1. Del Banco v.

IAC

CO-OWNERSHIP Purchased property Agreed to own each Brought partition Whether the island is still undivided, considering the agreement of each? YES They only agreed on how they would share in the benefits There is nothing in their agreement that suggest actual partition Co-owner exercises right of dominion but also a sole owner of a portion Not enough that they subdivide the property Natural daughters Death of mother Took administration without authority Defendant delaying the partition Whether partition is correct? YES Each co-owner has the power to exercise his rights over the whole property Until division be made, respective cannot be determined Not liable for damages Since she left for Spain, it is not strange that there will be delay in the delivery of rentals A subdivision title was issued One of the co-owner offered to redeem the property sold to another Whether the lot is still subject to legal redemption? NO Co-owner was terminated Agreement of partition though oral is valid and binding upon the parties 1/6 each co-owner Shares were sold (+ whole property) Petitioner filed for recovery Contended prescription Sale is valid? YES Yes but only to the share corresponding to the seller But not the shares of those who did not consent thereto Extrajudicial partition was effected, each Transferred shares to Roque Claimed the preparation of subdivision plan was step leading to partition Respondent alleged that signatures werent authentic Whether land can be partitioned? YES Petitioner has been in OCEN for 16 years Action to annul can be invoked within 4 years from time of discovery of defect Waited 16 years before taking proper action One of the co-owner declared the lot to his name for taxation purposes Co-owners filed reconveyance Whether such action is already barred? And was there prescription? YES Generally no prescription shall run in favor of co-owner against co-owners Adverse possession: (a) performed unequivocal acts

7. Aguilar v. CA

2. Pardell v. Bartolome

8. Tomas Caludio Mem. Col. v. CA 11. Adille v. CA -

3. Caro v. CA

9. Robles v. CA

4. BailonCasilao v. CA

5. Roque v. IAC

10. Galvez v. CA

6. De Lima v. CA

12. Sumipat

amounting to ouster, (b) positive acts of repudiation made known to the trust (c) evidence is clear and conclusive Repudiated the ownership when he obtained the title for himself, excluding heirs 10 years from issuance of title (registration is notice) Purchased house and lot where their father could spend and enjoy his remaining years 2/3 and 1/3 Written memo, agreed that house and lot should be equal with Senen When their father died, co-owner demanded Senses to vacate and property be sold and proceeds divided Right to demand partition? YES; if property indivisible, it shall be sold and proceeds accordingly distributed Pay rentals? NO; right to use house and lot being co-owner, pay only from the moment he prejudices the co-ownership Filed action for partition Contended that the sale was only equivalent to 4/5 of property Whether 4/5 only, even if the land has not yet been partitioned? YES Sale will only affect his own share but not the shares of the other co-owners who did not consent Sale of entire property is not null and void No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership May demand partition enytime Action to quiet title Co-owners did not know of the mortgage constituted on their property Insisted that their share should have not been prejudiced Hilario mortgaged the property as mere co-owner Transaction did not divest title to him No clear and evident repudiation Requisites must be met Sold the property without knowledge of co-owner Co-owner filed legal redemption Whether there was repudiation? Repudiation must be duly communicated Plus the three requisites Execution of self-adjudication does not constitute sufficient act of repudiation Bad faith, feigning sole ownership to the exclusion of others Bad faith should not be permitted to profit from it to the detriment of others Sale of pacto de retro One co-heir redeemed property and alleged that hes the sole owner Whether co-heir acquired exclusive ownership? NO Property could not have been exclusively acquired: (a) partial redemption (b) fraud (c) prescription Right to repurchase can be exercised with respect to his shares Did not put end to the existing co-ownership (succeeded from their mothers death) Fraud attended registration Not repudiated Feigning sole ownership; bad faith Lauro sick when he signed the deed of donation 1

MMCN

v. Banga

13. Adlawan v. Adlawan

Carried the body to write signature Wife, signed without knowledge of what she was signing for Later on, wife no longer received benefits Whether deed transferred title? NO Acceptance not manifested in the deed itself or in separate document Donation is void Subject at any time to declare existence of void contract Allowed siblings to occupy and then later on demanded them to vacate, filed ejectment suit Whether he can eject? NO He is not the sole heir They are co-owners of the lot Upon death, they became co owners It is true that any co-owner may bring ejectment suit, but this is done for the benefit of the co-ownerhsip

5. Cequena v. Bolante

1. Rizal Cement Co. v. Villareal

2. Wong v. Carpio

3. Somodio v. CA

4. MaglucotAw v. Maglucot

POSSESSION Registration Applicant presented witnesses Opposition presented tax declaration Whether applicant in actual possession? YES Credence to the testimony of the witnesses Right to possess flows from ownership Possession acquired by material occupation of the thing Tax dec, survey plan are not enough to prove possession Deed of sale Planted Did not constituted house thereon Knew there where laborers there, happy there were people Wong went to the land and tried to register it (also built a house and fenced) Mercado went to the land to make copras, brought attention of the police Filed forcible entry Whether Mercado established prior possession? YES Wong liable to pay rent? YES; summons extinguishes GF Possession acquired by material occupation Clear that seller passed title to buyer Actual, longer, with title, judicial determination After partition, they immediately took possession Somodio planted ipil-ipil, coconut Allowed Ayco to enter premises and constructed nipa hut Time came, he wanted to remove Ayco Forcible entry was filed Whether Somodio had prior possession? YES Ejectment cases, only issue is who is entitled to possession True regardless of character of possession Constructive possession (not every square meter) Petitioner filed for recovery of possession Respondent rented portions and built houses, but stopped paying rentals Maintained that there was valid partition There was sketch plan and tax dec Whether estopped from questioning title? YES

Parties to a partition and took possession are estopped from questioning title They already occupied the lot Payment of rentals reveal that their possession was that of a holder There was a superior right Oral partition was in order There was ratification of oral partition MENDOZA contended that HONORATA came into possession through violence and force Despite their dispossession, petitioner DID NOT LOSE legal possession because possession cannot be acquired through force and violence Still deemed legal possessor Land was cultivated by petitioners father When father died margarita took possession of the land and cultivated with his son, Miguel Resided on the lot POSSESSION CANNOT BE ACQUIRED THROUGH FORCE OF VIOLENCE. GOVT may disturb the petitioners only on the ground that they have abandoned their property OR totally destroyed and has become public domain by the erosive action of the sea APPLICANTS never abandoned their possession Property has been injured Owners compelled to expenditures by way of fill or a retaining wall PROPERTY NOT HAD BEEN TOTALLY LOST Have not lost their right of possession Gradual encroachment private property may not become property of public ownership Applicants no intention to abandon it. RESPONDENTS PROVED: predecessors house was borrowed by VICAR after the church allowed it free use, they became bailors and petitioner bailee Bailees failure to return the subject matter to the bailor DID NOT MEAD ADVERSE POSSESSION ON THE PART OF THE BORROWER Adverse claim of VICAR did not ripen into ownership REPSONDENTS IN POSSESSION IN GF SINCE 1906 VICAR 1951 - Bailee Possession of movable acquired in GF is equivalent to title One who has lsot anymovable or unlawfully deprived thereof, may recover it from person in possession IF: acquired in public sale owner cannot obtain its return without reimbursing the price paid Fact that Cruz had not yet paid the price is a matter between EDCA and Cruz AND did not impair title acquired by SANTOS Santos had seen the invoice EDCA issued Assured Santos that the book had been paid for on delivery EDCA less cautious in trusting an impostor INVOICE books had been paid 2

6. Aragon v. Insular Govt

7. Catholic Vicar Apostolic v. CA -

8. EDCA Publishing v. Santos -

MMCN

9. De Garcia v. CA 10. Dizon v. Suntay -

VESTED OWNERSHIP TO SANTOS GUEVARA unlawfully deprived of diamond right, entitled to recover from GARCIA (found in possession) EXCEPT: GF at public sale Owner cannot obtain without reimbursing the price Right of owner CANNOT be defeated even by proof that there was GF by the acquisition Common law cannot apply (misplaced confidence) ENTITLED TO RECOVER Pawnshop DIZON cannot claim defense of estoppel Estoppel has its roots in equity with good faith as its basis. Justice comes to Suntays rescue Having engaged in a business where presumably ordinary prudence would manifest itself to ascertain WON the individual offering jewelry by way of pledge is entitled to do So: IF NO SUCH CARE BE TAKEN: difficulty of resisting profit he should he the last to complain if thereafter the right of the true owner of such jewelry should be recognized. Motor vehicles Delivered Check dishonored Whether citiwide was unlawfully deprived? NO When one had been unlawfully deprived of the thing he has NOT voluntarily parted of it and thus possessor cannot validly acquire title to the said thing. IN THIS CASE: there is perfected UNCONDITIONAL CONTRACT OF SALE BET Citiwide and SUAREZ Citiwide not unlawfully deprived It had voluntarily transferred title to the same LEDESMA buyer in GF and for value CANNOT be deprived. Dispute over the possession of a PUBLIC LAND A person ordered to leave certain premises is not prohibited from taking with him his own effects and possession UNLESS there is an express prohibition At the time GF ceases, and there are natural or industrial fruits, possession shall have a right to a part of the expenses of cultivation and harvest, in proportion to the time of possession As much as there is no evidence that they are possessors in bad faith, GOOD FAITH CEASED WHEN THE RESPONDENTS WERE SERVED WITH SUMMONS TO ANSWER Possessors in bad faith, court ruled that they shall reimburse the fruits received and those which the legitimate possession could have received from the time that their good faith ceased Right of retention until reimbursed for the improvements existing on the land Right to be indemnified? YES Amount of the expenditure which is the necessary and useful expenses incurred by the defendant

15. Robles v. Hermanos

16. MWSS v. CA

GF always presumed HERMANOS did not prove bad faith of EVARISTA EVARISTA occupied house by permission of owner And continued with consent of heirs Had contract with the owner of the building Said improvements are useful and EVARISTA possessor in GF Retain until the same is paid 449 He who builds in bad faith on the land of another LOSES what is built without right to indemnity NAWASA lost whatever useful improvements it had made without right 546: possessor in GF shall be refunded for useful expenses with right of retention UNTIL reimbursed 547: possessor in GF may remove useful improvements if it can be done without injury. REMOVAL applies only to pure luxury provided NO INJURY.

1. Bachrach v. Elianoff

11. Ledesma v. CA

2. Hemedes v. CA

3. Fabie v. Gutierrez

12. Azarcon v. Eusebio

4. VDA Aranas v. Aranas

13. Cordero v. Cabral

5. Locsin v. Valenzuela

14. Mendoza v. De Guzman

USUFRUCT bequeathed to his wife all the fruits and usufruct of the remainder of his estate after payment of the legacies Bachrach owner of 108,000 shares Whether dividend belong to capital or usufructuary? Usufructuary entitled to N, I and C fruits of the property All earning prior to death, belong to capital After death, usufructuary Land foreclosed with annotation of usufructuary in favor of Kausapin If the property sold judicially, owner shall be liable to usufructuary for whatever the latter may lose by reason thereof Josefa Fabie usufructuary of the income of certain houses Jose contended that Josefa has only the right to RECEIVE rents when due but no right to administer Whether Josefa has the right to administer property? YES All acts of administration, necessary repairs, vested Can also choose tenant Owner has no legitimate cause to complain Priest died with a last will Nephew would enjoy of the fruits of testators 3rd group of properties upon his death As usufructuary has the right to enjoy the property from normal enjoyment Not perpetual, end upon his death Not prohibited to dispose the fruits Must be respected Disposition of naked owner should not prejudice usufructuary 6 co-owners of large tract of land Emancipation of tenants Portion where Schons usufructuary rights fell within the OPERATION LAND TRANSFER Whether usufructuary or owners entitled to amounts paid by tenants? Pertain to owner; compensation for dominion over the land which they were deprived Cannot be characterized as rentals 3

MMCN

Usufructuary in favor of Schon was extinguished upon the EOT PD 27 Give security for payment of interest OR replace with another 609 applied by analogy EASEMENT Land with crops Adjoining lot leveled a portion of the irrigation canal from Pampanga river Deprived of irrigation He rebuilt it Whether Valisno has water rights? YES, it was equivalent to title Art 624 Deed of sale included the conveyance of water rights He would not have bought the land if it werent for it Cannot be defeated even if supplied by 3rd person Valisno entitled and free from disturbance Leveling deprived him of such, ordered to grant Valisno Road passage to market place Private legal easement of right of ay Malice, constructed chapel in the middle And fenced it with barbed wire Plaintiff claim that they have acquired easement thru prescription (passing for 20 years) Whether it can be acquired through prescription? NO It is discontinuous, only by virtue of title No vested right can be acquired To enjoy a right is to exercise it Exists only when dominant owner actually crosses the servient estate Servients right to exclude is perfect and undisturbed Spetik tank Blocked Whether such ceased upon the sale of the lot to another? NO 631 provides for the extinguishment; sale not one of those Use of easement if continued upon operation of law (624) Existence of apparent sign of easement bet. 2 estates, maintained by one owner, either be alienated, remain UNLESS: contrary or sign be removed Septic tank continued by operation of law New owners cannot impair the use of servitude Resort and hotel Closed the passage way for security Contended that it was existing even before WWII ROW is discontinuous and cannot be acquired by prescription Requisites of compulsory right of way: (4) Standard of security is needed Started plant nursery business Needed a jeep to use for transporting Couldnt pass road path so he requested the servient to allow meters Turned down Whether he may be granted? YES Sufficiently established an additional Another route was impassable (deemed as if not an option at all)

13. Alcantara v Reta -

6. Case v. Heirs of Tuason

1. Valisno v. Adriano

7. Choco v. Santa Maria

2. Ronquilo v. Roco

8. Solid Manilz v. Bio Hong

3. Taedo v. Bernad

9. Floro v. Llenado

4. Costabella Corp v. CA

5. Encarnacion v. CA

10. Quiemen v. CA 11. De Jesus v. Howmart

12. La Vista Assoc Inc v. CA

Width if easement shall be that which is sufficient for the needs of the dominant estate. Changed from time to time Indemnify the servient, increase of the land Boundary line Registration Registered excluded the wall claimed by opponents Wall belong to opponents Already enclosed by stone walls Acknowledged in the deed Presumed to be party walls UNLESS: exterior sign or title to the contrary Proved title, hence, not party wall Mere building of wall at the back of it does not indicate a party wall He knew he had no right to build such Choco made written protests with regard to defendants alteration in the building of his house (windows, etc) Balcony window not closed if they would comply with the requirements YES, must be closed. In front of the lot, has direct view Distance required by law; violation Restricted window only Deed of sale reserved an easement of way for benefit of NEGIGHBORING ESTATES Bio Hong constructed steel gates Whether extinguished by merger? NO Easement inseparable from the estate which they belong Cannot maintain independent existence No genuine merger took place No dominant estate (personal servitude) benefit of community Not contractual in nature, there was no offer Cannot erect steel gates Subdivision No right of way because of his own choice (does not like to spend) No contract was perfected Did not prove requisites There is another property proposed during the survey Avocado tree v. Sari sari store (strong materials) Least prejudicial prevails over distance Constructed 7-storey building Deprive lateral and subjacent support Whether proper precautions had been taken? Doesnt matter This is absolute Cannot deprive of adjoining estate such support Mangyan road Whether there was easement? YES Legal was constituted 4 requisites have been met Apparent that predecessors-in-interest intended to establish the easement for mutual benefit Could only be extinguished by mutual agreement Courts does NOT create easement, merely declare an existing one Right of 1st refusal? Not ULRZ Usufruct not lease 4

MMCN

14. Prosperity Credit v. CA

15. Villanueva v. Velasco

16. National Irrigation v. CA

17. Remman Enterprises v. CA

18. Jesus is Lord v. Pasig

Nature of personal easement under 614 No access to road Foreclosed mortgaged Acceded to right of way Forms part of redeemed property There was a memorandum Installing water pipes? Whatever kind of passage; memo passage egress or ingress; includes water pipes 2 meter right of way is granted Unknown to Villanueva even before he bought the land that Gabriels constructed small house that encroached upon 2meter right of way yes it was voluntarily constituted by agreement 617; when surrounded etc. One meter insufficient Needs of dominant estate determine the width of the easement Can demolish whatever obstructs such Villanueva bound Ingress, egress to public highway Whether he has right to just compensation? NO There was reservation and condition on the cert of title Established either by law or will Legal exists in favor of the government Land originally public land, diff ruling if it were private Adjoining land owners Agricultural, other is piggery Inundated by pig manure Liable for damages? YES Negligence of Remman to level waste water in its lagoons Extent of damages, proved Municipality in Pasig needed passage for fire trucks could enter the municipality 3 meters, required by fire code SB approved ordinance Petitioner opposed, not able to prove 4 requisites It was for the purpose of constructing a road Expropriation, need not establish 4 requisites for legal easement

II. DONATION 1. De Luna v. Abrigo

Edy is a stranger, not an heir Cannot conclusively claim ownership Not even registered nor identified Edy as heir of Pido

2. Reyes v. Mosqueda

3. Liguez v. CA

4. Pershing Tan Queto v. CA

5. Pajarillo v. IAC MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP I. MODE AND TITLE 1. Acap v. CA

Acap tenant Did not pay to Edy despite the Declaration of Heirship and Deeds of Absolute sale Edy demanded payment of rentals from Acap Whether such deed transferred the lot No. Must be completed by fulfilling certain conditions imposed by law Title is a juridical justification Mode is actual acquisition Declaration (deed abovementioned) merely divides the estate among themselves, extrajudicial settlement, not the same as contract of sale

6. Cruz v. CA

Donated to Luzonian Colleges Automatic reversion Condition: construct at its own expenses: chapel, nursery, school (St. Veronica) Did not comply Whether REVOCATION barred by prescription? No, 4 years do not apply This is an onerous donation It was subject to a burdensome Donations with onerous cause, rules on contract will apply Within 10 years Judicial intervention only necessary to declare whether rescission is proper Dr. Pascual died Ursula contended donation mortis causa Parungao contended donation inter vivos Ursula sold property Whether title determinative factor of donation? NO Do not depend on the term used Body of the document must be considered in ascertaining donors intention Dr. Pascual donated property to Ursula out of LOVE AND AFFECTION (Inter vivos) Donation in consideration of ILLICIT RELATION Sexual relation with Liguez Whether it is void? YES Onerous Predicated on illicit cause Lopez could not donate, to the prejudice of his wife Conjugal in character Possessed the land orally bequeathed to her by mother Deed of sale was executed but never paid Whether paraphernal property? YES Barter agreement has no effect Donated a land Public instrument but was not registered and neither transferred Took possession after donation Transferred to mother and paid tax dec Whether it was valid? DEFECTIVE Noncompliance with 633 Purpose of formal reqiorements: acceptance communicated to donor No notation of donees acceptance Effective upon acceptance Registration not needed to be binding Cruz childless widow Donated lot and 2-door apartment to nieces Adopted cresencia, minor She extrajducially tried to revoke donation Whether it can be annulled? NO 5

MMCN

7. Roman Catholic v. CA

8. Eduarte v. CA 9. Quilala v. Alcantara

Must be done within 4 years from date of adoption Take into account legitime of donor at the time of adoption Donation of Catholic church Parcel of land Shall not dispose within 100 years, otherwise ispo facto null and void Church sold the land Whether land should be returned? NO Condition imposed is UNREASONABLE Prohibition must not be perpetual Donee only prohibited, max of 20 years, if more than 20 years VOID Condition considered as not imposed Lost be laches to assert rights over the land Donation inter vivos in favor of Violeta 2 witnesses Free and voluntary Claiming to be the only surviving son Whether there was a valid donation? YES Ensure that every page is authenticated by parties Avoid falsification Lack of acknowledgment by donee before notary public does not render donation null and void Instrument, treated in its entirety Cannot be considered as public on one part and private on the other Test inofficiousness It is valid, though Donation with resolutory condition Upon death of donee be reverted to any of her children Given to Enrique Whether donation was valid? NO Did not acquire ownership, because at that time, it had already been transferred to her sister Lim convicted of estafa filed by Suarez Civilly iable Petitioner filed against Lim Donation be declared null and void Alleging: done in fraud of creditors Whether it was entered into in fraud of creditors? NO Lims donation happened before he incurred debt Fenced the property Director donated property to Noceda Excluding the donated portion Constructed three huts thereon Noceda removed fences and fenced entire land without Directos consent Whether revocation already prescribed? NO By reason of ingratitude, may be revoked within 1 year Conference before her death that it was not her intention to donate all the properties because she had several children to support Not all documents were signed Whether they were able to prove ownership? NO There must be an effective transfer

15. Imperial v. CA 17. Gestopa v. CA -

14. Gonzales v. CA

16. Republic v. Silim

10. Hemedes v. CA

11. Siguan v. Lim

12. Noceda v. CA

13. Heirs of Velaszquez v. CA

In this case, several children to support not one of the grounds to revoke a valid donation Acceptance was incorporated on the same deed and was signed by donor and acceptor There was delivery Conference was denied by defendants Action for partition cannot prosper Respondent farmers been cultivating since WWII Prior to partition, executed a deed of donation conveying the share in favor of his 14 GRANDCHILDREN Donation not registered PD 27, placed his properties to Operation Land Transfer Should it be excluded? NO In order to be a valid donation of an immovable, must be in a public instrument If not annotated in the Registry of Property, shall NOT prejudice 3rd persons Registration not necessary to make donation valid, comes into play only when 3rd persons are affected Denominated as sale but was in fact a donation 2 years after, donor filed for the annulment Contending he was deceived in signing the contract Condition: upon his death, burial costs can be withdrawn from such Heir not precluded from seeking reduction of donation Silim donated land to PUBLIC SCHOOLS Condition: for school purposes only School was constructed BUT, land was exchanged for a bigger lot 1 hectare was needed Donor filed a complaint Whether condition was violated? NO Purpose of donation remains It was not altered It was for the enhancement of the purpose of the donation It was for the purpose of the release of funds for the construction of the school Land could not be accommodated by the limited area of the donated lot Donation to Mercedes Conditions: (a) Donor continue to enjoy the fruits during his lifetime (b) donee cannot dispose or sell the land during lifetime without prior consent or approval Lands were sold to GESTOPA by donor Mercedes filed for quieting of title Whether donation was inter vivos or mortis causa? INTER VIVOS There was reservation of lifetime usufruct No need for such reservation of donor is still the owner Valid donation, once accepted is irrevocable EXCEPT: officiousness, failure to comply with condition or ingratitude Petition denied

MMCN