OWNERSHIP
and the promotion of the general welfare but
Rights as provided/enumerated under the New
Civil Code:
The Civil Code does not defi ne ownership.
Instead, the Code simply enumerates the rights
which are included therein, as follows:
(1) the right to enjoy the property (Art. 428, par.
1, NCC);
(2) the right to dispose the property (Art. 428, par.
1, NCC);
(3) the right to recover the property from any
holder or possessor (Art. 428, par. 2, NCC);
(4) the right to exclude any person from
enjoyment and disposal of the property (Art. 429,
NCC);
(5) the right to enclose or fence the land or
tenement (Art. 430, NCC)
(6) the right to demand indemnity for damages
suffered due to lawful interference by a third
person to avert an imminent danger (Art. 432,
NCC);
(7) the right to just compensation in case of
eminent domain (Art. 435, NCC);
(8) the right to construct any works or make any
plantations and excavations on the surface or
subsurface of the land (Art. 437, NCC);
(9) the right to hidden treasure found in the
owner’s property (Art. 438, NCC); and
(10) the right to accessions. (Art. 440, NCC)
Definition of JBL Reyes of Ownership:
-“an independent right of exclusive enjoyment and
control of the thing for the purpose of deriving
therefrom all advantages required by the
reasonable needs of the owner (holder of the right)
subject to the restrictions imposed by law and the
right of others.”
Other definitions:
- 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
rights of others.
Personal right - right of obligation (power of one
to demand from another a fulfillment of a
prestation to give, to do, or not to do.
Real right- has been defi ned as the power
belonging to a person over a specific thing without
a definite passive subject against whom such right
may be personally enforced.
-imposes obligtion on persons generally, i.e.,
either on all the world or on all the world except
certain determinate persons
*Ownership is a real right
Classification of Real rights:
1. Real right over one’s own property (jus in re
propria)
2. Real right over the property of another (jus in
re aliena)
*These latter rights are lesser rights than the right
of ownership yet they make inroads upon and
curtail the rights of the owner.
Examples of jus in re aliena are usufruct,
easement, possession and mortgage. In these
examples, the owner of the property has for the
time being parted with some of his rights, thereby
restricting and abridging the right of ownership
*the relationship that exists between ownership
and property is that the latter is the object of the
former.
*in 427, “things” is considered as material things
since it’s distinguished from rights. However, in
428 or 414, it is considered as both material things
and rights(used in a juridical sense).
Rights of an Owner:
-Art. 428 (enumeration of rights wrt ownership)
1. Right to enjoy
a) Right to possess (jus possidendi)
b) Right to use (jus utendi)
c) Right to fruits (jus fruendi)
a) Right to consume (jus abutendi)
3. Right to dispose/alienate(jus dispodendi)
a) Right to encumber/alienate
b) Right to destroy
3. Right to recover (jus vindicandi)
Right to enjoy
-right of the owner to freely enjoy either the
property itself or the benefit is derived therefrom
(right to use, to fruits, to possess, to accession, to
consumption)
(a) Right to use and abuse (utendi and abutendi)
*jus utendi (to use) is different from jus abutendi
(consume). Ccdng to Sentor Tolentino, jus
abutendi properly meant the use that extinguishes,
that consumes, by acts of the owner, things which
are consumable.
(b) Right to dispose (jus dispodendi)
Jus disponendi or the power of the owner to
dispose of his property includes the power to
alienate, to encumber, to limit, to transform, to
destroy and to merge.
* right to alienate is the right of the owner to
transmit either by onerous or gratuitous title his
right to another by any act inter vivos or mortis
causa
*The right to limit or encumber is the power of
the owner to deprive himself of several of the
rights included in ownership and transfer them to
another
*right to transform, on the other hand, is the
power to change the nature of the thing, or its
form or destination and the power to destroy is the
power to render useless or to abandon
(c) Right to recover
-Right to possession
Some authors refer to jus possidendi as the right to
possession(as included in ownership) and to jus
possessionis(right independent from ownership)
as the right of possession. The latter concept of
possession (jus possessionis) is discussed
separately in Title V of Book II.
*The owner is entitled to the exclusive possession
of his property.
-Actions for Recovery of Possession
there are three kinds of actions available to
recover possession of real property (take note that
it’s not personal property):
(a) accion interdictal;
(b) accion publiciana; and
(c) accion reivindicatoria

*Accion Interdictal
Accion interdictal comprises two distinct causes
of action, namely,
(1) forcible entry (detentacion) and
(2) unlawful detainer (desahuico).
Forcible entry- summary action to recover
material or physical possession of real property
when the person who originally held it was
deprived of possession by “force, intimidation,
threat, strategy, or stealth.
Unlawful detainer- fi led when possession by “a
lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against
whom the possession of any land or building is
unlawfully withheld after the expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession, by
virtue of any contract, express or implied
*Accion Publiciana- ordinary civil proceeding to
determine the better right of possession of realty
independent of the title or ownership of the
property
Distinction of Interdictal to Publiciana:
Accion Interdictal is limited to the question of
possession de facto while the issue in the Accion
Publiciana is the determination of the better right
of possession or possession de jure.
*Accion Reivindicatoria
A suit which has for its object the recovery of
possession over the real property as owner. It is an
action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a
parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full
possession.
It is different from accion publiciana where
plaintiff merely alleges proof of a better right to
possess without claim of title.
Distinction of Reinvindicatoria from Publiciana:
In accion publiciana, the basis of the recovery of
possession is the plaintiff’s real right of
possession or jus possessionis — which is the
right to the possession of the real estate
independent of ownership. In accion
reivindicatoria, however, the basis of the action
for recovery of possession is ownership itself (jus
possidendi)
-What happens in an accion reivindicatoria is that
the plaintiff has been deprived of the exercise of
all the rights included in ownership and what he
seeks to recover by fi ling such an action is, in
reality, only the exercise of the rights included in
ownership.
Requisites (Art 433 and 434)
Person who purports to have a better right must
prove two (2) things:
a) the identity of the land claimed; and
b) his title thereto
*If the plaintiff is unable to prove any of the
foregoing requisites, his action will fail even if the
defendant cannot prove his title to the property.
Article 429
-Doctrine of Self Help
Law allows him to “use such force as may be
reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual
or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property”
*As a necessary consequence of ownership, the
owner has the right of exclusive enjoyment and
control over his property, as well as to its
exclusive possession.
* He may, therefore, exclude any person from its
enjoyment and disposal
Who may invoke: available not only to owners of
the property but also to any of its “lawful
possessor
When to invoke: authorized only if the purpose is
to “repel” or “prevent” an actual or threatened
unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of the
said property
-only be exercised at the time of actual or
threatened dispossession, and not when possession
has already been lost
*repel- referring to an “actual” unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of the property
*prevent- referring to a “threatened” unlawful
physical invasion or usurpation of the property.
*IF already lost, the owner must resort to judicial
process for the recovery of property as required in
Article 536 of the Civil Code.
* Defense of property is deemed included in
selfdefense under the provisions of Article 11,
paragraph 1, of the Revised Penal Code.
-however, it should be reasonable, as
supported by the doctrine of self-help. That’s why,
in the case of People v Narvaez, he was only
given a special mitigating circumstance of
incomplete defense of property, since there is no
aggression of the takers. The means used was
disproportionate to the attack to said property, so
it cannot be considered under the justifying
circumstance of defense of property in the RPC.
Article 430
-Right to Enclose or Fence
Corollary to the right to exclude others from the
enjoyment of his property, the owner of a parcel
of land or tenement has the right to enclose or
fence the same by whatever means
*However, it is required that the right to enclose
or fence must be legitimately exercised and must
not be attended with bad faith.
Article 431-432
Limitations on Ownership:
1. Inherent powers of the state
a) Police Power
i. Accding to Freund, it is the power
of promoting the public welfare by
restraining and regulating the use of
liberty and propetty
b) Eminent Domain
i. inherent power of the State that
enables it to forcibly acquire private lands
intended for public use upon payment of just
compensation to the owner
c) Taxation
i. Taxation focuses on the power of
government to raise revenue in order to
support its existence and carry out its
legitimate objectives
Specific Limitations Imposed by Law
1. Legal easements which can be enforced by law
and, therefore may be established even against the
will of the owner of the servient estate.
2. During a period of acute public want or
emergency, thoughtless extravagance in expenses
for pleasure or display may be stopped by order of
the courts at the instance of any government or
private charitable institution.
3. Lands acquired under free patent or homestead
cannot be subject to encumbrance or alienation
within fi ve years from the issuance of the patent
Inherent Limitations:
-Traditional view: it has been held that no
person can be held liable for damages occasioned
to another by the exercise of a right
-Modern view: to grant indemnity for damages in
cases where there is an abuse of right, even when
the act is not illicit
*Our Civil Code, noticeably, has departed from
the classical and traditional theory and adopted the
view that a person will be protected only when he
acts in the legitimate exercise of his right, that is,
when he acts with prudence and in good faith; but
not when he acts with negligence or abuse. (as
supported by Article 19 and 431 of NCC)
*The absence of good faith is essential in
determining whether the owner can be held liable
for any consequential damage arising from the
exercise of his right to use the property.
*Article 432: While an owner is entitled to
exclusive and undisturbed possession of his
property and has the right to exclude other persons
from its enjoyment and disposal, such right is
unavailing if the interference by a third person is
borne out of a state of necessity
-State of necessity (Justifying
Circumstance,Article 11 par.4 of RPC):
the interference by a third person with another’s
property is justifi ed and cannot be prevented by
the owner if such interference is necessary to avert
an imminent danger and the threatened damage,
compared to the damage arising to the owner from
the interference, is much greater.
*example: when a fi re is threatening to
spread and destroy other houses and properties
and the destruction of some houses will avert the
spread of the fi re, such destruction is justifi ed
*Requisites for state of necessity:
(1) there must be a situation of grave peril,
an actual or imminent danger, either upon the
person of the actor or a third person or their
property;
(2) the interference is necessary to avert such
danger;
(3) the threatened damaged, compared to the
damage arising to the owner from the interference,
is much greater; and
(4) the state of necessity must not be brought
about by the intentional provocation of the party
invoking the same
Requisites in the RPC wrt state of necessity:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that
done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it
*While interference to one’s property pursuant to
a state of necessity is justified and does not
constitute unlawful aggression, the persons benefi
ted by such interference are duty bound to
indemnify the owner for the damage suffered by
the latter
Limitations imposed by the owner himself:
may impose restrictions or limitations on
ownership in two situations:
(1) at the time that he transmits the property to
another person; or
(2) at the time that he continues to be the owner
of the property
(supported by the right to dispose said property by
owner thereof, or jus dispodendi)
Eg. Contract of commodatum
Art. 433-436
Presumption of Ownership: Possession is viewed
by the Civil Code as presumed ownership, as
provided under 433 of NCC.
Article 434 (Requisites of Accion Reivindicatoria)
* In an action to recover real property, the settled
rule is that the plaintiff must rely on the strength
of his title, not on the weakness of the defendant’s
title (as provided above)
Rationale behind this: This requirement is based
on two (2) reasons: first, it is possible that neither
the plaintiff nor the defendant is the true owner of
the property in dispute; and second, the burden of
proof lies on the party who substantially asserts
the affirmative of an issue for he who relies upon
the existence of a fact should be called upon to
prove that fact.
First requisite: Proof of Identity
-the person who claims that he has a better right to
the property must fi rst fi x the identity of the land
he is claiming by describing the location, area and
boundaries thereof
-boundaries may be natural (natural landmarks) or
artificial (set up by Bureau of Lands)
The rule is that when there is a confl ict between
the area and the boundaries of a land, the latter
prevails for what really defi nes a piece of land is
not the area mentioned in its description, but the
boundaries therein laid down.
Second Requisite: Proof of title
the lack or insufficiency of title on the part of the
defendant does not entitle the plaintiff in an
accion reivindicatoria to a favorable decision
unless he himself is able to support his claim of
ownership by evidence of title.
*tax declarations are not conclusive evidence of
ownership. At most they just constitute mere
prima facie proof of ownership or possession of
the said property.
Art. 437-439
Right to Sub-surface and Airspace
-It is a well-known principle that the owner of
piece of land has rights not only to its surface but
also to everything underneath and the airspace
above it up to a reasonable height.
-The ownership of land extends to the surface as
well as to the subsoil underneath.
Right to Hidden Treasure
Since the owner of the land is likewise the owner
of its sub-surface or sub-soil, any “hidden
treasure” on the sub-surface also belongs to him.
*The same rule applies if the “hidden treasure” is
located on a building or other property
*Requisites of Hidden Treasure
(1) deposit of money, jewelry or other precious
objects must be hidden or unknown
(2) lawful ownership of which must not appear.
*The term “other precious objects” should be
understood as being similar to money or jewelry.
Hence, the concept does not include natural
wealth, i.e., minerals and petroleum.
-Under the Regalian doctrine, said minerals
and petroleum belongs to the state, even if found
in a private land.
-right to sub-suface/subsoil, subject to this
limitation
* Under Art.438, If the fi nder is a third person, he
is entitled to one-half of the treasure if he is not a
trespasser and the discovery of the treasure is only
by chance; otherwise, he shall not be entitled.
*The provisions of Article 438 of the New Civil
Code on “hidden treasure” shall apply only if the
discovery of the treasure is by chance. If the hunt
for treasure is deliberate, it is subject to the
issuance of a permit pursuant to RA 8492.
building permit. This permit allows the owner to
construct the proposed structure height approved
by ATO.
(3) For properties far from the airport, they are
subject to the provisions of the National Building
Code.
Article 440
Right to Accession is the right of an owner of a
thing to the products of said thing as well as to
whatever is inseparably attached thereto as an
accessory.
-it is clear that “accession” presupposes a
previously existing ownership by the owner over
the principal, such that it is considered merely as
an incident or an attribute of ownership.
*It is not, therefore, a mode of acquiring
ownership but a right included in ownership.

Right to the Airspace Kinds of Accession:

While the airspace is a public highway, it is 1. Accesion discreta- right of the owner to
obvious that if the landowner is to have full anything which is produced by his property.
enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive a) Natural Fruits
control of the “immediate reaches of the
enveloping atmosphere” b) Industrial Fruits

-Limitations on the right to airspace: c) Civil Fruits

(1) He is bound by height restrictions annotated 2. Accesion continua- the right of the owner to
on the certifi cate of title if he acquired the anything which is incorporated or attached to his
property subject to such restrictions following the property, whether such attachment is through
principle that “contractual obligations between natural or artifi cial causes
parties have the force of law between them.”195
a) Industrial accession
(2) For properties situated near the airport, their
owners cannot complain of the reasonable i. Building
requirements of aerial navigation. They are
ii. Planting
required to secure a height clearance permit from
the Air Transportation Office (ATO), which iii. sowing
permit is a pre-requisite for the issuance of a
 b) Natural accession
i. Alluvion
ii. Avulsion
iii. Change of course of river
iv. Formation of islands
Cases wrt to Ownership:
Valdez v CA
Facts:
Valdez was the owner of a parcel of land where
Fabella consructed a house without any color of
title whatsoever. Valdez orally asked Fabella
several times to vacate the property but the latter
stubbornly refused.
The parties were not able to settle the dispute
amicably, which lead to the filing of a complaint
for unlawful detainer by Valdez against Fabella.
The MTC ruled in favor of Valdez, which was
affirmed by the RTC. The CA, on the other hand,
reversed the decision. It held that Valdez failed
to make a case for unlawful detainer because they
failed to show that they had given Fabella the
right to occupy the premises or that they had
tolerated the possession of the same, which is a
requirement in unlawful detainer cases.
Issue:
Whether or not the allegations of the complaint
clearly made out a case for unlawful detainer.
Held:
No, the allegations of the complaint did not
clearly make out a case for unlawful detainer.
To justify an action for unlawful detainer, it is
essential that the tolerance must be present right
from the start of the possession which is later
sought to be recovered. Otherwise, if the
possession was unlawful from the start, an action
for unlawful detainer would be an improper
remedy.
The allegations in the complaint did not contain
any fact that would substantiate the claim of
Valdez that they permitted or tolerated the
occupation of the property by Fabella. The
complaint contained only bare allegations that
Fabella without any color of title whatsoever
occupied the land by building their house in the
said land thereby depriving Valdez the possession
thereof. Nothing had been said on how Fabella's
entry was effected or how and when dispossession
started. Admittedly, no express contract existed
between the parties.
The evidence revealed that the possession of
Fabella was illegal from the start and not merely
tolerated as alleged in the complaint, considering
that Fabella started to occupy the lot and then built
a house thereon without the permission and
consent of Valdez and before them, their mother.
Clearly, Fabella's entry into the land was without
the knowledge of the owners, consequently, it is
categorized as possession by stealth which is
forcible entry. Tolerance must be present right
from the start of possession sought to be
recovered, to categorize a cause of action as one
of unlawful detainer not of forcible entry.
There was nothing said on how Fabella's entry
was effected or how and when dispossession
started. There was also no express contract existed
between the parties. This failure of Valdez to
allege the key jurisdictional facts constitutive of
unlawful detainer was fatal. Since the complaint
did not satisfy the jurisdictional requirement of a
valid cause for unlawful detainer, the municipal
trial court had no jurisdiction over the case.
De Gallego v Land Authority
FACTS
The petitioner herein, a registered owner of a
parcel of land situated in the province of Rizal,
seeks the cancellation of certain conditions
involving the conveyance of said land in question
which was said to have been acquired by the
Government for residential purposes with the
principal objective of distributing the same to the
landless and thereby allow more people to have
their own homes. Petitioner insists that the
primary intention of the restriction against
transfers or conveyances of the property except to
the landless and except by hereditary succession
in order to insure that more people shall own
residential homes, has been lost by the
transformation of the property from residential to
commercial since the landless who may want to
establish their residential homes can no longer
afford to pay the commercial price of this
commercial property and thus said restriction
should be eliminated to allow the aforementioned
property to contribute to the economic
development of the country.
Petitioner, wife of former Ambassador Manuel
Gallego, was not a landless individual, nor was
she landless at the time when the said property
was acquired by her, the fact being that the
restriction refers only to voluntary conveyances
and did not comprehend sales by public auction,
as in the particular case, where the petitioner came
to own the property as the highest bidder in a
foreclosure sale by reason of a mortgage thereon.
ISSUE
Whether said conditions have lost any sound basis
in that while the subject parcel of land was
originally a residential lot, the classification of the
property had been changed to that of commercial.
HELD
NO. The conditions are found or provided in
Section 17 and 18 of Land Registration Order No.
R-3 under the subject "Rules and Regulations
Governing the Acquisition and Disposition of
Landed Estate," approved November 15, 1951 by
the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural
Resources. Said conditions, having been imposed
pursuant to an Administrative Order which has the
force and effect of the law, are therefore binding
upon any person who acquires title to the same, it
appearing that said Conditions are annotated as
encumbrances on the back of the Certificate of
Title of the land. Moreover, said Conditions are
not contrary to law, morals, customs, or public
policy. In fact, these Conditions had been imposed
in order to implement more effectively the main
purpose of the constitutional provision which is to
break up landed estates into reasonably small
portions and to discourage the concentration of
excessive landed wealth in an entity or a few
individuals, (Republic vs. Baylosis, 96 Phil. 461)
Incidentally, the New Constitution of 1973
provided a modification of the original provision
in the 1935 Constitution, thus: "The National
Assembly may authorize, upon payment of just
compensation, the expropriation of private lands
to be subdivided into small lots and conveyed at
cost to deserving citizens. Therefore, it was only
proper for the Court to hold the subject Conditions
to remain as they were.