NHA vs.

Manila Seeding
G.R. No. 183543 June 20, 2016
Facts:
National Housing Authority (NHA) is the owner of a 120 hectare piece of land which is
owned by the government and is reserved for the establishment of the National Government
Center. President Marcos then issued Proclamation No. 1670 in which a seven-hectare area
thereof has granted respondent usufructuary rights over it. However, Respondent Manila
Seeding exceeds on the said 7 hectares and occupied a total area of 16 hectares, thus, it
leased the excess to the private tenants.
Thereafter, President Corazon Aquino issued Memorandum Order No. 127 revoking the said
reserved status of the remaining 50 hectares of the 120-hectare property wherein the
petitioner was expressly authorized to commercialize the area and sell it to the public
through bidding. Respondent then filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction against petitioner. Respondent sought the protection of its
occupancy and possession of the property reserved for it under Proclamation No. 1670.
Issue:
Whether or not NHA is entitled to recover rent
Ruling:
Yes.
Under Article 549 in relation to Articles 546 and 443 of the Civil Code, a possessor in
bad faith has a specific obligation to reimburse the legitimate possessor for everything that
the former received, and that the latter could have received had its possession not been
interrupted.
As provided in the law, respondent shall be made to account for the fruits it received from
the time it took possession until the time it surrendered the excess to petitioner. Respondent
has admitted that it leased out the excess to various establishments and earned profits
therefrom. Having done so, it is bound to pay the corresponding amounts to petitioner.
 Provincial Assessor vs. Filipinas
G.R. No. 183416, October 05, 2016

Facts:
Filipinas Palm Oil Plantation Inc. is a private organization that is leasing the lands
owned by the National Development Company (NDC) in Agusan del Sur which is a quasi
government body. Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was then passed wherein NDC
lands were transferred to the CARP beneficiaries and merged with DC-Guthrie Plantations,
Inc. - NDC-Guthrie Estates, Inc. (NGPI-NGEI) Cooperatives. A contract of lease agreement
was then entered by the Filipinas and the said cooperative.
The Filipinas Plantation assailed before the Local Board of Assessment Appeals
(LBAA) when petitioner Provincial Assessor of Agusan del Sur assessed Filipina’s properties
found within the plantation area that a single fruit bearing palm oil has a Market Value of
207.00 when it should only be 42.00 per tree.
The LBAA found that the P207.00 market value declared in the assessment by the
Provincial Assessor was unreasonable and the CA also held that the land owned by NGPI-
NGEI, which Filipinas has been leasing, cannot be subjected to real property tax since these
are owned by cooperatives that are tax-exempt.
Issue:
Whether or not the improvements made by Filipinas become part of the lands of the
Cooperatives
Ruling:
Yes.
The ownership of the improvements belong to the owner of the property by Right of
Accession under Article 445, “Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and
the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the
provisions of the following articles.”
The exception of real property taxes given to cooperatives applies regardless of
whether or not the land owned is leased. Even though the said improvements were built for
the benefit of the lessee, it shall also be inured to the benefit of the lessor.
 Daclison vs. Baytion
G.R. No. 219811 April 6, 2016

Facts:
Respondent Baytion filed a complaint for Forcible Entry and Damages with Prayer for
Issuance of Preliminary Injunction against herein petitioner Rex Daclison. In the complaint,
petitioner Daclison and other persons acting under her took possession of the portion leased
and formerly occupied by Leonida after its expiration of contarct of lease without the
permission and knowledge of Baytion; Daclison then has been occupying the said portion
without paying anything to Baytion. Respondent then demanded to the petitioner to vacate
the said property, however, Daclison refused to do so despite oral and written demands.
According to Daclison the dispute in the present controversy is the filled up portion
between the riprap which was constructed by the government and the property of Baytion,
thus, outside of the land co-owned by Baytion. Both RTC and CA ruled in favor of the
Baytion and concluded that the same had the better right to possess the said property.
Issue:
Whether or not Baytion had the better right to the property

Ruling:
No.
Baytion failed to prove the attendance of the indispensable requirement that the
deposit was due to the effect of the current of the river or creek. Alluvion must be the
exclusive work of nature and not a result of human intervention.
Also, the disputed property cannot also be considered an improvement or accession
under Article 445 of the New Civil Code. It must be noted that Article 445 uses the adverb
“thereon” which is simply defined as “on the thing that has been mentioned.” In other words,
the supposed improvement must be made, constructed or introduced within or on the
property and not outside so as to qualify as an improvement contemplated ‘by law.
Otherwise, it would just be very convenient for landowners to expand or widen their
properties in the guise of improvements.
Baytion, not being the owner of the contested portion, does not have a better right to
possess the same. In fact, in his initiatory pleading, he never claimed to have been in prior
possession of this piece of property. His claim of ownership is without basis.
 Homeowners v. J.M. Tuason
G.R. Nos. 203883 November 10, 2015

Facts:
The subject matter of this case is a 22, 012 square meter parcel of land enominated
as Block 494 of the Talayan Village which forms part of the Sta. Mesa Heights Subdivision in
Quezon City; this block 494 was previously registered under the name of herein respondent
J.M Tuason. Gregorio Araneta who is the liason officer of the said respondent sold
subdivision lots to the general public.
Ordinance No. 5095 was passed by the Quezon City Council directing all subdivision
owners to turn over to the city government the open spaces in city subdivisions, however, no
record or document of Deed of Donation exists to show that the donation was, indeed,
accepted; Barangay Captain and the homeowners of Talayan Village made known their
opposition/objection to the impending sale for failure of J.M. Tuason to pay its realty taxes;
HATVI filed against J.M. Tuason for annulment of sale, cancellation of titles and mortgage,
acceptance of donation and damages. Contending that it had no knowledge of the
delinquency sale and that its members purchased their respective home lots on the belief
that Block 494 was an open space for use J.M. Tuason and THI moved for the dismissal of
the complaint on the ground, among others, that the donation was not accepted and that, as
a consequence, Block 494 remained a private property.
Issue:
Whether or not J.M Tuazon and THI owners are in bad faith and are thus liable for
damages to HATVI

Ruling:
No.
The rule is long and well-settled that every person dealing with registered land has a
right to rely on the face of the title when determining its ownership. A mortgagee has a right
to rely in good faith on the certificate of title of the mortgagor of the property given as
security and has no obligation to undertake further investigation in the absence of any sign
that might arouse suspicion. Since their business is imbued with public interest, banks are,
concededly, are expected to be more cautious than ordinary individuals in dealing with
lands, even registered ones.
 Cabang v. Basay
GR NO. 180587 Mar 20, 2009

Facts:
Guillermo Basay bought the subject property from the heirs of Felix Odong, however,
did not occupy the said property. The petitioner Simeon Cabang then had been in
continuous, open, peaceful and adverse possession of the same parcel of land since 1956
up to the present; when Basay found out that the Simeon Cabang and his family are
occupying the said property, he filed a complaint for the recovery of the said land. According
to Cabang, they were the awardees in the cadastral proceedings of Lot No. 7778 of the
Molave Townsite, Ts-222. During the said cadastral proceedings, defendant-appellees
claimed Lot No. 7778 on the belief that the area they were actually occupying was Lot No.
7778, however, it was found out that that they were actually occupying the Lot No. 7777.
Issue:
Whether or not the subject property is a duly constituted family home which is not
subject to execution
Ruling:
No.
The family home is deemed constituted from the time it is occupied as a family
residence. From the time of its constitution and so long as any of its beneficiaries actually
resides therein, the family home continues to be such and is exempt from execution, forced
sale or attachment except as hereinafter provided and to the extent of the value allowed by
law. The actual value of the family home shall not exceed, at the time of its constitution, the
amount of P300,000.00 in urban areas and P200,000.00 in rural areas.
A family home is deemed constituted on a house and a lot from the time it is
occupied as a family residence. There is no need to constitute the same judicially or extra-
judicially.Thus, respondents entitled to the writ of execution and ordering petitioners to
vacate the subject property