instrument of acceptance is lacking. The sworn statements are merely
acknowledgements made under oath of the fact of transfer, and not deeds
actually transferring title.
● Heirs of Mariano v. City of Naga - A donation of immovable property that was
acknowledged by a notary public was still considered void because neither the
donors nor the donee were present during the notarization. A defective
notarization like this one strips the document of its public character and
reduces it to a private document. Thus, the Deed of Donation is void for not being
a public document.
● MANDATORY, NOTIFICATION AND NOTATION - Notification and notation of the
acceptance must be made in authentic form if acceptance is made in a separate
instrument. It cannot be oral or implied. If there is no notification, the donation is
void. Although acceptance may be made at any time during the lifetime of the
donor, there must be proof that shows formal notice of the acceptance was
 received by the donor and noted in the Deed of Donation and the separate
instrument embodying the acceptance.
● RECORDING OF ACCEPTANCE - Acceptance is necessary in every donation. For
immovable property, there are special rules. Solemn words are not necessary; all
that is needed are words which show intention to accept. Only if formal notice is
given to the donor, and it is noted in both instruments, is the donation perfected.
The document which evidences the acceptance, if the acceptance is not made in
the deed of gift, should also be recorded. Again, if the donation does not show the
acceptance, or no formal notice of the acceptance is made or not given to the
donor, the donation is void.
● REGISTRATION AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS - For a donation of immovable
property to be valid, it must be made in a public document. Registration of the
deed in the Registry of Deeds is not necessary for it to be considered valid and
official. Registration does not vest title but is merely evidence of such title over a
particular parcel of land. The necessity of registration only comes to play when the
rights of third persons are affected. Of course, heirs are bound by the deed of
contracts executed by their predecessor-in-interest.
● There is also the principle that a certificate of title serves as evidence of
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose
name appears therein.
● In the case of Heirs of Florencio v. Heirs of De Leon, although the deed of
donation appears to have all the essential requisites of a valid donation, the donor
never surrendered the owner’s duplicate of the TCT to the donee. Thus, the
donee could not have title to the property issued in his name. He could have
been kicked out by the donor at any time, as the title over the property was still
with the donor. The donee did not even have the deed annotated. When the
donor died intestate, the donee still failed to secure title over the property in his
name. All these circumstances point to the fact that there was no donation, or, at
the very least, that the donee remained passive and failed to act on his rights. It
was only when the donee was kicked out by the donor’s heirs that he tried to
have the donation recognized. Worse, the donee never paid a single centavo for
all the decades they stayed on the property; his inaction weakens his claim that he
acquired ownership through donation. All these circumstances show that the deed
of donation is unreliable as evidence and the heirs of the donor are the ones with
the better right over the property.

ARTICLE 750. The donation may comprehend all the present property of the donor,
or part thereof, provided he reserves, in full ownership or in usufruct, sufficient
means for the support of himself, and of all relatives who, at the time of the
acceptance of the donation, are by law entitled to be supported by the donor.
Without such reservation, the donation shall be reduced in petition of any person
affected.
● EXTENT - Acts of liberality are always encouraged, but they cannot be made to
the extent that one will deprive himself and those depending on his support of the
means to survive decently. Excessive donations will be reduced.

ARTICLE 751. Donations cannot comprehend future property.

By future property is understood anything which the donor cannot dispose of at the
time of the donation
● EXPLANATION - Future properties are properties which the donor cannot dispose
of at the time of the donation. The usufructuary for life may donate said usufruct
but never the property itself. The bare owner of said vineyard may donate his
right, or the usufruct which corresponds to the time that it will go back to him,
because that is a vested right which he may dispose of at the time of donation.
● Osorio v. Osorio: The donation of her husband’s share in the business in 1914,
when the share was adjudicated to her only in 1915, was held as valid, because
properties of an existing inheritance like this one cannot be considered as
another’s property with relation to the heirs who through a fiction of law continue
the personality of the owner. The Civil Code does not prohibit absolutely that
future inheritance should be the object of agreement. An inheritance already
existing, which is no longer future from the moment of death of the predecessor,
may legally be the object of contract.

ARTICLE 752. The provisions of article 750 notwithstanding, no person may give or
receive, by way of donation, more than he may give or receive by will.

The donation shall be inofficious in all that it may exceed this limitation.
● LIMITATION - For example: Wilma made a will disposing of her exclusive property
worth P1 million to her daughters, Zenaida and Alicia. While alive, she donated
P600,000 to a charity and another P600,000 to Prudencia.
● After Wilma dies, the value of the remaining property and her donations will be
added to know the gross estate, amounting to P2.2 million. Half will go to the
legitime of her daughters. The other half is the free portion. Considering that the
remaining estate at the time of death is P1 million, the legitimes of Zenaida and
Alicia will be deficient by P100,000. On the other hand, the total donations
 exceeded the free portion by P100,000. The donation is therefore inofficious. To
satisfy the deficient legitime, the excess in the donation shall be taken out. The
excess shall be taken from the donation given to Prudencia because the law
states the more recent date shall be reduced with regard to the excess. (these
numerical values are the ones printed in the book)

ARTICLE 753. When a donation is made to several persons jointly, it is understood

to be in equal shares, and there shall be no right of accretion among them, unless
the donor has otherwise provided.

The preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to donations made to the husband
and wife jointly, between whom there shall be a right of accretion, if the contrary
has not been provided by the donor.

● JOINT DONATION - If A gives B and C a donation without specification, it is a joint

donation. They are presumed to have equal shares. If B rejects the donation and C
accepts, the donation to B will not be effective and the property will remain with A.
Since C accepted, A and C are now co-owners of the property. But if the deed
provides for accretion in case of rejection by one, C will get B’s share. The
situation is different if the donation is made to spouses; rejection by one will result
in accretion in favor of the other spouse, unless the donor provides that there is
no right of accretion.

ARTICLE 754. The donee is subrogated to all the rights and actions which in case of
eviction would pertain to the donor. The latter, on the other hand, is not obliged to
warrant the things donated, save when the donation is onerous, in which case the
donor shall be liable for eviction to the concurrence of the burden.

The donor shall also be liable for eviction or hidden defects in case of bad faith on
his part.

● EVICTION - The donee is subrogated to the rights of the donor prior to the
donation. There is no warranty against eviction in cases of pure donations. But if
it was an onerous donation, the donor will be liable to the burden he imposed on
the donee in exchange for the onerous donation. However, even if the donation is
purely gratuitous, if the donor knew of the serious defectiveness of her title, she
will be held liable to the donee, and must pay damages or give a property with
equal quality.
ARTICLE 755. The right to dispose of some of the things donated, or of some
amount which shall be a charge thereon, may be reserved by the donor; but if he
should die without having made use of this right, the property or amount reserved
shall belong to the donee.
● RESERVATION - A donates land to B, subject to the condition that the northern
part is reserved for possible payment of indebtedness in case A cannot pay her
debts. If she does not exercise the reservation while alive, the northern part shall
now belong to B.

ARTICLE 756. The ownership of property may also be donated to one person and
the usufruct to another or others, provided all the donees are living at the time of
the donation.
● OWNERSHIP AND USUFRUCT - A donates her house to B but also donates the
usufruct of the same house to C. This is allowed by the law.

ARTICLE 757. Reversion may be validly established in favor of only the donor for
any case and circumstances, but not in favor of other persons unless they are all
living at the time of the donation.

Any reversion stipulated by the donor in favor of a third person in violation of what
is provided in the preceding paragraph shall be void, but shall not nullify the
donation.

● REVERSION - Reversion is a provision in the deed of donation allowing the donor

to get back the property in cases provided in the provision. For example: A
donates a building to B, and the deed provides that if B stops using the property
for school purposes, the properties shall return to A.
● If B shuts down his school, the property shall revert back to the owner. The deed
may also provide that, instead of reverting back to the owner, the properties shall
go to another, or another’s children; such provision is valid.
● However, if the deed stated that the property will go to the future children of
another, the provision is void and deemed not written. Nevertheless, the donor
may go to court and recover the land on the ground that it was subject of a
resolutory condition that happened and therefore extinguished the right of the
donee.

ARTICLE 758. When the donation imposes upon the donee the obligation to pay the
debts of the donor, if the clause does not contain any declaration to the contrary,
the former is understood to be liable to pay only the debts which appear to have
been previously contracted. In no case shall the donee be responsible for the debts
exceeding the value of the property donated, unless a contrary intention clearly
appears.
● PAYMENT OF DEBTS - In 2018, A donated land to B worth P50,000 with the
obligation of paying the debt of C to D in the amount of P70,000. The debt was
incurred in 2017 and payable in 2019. A also incurred a debt in 2020 in favor of E
amounting to P50,000. B is only obliged to pay up to P50,000 of the debt in favor
of D but not exceeding the value of the property donated to her. D is not obliged
to pay the debt to E unless it is provided in the deed of donation.

ARTICLE 759. There being no stipulation regarding the payment of debts, the donee
shall be responsible therefor only when the donation has been made in fraud of
creditors.

The donation is always presumed to be in fraud of creditors, when at the time

thereof the donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay his debts prior to the
donation.
● IN FRAUD OF CREDITORS - A donates real property to B without any conditions. B
will not be responsible for A’s debts. But if A donated the property to B so that the
property will not be executed upon in case A is unable to pay her debts to C, the
donation is considered in fraud of C, and B may be made to pay A’s debt to C. The
donation is presumed to be in fraud of creditors when at the time of donation the
donor did not reserve sufficient property to pay his debts prior to the donation.

LAST SET OF ASSIGNMENTS FOR THE SEM:

602-605: ISSA

ARTICLE 760. Every donation inter vivos, made by a person having no children or
descendants, legitimate or legitimated by subsequent marriage, or illegitimate, may
be revoked or reduced as provided in the next article, by the happening of any of
these events:
(1) If the donor, after the donation, should have legitimate or legitimated or
illegitimate children, even though they be posthumous;

(2) If the child of the donor, whom the latter believed to be dead when he made the
donation, should turn out to be living;

(3) If the donor subsequently adopt a minor child.

 ARTICLE 761. In the cases referred to in the preceding article, the donation shall be
revoked or reduced insofar as it exceeds the portion that may be freely disposed of
by will, taking into account the whole estate of the donor at the time of the birth,
appearance or adoption of a child.

ACTION
● In case of revocation or reduction, the donor can file the action in case of the
happening of the events in Art. 760
● Donor can do so w/in 4 years from the time the cause of action accrues
○ See codal of Art. 763
● The petition must indicate and the donor must prove that the donation impairs the
legitime of the legitimate/legitimated/illegitimate/appearing/adopted child. The
total assets of the donor must also be proven.
● Example
○ A (childless person) donated P600k to stranger X. In 206, A adopted Z
which became final. At the time of the adoption, A had P1M. By law, if A
died with a will, the legitime of A was P500k bc an adopted child has the
same as a legitimate child (i.e. legitime of 1/2 of his parents’ estate). The
other P500k is at A’s disposal to any qualified person.
○ For the purposes of the donation, even if A is not yet dead, the legitime will
be determined based on the amount of property at the time of the
adoption.
○ THUS, since the donation to X was P600k, the donation was in excess of
P100k A could freely dispose of by will. Consequently, if Z were to
inherent at that time, he would only get P400k.
○ A can thus file for the reduction of the donation to X so that he can satisfy
the legitime of Z.

ARTICLE 762. Upon the revocation or reduction of the donation by the birth,
appearance or adoption of a child, the property affected shall be returned or its
value if the donee has sold the same.

If the property is mortgaged, the donor may redeem the mortgage, by paying the
amount guaranteed, with a right to recover the same from the donee.

When the property cannot be returned, it shall be estimated at what it was worth at
 the time of the donation.
PROPERTY TO BE RETURNED
● After the donation, the status of the donated property may vary.
○ a. If it’s still with the donee after the reduction or revocation, the property
or such part thereof (if divisible) must be returned to the donor.
○ b. If the property is already sold by the donee, the latter will pay the donor
the equivalent value of the property.
○ c. If the property is under a mortgage, the donor can pay off the debt of
the donee-debtor to the creditor in order for the donor to actually recover
the property. The donor shall have the right to demand for and obtain
reimbursement from the donee.
○ d. The law then provides that if the property cannot be returned by the
donee. It shall be estimated at what it was worth at the time of the
donation.

ARTICLE 763. The action for revocation or reduction on the grounds set forth in
article 760 shall prescribe after four years from the birth of the first child, or from his
legitimation, recognition or adoption, or from the judicial declaration of filiation, or
from the time information was received regarding the existence of the child believed
dead.

This action cannot be renounced, and is transmitted, upon the death of the donor, to
his legitimate and illegitimate children and descendants.

ARTICLE 764. The donation shall be revoked at the instance of the donor, when the
donee fails to comply with any of the conditions which the former imposed upon the
latter.

In this case, the property donated shall be returned to the donor, the alienations
made by the donee and the mortgages imposed thereon by him being void, with the
limitations established, with regard to third persons, by the Mortgage Law and the
Land Registration Laws.

This action shall prescribe after four years from the noncompliance with the
condition, may be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, and may be exercised
against the donee's heirs.

605-623: JIANA
● CONDITION, BREACH, AUTOMATIC REVOCATION
○ Camarines Sur Teachers Employees Association Inc. v. Province of
Camarines Sur
○ Facts: The conditions stated in the deed of donation are:
1. The donee (CASTEA) shall use the described portion of the land for
no other purpose except the construction of a building to be
owned and constructed by the CASTEA. The purpose of this is to
house the offices of to be used by Camarines Sur Teacher’s
Association, Inc.
2. CASTEA shall not sell, mortgage or encumber the property
donated.
3. The buildings referred to shall be commenced within a period of
one (1) year from and after the date of execution of this donation.
Otherwise, the donationation be deemed automatically revoked
and voided.
○ The provision involves four aspects:
1. A prestation to do – CASTEA must construct of the building to house
its offices to be used by Camarines Sur Teachers’ Association.
2. A prestation not to do – CASTEA shall not sell, mortgage, or
encumber the property donated
3. A term or period for the prestation to do – the construction oof the
building or buildings referred to shall be commenced within a period
of one (1) ywar from and after the date of execution of this donation.
4. Effect of the non-compliance – the donation is automatically
revoked and voided
○ The provision clearly imposes a burden on the CASTEA which is onerous
and burdensome in character.
○ CASTEA built the building, but leased the property to Bodega Glassware,
therefore encumbering it in violation of the conditions set forth in the deed
of donation.

● ISSUES: FIRST ISSUE: Whether or not the law allows for an automatic
revocation? YES.
● SECOND ISSUE: Whether or not the application/enforcement of the automatic
revocation by the donors concerned is proper in this case? NO.

FIRST ISSUE
○ Caguioa expanded on the different classifications of donations:
1. Pure donations – not subject to any future and uncertain event nor
to a period.
2. Conditional donations – subject to a future and uncertain event
which may either be suspensive of resolutory.
3. Donations with a term – those whose demandability or termination
depends on the arrival of a term which may also be suspensive or
resolutory.
4. Onerous donations – where a burden inferior in value to the
property donated is imposed on the donee.
a. Mixed donations – one which contains an onerous
transaction.
b. Modal donations – one which imposes on a donee a
prestation.
○ The prestation to construct a building is a modal in nature as it imposed an
obligation on CASTEA. Thus, CASTEA’s donation can be classified as a
modal donation of obligation to construct the building
■ However, the donation may also be onerous because there is a
burden imposed on the donee in the absence of proof that the
burden or charge is superior or greater than the value donated.
■ Thus the provisions on OBLIGATIONS AND CONTRACTS should
apply.
○ Whether classified as modal or onerous – Art 732 and 733 should apply.
○ The principle of autonomy of contracts would have that upon non-
compliace by CASTEA of the provision, the donation shall be deemed
automatically revoked and voided.
■ De Luna v. Abrigo: Affirmed the validity of an automatic revocation
clause in donations. In this case, what was involved was an onerous
donation as well, governed by obligations and contracts. Under
OBLICON, particularly Art. 1306, the parties may freely stipulate on
the terms and conditions of the contract for as long as they are not
contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy.
■ This includes the right to stipulate to give one party the right to
rescind a contract unilaterally, akin to an automatic revocation in an
onerous donation.
■ Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila v. CA: When a deed of
donation expressly provides for automatic revocation and reversion
 of the property demanded, the rules on contract and the general
rules on prescription should apply, and not Art. 764 of the NCC.

SECOND ISSUE
○ Dolar v. Barangay Lublub: If the corresponding contract of donation
expressly provides for automatic rescission in case of breach of the
condition therein, the donated property reverts back automatically to the
donor, without needing to go to Court. However, if the donee denies the
recission or challenges its propriety, only the final award of the court can
conclusively settle whether the resolution is proper or not.
○ In this case, the mere invocation by the Provice of the automatic
revocation clause is insufficient. A judicial declaration of its propriety is
required before continued possession by CASTEA.

On its liability on the obligation not to do (the breach)

○ Since the donation in this case is either modal or onerous, making the rules
on contract controlling, the pertinent provisions of the civil code must be
harmonized.
■ Art. 1168 – when the obligation consists in not doing and the obligor
does what has been forbidden him, it shall also be undone at his
expense.
■ Article 1191 – Rescission, which is what the province was asking for.
● One cannot ask for rescission unless there is a substantial
breach
○ In this case, CASTEA leased to Bodega Glasswear, in violation of the
conditions of the donation. The SC said it was not a substantial breach
because:
■ While an unregistered lease for more than one year is an
encumbrance the encumbrance was not perpetual as it is time-
bound to only 20 years, which is not an unreasonable period.
■ The lease did not cover the entire lot.
■ The rentals that were being collect were being given to members of
CASTEA as mutual aid and death benefits, keeping with the
objective of the deed of donation to improve and uplift education.
■ Castea already complied with its main prestation, which is to
construct the building.
 ■ The building constructed by CASTEA and donated lot continued to
be owned by CASTEA and its offices pursuant to the mandate of the
deed of donation.
■ In order for the breach to reach the threshold of substantiality and
fundamentality, the breach must be of a permanent character as to
totally and perpetually deprive CASTEA of the use of the lot and
building.
○ The perceived single violation by CASTEA, when weighed against its
substantial compliance of the other conditions considered insignificant to
trigger the application of the automatic revocation clause.

624-627: KAT
● REVOCATION FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CONDITIONS
○ Intended to provide a judicial remedy in case of non-fulfillment or
contravention of conditions specified in the deed of donation if and when
the parties have not agreed on the automatic revocation of such donation
upon the occurrence of the contingency contemplated therein
○ The revocation requires a court action
○ Austria-magat v CA
■ The rule that there can be automatic revocation without the benefit
of court action does not apply to the case at bar for the reason that
the subject deed of donation is devoid of any provision providing
for automatic revocation in event of non-compliance with any of the
conditions set forth thus from the non-compliance of the condition
violated

627-631: JAKE
● PROVISION FOR REVOCATION
○ A donation providing for automatic reversion of property donated in case
of non-compliance is VALID
■ The prescriptive period to question the revocation is 10 years from
such revocation considering it involves a written contract
○ Although, Art 746 provides that an action for the revocation of a donation
must be brought within 4 years from the non-compliance of the conditions
of the donation, for deeds of donation which expressly provide for
automatic reversion, a judicial declaration revoking it is not necessary
 ○ There is nothing in the law that prohibits parties from entering into an
agreement that a violation of the terms of the contract would cause its
cancellation even without court intervention
■ The contract is already deemed rescinded by virtue of an agreement
providing for rescission even without judicial intervention
○ When the contract expressly states such, the general rules on prescription
should apply
■ While the law provides that if there is no period in a contract (when
the parties intended it) or donation to revoke the obligation,
recourse must first be made to the courts to fix a period, the passing
of an unreasonable period of time of non-compliance by the
donee justifies revocation of the donation without going to the
courts
■ Case Law: Clemente v. Republic
● The deed of donation had no period within which the donee
should have complied with the condition of constructing a
government hospital
○ However, it was apparent that a period was intended
by the parties
○ The construction of the hospital could not have been
intended by the parties to be in a state of limbo; they
intended that it be built within a reasonable period
○ In this case it has been more than 50 years since the
deed of donation was executed
■ It is clear that the donee no longer had
intention of fulfilling its obligation to build the
hospital so the obligation of the donor to
honor the donation is extinguished

632-636: JAREL

ARTICLE 765. The donation may also be revoked at the instance of the donor, by
reason of ingratitude in the following cases:

(1) If the donee should commit some offense against the person, the honor or the
property of the donor, or of his wife or children under his parental authority;

(2) If the donee imputes to the donor any criminal offense, or any act involving moral
turpitude, even though he should prove it, unless the crime or the act has been
committed against the donee himself, his wife or children under his authority;

(3) If he unduly refuses him support when the donee is legally or morally bound to
give support to the donor

● COMMISSION OF CRIMES - All crimes which offend the donor show ingratitude
and are causes for revocation. The crimes covered by 765 are not limited to
homicide, physical injuries, illegal detention, theft, or similar felonies. Even if illegal
detention is classed as a “crime against personal liberty and security”, it is a crime
against the person of the donor which is covered under 765.
● IMPUTATION OF CRIME - For example: A donates property to B. Later, B accuses
A of attacking C. A may revoke the donation, even if the accusation is proven to
be true. However, if C turned out to be B’s minor daughter, then the donation
cannot be revoked; if C was already 18, the donation can be revoked.
● SUPPORT - For example: A donates property to her daughter B. Later, A asked
support from B which B unduly refused. A may revoke the donation. However, if C
(B’s daughter and A’s granddaughter) asked for support from B at the same time,
B’s refusal to give support to A is justified, because the one obliged to give
support must give priority to her descendant, C.

ARTICLE 766. Although the donation is revoked on account of ingratitude,

nevertheless, the alienations and mortgages effected before the notation of the
complaint for revocation in the Registry of Property shall subsist.

Later ones shall be void.

ARTICLE 767. In the case referred to in the first paragraph of the preceding article,
the donor shall have a right to demand from the donee the value of property
alienated which he cannot recover from third persons, or the sum for which the
same has been mortgaged.

The value of said property shall be fixed as of the time of the donation.

● ALIENATION AND ENCUMBRANCE - All alienation and mortgages prior to the

revocation shall be respected, since at the time the alienation and mortgages
 were done, the donee was already the owner of the property. Later ones are void
because the donee was no longer the owner.
● In case of alienation and encumbrance, in the case referred to in 766, the donor
shall have the right to demand from the donee the value of the property alienated
which he cannot recover from third persons, or the sum for which the same has
been mortgaged. The value of said property shall be fixed as of the time of the
donation.
637-641: JAKE

ARTICLE 768. When the donation is revoked for any of the causes stated in Article
760, or by reason of ingratitude, or when it is reduced because it is inofficious, the
donee shall not return the fruits except from the filing of the complaint.

If the revocation is based upon noncompliance with any of the conditions imposed
in the donation, the donee shall return not only the property but also the fruits
thereof which he may have received after having failed to fulfill the condition.
● RETURN OF THE FRUITS
○ A donee is presumed to be in good faith; a donee has nothing to do with
the decision of the donor to make a donation
○ Prior to the revocation by reason of Art 760 and ingratitude, the donee is
entitled to the fruits; but upon the filing of the complaint for revocation,
there is no more entitlement to the fruits (looks at time of revocation)
○ If the revocation was based on non-compliance of the conditions
imposed in the donation, the DONEE must return the property and fruits
received, AFTER he has breached the condition but BEFORE the breach,
he is entitled to the fruits (looks at time of breach)

ARTICLE 769. The action granted to the donor by reason of ingratitude cannot be
renounced in advance. This action prescribes within one year, to be counted from
the time the donor had knowledge of the fact and it was possible for him to bring
the action.
● RENUNCIATION
○ Renunciation of the action to rescind a donation based on ingratitude
cannot be done in advance
○ The deed of donation cannot stipulate that the donor waives his right to
rescind the donation based on ingratitude
● TIME TO FILE
 ○ Prescription starts when the 2 elements are present:
■ Knowledge of the fact of ingratitude
■ Possibility of bringing the suit

ARTICLE 770. This action shall not be transmitted to the heirs of the donor, if the
latter did not institute the same, although he could have done so, and even if he
should die before the expiration of one year.

Neither can this action be brought against the heir of the donee, unless upon the
latter's death the complaint has been filed.
● NON-TRANSMISSIBILITY
○ SCENARIO 1: Nina gave a donation to Josefa, Josefa committed an act of
ingratitude against Nina. Nina died before the expiration of the prescriptive
period, Nina’s daughter CANNOT file the suit against Josefa
○ SCENARIO 2: The prescription period has not yet expired, Josefa died.
Nina CANNOT file a case for rescission against the heirs of Josefa
however, if the case was already filed before the death of Josefa, the
HEIRS CAN SUBSTITUTE JOSEFA (CASE CONTINUES)

ARTICLE 771. Donations which in accordance with the provisions of Article 752, are
inofficious, bearing in mind the estimated net value of the donor's property at the
time of his death, shall be reduced with regard to the excess; but this reduction shall
not prevent the donations from taking effect during the life of the donor, nor shall it
bar the donee from appropriating the fruits.

For the reduction of donations the provisions of this Chapter and of Articles 911 and
912 of this Code shall govern.
● INOFFICIOUSESS
○ Donation is inofficious if it exceeds the limitation: no one may give or
receive by way of donation more than he may give or receive by will
● PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
○ 10 year prescriptive period applies to the obligation to reduce inofficious
donations to the extent that they impair the legitime of compulsory heirs
○ The action to enforce a legitime accrues upon the death of the donor-
decedent
ARTICLE 772. Only those who at the time of the donor's death have a right to the
legitime and their heirs and successors in interest may ask for the reduction or
inofficious donations.

Those referred to in the preceding paragraph cannot renounce their right during the
lifetime of the donor, either by express declaration, or by consenting to the
donation.

The donees, devisees and legatees, who are not entitled to the legitime and the
creditors of the deceased can neither ask for the reduction nor avail themselves
thereof.
● COMPULSORY HEIRS
○ Those who have a right ot the legitime are the legitimate and illegitimate
children, legal spouse and parents

ARTICLE 773. If, there being two or more donations, the disposable portion is not
sufficient to cover all of them, those of the more recent date shall be suppressed or
reduced with regard to the excess.
● PREFERENCE
○ Wilma made a will disposing her exclusive property of P1M to Zenaida and
Alicia
■ When Wilma was alive, she donated P600,000 to charity and
P600,000 to Prudencia
■ After her death, the remaining property and the donations will be
added to the gross estate (2,200,000)
■ Half of the amount which is 1,100,000 will go to Zenaida and Alicia
getting 550,000 each, the other half is the free portion; considering
that the remaining estate at the time of death is 1,000,000 the
portion of Zenaida and Alicia will be deficient so in order to satisfy
that a portion from the donation from Prudentia will be taken