/YCP/PROPERTY

PROPERTY: OWNERSHIP
CASE FACTS ISSUE(S) RULING & DOCTRINE(S)
1 TEN FORTY NATURE: Ejectment Suit Who owns the • Art. 1544, CC
REALTY & DEV. subject property/ If the same thing should have been sold to different
CORP. V. CRUZ Petitioner Ten Forty acquired subject lot on who is entitled to vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the
410 SCRA 484 Dec. 5, 1996 from Barbara Galino but did possession de facto? person who may have first taken possession thereof in
not occupy the premises. good faith, if it should be movable property.
Preferential Right in case of ANS: Respondent
Double Sale Respondent Cruz- acquired subject lot on Cruz Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall
April 24, 1998 and immediately occupied belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first
property and occupation tolerated by recorded it in the Registry of Property.
Petitioner Ten Forty.
TEN FORTY CRUZ Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall
True and absolute No allegation that pertain to the person who in good faith was first in
owner of subject petitioner had possession; and in the absence thereof, to the person
property been in prior who presents the oldest title, provided there is good
possession of the faith.
premises
It was Barbara IN THE CASE
Galino who was in • Subject property had not been delivered to petitioner.
possession at the Hence, it did not acquire possession either
time of the sale materially/symbolically.
and vacated the • Respondent was first in ACTUAL POSSESSION.
property in favor
of the respondents ATTY LO REMARKS:
Petitioner never • If you are an owner, the logical action is to take possession.
occupied portion
of premises
before
respondent
occupied lot in
April 1998
2 DE LA CRUZ V.
CA
442 SCRA 492
3 LALUAN V. Nature: Complaint for the Recovery of Can the Laluans • In order to maintain an action to recover ownership, the
MALPAYA, Ownership and Possession of Certain recover ownership person who claims that he has gain to recover the
TAMBOT AND Properties over said land? (NO) ownership, the person who claims that he has a better
JASMIN right to the property, must prove not only ownership of
Subject Properties: the property claimed but also the IDENTITY thereof.
65 SCRA 494 1st Parcel of Riceland evidenced by Deed of • Art. 434, CC
Absolute Sale In an action to recover, the property must be identified,
Necessity of Identification of
and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title
Property in an Action to 2nd parcel of Riceland and Cornland by and not on the weakness of the defendant’s claim.
Recover Ownership Absolute Deed of Sale
IN THE CASE
Malpaya took advantage of senility of wife • Petitioners neither offered nor attempted to offer any
and sold land to Tambot. The subject evidence indicating that the land sold by the respondent
properties were conjugal properties of Malaya to his co-respondent Tambot corresponds with
Malpaya and Laluan. Malpaya’s right to sell any of the 3 parcels described in the deed of donation.
was only ½ thereof but he sold the whole
property 4 days after death of his wife. ATTY LO REMARKS

• Specifically identify, discuss the North, East, West,

South of the land and where it starts, where it ends
4 HEIRS OF Nature: Action for Quieting of Title filed 1 WON the Original 1 No. Even if incontrovertible, it doesn’t altogether deprive
CLEMENTE by Respondents and Action for Ejectment Certificate of Title an aggrieved party of a remedy in law. The acceptability of
ERMAC V. HEIRS filed by the Petitioners issued in names of Torrens System would be impaired if it is utilized to
OF VICENTA Sps. Clemente perpetuate fraud against the real owners.
Respondents- occupants of Lot No. 666 Ermac and
ERMAC Anunciacion Suyco
403 SCRA 291 is indefeasible and
Page 1 of 7

DISCLAIMER: THIS REVIEWER ONLY ACTS AS A SUPPLEMENT.

 /YCP/PROPERTY

Respondents claim that they are the owners incontrovertible • It does not foreclose possibility that the real property
Certificate of Title not of various parcels of real property that form under the Torrens may be co-owned with persons not named in the
Ownership; Registration not part of Lot No. 666 which allegedly System (NO) Certificate or that it may be held in trust for another
a Mode of Acquiring belonged originally to Claudio Ermac. person by the registered owner.
Ownership; Constructive • Ownership is not the same as Certificate of Title.
Upon death of Claudio, Lot No. 666 was Registering a piece of land under the Torrens System
Trust inherited and partitioned by his children doesn’t create/vest title, because REGISTRATION IS
Esteban, Pedro and Balbina. NOT A MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP.
• Certificate of Title is merely an evidence of ownership.
The siblings requested Esteban to have the
title over the property registered. Esteban 2 WON alleged tax
wasn’t able to do so. The task of declarations and tax 2 Tax declarations and realty tax receipts do not conclusively
registration fell to his son, Clemente. receipts are sufficient prove ownership. They may however constitute strong
to defeat title over evidence of ownership when accompanied by possession for
Clemente applied for Registration of Title property in the a period sufficient for prescription.
but in his own name and didn’t include his names of Petitioner’s
father’s brother and sister, nor his cousins. predecessors-in- IN THE CASE
interest (NO) Respondents have been in possession of property for a long
Court Findings: Lot No. 666 originally time. There is legal basis for their use of tax declarations and
owned by Claudio Ermac and inherited by realty tax receipts as additional evidence to support claim of
his children (Esteban, Balbina and Pedro) ownership.
CLEMENTE CHILDREN OF 3 WON Laches has
ERMAC CLAUDIO set in (NO)
ERMAC 3. When a party uses fraud/concealment to obtain a
It was Clemente certificate of title to a property, a constructive trust is created
Ermac and not his in favor of the defrauded property.
grandfather,
Claudio Ermac It cannot be used to defeat justice/to perpetuate fraud and
who is the original injustice. Its application should not prevent the rightful
claimant of owners of a property to recover what has been fraudulently
dominion over registered in the name of another.
Lot No. 666
During his Ownership of the IN THE CASE
lifetime, Clemete children of Registration in the name of Clemente Ermac meant that
E was in actual, Claudio Ermac Clemente held the land in trust for all the heirs of the
peaceful, adverse was peaceful and Claudio. (Esteban, Balbina and Pedro)
and continuous undisturbed until
possession in the this ejectment case Since respondents were in actual possession of the property,
concept of an the action to enforce the trust, and recover the property, and
owner of Enttire thereby quiet title thereto, does not prescribe.
Lot No. 666
Upon Clemente’s ATTY LO REMARKS
death, they MODES OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP:
inherited Lot No. • Succession (In this case)
666 and • Acquisition
constructed
residential houses
therein
5 GERMAN MGMT. Nature: Forcible entry by Respondent- WON Private • YES. Occupants may be able to file an action for
V. CA occupants Occupants are forcible entry because they are the actual possessors of
GR 76217 Sps. Jose owned a parcel of land but they entitled to file a the lot in question and because ownership is not in
are residents of the US. By virtue of a SPA, forcible entry case issue.
they authorized Petitioner, German Mgmt against German • Doctrine of Self-Help (Art. 429, CC) cannot be
Doctrine of Self-Help and to develop the property covered. (YES)
Forcible Entry established because it can only be exercised at the time
of the actual or threatened dispossession.
German found that the property was • Art. 429, CC
occupied by several families (respondent- The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
occupants) exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof.
For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
German told them to vacate the premises necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful
in which they did not comply. German physical invasion or usurpation of his property.
proceeded to develop the property which

Page 2 of 7

DISCLAIMER: THIS REVIEWER ONLY ACTS AS A SUPPLEMENT.

 /YCP/PROPERTY

included portions cultivated by the • Regardless of the actual condition of the title to the
occupants. property, the party in peaceable quiet possession shall
not be turned out by a strong hand, violence or terror.
Petitioner deprived private respondents of • Forcible Entry is merely a quieting process, and never
their property without due process of law determines the actual title to an estate. Title is not
by: involved.
1.forcibly removing and destroying the • When possession has already been lost, the owner must
barbed wire fence enclosing their farm resort to judicial process for recovery of property (Art.
holdings without notice 536, CC)
2. bulldozing rice, corn, fruit bearing trees
and other crops of private respondents by ATTY LO REMARKS:
means of force, violence and intimidation
• They cannot just bulldoze. In no case may possession
in violation of PD 1038
be acquired through force/intimidation as long as there
3 Trespassing, coercing and threatening to
is a possessor who objects thereto.
harass, remove and eject private
respondents from their respective farm
holdings
6 ANECO REALTY Nature: Complaint for Injunction restrain WON Aneco may • NO. The Civil Code gives every owner the right to
V. LANDEX Landex to Construct Concrete Wall enjoin LANDEX enclose or fence their land by means of walls…etc. (Art.
DEVELOPMENT from constructing a 430)
GR 165952, July 28, FHDI sold a parcel of land divided into 39 concrete wall on its • Art. 430, CC
lots to Aneco Realty and Landex Dev. in 22 own property (NO)
2008 lots and 17 lots respectively. Every owner may enclose or fence his land or
tenements by means of walls, ditches, live or dead
Right to enclose included in AHDI expressly stated in their agreement hedges, or by any other means without detriment to
Right of Ownership that it has no more intention of continuing servitudes constituted thereon.
the subdivision project.
IN THE CASE
Landex built a wall and ANECO wanted to • Disputed lots are no longer subdivision lots and cannot
demolish the wall in accordance with Sec. 1 be considered as subdivision road lots.
RA 440 that no portion of a subdivision
• No law stops Landex from actually building the wall.
road lot shall be closed without the
approval of the Court, because it was • Aneco cannot enjoin Landex from doing so in exercise
deprived access to its lots due to the of his right of ownership in fencing his lot.
construction of the concrete wall

ANECO LANDEX
Aneco had its
own entrance to
its property
somewhere else
which was
inaccessible when
ANECO built a
building on the
said street
Lots sold were
ordinary lots and
do not fall under
the ambit of RA
440
7 JACINTO V. DIR NATURE: Petition for a Writ of Is Jacinto entitled to • NO. It Is not the director’s duty to execute deeds of
OF LANDS Mandamus to Compel Dir of Lands to the expropriated conveyance to purchasers of lands of patrimonial
49 PHIL 583 execute a deed of conveyance in favor of land? NO. property. That duty is vested upon the Governor-
Petitioner General (Sec. 567, Admin Code)
Who can execute Deed of Jacinto purchased several lots by virtue of
Conveyance an auction by the Sheriff of Rizal. The sale
was registered and duly recorded in all that
was necessary and certificates of
assignments were issued and delivered to
Jacinto.

Page 3 of 7

DISCLAIMER: THIS REVIEWER ONLY ACTS AS A SUPPLEMENT.

 /YCP/PROPERTY

7 months after, the MMWD instituted

proceedings in order to condemn the land
for the Angat Water Works Project.
Included therein were the lots Jacinto won
in the auction.

Jacinto conceded on the necessity of the

project and demanded 64k as indemnity for
the expropriation yet MMWD considered
the demand excessive because the actual
purchase price was only 13k and did not
pay.

Jacinto tendered payment to Dir of Lands

to cover the remaining balance of the sales
price of the lots and demanded conveyance
of the lots via corresponding deeds.

JACINTO DIR OF LANDS

Act 1120- He is Land has already
entitled to a been expropriated
conveyance of the and that Jacinto
land upon has conceded to
payment of the the necessity of
purchase price the expropriation.
and that the Execution of deed
execution of a of conveyance is
document of useless and
conveyance is but improper.
a ministerial duty
to which the
director has no
discretion in. (x)
8 CITY OF MANILA Nature: Action for Recovery of Possession 1 Does Manila need 1 Yes, Manila made manifest its need for the school project
V. GERARDO the premises for the through the Certification of the Chairman, Committee on
GARCIA, ET AL. Subject Property: One under ownership of school project (YES) Appropriations of the Municipal Board.
GR No. L-26053, City of Manila
2 Have the squatters 2 NO. Actions of the squatters is one of illegal entry into the
February 21, 1967 Defendants Miranda et al (squatters) acquired the status lands as well as the illegal building of houses cannot be
entered upon the property without the of tenants (NO) elevated into a legal action by the simple issuance of a
knowledge of Manila. supposed “lease contract” to which the Mayor of Manila has
no right to issue.
They were given by Manila written permits • Permit does not promote social justice because
labeled as “lease contracts.” squatting is abhorrent and disrespects the law. A
The nearby elementary school needed to compound of illegal entry and official permit to stay is
expand. On the mayor’s directive, the obnoxious to our concept of proper official norm of
squatters were ordered to leave and pay for conduct.
the years they have stayed. The squatters • Permits are null and void. Official approval of squatting
refused to leave. should not be permitted.
• POSSESSION CONTINUED TO REMAIN
ILLEGAL FROM INCIPIENCY
• The Mayor cannot legalize forcible entry into public
property by the simple expedient of giving permits or,
for that matter, executing leases.
• SQUATTING is an unlawful act and no amount of
acquiescence on the part of the city officials will elevate
into a lawful act.
3 What are the status
of the houses in 3 NUISANCE because they hinder and impair the use of that
correlation to the property for school purposes
development of
property for
Page 4 of 7

DISCLAIMER: THIS REVIEWER ONLY ACTS AS A SUPPLEMENT.

 /YCP/PROPERTY

educational purposes
(PUBLIC
NUISANCE)
9 ARCHIPELAGO Nature: An Action for Annulment of Deed 1 Whether the 1 YES. There is fraud when one party is induced by the other
MGMT. AND of Absolute Sale signature of Rosalina to enter into a contract, through and solely because of the
MKTG. v. CA was fraudulently latter’s insidious words/machinations. Causal fraud is clearly
GR 128850, November Subj Prop: Parcel of Land upon which are obtained (YES) demonstrated by the facts duly established during the trial.
residential buildings
29, 1998 2 Who owns the 2 ROSALINA. Acts of ownership were exercised by Rosalina
Subject property was owned and titled in property even after the alleged execution of Deed of Sale.
Exercise of Acts of the name of Rosalina Santos Morales. She (ROSALINA) • Ownership of Property means, among others, the right
Ownership; Fraud had children by 1st marriage, including to enjoy and dispose of it, subject to limitations
Lydia. Rosalina was widowed and married established by law.
Emeterio Morales, a widower, who also had • Right to enjoy includes: Right to Receive from the thing
children by a former marriage, including what it produces (Jus Utendi), Right to consume the
Narciso (Pres of Archipelago Mgmt) thing by its use (Jus Abutendi).
• Jus Dispodendi or the right to dispose- the power of the
Several offices in QC were razed by fire owner to alienate, encumber, transform, and even
including Original Certificates of Title, destroy the thing owned.
reduced into ashes. Emeterio took owner’s
duplicate certificate of title over the subject IN THE CASE
property from Rosalina’s caretaker to apply
• 16 days after Deed of Sale- entered into a contract of
for reconstitution of title and was able to
lease. The lease contract clearly stated that Rosalina was
convince Rosalina to affix her signature on
the absolute owner of the disputed property.
several documents.
• Rosalina and her heirs continued to possess the
One of the docs was a Deed of Absolute disputed property even after the alleged sale.
Sale, which sold the subj property to • She also paid real estate taxes and collected rentals from
Archipelago Mgmt. the lessees.
• After the sale, she even executed a holographic will
Rosalina and Emeterio continued to bequeathing property to Emeterio, her caretaker, and
reside in the subject property and even her children by her 1st husband.
entered into 5y lease contract over the • PETITIONER NEVER EXERCISED ACTS OF
buildings and also continued to pay OWNERSHIP OVER THE PROP, MANIFESTED
yearly realty taxes. NO CONDUCT SHOWING OWNERSHIP OR
CHALLENGE TO HER DOMINION OVER THE
Lydia returned from the USA and inquired SUBJECT REAL ESTATE, EVEN AFTER
about the title and learned from the ROD ALLEGED EXECUTION OF DEED OF SALE.
about the Deed of Absolute Sale.

ARCHIPELAGO ROSALINA
MGMT REPRESENTED BY
LYDIA
Subj property not Denied having sold
paraphernal as It was the subj property,
purchased by which is paraphernal
Emeterio and the
improvements
thereon were
constructed using the
money of Emeterio
during the existence
of their marriage
Rosalina was in full Her signature was
possession of her obtained by means of
mental faculties and a fraud, deceit and
very intelligent and insidious
astute woman machinations
Denied having
received any
consideration
When she learned of
the transaction, she
immediately filed an
Affidavit of Adverse
Claim before ROD

Page 5 of 7

DISCLAIMER: THIS REVIEWER ONLY ACTS AS A SUPPLEMENT.

 /YCP/PROPERTY

Narciso tolerated the The fact that she

lease since he made a entered into a
commitment to his Contract of Lease
father and stepmother over the subject
that they could reside property after the
in and enjoy the fruits Deed of Absolute
of the subject Sale is proof that she
property for as long knew of no sale to the
as they lived, out of defendant corp
his love and devotion
for them
Deed of Absolute
Sale invalid for fraud
and vices of consent
10 VILLANUEVA V. Nature: Complaint for Restitution of the WON demand was • A lease ceases upon the expiration of its term without
CANLAS Property made upon the necessity of any notice to the tenant who
GR L-529, September 8, defendant to vacate thenceforth becomes a deforciant. Co Tiamco v. Diaz, 75
1946 Canlas is occupying the house at 596 Isabel, the premises is Phil., 672
Sampaloc at a monthly rental of P100, immaterial, although • The lease shall terminate without necessity of a special
payable in advance during the first 5 days of the evidence shows notice, upon the expiration of the term. Domingo Vda.
Verbal Contract of Lease each calendar month. Platintiff Villanueva the plaintiff did De Buhay vs. Cobarrubias, 76 Phil., 213
is seeking for restitution of property after really make such • What was entered into was a VERBAL Contract of
defendant failed to pay the rents for July demand Lease. No period of time having been agreed upon, the
and August 1945, plaintiff needs the (IMMATERIAL) duration of the contract must, accdg to the CC on a
premises for personal use and defendant month to month basis.
had been requested several times to vacate
the premises. IN THE CASE:
• There could be no implied renewal of the lease contract
after July 1945 under Art. 1566 of the CC because in
that month, the lessor gave the lessee notice to vacate.
11 US V. TORIBIO Toribio slaughtered/caused to be WON Act No. 1147 • NO. It is an exercise of police power to regulate and
GR NO 65060, Jan 26, slaughtered for human consumption, the is a violation of Sec. restrain such particular use of the property as would be
1910 carabao without a permit from the 5 of the Phil Bill inconsistent with or injurious to the rights of the public;
municipal treasure of the municipality (Act of Congress, and, not a taking of the property for public use.
wherein it was slaughtered, in violation of 1902) (NO; Valid • The police power rests upon necessity and the right of
Police power in contrast with Sec. 30 and 33, Act No. 1147, An Act exercise of Police
Eminent Domain self-protection and if ever the invasion of private
Regulating the Registration, Branding, and Power) property by police regulation can be justified, reasonable
Slaughter of Large Cattle protection placed upon the use of carabaos must be
held to be authorized as a reasonable and proper
US TORIBIO exercise of police power.
Defendant Provisions of Act No. • All property is acquired and held under the tacit
did apply 1147 do not condition that it shall not be so used as to injure the
for a prohibit/penalize equal rights of others or greatly impair the public rights
permit to slaughter of large cattle and interest of the community.
slaughter without a permit of the • No more than a just restraint of an injurious private use
his municipal treasure
• Every holder of property, however absolute and
carabao
unqualified may be his title, holds it under the implied
and the
liability that his use of it may be so regulated that it shall
animal was
not be injurious to the rights of the community.
not unfit
for • Rights of property are subject to reasonable limitations
agricultural in their enjoyment as shall prevent them from being
work/for injurious, and to such reasonable restrain and
draft regulations establish by law, as the legislature, under the
purposes. governing and controlling power vested in them by the
(x) Act No 1147 constitution, may think necessary and expedient.
(undertakes to penalize
slaughter of carabaos IN THE CASE:
for human consumption • It is not an appropriation of property interests to a
as food, without first public use and is not therefore, within the principle of
obtaining a permit) the exercise by the State of the right of eminent domain.
UNCONSITUTIONAL • It is a mere restriction/limitation upon a private use,
AND IN VIOLATION which the legislature deemed to be detrimental to the
OF SEC. 5, PH BILL public welfare.
which provides that No
Page 6 of 7

DISCLAIMER: THIS REVIEWER ONLY ACTS AS A SUPPLEMENT.

 /YCP/PROPERTY

law shall be enacted PURPOSE OF THE LAW

which shall deprive any Years before it was enacted, an infectious disease threatened
person of life, liberty or the total extinction of carabaos in the PH, ravages of the
property without due disease with which they were infected struck an almost vital
process of law. blow at the material welfare of the country.

Prohibition- applies generally to the Impoverished people were compelled to spend many millions
slaughter of large cattle for human of pesos in its importation for the carabaos to cultivate the
consumption, anywhere, without a permit fields to produce a supply more than sufficient for our needs.
duly secured from the municipal treasurer, Famine soon began in the PH.
and specifically for the killing for food of
large cattle at a municipal slaughterhouse
without such permit.

Purpose of the law- to prevent the

slaughter for food of carabaos fit for
agricultural and draft purposes and of all
animals unfit for human consumption
12 CELINO V. CA The Celinos falsely pretended to possess WON the accused • YES. They led the complainant to believe that there was
GR 77569, June 29, power and influence, induced Jose Tan are guilty of Estafa a hidden treasure underneath his lot and that a dwarf
1988 Kapoe to believe that hidden treasures can (YES) whose spirit supposedly entered the body of Zosimo
be recovered in the Kapoe’s yard and as a directed the digging operations and that to obtain the
consequence thereof, demands the sum of said treasure and upon instructions of the dwarf, it was
Hidden Treasure, Estafa P50, 230.00 in exchange to such treasures. necessary for Kapoe to give the Celinos money and to
pray in church for 3 consecutive days.
Accused told Kapoe that a certain dwarf • Not a joint venture
entered the body of Zosimo Celino, giving • Art. 315, Estafa
instructions to Ricardo Celino as to the
digging operations. The Celinos received
the amount demanded.

Page 7 of 7

DISCLAIMER: THIS REVIEWER ONLY ACTS AS A SUPPLEMENT.