CLASS DATE: August 31 2019 

 
I. CLARIFICATION: Laurel v. Abrogar (2009) vis-a-vis PLDT v. Alvarez 
a. The doctrine in Laurel v. Abrogar remains binding, ie. Long-distance calls were not 
considered personal properties. Rather, it is the business which consists of the actual 
operations and use of facilities that may be considered as such. 
i. Laurel ruling was of a later date than the Alvarez ruling; 
ii. Laurel ruling was made ​en banc​, Alvarez was decided by a division. The 
decision by a division cannot overturn an ​en banc ​decision. 
 
II. REVIEW: PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMINION/PRIVATE PROPERTY 
a. PUBLIC DOMINION AND PRIVATE PROPERTIES 
i. Government does not own the lands 
ii. They are only taken care of the state for public use of the CITIZENS 
iii. You cannot use it for any other purpose other than what it is intended for 
 
b. PRIVATE PROPERTY CAN BE A PROPERTY OF THE 
GOVERNMENT; HOW? 
i. Power of Eminent Domain - through due process and just compensation 
ii. Exercise of power of Police Power 
iii. Failure to pay tax every April - foreclosure of prop for public auction 
iv. Donation by a private person 
v. Contract of sale 
vi. By death ​(or somehow, in a sense, at will) 
1. escheat - ​where no one else will inherit the prop, government can claim 
it 
 
c. Is there a possibility for a private person to acquire a land of public dominion? 
i. NO. The property has to be declared not under public dominion anymore 
 
d. HOW TO GET PROPERTY? 
i. Always check if the property is alienable or not AND check its classification 
 
e. TYPES OF LANDS 
i. Forest, Mineral, National Parks, and Agricultural 
ii. Public Agricultural lands are the only ones that are ALIENABLE -- as 
provided by the Constitution 
iii. Agricultural lands may be reclassified into a different land 
iv. Sir said something about how you it a certain (agricultural?) land needs first 
to be declared as “alienable” before it can be purchased blah blah i forgot  
 
 
 
 
 
III. CONTINUATION: MOVABLE PROPERTIES - CHOSES IN ACTION 
 
a. ART 417. CHOSE IN ACTION 
i. “Thing” in action 
ii. Enshrined in paragraph 1 of Art 415 
iii. This refers to things you could do because of your ownership over that right 
(Sir said these words talaga)  
iv. Incorporeal right to demand something be made corporeal 
1. ex: May right ka magsingil ng utang. Singilin mo muna. Pag nasingil 
mo na, cash na siya. (corporeal na) 
 
IV. REPORT PROPER: OWNERSHIP 
 
a. Concept of ownership 
i. Subject matter: Things or rights 
ii. Kinds 
1. Beneficial - property enjoyment 
2. Naked - bare title 
iii. Acquisition 
1. Mode - specific cause 
2. Title - juridical act 
a. Mode/Title may be original/derivative 
 
b. Attributes of Ownership 
i. Jus Possidendi - right to hold 
1. General Rule: Judgment on ownership necessarily includes transfer of 
possession 
2. XPN: Person may be declared owner but he may not be entitled to 
possession which may be in the hands of another 
a. Right to possess may be qualified if there’s an 
obligation/contract 
b. Challenge may be to the ownership. But if there’s a subsisting 
lease, you have the right to possess although it is in the hands 
of another. 
ii. Jus Utendi - right to use and enjoy 
iii. Jus Abutendi - right to consume by use 
iv. Jus Accessionis - right to accessions 
v. Jus Fruendi - right to receive fruits of the property 
1. Natural fruits: Tumubo sa puno o halaman 
2. Industrial: Tao mismo nagtatrabaho 
3. Civil: Based on agreement/contract of property 
vi. Jus Disponendi - right to dispose/ not dispose 
vii. Jus Vindicandi - right to recover the property 
1. Do you have presumption of title even if it’s against the government? 
 a. NO. This does not apply if the government is involved. This 
is largely because of the REGALIAN DOCTRINE (State 
owns the properties) 
b. This is only applicable between PRIVATE PARTIES 
 
c. Limitations on right to use and enjoy the property 
i. General - inherent powers of State 
ii. Specific - by law 
1. There are a lot of limitations provided by the State (Art. 428) 
a. You can’t burn the clothes of your ex because it is against the 
necrological law (?) which provides that you can’t burn any of 
your trash 
b. LEGITIMES - Would your marriage be annulled if you are 
unable to protect the legitimes of your child? 
i. NO. Before an annulment is granted, the legitimes of 
the children are separated and protected 
iii. Limitations by transmitting party - contracts,will 
iv. Limitations by owner - voluntary servitudes, encumbrances 
v. Inherent limitations - conflict with similar right of others 
 
d. Principle of Self-Help (ART 429) 
i. To protect property, what should you do? 
1. You can put a fence 
2. You have to announce to the whole world that your property is a 
private property 
 
e. Eminent Domain (Art. 435) 
i. Definition 
ii. Requisites 
 
f. Extent of ownership (Art. 437) - space and subsoil required to achieve economic utility 
 
g. Hidden treasure (Art. 438-439) 
 
h. Accession 
 
 
i. CASE: PARDELL v. BARTOLOME 
i. two complaints: 1 claim and 1 counterclaim 
ii. Properties were transferred through oral will ?? 
iii. The inheritance they received were not just from their parents, but also from 
their two other siblings who passed away 
iv. ISSUE: ​They want to divide the properties esp. the one in escolta 
v. Why do they want to divide it? 
 1. Because the Pardells alleged they could not enjoy the property which 
is co-owned. As a co-owner, you have the right to enjoy 
2. BUT, Spouses Bartlomoe were not prevented by the Pardells in using 
the property. Their properties are still in Escolta. 
3. Office of Bartolome on the first floor of the lot: 
4. Half lang ang babayaran niya since co-owned by wife. It will be then 
subtracted from what the Bartolomes have advanced for the repair of 
such property due to earthquake 
vi. DOCTRINES 
1. The right to enjoy the thing is an attribute of ownership. A 
co-owner who is not prevented from enjoying the thing cannot 
be said to have been deprived of said right.​ Application: Matilde 
did not prevent Vicenta from enjoying the property, the latter was no 
deprived of said right. 
2. The right to the fruits of the property is an attribute of 
ownership When a co-owned property is leased, both co-owners 
are entitled to their respective shares. ​Application: Vicenta is 
entitled to the share of the rental that should have been earned from 
Matilde’s husband, should the space occupied by the latter been 
leased to a stranger. 
 
j. Actions to Recover Possession 
i. Immovables 
1. Accion Reinvindicatoria - based on ownership; prescribes in 10 years 
2. Accion Publiciana - ordinary civil action 
a. Available if the reason is not those which would constitute 
FE/UD 
3. Forcible Entry (FE) /Unlawful Detainer (UD) - summary 
proceeding; prescribes in 1 year 
a. FE - when deprivation due to force, strategy, stealth, etc 
b. UD - entry initially lawful but continued possession became 
unlawful as a result of the expiration of the right 
ii. Movables 
1. Primary Action 
a. Replevin - action to recover possession of a movable 
2. Ancilliary Actions 
a. Writ of injunction - order to someone to do or not to do 
something 
b. Writ of possession - order where the sheriff is commanded to 
put possession of a thing to a particular person 
 
k. QUIETING OF TITLE (Art. 476) 
i. Concept - equitable remedy to adjudicate on an adverse claim of title or 
interest in one’s property 
ii. Grounds: 
 1. Why voidable contracts? How is it applied on the cloud on title? 
2. After you have determined its invalidity (being declared 
voidable/annulled na), you can assail the cloud on title -- not when it 
is still valid until annulled 
iii. Prescription 
1. 10 years (ordinary) 
a. Person in possession is in good faith 
2. 30 years (extraordinary) 
a. Basta kinuha mo lang 
b. Hindi mo irereward ang lack of good faith ng possessor 
3. Estoppel by laches 
a. Sleeping on your rights 
b. This falls within the discretion of the court because cases 
involving estoppel is a matter of EQUITY 
c. You have to consider the circumstances surrounding the 
possession 
d. Example: A and B magkapitbahay. Owner pala si B ng 
property kung saan nakatira si A. He kept mum. Until si A 
lumaki na ang pamilya. Saka lang nagsalita si B and nagclaim 
na sa kanya yung prop kung saan nakatira si A. = estopped by 
laches 
e. Notes from Sir: Dapat di makita na bad faith ka. Hindi mo 
rin pwede na in good faith ka. It really depends on the 
circumstances. 
 
l. CASE: HEIRS OF OLVIGA v. CA 
i. Doctrine - if a person is already in possession of the property where the title 
is with another person by reasons of fraud, the action is really one for 
quieting of title (not an action for reconveyance). Such does not prescribe. 
 
m. CASE: TITONG v. CA 
i. Doctrine - the grounds for an action for quieting were those provided under 
the rules of court, to wit: ​an instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding 
apparently valid or effective, but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, 
unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to the said title.​ The physical intrusion of 
another does not constitute a ground for an action for quieting of title, but 
an action for forcible entry may be brought.