4 September 2021 Notes

Property
- Generally, property is an economic concept referring to a mass of things useful for
human activity. It is synonymous with the concept of “thing” which is broader in
scope as it includes both that which may be appropriated and that which may not
be appropriated.
- Includes incorporeal things, “incorporeal” pertains to rights like right to sue.

I Classification
1.a. Importance of Classification
The classification of property is significant due to different applicable provisions of the
law governing acquisition, possession, disposition, loss, registration, etc.
Criminal Law – if personal property = theft, if it’s real property = usurpation.
E Commerce – ownership of the message, who owns the message, is it the sender or
recipient?
Form of contracts – statutes of frauds, if personal property greater than 500, should
be in writing
Prescription – for acquisitive prescriptions purposes; RP, 10 years if in good faith, 30
years without conditions; PP, 4 years if in good faith, 8 years without conditions
Action and Venue – where to file an action
Taxation

1.b. Classification under the Civil Code (Art. 414)

1. Immovable or Real Property – Art. 415

a. by nature -(1) and (8)

Discussion:

Are all lands always immovable?

➢ Yes or True yan!
If Atty gets 10 sacks/20 sacks/2000 sacks of soil in the land, is it immovable or
immovable?
➢ Movable, since the land should be adhered to the soil, the moment that the land
is separated from the soil, it’s movable now.
Are all kinds of roads immovable?
➢ Yes
Is an overpass a road?
➢ Yes but it’s movable if only bolted since it’s not adhered to the soil.
Are all buildings immovable?
➢ Yes or True yan!
An overpass is constructed between Las Pinas and Makati? Is it movable or immovable?
➢ Immovable.

Note: Please stick to the provisions of the Civil Code!!!

Mines are immovables.

- True
If the mine is separated already, is it still immovable?
- Movable already.

What are slug dumps?

- Wastes in relation to mining.
- Immovable because these contain minerals which are still part of the bed, and due
to its economic value.

Canals, are they immovable?

- Immovable
- Running water or not, they are immovable, the law did not distinguish.

Is a tree immovable? Would there be a change if the one who planted is the owner?
- Yes and there’s no change in the classification whether the one who planted is the
owner of the land or not.

If a tree is planted in a flowerpot? Is it movable or immovable?

- Movable.

The roots went out of the whole and they cling to the property now, is it movable or
immovable?
- Immovable now.

Are growing fruits immovable? What if nalaglag na or kinuha na?

- Yes; If nalaglag na or kinuha, movable na since not attached na.

b. by incorporation – (2), (3), (7)

If things can be removed without destruction of either the thing attached or the
thing where the attachment was made, it’s movable.
Fertizers, are they immovable?
- Yes, because it’s impossible to separate.

c. by destination – (4), (5), (6), (9)

How are you going to read/determine the intention?

- If it’s mounted or placed which is permanent like it was cemented, nailed etc, it’s
immovable.
- For as long that the circumstances show that the intent is to make it permanent
regardless of how, it’s immovable.

In relation to machineries, there are two requisites: (1) It must be placed by the
owner or his agent; (2) Should be intended directly for the business

Discussion:

Case: Davao Sawmill Co. vs. Castillo, 61 Phil 709

- Execution is a process of a court to implement a judgment.

- In this case, there was an execution on the properties of Davao Sawmill (Leasee),
the sheriff is also contending that the machinery is also included. The question is
how the machinery should be treated?

Requisites:
(1) It must be placed by the owner or his agent? No Under Article 415, it should be placed
by the owner or his agent. This is missing hence, movable. It was not placed by the
owner or his agent.
(2) Should be intended directly for the business? Yes.

Ruling:

The subject properties are personal in nature. Article 334, paragraph 5, of the [Old] Civil
Codeprovides that real property consists of (5) Machinery, liquid containers, instruments
or implementsintended by the owner of any building or land for use in connection with
any industry or trade beingcarried on therein and which are expressly adapted to meet
the requirements of such trade of industry. Machinery which is movable in nature only
becomes immovable when placed in a land by theowner of the property or land but not
when so placed by a tenant or any person having only atemporary right, unless such
person acted as the agent of the owner. In the case at bar, the machineryis intended not
by the owner of the land but by the saw mill company for use in connection with itstrade.
In this sense, the machinery is not a real property.

Discussion:

Pigeon – houses
- Immovable, as well as the flying pigeon since the law specifically mentions that
they are also included.
Fishpond
- Fishes inside the pond are immovable, fishes who went outside the fishpond are
also immovable. This is due to the intention that they are placed there.
Beehives and the bees
- Both are immovable.
Floating restaurants
- Immovable if attached or tied up in a tree.
- Movable if just floating without a rope.

II. OWNERSHIP

A. Definition

Ownership – It is independent and general right of a person to control a thing,

particularly in his possession, enjoyment, disposition and recovery, subject to no
restrictions, except those imposed by law and the rights of others.

Ownership is a relation in private law by virtue of which a thing (or property right)
pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in everything not prohibited
by public law or the concurrence with the rights of another.

Discussion:
Can you be the owner without being in possession?
➢ Yes.

Is ownership dependent on any other right?

➢ No, it is independent.
Note:
➢ Under the Mortgage Law, you should be the owner of the thing.
➢ Right to mortgage is dependent on the right to ownership.

What are the attributes of ownership (Article 428 of the NCC)?

➢ Right to enjoy
➢ Right to dispose
➢ Right to recover

B. Kinds of Ownership

a. Full ownership
b. Naked ownership – you are the owner but you don’t have the other attributes.
c. Sole Ownership
d. Co-ownership

September 18, 2021

c. Rights of an owner under the Civil Code (Art. 428)

- cannot be subjected to agreements
c.1. the right to enjoy includes . . .
a. the right to possess (jus possidendi)

Discussion:

Do you need to possess something to enjoy it?

➢ No.
Do you need to own something to possess it?
➢ No, because right of possession and ownership are two independent rights. They
are separate and distinct. An example is a contract of lease.
Can an owner grant to someone the right to possess?
➢ Yes.

➢ In case of sale of something, you are transferring ownership.

➢ When you give possession, it doesn’t mean that you give ownership since they are
independent rights.

b. the right to use (jus utendi)

Can you use something even if you are not the owner?
➢ Yes and yes.

c. the right to the fruits (jus fruendi)

Discussion: What are the kinds of fruits?
➢ Industrial fruits - referring to the products resulting from the industry; with human
intervention; the extent of intervention is material to determine whether industrial
or natural
➢ Civil fruits -
➢ Natural fruits – with minimal human intervention and without heavy equipments

Can you sell the right to enjoy only without including the other rights?
➢ No, since you are selling, you are transferring the ownership hence all the
attributes will come along.

The only independent rights in property are only the ownership and right of possession.

c.2. the right to dispose (jus disponendi)

includes . . . the right to consume or destroy (jus abutendi)

the right to encumber or alienate

c.3. the right to recover (jus vindicandi)

 Object of recovery

a. Recovery of personal property

• Replevin - replevin or claim and delivery is a legal
remedy, which enables a person to recover personal
property taken wrongfully or unlawfully, and to obtain
compensation for resulting losses.

b. Recovery of real property

• Accion Reivindicatoria (reivindicatory action) – recovering property based on

ownership; right of ownership

Distinction between jus possidendi (property

owner has the attributes of ownership) vs jus
possessionis (not the owner, right of possession only) Commented [MHE[1]: Included in the midterms!

• Accion Interdictal

Forcible Entry (should be filed within 1 year) or Unlawful Detainer (should be filed within
1 year from the last day of demand)

In forcible entry, one is deprived of physical possession of real

property by means of force, intimidation, strategy, threats, or
stealth whereas in unlawful detainer, one illegally withholds
possession after the expiration or termination of his right to hold
possession under any contract, express or implied.

• Accion Publiciana (plenary action to recover

possession)
Main issue: Who has prior possession?

Requisites in an action to recover (Art.434)

c.2.a. Identity of property

c.2.b. Strength of plaintiff’s title

c.3. Disputable presumption of ownership (Art. 433)

Note: A tenant can never acquire property by acquisitive prescription since a tenant holds
a property not as an owner.

25 September 2021

D. Other Specific Rights Found in Civil Code 249, 430, 437, 438,
444

a. Right to Exclude; Self-help; Doctrine of Self Help; Art. 429

-actual and imminent

b. Right to Enclose or Fence – Art. 430

- the right to exclude and enclose is subject to Art. 431 and the “state
of necessity” (Art. 432)

Discussion: What is the limitation of an owner in fencing or enclosing his land tenement?
Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of walls, ditches, live
or dead hedges, or by any other means without detriment to servitudes constituted
thereon. (Article 430)

• Atty discussed about the case of Toyota and noted that Toyota’s
defense is untenable as it is detrimental to the servitude.
• In raising the defense of easement, it’s not required that the one
raising it is the owner of the property, being a possessor is enough. The
servitude is attached on the property itself hence it’s not required that the
one who raises is the owner.

c. Right to Receive Just Compensation in Case of Expropriation –

Art. 435

• This is a judicial determination

d. Right to Hidden Treasure – Arts. 438-439

In order that the rule regarding the discovery of hidden treasures by a stranger
on property belonging to another may be applied, what requisites must concur?

1. The treasure must consist of money, jewelry or other precious objects;

2. It must be hidden and unknown;
3. Its lawful ownership does not appear;
4. The discovery must be made by chance; and
5. The discoverer must be a stranger and not a trespasser.

e. Right to accession –Art. 440

D. Limitation of Real Right of Ownership

 1. General Limitation

a. Police power

b. Taxation

c. Eminent domain

2. Specific Limitation

3. Limitations from other provisions of Civil Code

Arts. 431, 432
Arts. 2919, 677, 670, 649, & 652, 637, 676, 644, 684-687

4. Limitation under our Constitution

Art. XII, Sections 7 & 8

• Foreigners are not allowed to own Philippine properties

Cases:

1. Valdez vs. CA GR No. 132424. May 4, 2006

2. De Gallego vs. Land Authority, L-26848, August 17, 1981 106 SCRA 598, 604-
606
V. CO-OWNERSHIP

A. Definition

The right of common dominion which two or mere persons have in a spiritual part
(or ideal portion) or a thing which is not physically divided.

B. Characteristics

1. The recognition of ideal shares, defined but not physically identified.

2. Each coowner has absolute control over his ideal share;

Note: Your control as a co owner only pertains to your share. You can only sell and
mortgage your share.

3. Mutual respect among co-owner in regard to use enjoyment and preservation

of thing as a whole.

Note: How mutual is applicable?

➢ Mutual respect means someone has to give in.
➢ How do you determine majority? Through controlling interest.

C. Differences between partnership and joint tenancy.

D. Differences between partnership and co-ownership.
E. Sources of co-ownership

a. Law, e.g., party walls, hedges and ditches; co-ownership

b. Contract (duration of co-ownership, Art. 494)
 c. Succession
d. Chance (Commixtion, hidden treasure)
e. Occupation (harvesting and fishing)

F. Rights of each co-owner as to thing owned in common:

a. To use the thing according to the purpose intended may be altered by

agreement, express or implied, provided:
i. It is without injury or prejudice to interest of co-ownership and;
ii. Without preventing the use of other co-owners, Art. 486

b. To share in the benefits in proportion to his interest, provided the charges are
borne by each in the same proportion (Art. 485)

- Contrary stipulation in void

- Presumption is that portions are equal unless contrary is proved.

c. Each co-owner may bring an action in ejectment (Art. 487)

d. To compel other co-owner to contribute to expenses for preservation of the

thing or right owned in common and to payment of taxes (Art. 488)

- Co-owner’s option not to contribute by waiving his undivided interest equal

to amount of contribution (exception: if waiver prejudicial to co-ownership)
- Requisites before repairs for preservation may be made of expenses for
embellishment or improvement may be made (Art. 489)
- Effects of failure to notify co-owners

e. To oppose any act of alteration; remedy of other co-owners

re: acts of alteration (Art. 491)
 1. Acts of alteration
Concept – change in nature and substance
Distinguished from acts of administration Art. 492.
Effect of acts of alteration and remedies of non-consenting co-owner

- The consent of all co owners is needed, if a co owner disagree, cannot.

Is lease of real property owned in common an act of alteration? Art. 647 in

relation to Art. 1878(8)

Consent required:

Administration & Embellishment – consent of the majority

Alteration – all of the co owners

Contract of Lease
- If needed to be registered, act of alteration
- If the contract of lease is more than a year, act of alteration

f. To protest against acts of majority which are prejudicial to minority (Art. 492
par. 3)

g. To exercise legal redemption – Art. 1620, 1623

h. To ask for partition – Art. 494

G. Implications of co-owners right over his ideal share:

a. Co-owner has the right:

 1. To share in fruits and benefits
2. To alienate, mortgage or encumber and dispose of his ideal share – (but
other co-owners may exercise right of legal redemption)
3. To substitute another person in the enjoyment of thing
4. To renounce part of his interest to reimburse necessary expenses
incurred by another co-owner (art. 488)

b. Effect of transaction by each co-owner

1. Limited to his share in the partition

2. Transferee does not acquire any specific portion of whole property until
partition
3. Creditors of co-owners may intervene in partition or attack the same if
prejudicial (Art. 497)

H. Are the rules on co-ownership applicable to conjugal partnership of gains or

absolute community of property?

• Conjugal partnership of gains – no, not even in suppletory character, rule

on partnership applies as suppletory; family code applies principally

• Absolute community of property – yes, in a suppletory character; family

code applies principally

I. Special rules on ownership based on provisions of Condominium Act (RA No. 4726)
1. Concept of Condominium
- merely a usufruct when buying a condominium

2. Essential requisites for Condominium

 3. Rights and Obligations of Condominium owner

What are the co owned properties in a condominium?

• Lobby
• Elevator (up to the extent of your floor)
• Stairs (up to the extent of your floor)

Hence, your charges should only pertain to your area.

• For a parking lot, if there’s no mentioned, then it’s a common area.

Would it be okay if you put a loading station in a common area?

• No, it’s alteration, you should get the consent of all the co owners.

J. Extinguishment of co-ownership

1. Total destruction of thing

2. Merger of all interests in one person
3. Acquisitive prescription
a. By a third person
b. By one co-owner as against the other co-owners requisites and
unequivocal acts of:

i. Unequivocal acts of repudiation of co-ownership (acts amounting to

ouster of other co-owners) known to other co-owners and shown by clear and
convincing evidence

ii. Open and adverse possession, not mere silent extraordinary acquisitive
prescription.
 iii. The presumption is that possession by co-owner is not adverse

4. Partition or Division

a. Right to ask for partition at any time except:

i. When there is a stipulation against it (not over ten years)
ii. When condition of indivision is imposed by transferor (donor or
testator) not exceed 20 years – Art. 494
iii. When the legal nature of community prevents partition (party
wall)
iv. When partition is generally prohibited by law (e.g. absolute
community of property)
v. When partition would render the thing unserviceable (but the thing
may be sold and co-owners divide the proceeds ( Art. 494)

Action for partition will fail if acquisitive prescription has set in.

b. Effect of Partition
Arts. 1091, 543, 1092-1093, 499-501

c. Right of Creditors of individual co-owners Art. 497

d. Procedure for Partition – Rule 69 Rules of Court

Cases:
 1) Segura vs Segura G.R. No. L-29320, September 19, 1988

2) De Guia vs Court of Appeals 413 SCRA 114

3) Co Giok Lun vs Jose Co GR No. 184454. August 3, 2011

4) Jarque vs Jarque GR 196733 Nov. 21, 2018

VI. POSSESSION

A. Definition and Concept (Art. 523)

Possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right, whether by

material occupation or by the fact that the thing or the right is subjected to the action of
our will.

It is a real right independent of and apart from ownership i.e., the right of Commented [MHE[2]: Enforceable against anyone.
possession (jus possessionis) as distinguished from the right to possess [just possidendi] Do not depend if you are the owner or not.

Notes:

You can be in the possession but not the owner.

Jus possessionis – right of possession, from ownership

Just possidendi – right to possess because you are the owner, one of the attributes of
possession
 1. Essential requisites of possession:

a. Holding or control or control of a thing or right (corpus) consists of either

i. The material or physical
ii. Exercise of a right
iii. Constructive possession – the right to possess is construed from the
circumstances, like in sales when there is a constructive delivery, you may be
considered to be in possession already
- The principles in relation to constructive delivery in sales would be
applicable.

b. Intention to possess (animus possidendi) – something that cannot be seen

since this is a state of mind.
- in our jurisprudence, the mere fact that you are in possession creates a
presumption the intent to possess but it is not absolute.
- the presumption can be rebutted.

B. Degrees of holding or possession

1. Mere holding or possession without title whatsoever and in violation of the right
of the owner, e.g. possession of a thief or a usurper of land.

2. Possession with juridical title but not that of ownership e.g. possession of tenant,
depository agent, bailee, trustee, lessee, antichretic creditor. This degree of
possession will never ripen into full ownership as long as there is no
repudiation of concept under which property is held.
-acquisitive prescription will never apply here since in here, he knows that
ownership is vested upon another.
 3. Possession with just title or title sufficient to transfer ownership, but not from
the true owner e.g. possession of a vendee from vendor who pretends to be the owner.
This degree of possession ripens into full ownership by lapse of time.

4. Possession with just title from the true owner. The delivery of possession
transfers ownership, and strictly speaking, is the jus possidendi.

C. Cases of possession:

1. Possession for oneself, or possession exercised in one’s own name and

possession in the name of another – (Art. 524)

- Possession for oneself, or possession exercised in one’s own name

- Possession in the name of another – for use only like commodatum, or
agent or a caretaker

Note: Tolerance never interrupts ownership.

2. Possession in the concept of an owner and possession in the concept of a holder

with the ownership belonging to another (Art. 525)

- Possession in the concept of an owner – if the person have shown to the

public that he is the owner even if they are not the owner
• For acquisitive prescription to set in, a person must
hold it in this concept.
- Possession in the concept of a holder with the ownership belonging to
another – as a leasee, you are just holding the property.

3. Possession in good faith and possession in bad faith (Art. 526)

Leasee – possessor in bad faith.

- Good faith is presumed but it is rebuttable.

 - The question is are you aware of any flaw in your title? If yes, bad faith.
- The reason from the presumption is because of natural law.

Note: Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law as a basis of good

faith.

D. Things or rights susceptible of appropriation may be the object of

possession (Art. 530)

E. What may not be possessed by private persons

a. Res communes -
b. Property of public dominion
c. Right under discontinuous and/or non-apparent easement – easement
which is only used or exercised intermittently.

F. Acquisition of Possession

1. Ways of acquiring possession (Art. 531)

a. Material occupation to the thing – you are actually holding the property

i. The doctrine of constructive possession – constructive delivery principles in

sales is also applicable
ii. Includes constructive delivery;

1. Traditio brevi manu (thing already in transferee’s hands, e.g. under

a contract of lease, then delivered under a sale)
2. Traditio constitutum possessorium (thing remains in trasferror’s
hands, e.g. sale, then retained under a commodatum)

b. Subjection to the action of our will

Includes traditio longa manu and traditio symbolica

c. Proper acts and legal formalities – refers to the acquisition of possession by

sufficient title, intervivos or mortis causa, lucrative or onerous.

Example: donations, succession ( testate on intestate), contracts, judicial writs of

possession, writ of execution of judgments execution and registration of public
instruments.

2. By whom may possession be acquired: (Art. 532)

a. By same person; elements of personal acquisition

b. By his legal representative; requisites
c. By his agent
d. By any person without any power whatsoever but subject to ratification, without
prejudice to proper case of negotiorum gestio (Art. 2144), 4129, 2150)
e. Qualifiedly, minors and incapacitated persons (Art. 525)

X who is diagnosed with insanity, can he acquire possession? If his mental

capacities shows that he is capable like under lucid interval.
 3. What do not affect possession (Art. 537, 1119)

a. Acts merely tolerated – mere tolerance will not affect possession

b. Acts executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor Commented [MHE[3]: When it is so dark.
Dispossessed under the cover of darkness.
c. Acts by violence as long as possessor objects thereto (i.e. he files a case) (Art.
536)

4. Rules to solve conflict of possession (Art. 538)

General Rule: Possession cannot be recognized in two different personalities,

except in cases of co-possession by co-possessors without conflicting claims or
interest.

In case of conflicting possession – preference is given to:

a. Present possessor or actual possessor

b. If there are two or more possessors, the one longer in possession
c. If dates of possession are the same, the one who presents a title
d. If all conditions are equal, the thing shall be place in judicial deposit pending
determination of possession or ownership through proper proceedings

The principle of primus tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right) gains
greater significance in case of a double sale of immovable property.

G. Effects of Possession

1. In general, every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; if

disturbed therein, possessor has right to be protected in or restored to said possession
(Art. 539)
 a. Action to recover possession

i. Summary proceedings – forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Plaintiff

may ask for writ of preliminary mandatory injunction. (Accion
interdictal)
ii. Accion publiciana (based on the superior right of possession, not of
ownership)
iii. Accion Revindicatoria (recovery of ownership)
iv. Action for replevin (possession or ownership for
movable property)

2. Possessor can employ self-help (Art. 429)

- A possessor can use reasonable force against being dispossessed.

3. Entitlement to fruits – possessor in good faith / bad faith
- Those in good faith are entitled to the fruits. If in bad faith, cannot.

4. Reimbursement for expenses –possessor in good faith /bad faith

Liability for loss or deterioration of property by possessor
in bad faith. (Art. 553; 552)

5. Possession of movable acquired in good (in concept of owner) is

equivalent to title (Art. 559)

- Possessor has actual title which is defeasible only by true owner

- One who has lost a movable or has been unlawfully deprived thereof may
recover it without reimbursement, except if possessor acquired it at a public
sale.

Principle of irrevincability – requires that the movable should be acquired in good faith
and the possession should be that of an owner.
H. Effect of possession in the concept of owner:

a. Possession may ripen into full ownership, subject to certain exceptions

- can be subjected to acquisitive prescription.
- there is a presumption of ownership.
b. Presumption of just title and cannot be obliged to show or prove it (Art.
541); exceptions (Art. 1131)
c. Possessor may bring all actions necessary to protect his possession except
accion reivindicatoria
d. May employ self-help under Art. 429
e. Possessor may ask for inscription of such real right of possession in the
registry of property
f. Has right to the fruits and reimbursement for expenses (assuming he is a
possessor in good faith)
g. Upon recovery of possession which he has been unlawfully deprived may
demand fruits and damages.
h. Generally, he can do on the things possessed everything that the law
authorizes owner to do until he is ousted by one who has a better right.
i. Possession in good faith and possession in bad faith. (Art. 528).

I. Presumptions in favor of the possessor:

1. Of good faith until the contrary is proved (Art. 527)

2. Of continuity of initial good faith in which possession was commenced or

possession in good faith does not lose this character except in the case and
from the moment possessor became aware or is not unaware of improper
or wrongful possession. (Art. 528).
 3. Of enjoyment of possession in the same character in which possession was
acquired until contrary is proved (Art. 529)

4. Of non-interruption of possession in favor of present possessor who proves

possession at a previous time until the contrary is proved (Art. 554) Arts.
112-1124)

5. Of continuous possession or non-interruption of possession of which he was

wrongfully deprived for all purposes favorable to him (Art. 561)

6. Other presumptions with respect to specific properties of property rights:

i. Of extension of possession of real property to all movables contained

therein so long as it is not shown that the should be excluded;
exceptions (Art. 426).
ii. Non-interruption of possession of hereditary property (Art. 533 &
1078)
iii. Of just title in favor of possessor in concept of owner (Art. 541; but
also see Art. 1141).

J. Possession may be lost by:

a. Abandonment
b. Assignment, either onerous or gratuitous
c. Destruction of total loss of thing or it goes out of commerce
d. Possession by another, if possession has lasted longer than one year; real
right of possession not lost until after ten (10) years.
- subject to art. 537 (acts merely tolerated, etc.)

Cases:
Cequena vs Bolante GR 137944 April 6, 2000

Dizon vs Beltran GR No. 221071 January 18, 2017

Lamsis vs Dong-E GR No. 173021 October 20, 2010

VII. USUFRUCT

A. Concept – (Art. 562)

Usufruct is a real right, temporary in character that authorizes the holder to enjoy Commented [MHE[4]: Can be enforced against anyone.
all the advantages derived from a normal exploitation of another’s property, according to
its destination or purpose, and imposes and obligation of restoring at the time specified,
either the thing itself or its equivalent.

Two parties:
1. Naked owner – only has the ownership, no right to possess, no right to the fruits
2. Usufructuary – has the right to possess and right to the fruits

B. Historical considerations
C. Characteristics of Usufruct
D. Usufruct distinguished from lease; from servitude
E. Classes of Usufruct

1. By origin:
a. Voluntary – the parties agree to enter into a contract of usufruct
 b. Legal – Art. 321 C.C.; Effect of Art. 226, Family Code (law itself provides,
like when a minor starts to earn, the property will now be considered under the
contract of usufruct)
c. Mixed

2. By person enjoying right of usufruct (Art. 564)

a. Simple
b. Multiple
1. Simultaneous
2. Successive
Limitation on successive usufruct (Art. 756, 863 & 869)

3. By object of usufruct (Art. 564)

a. Rights
b. Things
1. Normal
2. Abnormal, irregular or quasi-usufruct – consumables

4. By the extent of the usufruct

a. As to the fruits (Art. 564)
1. Total
2. Partial

b. As to object
1. Singular
2. Universal (Art. 598)
- subject to provisions of Arts. 758 & 759
 5. By the terms of usufruct (Art. 564)
a. Pure
b. Conditional
c. With a term (period)

F. Rights of the Usufructuary

a. Right to possess and enjoy the thing itself, its fruits and accessions
- Fruit consist of natural, industrial and civil fruits – all are included in the
contract of usufruct.
- As to hidden treasure, usufructuary is considered a stranger (Art. 566;
436). The usufructuary is not entitled.
- Fruits pending at the beginning of usufruct (Art. 567) – belongs to the
usufructuary

Remedy: The naked owner should harvest it before the beginning of the
contract.

- Civil fruits (Art. 569, 588)

b. Right to lease the thing (Art. 572)

- Limitations
Note: If the usufruct contract is already terminated, the rentals should go to the naked
owner already.

Note: The right to lease the thing pertains to the usufructuary hence, even if the naked
owner doesn’t want to lease the property to a person, it will not prosper since the right
belongs to the usufructuary.

- Liability of usufructuary – lessor (Art. 590)

-
Note: For any damage or injury caused by the lease, the usufructuary is liable.
 - Exceptions to right of leasing the thing

c. Right to improve the thing (Art. 579)

Note: The usufructuary can improve the thing but the usufructuary is not entitled to
reimbursement.

As to the legal right of usufruct itself:

a. Right to mortgage
Note: The usufructuary can mortgage the property, the usufruct, the bank or the
mortgagor will step on the shoe of the usufructuary except if the right is
personal.

b. Right to alienate the usufruct, except in purely personal usufructs, or when

title constituting it prohibits the same.

Note: The usufructuary can sell or alienate the right to use/usufruct.

G. Rights of the naked owner

1. At the beginning of usufruct

(obligations of usufructuary)

2. During the usufruct;

a. Retains title to the thing or property – the naked owner still has the
dominion, he is still the owner.
 b. He may alienate the property but it should not be prejudicial to the
contract of usufructuary.
Limitations (Art. 581)

H. Obligations of Usufructuary

1. At the beginning of usufruct or before exercising the usufruct

A. To make inventory (Art. 583)

1. Requisites of Inventory
i. Immovable described
ii. Movable appraised

Note: We need to make an inventory because you have to return what you have
received.

2. Exception to requirement of inventory

i. No one will be injured thereby (Art. 585)

ii. Title constituting usufruct excused the making of inventory
iii. Title constituting usufruct already makes an inventory

B. To give a bond for the faithful performance of duties as

usufructuary

1. No bond is required in the following:

i. No Prejudice would result (Art. 585)

 ii. Usufruct is reserved by donor (Art. 584) – the donor is still entitled
to possess the property but he has transferred ownership to another
iii. Title constituting usufruct excused usufructuary
iv. Contract of Legal Usufruct – exercised by the parents over the
properties of their minor children who are under their parental
authority. Except when there is a second marriage and the market
value of the property is above PHP 50, 000.
v. Caucion juratoria – public document subscribed by the
usufructuary promising to return the movables to the naked owner.

2. During the usufruct.

a. To take care of the thing like a good father or a family (Art. 589)
- Effect of failure to comply with obligation (Art. 610)

Note: In case there is a failure to practice the standard of a good father of a family, the
naked owner may demand the return but the naked owner must pay annually the annual
net proceeds (you can deduct the administrative expenses).

b. To undertake ordinary repairs (Art. 592)

Concept of ordinary repairs

c. To notify owner of need to undertake extra-ordinary repairs (Art.

593)

1. Concept of extraordinary repairs.

2. Naked owner obliged to undertake them but when make

by owner, usufructuary pays legal interest on the amount
while usufruct lasts (Art. 594, par. 1)
 3. Naked owner cannot be compelled to undertake extra-
ordinary repairs.

a. If indispensable and owner fails to undertake

extraordinary repairs may be made by usufructuary; (Art. 594, 2)

d. To pay for annual charges and taxes on the fruits

e. To notify owner of any act detrimental to ownership (Art. 601)
f. To shoulder the costs of litigation re usufruct (Art. 602)
g. To answer for the fault or negligence of alienee, lessee, or
agent of usufructuary (Art. 590)

I. At the time termination of the usufruct

To deliver the thing in usufruct to the owner in the condition in which he
has received it, after undertaking ordinary repairs.
- Exception: abnormal usufruct

J. Special Cases of usufruct (Legal usufructs)

1. Usufruct over a pension or periodical income (Art. 570)

2. Usufruct of property owned in common (Art. 582)
3. Usufruct of head of cattle (Art. 591)
4. Usufruct over vineyards and woodlands (Art. 575-576)
5. Usufruct on a right of action (Art. 578)
6. Usufruct on mortgaged property (Art. 660)
7. Usufruct over an entire patrimony (Art. 598)
- Liability of usufructuary for debts
8. Usufruct over deteriorable property (Art. 578)
9. Usufruct over consumable property (or quasi-usufruct)
Art. 574
K. Extinguishment of usufruct (Art. 603)

1. Death of usufructuary unless a contrary intention clearly appears

2. Expiration of period of fulfillment of resolutory condition imposed on

usufruct by person constituting the usufruct

. time that may elapse before a third person attains a certain age,
even if the latter dies before period expires

- unless granted only in consideration of his existence Art. 606

3. Merger of rights usufruct and naked ownership in one person

4. Renunciation of usufruct

a. Limitations
- Must be express
- If made in fraud of creditors, waiver may be
rescinded by them through action under Art. 1381

5. Extinction or loss of property

a. If destroyed property is insured before the termination of the

usufruct (Art. 608)
1. When insurance premium paid by the owner and usufruct
(Art. 608, Par 1)
 a. If owner rebuilds, usufruct subsist on new building
b. If owner does not rebuild interest upon insurance
proceed paid to usufructuary

2. When the insurance taken by owner only because usufrutaury

refuses Art. 608, par. 2)

a. Owner entitled to insurance money (no

interest paid to usufructuary)
b. If he does not rebuild, usufruct continues over
remaining land and / or owner may pay the interest on
value of both (Art. 607)
c. If owner rebuilds, usufruct does not continue on new
building, but owner must pay interest on value on land and
old materials.

3. When insurance taken by usufructuary only depends on value

of usufructuary’s insurable interest (not provided for in Civil
Code).

a. Insurance proceeds to usufructuary

b. No obligation to rebuild
c. Usufruct continues on the land
d. Owner does not share in insurance proceeds

b. If destroyed property is not insured (Art. 607)

1. If building forms part of an immovable under

usufruct
 a. If owner does rebuild, usufruct
continues over the land and materials
b. If owner rebuilds, usufructuary must allow
owner to occupy the land and to make use of
materials, but value of both and land and
materials

6. Termination of right of person constituting the usufruct

7. Prescription
Cases covered: If third party acquires ownership of thing or
property in usufruct or right of ownership lost through prescription
or right of usufruct not began within prescriptive period, or if there
is a tacit abandonment or non-user of thing held in usufruct for
required period.

8. What do not cause extinguishment of usufruct

a. Expropriation of thing in usufruct (Art. 609)

b. Bad use of thing in usufruct (Art. 810
Owner’s right
b. Usufruct over a building (Art. 607, 608)

Case:

MERCEDES MORALIDAD vs. SPS. DIOSDADO PERNES and ARLENE PERNES

G.R. No. 152809 August 3, 2006
GARCIA, J.:

Facts:
 At the heart of this controversy is a parcel of land located in Davao City and
registered in the name of petitioner Mercedes Moralidad. Back in the U.S.A. sometime in
1986, Mercedes received news from Arlene Pernes, a daughter of her younger sister, that
Mandug at the outskirts of Davao City was infested by NPA rebels and many women and
children were victims of crossfire between government troops and the insurgents.
Shocked and saddened about this development, she immediately sent money to Araceli,
Arlene’s older sister, with instructions to look for a lot in Davao City where Arlene and her
family could transfer and settle down. This was why she bought the parcel of land covered
by TCT No. T-123125. Petitioner acquired the lot property initially for the purpose of
letting Arlene move from Mandug to Davao City proper but later she wanted the property
to be also available to any of her kins wishing to live and settle in Davao City. Petitioner
made known this intention in a document she executed on July 21, 1986.

Following her retirement in 1993, Mercedes came back to the Philippines to stay
with the respondents’ on the house they build on the subject property. In the course of
time, their relations turned sour because members of the Pernes family were impervious
to her suggestions and attempts to change certain practices concerning matters of health
and sanitation within their compound. Mercedes brought the matter to the local barangay
lupon where she lodged a complaint for slander, harassment, threat and defamation
against the Pernes Family. The lupon decided in favor of Mercedes and ordered the Pernes
family to vacate petitioner’s property but not after they are reimbursed for the value of
the house they built thereon. Unfortunately, the parties could not agree on the amount,
thus prolonging the impasse between them.

Relations having deteriorated from worse to worst, on August 3, 1998, petitioner

filed with the MTCC of Davao City an unlawful detainer suit against the respondent
spouses. Petitioner alleged that she is the registered owner of the land on which the
respondents built their house; that through her counsel, she sent the respondent spouses
a letter demanding them to vacate the premises and to pay rentals therefor, which the
respondents refused to heed. In their defense, the respondents alleged having entered
the property in question, building their house thereon and maintaining the same as their
residence with petitioner’s full knowledge and express consent. To prove their point, they
invited attention to her written declaration of July 21, 1986. The MTCC, resolving the
ejectment suit in petitioner’s favor, declared that the respondent spouses, although
builders in good faith vis-à-vis the house they built on her property, cannot invoke their
bona fides as a valid excuse for not complying with the demand to vacate. To the MTCC,
respondents’ continued possession of the premises turned unlawful upon their receipt of
the demand to vacate, such possession being merely at petitioner’s tolerance, and sans
any rental. Dissatisfied, the respondent spouses appealed to the RTC.

The RTC reversed that of the MTCC, holding that respondents’ possession of the
property in question was not, as ruled by the latter court, by mere tolerance of the
petitioner but rather by her express consent. It further ruled that Article 1678 of the Civil
Code on reimbursement of improvements introduced is inapplicable since said provision
contemplates of a lessor-lessee arrangement, which was not the factual milieu obtaining
in the case. Instead, the RTC ruled that what governed the parties’ relationship are
Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code. Therefrom, petitioner went to the CA. The CA,
while conceding the applicability of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code to the case,
ruled that it is still premature to apply the same considering that the issue of whether
respondents’ right to possess a portion of petitioner’s land had already expired or was
already terminated was not yet resolved. To the CA, the unlawful detainer suit
presupposes the cessation of respondents’ right to possess. The CA further ruled that
what governs the rights of the parties is the law on usufruct but petitioner failed to
establish that respondents’ right to possess had already ceased. On this premise, the CA
concluded that the ejectment suit instituted by the petitioner was premature. Hence, this
petition.

Issues:

1. Whether or not the CA erred in applying articles 448 and 546 and the provisions
of the code on usufruct instead of Article 1678 of the civil code.
2. Whether or not the existing contract between the parties may be deemed to have
been extinguished or terminated.

Ruling:

1. Yes. The Supreme Court held that what was constituted between the parties herein is
one of usufruct over a piece of land, with the petitioner being the owner of the property
upon whom the naked title thereto remained and the respondents being two (2) among
other unnamed usufructuaries who were simply referred to as petitioner’s kin. The Court,
however, cannot go along with the CA’s holding that the action for unlawful detainer must
be dismissed on ground of prematurity. Usufruct is defined under Article 562 of the Civil
Code in the following wise:

ART. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of
preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise
provides.

Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but simply allowing one to enjoy another’s property.
It is also defined as the right to enjoy the property of another temporarily, including both
the jus utendi and the jus fruendi, with the owner retaining the jus disponendi or the
power to alienate the same.

It is undisputed that petitioner, in a document dated July 21, 1986, supra, made known
her intention to give respondents and her other kins the right to use and to enjoy the
fruits of her property. There can also be no quibbling about the respondents being given
the right "to build their own house" on the property and to stay thereat "as long as they
like." Paragraph #5 of the same document earmarks "proceeds or income derived from
the aforementioned properties" for the petitioner’s "nearest kins who have less in life in
greater percentage and lesser percentage to those who are better of (sic) in standing."
The established facts undoubtedly gave respondents not only the right to use the property
but also granted them, among the petitioner’s other kins, the right to enjoy the fruits
thereof. We have no quarrel, therefore, with the CA’s ruling that usufruct was constituted
between petitioner and respondents.

2. Yes. The Supreme Court held that there are other modes or instances whereby the
usufruct shall be considered terminated or extinguished. For sure, the Civil Code
enumerates such other modes of extinguishment:

ART. 603. Usufruct is extinguished:

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

The document executed by the petitioner dated July 21, 1986 constitutes the title
creating, and sets forth the conditions of, the usufruct. Paragraph #3 thereof states
"[T]hat anyone of my kins may enjoy the privilege to stay therein and may avail the use
thereof. Provided, however, that the same is not inimical to the purpose thereof"
(Emphasis supplied). What may be inimical to the purpose constituting the usufruct may
be gleaned from the preceding paragraph wherein petitioner made it abundantly clear
"that anybody of my kins who wishes to stay on the aforementioned property should
maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, live in harmony and must avoid bickering with
one another." That the maintenance of a peaceful and harmonious relations between and
among kin constitutes an indispensable condition for the continuance of the usufruct is
clearly deduced from the succeeding Paragraph #4 where petitioner stated "[T]hat
anyone of my kins who cannot conform with the wishes of the undersigned may exercise
the freedom to look for his own." In fine, 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. From the pleadings submitted by the parties,
it is indubitable that there were indeed facts and circumstances whereby the subject
usufruct may be deemed terminated or extinguished by the occurrence of the resolutory
conditions provided for in the title creating the usufruct, namely, the document adverted
to which the petitioner executed on July 21, 1986. As aptly pointed out by the petitioner
in her Memorandum, respondents’ own evidence before the MTCC indicated that the
relations between the parties "have deteriorated to almost an irretrievable level."

There is no doubt then that what impelled petitioner to file complaints before the local
barangay lupon, the Office of the Ombudsman for Mindanao, and this instant complaint
for unlawful detainer before the MTCC is that she could not live peacefully and
harmoniously with the Pernes family and vice versa. 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.
VII. EASEMENT OR SERVITUDES
 A. Definition – Easement or real servitudes is a real which burden a thing
with a presentation consisting of determinate servitudes for the exclusive
enjoyment of a person who is not the owner or of a tenement belonging to
another, or it is the real right immovable by nature i.e. land and buildings, by virtue of
which the owner of the same has to abstain from doing or to allow somebody else to do
something in his property for the benefit of the another thing or person.

Note: It follows the property where it is attached.

B. Essentials feature of easements / real servitudes / praedial servitudes.

Note: Not requisites.

1. It is a real, i.e., it gives an action in rem or real action against any possessor
of servient estate.

Dominant estate – the one demanding/enjoying the easement.

Servient estate – the estate where the easement is imposed.

2. It is a right enjoyed over another property

3. It is a right constituted over an immovable by nature (Land and buildings),

not over movables.

4. It limits the servient owner’s right of ownership for the benefit of the
dominant estate. Right of limited use, but no right to possess servient
estate, being an abnormal limitation of ownership, it cannot be
presumed.
Note: You cannot claim possession over the property but you can claim possession over
the right.

5. It creates a relation between tenements.

Note: Not a relation between the owners but with the tenements/estate. The easement
is being enforced over the estate and not the owners hence ownership of the dominant
estate is not a requisite.

6. It cannot consist in requiring the owner of the servient estate to do an act,

(servitus in faciendo consistere nequit) unless the act is accessory to a praedial servitude
(obligation propter rem)

7. Generally, it may consist in the owner of the dominant estate demanding

that the owner of the servient estate refrain from doing something (servitus in non
faciendo), or that the latter permit that something be done over the servient property
(servitus in patendo), but not the right to demand that the owner of the servient estate
do something (servitus in faciendo) except if such obligation to a praedial sevitude
(obligation propter rem).

8. It is inherently or inseparable from estate to which they actively or passively

belong (Art. 617)

9. It is intransmissible, i.e., it cannot be alienated separately from the

tenement affected, or benefited.

10. It is indivisible. (Art. 618)

11. It has permanence, i.e., once it attaches, whether used or not, it continues
and may be used at anytime.

C. Classification of Servitudes
 1. As to recipient of benefits:

a. Real or Praedial – for another estate

b. Personal (Art. 614) – for a person or community

2. As to origin:
a. Legal whether for public use or for the interest of private persons (Art.
634) – provided for by the law
b. Voluntary -by the agreement

3. As to its exercise (Art. 615)

a. Continuous – exercise is continuous whether you like it or not, a

window of light is an example
b. Discontinuous – being exercise intermittently, a right of way is an
example

Note: The classification is based on how it is being exercised not on origin etc.

4. As indication of its existence (Art. 615)

Note: Either you can see or you do not see.

a. Apparent
b. Non-apparent

5. By the object or obligation imposed (Art. 616)

 a. Positive – allows something to be done (example is right of way)
b. Negative (prescription start to run from service of notarial
prohibition) – prevents you from doing something in your property

D. General rules relating to servitudes

1. No one can have a servitude over his own property (nulli res sua servit)

Note: SM cannot have a servitude over its own property.

2. A servitude cannot consist in doing (servitus in faciendo consistere nequit)

3. There cannot be a servitude over another servitude (Servitus servitutes esse

nonn potest)
4. A servitude must be exercised in a way least burdensome to the owner of
the land.
5. A servitude must have a perpetual cause.
Note: The moment an easement is constituted, it must be continuous. For as
long as there is a cause for its existence, it will continue.

E. Modes of Acquiring Easements.

1. By title-juridical act which give rise to the servitude, i.e. law donations,
contracts or wills.

a. If easement has been acquired but no proof of existence of easement

available, and easement is one that cannot be acquired by
prescription – then
 1. May be cured by deed of recognition by owner of servient estate,
or
2. By final judgment
3. Existence of an apparent sign considered a title (Art. 624)
- not automatic, According to Article 624 of the Civil Code,
there arises a title to an easement of light and view, even in the absence of any formal
act undertaken by the owner of the dominant estate, if this apparent visible sign, such
as the existence of a door and windows, continues to remain and subsist, unless, at the
time the ownership of the two estates is divided, (1) the contrary should be provided
in the title of conveyance of either of them, or (2) the sign aforesaid should be
removed before the execution of the deed.

3. By prescription (distinguish bet. positive vs negative)

a. Only continuous and apparent easements can be acquired by

prescription
b. 10 years
a. Positive-from day of use
b. Negative – from receipt of notarial prohibition (should be
notarized)

Note: Right of way can only be acquired by title since it is not continuous.

F. Rights and Obligations of Owners of Dominant and Servient Estates.

1. Right of owner of dominant estate

a. To use the easement (Art. 626) and exercise all rights necessary for the
use of the (Art. 625)

b. To do at his expense, all necessary works for the use and preservation
of the easement (Art. 627)
 c. In a right of way, to ask for change in width of easement sufficient for
needs of dominant estate (Art. 651)

2. Obligations of the owner of Dominant Estate:

a. To use the easement for benefit of immovable and in the manner

originally established (Art. 626)

b. To notify owner of servient estate before making repairs and to make

repairs in a manner least inconvenient to servient estate.

c. To contribute to expenses of works necessary for use and

preservation of servitude, if there are several dominant estates, unless be
renounces his interest (Art. 628).

3. Rights of owner of servient estate

a. To retain ownership and use of his property (Art. 630)

• you still have to pay the realty taxes since it is always
imposed in the owner
• the property can still be used by the servient estate without
prejudice to the dominant estate

b. To change the place and manner of use the easement (Art. 629, par.
2)

4. Obligations of the servient estate

 a. Not to impair the use of the easement (Art. 628, par. 1)

b. To change the place and manner of use the easement (Art. 628, par. 2)

G. Modes of Extinguishment of Easements:

1. Merger – must be absolute, perfect and definite, not merely temporary.

2. By non-user for 10 years. – the burden of extinguishment is on the one
assailing it

a. Computation of the period

(1) discontinuous easements; counted from the day they ceased to be

used.
(2) continuous easements: counted from the day an act adverse to the
exercise took place.

b. The use by a co-power of the dominant estate bars prescription with

respect to the others (Art. 633)

c. Servitudes not yet exercised cannot be extinguished by non-user.

3. Extinguishment by impossibility of use

4. Expiration of the term or fulfillment of resolutory condition
5. Renunciation of the owner of dominant estate – must be specific
clear, express (distinguished from non-user)
6. Redemption agreed upon between the owners
7. Other causes not mentioned in Art. 631
 a. Annulment or rescission of the Title constituting the easement
b. Termination of the right of grantor
c. Abandonment of the servient estate
d. Eminent domain
e. Special cause for extinction of legal rights of way; if right of way; if
right of way no longer necessary Art. 651 – 655

H. Legal Easements

1. Law Governing Legal Easement

a. For public easements

1. Special laws and regulations relating thereto, e.g. Pres.

Decree 1067, P.D. 705

2. By the provisions of Chapter 2, Title VII, book II New Civil

Code

b. for private legal easements

1) by agreement of the interest parties whenever the law does
not prohibit it and no injury is suffered by a third person.
2) by the provisions of Chapter 2, Title VII book II

2. Private Legal Easements provided for by the new Civil Code

 a. Those established for the use of water or easements relating to
waters (Art. 637-648)

1) Natural drainage of waters (Art. 637)

2) Easements on lands along riverbanks (Art. 638), See Water Code.
3) Abutment of a dam (Art. 639)
4) Aqueduct (Art. 645-646)
5) Drawing waters and watering animals (Art. 640)
6) Stop lock or sluice gate (Art. 649)

b. The easement of party wall (Art. 649-657)

c. The easement of party wall (Art. 658-666)

d. The easement of light and view (Art. 667-673)

e. The easement of drainage of buildings (Art. 674-676)

f. The easement of distance for certain constructions and plantings (Art. 677-
681)

g. The easement against nuisances (Art. 682-683)

h. The easement of lateral and subjacent support (Arts. 684-687)

CASE:

G.R. No. 194488 February 11, 2015

ALICIA B. REYES vs. SPOUSES FRANCISCO S. VALENTIN and ANATALIA RAMOS

FACTS:
In her Complaint before the Regional Trial Court, petitioner alleged that she was the
registered owner of a 450-square-meter parcel of land in Barangay Malibong Bata, Pandi,
Bulacan, designated as Lot No. 3-B-12 and covered by a TCT. The property used to be a
portion of Lot No. 3-B and was surrounded by estates belonging to other persons.
Petitioner also alleged that respondents’ 1,500-square-meter property surrounded her
property, and that it was the only adequate outlet from her property to the highway. A
113-square-meter portion of respondents’ property was also the "point least prejudicial
to the respondents” The easement sought was the vacant portion near the boundary of
respondents’ other lot. According to petitioner, her and respondents’ lots were previously
owned by her mother. Respondents’ lot was given to Dominador Ramos who allegedly
was respondents’ predecessor-in-interest and also her mother’s brother and caretaker of
properties. Only 500 square meters were given to Dominador. Part of the 1,500 square
meters was intended as a right of way. Dominador was tasked to prepare the documents.
But, instead of limiting the conveyance to himself to 500 square meters of the property,
he conveyed the whole 1,500 square meters, including that which was supposed to be
the access to the barangay road. Petitioner’s mother presumed Dominador would give
her a right of way to the main road, instead of giving way, however, he closed the
passage, causing petitioner’s property’s isolation. Despite demands and willingness to pay
the amount, respondents refused to accede to petitioner’s claims. In their Answer,
respondents contended that the isolation of petitioner’s property was due to her mother’s
own act of subdividing the property among her children without regard to the pendency
of an agrarian case between her and her tenants. The property chosen by petitioner as
easement was also the most burdensome for respondents. Respondents pointed to an
open space that connected petitioner’s property to another public road. Upon agreement
by the parties, the Branch Clerk of Court conducted an ocular inspection of the premises
in February 2007, in the presence of the parties. After an Ocular Inspection Report was
submitted on March 2, 2007, the case was considered submitted for decision and
subsequently dismissed on April. The trial court found that petitioner’s proposed right of
way was not the least onerous to the servient estate of respondents. It noted that the
proposed right of way would pass through improvements, such as respondents’ garage,
garden, and grotto. Petitioner appealed the Regional Trial Court’s Decision. The Court of
Appeals also found that petitioner’s property had an adequate outlet to the public road.

ISSUE:
Whether or not petitioner is entitled to be granted easement rights.
HELD:

No. One of the requirements for the grant of an easement of right of way is that the
isolation of the property is not due to the acts of the dominant estate’s owners. As shown
in the pleadings submitted to the trial court, petitioner and respondents had conflicting
claims on this issue. Petitioner alleged that it was her uncle, Dominador, who caused the
isolation of her property through his act of appropriating for himself the whole property
entrusted to him by her mother. Moreover, he closed the passage from petitioner’s
property to the public road. On the other hand, respondents alleged that the isolation
was due to the acts of petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest. She allegedly subdivided the
property in favor of her children, including petitioner, without regard to the pending
dispute over the property. If the latter is true, petitioner could not claim any right to
compulsory easement even if it was not she who caused the property’s isolation.
Petitioner is bound by her predecessor-in-interest’s act of causing the isolation of her
property. Assuming, however, that petitioner or her mother did not cause the isolation of
petitioner’s property, petitioner still cannot be granted the easement of right of way over
the proposed portion of respondents’ property. This is because she failed to satisfy the
requirements for an easement of right of way under the Civil Code. This easement is not
compulsory if the isolation of the immovable is due to the proprietor’s own acts. Under
ART. 650, The easement of right of way shall be established at the point least 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. Petitioner failed to establish
that there was no adequate outlet to the public highway and that the proposed easement
was the least prejudicial to respondents’ estate. There is an adequate exit to a public
highway. As explained in Dichoso, Jr. v. Marcos, mere convenience for the dominant
estate is not what is required by law as the basis of setting up a compulsory easement.
Even in the face of necessity, if it can be satisfied without imposing the easement, the
same should not be imposed. There is, therefore, no need to utilize respondents’ property
to serve petitioner’s needs. Another adequate exit exists. Petitioner can use this outlet to
access the public roads.
NUISANCE
- 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 or property.
CLASSIFICATION OF NUISANCE
1. According to the object/subject affected:
Nuisance is either public or private.
1.1 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.
1.2 A private nuisance is one that is not included in the foregoing definition.

2. According to how it may be abated (remedy):

2.1 Summary/extrajudicial – when it is nuisance per se
2.2 Judicial – if per accidens (depending on conditions)

1. The remedies against public nuisance are:

a. A prosecution under the Penal Code or any local ordinance: or
b. A civil action (commenced by the Mayor); or
c. Abatement, without judicial proceedings. (Summary Determined by District
Health Officer)
Extrajudicial Abatement
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, provided:
 1. That demand be first made upon the owner or possessor of the property to
abate the nuisance;
2. That such demand had been rejected;
3. That 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.

2. The remedies against a private nuisance are:

a. A civil action; or
b. Abatement, without judicial proceedings, provided the procedure for
extrajudicial abatement of a public nuisance by a private person is followed.
Examples of nuisance per se
1. A mad dog on the loose, which may be killed on sight because of the immediate
danger it poses to the safety and lives of the people.
2. Pornographic materials
3. Contaminated meat
4. Narcotic drugs which are inherently pernicious and which may be summarily
destroyed

CASE
Cruz vs Pandacan Hikers GR No. 188213 January 11, 2016
Facts:
Petitioner Natividad C. Cruz was Punong Barangay of Brgy, 848, City of Manila.
Petitioner Cruz confronted persons playing basketball and thereby instructed Barangay
Tanod Benjamin dela Cruz (Dela Cruz), to destroy the basketball ring by cutting it up
with a hacksaw, thus, rendering the said basketball court unusable.
The acts of petitioners prompted the filing of a Complaint (for Malicious Mischief, Grave
Misconduct and others before the Prosecutor's Office and the Office of the Ombudsman
by the group that claims to be the basketball court's owners. Cruz alleged that the
basketball court affected the peace in the barangay and was the subject of many
complaints from residents asking for its closure. In support of her answer, Cruz
attached copies of the complaints, a "certification" and letters of barangay residents
asking for a solution to the problems arising from the disruptive activities on the said
playing venue.
Issue:
Whether or not Cruz can order to destroy the basketball ring because it is a public
nuisance.
Held:
No. The destructive acts of petitioners, however, find no legal sanction. This Court has
ruled time and again that no public official is above the law. The Court of Appeals
correctly ruled that although petitioners claim to have merely performed an abatement
of a public nuisance, the same was done summarily while failing to follow the proper
procedure therefor and for which, petitioners must be held administratively liable.
Prevailing jurisprudence holds that unless a nuisance is a nuisance per se, it may not be
summarily abated. There is a nuisance when there 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." But other than the statutory definition, jurisprudence
recognizes that the term "nuisance" is so comprehensive that it has been applied to
almost all ways which have interfered with the rights of the citizens, either in person,
property, the enjoyment of his property, or his comfort.