CIVLAW Property

[PROPERTY
REVIEWER] 1

PROPERTY
Property
Anything which is, or maybe the object of appropriation.
Those already appropriated, and
Those which may be the object of appropriation

-
Susceptible of appropriation but momentarily, it is not
appropriated.
Things
Refers to those which are not, or may not, be the object of appropriation.
Those which are not appropriated
Those, which can never be the object of appropriation.

Simiarity of Property and Thing
If it can be the object of appropriation we call it property. While those that
are not yet appropriated, we call it thing. In this instance, they are similar.
We can use property and thing interchangeably in this case.
Difference
In property, that refers to things already appropriated. But things can never
the object of appropriation. This time, you cannot use property and thing
interchangeably.
Appropriation is the seizure or apprehension of a corporeal thing, without
an owner, with the intention of ownership.
*kanang property, gikan na sa thing. So ang thing pwede na siya mahimong
property.
Examples of things that can never be appropriated
The Sun , the sky, the air, the ocean, etc.
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the
land or form an integral part of an immovable;
(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a

way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the
material or deterioration of the object;
(4) Statues, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or
ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the
immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach
them permanently to the tenements;
(5) Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the
owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried
on in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet
the needs of the said industry or works;
(6) Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding
places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or
preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached
to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these
places are included;
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms
part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant;
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their
nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast;
(10) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights
over immovable property. (334a)
Art. 414.
Comments
(1) and (8) are real property by nature.
All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are

considered either:
1.) Immovable or real property; or
2.) Movable or personal property
(2) kahoy nga nagtubo kay real property. Why? Because they are attached
to the land. If you cut it (lumber), it is not anymore real property.
Comments
Core can never be appropriated. But naa man sad uban nga not
appropriated but susceptible to appropriation. There lies the problem
because one is not appropriated but susceptible to appropriation and the
other one is already appropriated.
If the object is already appropriated, this is a property. Example of
susceptible to appropriation but not yet appropriated is a fish swimming in
the ocean- busa thing. But the moment it is caught, that is already property
because it can already be subject of appropriation. Thing may be converted
to property if ever appropriated.
Art 414 Classifies property, not a thing. Technical distinction between the
two because cannot be used interchangeably.
Conclusion of distinctions between thing and property
The idea of thing is generic and extensive than the idea of property. broader
than property; genus. Property on the other hand, presupposes already
appropriation or perhaps not yet appropriated but can be the object of
appropriation; specific. Thing gali, embraces that is not yet appropriated but
susceptible to appropriation or can never be the object of appropriation.
Classification according to nature
1.
Immovable or real.
2.
Or personal or movable. (Article 415)
(3) Anything- all embracing provision. Sa akoa lang class, covered naning
(4), (5), (6) sa (3).
(7) Nipalit kog fertilizer sa SM nya akong gidala diri, still within the container
therefore it is still personal and not yet real. If I sprayed it in a piece of land,
it is already considered real. Kung akong kuhaon ang fertilizer, it will
become personal again. If I spray it again, it will be considered as real.
(10) is by analogy or by operation of law.
Four Classifications
1.
By Incorporation (1) and (8)
2.
By Destination
3.
By Analogy
4.
By Operation of Law
Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:

(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not
included in the preceding article;
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered
as personal property;
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science; and
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place
without impairment of the real property to which they are fixed. (335a)
Art. 415. The following are immovable property:

(1) Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to
the soil;
Balt. Baya. Blanco. Bristol. Cabergas. Cinco. Cokaliong. Dente. Diao. Ediza. Georfo. Gonzales. Gonzalodo. Jacildo. Lim. Medequiso. Narca. Nardo. Olvis. Ong. Pena. Rejuso. Sotto.
property should remain undivided for a certain period

of time.
Art. 417. The following are also considered as personal property:

(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or
demandable sums; and
4.
A limitation imposed by the owner himself this limits the

ownership of the owner by entering into these contracts
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial entities,

although they may have real estate. (336a)
Growing Fruits/Standing crops

Growing fruits/standing crops are mortgaged via chattel mortgage because
although they are incorporated in the land, they are still considered as
personal property by virtue of a provision by law.
5.
a.
Example: If the owner pledges the property, the

property will be in the possession of the pledgee
b.
Example: If the owner lease his property, the property

will be in the possession of the lessee
Limitations arising from the exercise of some other similar rights.

a.
Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights.
Example: You have a lot which is adjacent to another

lot that is owned by another person. Can you make a
deep excavation right at the boundary under the
premise that you even have the right to destroy? NO
because it will destroy the foundation of the adjacent
lot, which is not yours, depriving him of the use of his
property for what you are doing is injurious to another
person.
Ownership
Pagpanag-iya. It is the general and independent right of a person over a
property for any purpose recognized by law.
Thus we conclude that ownership is never absolute because it has its

limitations.
Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing,
without other limitations than those established by law.
We even can add aside from the enumeration of the codal provisions, what
about the real properties with respect to the agents. Can you acquire real
properties? No because this is in violation of the constitution.
Attributes of Onwership
1.
Right to Enjoy
Includes:
a.
Right to Use
b.
Right to Consume it
c.
Right to Fruits
2.
3.
Right to Dispose
Includes:
a.
Right to Create Encumbrance (Ex. Mortgage)
b.
Right to Transform (Ex: Flour to Bread)
c.
Right to Destroy
d.
Right to Alienate
Right to Vindicate against the possessor or holder initiated by the
owener of lawful possessor
Extent an owner is allowed to exercise

It exists without limitation, subject to:
1.
2.
General limitations imposed by the state based on the police

power of the state
a.
Example: If there is fire and your building is the one

that is destroyed because it will stop the spread of the
fire, which is beneficial for the people surrounding the
area.
b.
Example: Taxes, which are levied by the law making

body of the government. This is a limitation because
the state through its taxation power imposes upon the
taxpayer a compulsory proportionate contribution.
Specific limitation imposed by law

a.
3.
Limitation by the person transmitting the property by contract or

by will
a.
Example: Your lot is adjacent to a highway. You are

subject to easement or you need to give a portion of
your lot for a right of way.
Example: The testator tells you that: I will give this

property you on the condition that this property will
remain undivided for 10years. Is that allowed? Valid
provided not more than 20 years. This is a limitation
because the heir is bound by the will and he is not
free to dispose because it has a stipulation that the
PROPERTY Reviewer
Article 429 - The owner or lawful possessor of a thing has the right to
exclude any person from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or
usurpation of his property. (Doctrine of Self help)
Requirements:
1.
2.
3.
4.
That there is an actual or threatened unlawful physical

invasion or usurpation of his property
Invasion or usurpation must be unlawful
That the owner uses force in order to prevent it
That the force instituted is reasonably necessary to
preserve the property or prevent the invasion or usurpation
of the property
In bisaya: g.hulga ka nga mawala imung butang, iyang gbuhat supak sa

bala.ud. N.gamit ka ug kusug para ma.depensa.an nimu imung butang. Ug
imung g.gamit nga pwersa kai matirunganun.
In criminal law there is such thing as self defense, in civil law there is the
doctrine of self help.
Article 430.
Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of

walls, ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other means without
detriment to servitudes constituted thereon.
In bisaya: Makapangural ka!
431.
Article
The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to
injure the rights of a third person.
Limitation
In effect this is another limitation to ownership. The same with our example
about the deep excavation made the boarder of your lot, which is injurious
to the adjacent lot because it will damage its foundation
[PROPERTY REVIEWER] 3

If the finder is a stranger, and also authorized, you still

have to qualify. Did you find it by chance? It must be
by sheer luck and fortune. So if the purpose of digging
was to build a toilet, and in the process, it was found.
You have no previous knowledge or intent to find it.
Still, you do not have a share yet.
Article 432.
The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of

another with the same, if the 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.
The owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the
damage to him.
Article 435.
No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent

authority and for public use and always upon payment of just
compensation. Should this requirement be not first complied with, the
court shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his
possession.
Eminent Domain
A private property shall not be taken for public use except for just
compensation. Therefore you are entitled except when such taking is under
police power or taxation.
Article 438.
Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other

property on which it is found. Nevertheless, when the discovery is
made on the property of another, or the state or any of its
subdivisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed to the
finder. If the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share
of the treasure. If the things found be of interest to science or the arts,
the state may acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in
conformity with the rule stated.
Requisites before one is entitiled to

1.
Stranger
2.
Authorized
3.
Discovered by chance
4.
The ownership must not appear (address or name of owner
embossed for example; if imo kuhaon, makasala kag theft kay
identified man ang owner)
Pre-Existing Agreement
Finder is a stranger, authorized, he found not by chance, he can still have a
share if there is a PRE-EXISTING AGREEMENT between him and the
owner.
Art. 440. The right pertaining to the owner of a thing over everything
which is produced thereby or which is incorporated or attached

thereto, either naturally or artificially.
Accession vs Accretion
Kanang accession dili na accretion, kanang accretion the law says the
owner of the land the right by accession. If you are an owner of a land and
you planted plants thereby, you are the owner of such fruits.
Classes of accession
1.
Accession Discreta
2.
Accession Continua
Accession Discreta
What fruits are covered?
Article 439.
By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and

unknown money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful
ownership of which does not appear.
Treasure
We assume that you found a treasure in a land, which does not belong to
you. How much is your share?
A finder has found a hidden treasure,
Situation 1
Situation 2
If the finder is the owner of the land himself, who

owns the treasure? All belongs to the owner of the
land
If somebody else other than the owner of the land
finds the treasure, who owns the treasure? Is the
stranger entitled to a share?
The fact that the finder is a stranger, he is not entitled
to a portion of the treasure outright. You have to
determine whether the stranger is a trespasser or
authorized person.
Thus, if you are a trespasser, none will be entitled to
the trespasser but will all go to the owner of the land.
But if you are authorized, one half will be entitled.
Do you have a share as a stranger? Not outright. You
ask: Is he a trespasser or not? Authorization is the
key. If you are a trespasser, you do not have any
share; all goes to the owner.
Article 441. To the owner belongs:

(1) The natural fruits;
(2) The industrial fruits;
(3) The civil fruits
Article
442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil,

and the young and other products of animals.
Spontaneous products of the soil

Unsay nanubo sa imong yuta, nitubo lang og iya wala nimo gitanom.
Kananng cogon, apil, kay spontaneous product of the soil, presupposes
independent of human participation. Kanang hugaw sa langgam, nagkaon
na siya unya ang liso dili mahilis, moadto sa garden kanang nanubo, mao
nay natural fruits.
Natural fruits, involved that grows within the perimeter of your property,
spontaneous product of the soil, kamoy manag-iya.
Young of animals
How do you classify the offspring of animals (pig, duck, cat, dog),
domesticated, purposely raised in the house? They are natural fruits.
Other products of animals
You have a poultry farm, so, the Iti of chicken as fertilizer of DOLEs plants
and ang feather duster, balhibo sa manok are considered as other products
of animals.
Accession discrete
The right pertaining to the owner of a thing over everything, which is
produced thereby. Natural, spontaneous product of the soil, anything that
grows within your soil na wala kay participation, young of animals, and other
products.
Industrial fruits
Those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor with
participation of man, og unsa imo gi-ani sa imong yuta tungod sa imong
paghago. For example, rice lands, therefore, are industrial fruits because
you purposely planted it to bring the desire result. Apil ang fishpond kay ang
fishpond, inland, naa man siyay yuta, nag kuha ka og isda, unsa mana
siya? Commercial fruits kay cultured mana nimo plus labor gahago ka you
spend money for it. Ang isda gikan sa fishpond, industrial fruit.
Industrial fruits vs Natural fruits
Ang natural, walay participation sa tao, something that grows without
participation. Ang industrial, purposely planted, gituyo jud, you cultivated,
you applied labor in it.
Civil fruits
The rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other property and
the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income. The rentals
of your apartment, the interest of money deposited in the bank, kanang
interest, fruits na, giproduce na sa money kay kung wala kay deposit wala
man kay interest.
Now you go to the rentalswhat are these? These are civil fruits. If one
heads to the bank and asks the teller, Can you please compute my
fruits?you are technically correct. In fine, what you are asking is a
computation of interest on your bank deposits. Interest is fruit. The generic
insight on fruit is the kind of fruit growing on treesnatural fruits. But this is
a very limited view. Grass that spontaneously grows out of the soil, the
young of animals, and even chicken dung are all fruits. Rice and corn that
are being planted are industrial fruits as they are purposely cultivated with
the application of labor. Furthermore, the cultivator is interested in the
intended result.
Article
444. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as

natural or industrial fruits. With respect to animals, it is sufficient that
they are in the womb of the mother, although unborn.
Comments
What does manifest in Article 444 means those which can be perceived,
those which can be seen. What about flowers when they germinate, are you
able to see the tiny fruit? Yes. Hence, manifest means discernable in your
own vision or view. A good example is the coconut. It does not
automatically grow into a tree. There are stages or processesthere is the
process of blooming, shedding of flowers, growing of young coconuts,
maturing of coconuts etc. When are coconuts considered fruits? They are
fruits when they can be seen.
It is different with animals, though unborn, they are considered fruits (Article
444).
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 provision of the following articles.
Sowing vs Planting
Sowing implies planting seeds for a shorter duration. An example of this is
planting nuts (or beans). One does not have to wait an entire year to
harvest peanuts or munggo beans. That is sowing.
Article 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by the
owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved.
Accession discreta embraces natural, industrial and civil fruits.

Accession Continuum
The second kind of accession is accession continuum. Hence, there should
be determination of where the object is attached.
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.
Sub-classifications are thus, in accession continua, the attachment

(emphasis on attachment) could be to an immovable or to a movable.
Further classifications are:
(1) When attachment is to an immovable, the attachment may either be
(a) Industrial [mugna sa ta-o or products of BPS
(i) Building,
(ii) Planting or
(iii) Sowing
(b) Natural (kinaiyahan ang nagbuhat) which is either
(i) Accretion (gradual),
(ii) Avulsion (sudden) change of the river and
(iii) Formation of an island. Accretion and avulsion are
both natural attachments;
(2) When the attachment is to a movable,
a.
Adjunction
b.
Conjunction
c.
Commixture
d.
Confusion/specification.
(Refer to Articles 441 to 442 and the table presented in class.)
Article 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the
expenses made by a third person in their production, gathering, and
preservation.
Article 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by the
owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved.
Article 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or
through another, plantings, constructions or works with the materials
of another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall
also be obliged to the reparation of damages. The owner of the
materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do
so without injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings,
constructions or works being destroyed. However, if the landowner
acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may remove them in any
event, with a right to be indemnified for damages.
Comments
The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or through another,
plantings, constructions or works with the materials of another, shall pay
their value. There are 2 personalities that you will see in 447: the first
person is the owner of the land (OL) and who is at the same time the
builder, planer or sower (BPS), and the second person is the owner of the
materials (M). What is contemplated in the first line is that the owner of the
land is the builder, planter or sower himself but he is using the materials of
another person.
Ako ang landowner and I constructed on my own parcel of land but I am
using material of another person. Ngano ako man gi gamit ang materials sa
lain? Because I had knowledge that it was not mine. All the while, I thought
it was mine.
We have to separate good faith and bad faith.
PROPERTY Reviewer

Landowner is in good faith kung no knowledge nga nay nagtrabaho sa

iyang yuta or kibaw siya and he objected.
owner of the material will exercise his right to remove the material when
there is no injury to the aforesaid material.
Landowner is in bad faith kung naa siyay knowledge and wala siya ni
object.
So padayon ang pagpanagiya sa owner sa materials. Madefeat ang right of

appropriation sa landowner. Ngano man? The law provides only (xxx the
owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he
can do so without injury xxx). So the right of the owner of the material (in
this case) is preferred, mao gihimo ko nig exception. So here we are talking
of parties who are both in good faith. Ug pananglitan sila duha interesado?
Muana ang landowner bayran na lang nako; muana pud ang material owner
ay ako na lang kuhaon di man makaguba sa material, in such case naay
conflict of rights pero wala pay resolution ana. But between the two, the
right of the material owner is preferred under such circumstance kay di man
siya ang nagsugod sa gubot the conmflict of rights arose because of the act
of the land owner when he used the materials of another. Therefore his
rights should be subordinated to the rights of the material owner.
Owner of the material is in good faith if he uses the material knowing that he
is the owner.
Owner of the material is in bad faith kung ni gamit siya ug materials
knowing dili siya owner.
The contemplation of the first sentence is the landowner is in good faith and
the owner of material is also in good faith.
Situation:
I am the landowner and at the same time builder but I

had no without knowledge the materials are not mine.
So when I made the building, I am in good faith and
we presume that the owner of the materials is also in
good faith. If the owner of the materials later finds out
that his materials are being used, who has the better
right to appropriate the building? As to the land owner,
ako gyud ni kay ako man ang yuta. As to the owner
of the material, aw ug kung walay material, wala kay
tukuron dira.
So lets look at again the first line of 447. The law
gives the right to the owner of the land. He can
appropriate the building. But diba equally strong pud
ang argument sa owner of the materials nga kung
walay material, walay building? The reason is that the
land is the principal and the building is the accessory
and since the accessory follows the principal, the
owner of the land is preferred by law. But isnt this
unjust enrichment? Para ma balance, ni provide ang
balaod nga although the owner of land has the right to
appropriate the building, he has the obligation to pay
the value of the materials.
ART. 447 - The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or
through another, plantings, constructions or works with the materials
of another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall
also be obliged to the reparation of damages. The owner of the
materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do
so without injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings,
constructions or works being destroyed. However, if the landowner
acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may remove them in any
event, with a right to be indemnified for damages
If the landowner is in BAD FAITH while the owner of the material is in

GOOD FAITH:
The landowner with full knowledge that he doesnt own the material utilizes
and made constructions in his premises or land. Therefore, the landowner
this time who is the builder or the planter is in bad faith.
In this case, the landowner is still entitled to the improvement (ex. Building).
He still has the right to appropriate. However, he is not only he oblige to pay
the value of the material, he should also indemnify the material owner.
When we say indemnify, it does not only include the just value of the
material but also the unrealized profit which the owner of the material may
have received where it not for the act of the landowner, plus damages.
Damages is only given when there is bad faith, in our discussion earlier, the
landowner is in good faith.
Also, when the landowner is in bad faith, there is ABSOLUTE RIGHT OF
REMOVAL on the part of the material owner. In our earlier discussion,
where the landowner is in good faith, there is LIMITED RIGHT OF
REMOVAL because there is a condition that it should not injure the
material. Here, when the landowner acts in bad faith, there is absolute right
of removal. Why absolute? It is because whether or not it will cause
damage or injury to the property, the material owner can forcibly remove it.
Walay makapugong sa material owner. The option belongs to the material
owner and whatever choice he may pursue, he is entitled to damages.
SUMMARY:
O Landowner
M Owner of the material
Comments
If both the landowner and the owner of the materials are in GOOD
FAITH:
GR: The landowner has the right to appropriate with obligation to pay the
value of the materials.
EXCEPTION: If the owner of the material can remove the materials without
injury to the same.
Is there a chance that the landowner is deprived of ownership of the
property before he exercises right to appropriate or pay the value? Is his
right to appropriate and pay the value of the materials absolute? Or is there
a chance that the right of the material owner be favored than that of the
owner?
There is a chance that the right of the material owner be favored by law
than the right of the landowner. Under the 2nd paragraph of Article 447, if
ever the owner of the material can remove those materials without injury to
the work constructed, or without the plantings, constructions or work being
destroyed, then the owner of the materials shall have the right to remove
them.
The only instance where the right of the landowner to appropriate with the
obligation to pay the value of the material can be defeated is when the
Rights of the owner of the materials one and two, mag pili siya ky naa man
niya ang preference. He can appropriate it and pay the value of the
materials. The right is given to the owner of the materials.
Art.
448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,
sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as
his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity
provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or
planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the
proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy
the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or
trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the
land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper
indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in
case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
Comments
Ni balik na sad ang right of the owner to appropriate so whatever has been
planted or sown in your own property you maintain your right to appropriate
the improvement. The accessory follows the principal which is the land.
That presupposes good faith. Good faith ang land owner and the builder,
planter or sower.
Ang problema kung bad faith. Land owner in good faith and BPS (builder,
planter or sower) in bad faith. The BPS knowing that the land is not his (bad
faith).
What are the consequences?
Art.449. He who builds in bad faith in the land of another loses what is
built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.
1.
BPS forfeits the improvement without indemnity to the land

owner. It is more of a sanction because you are in bad faith.
Why bad faith? Because he knows the land is not his.
Art.
450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,
planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work,
or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things
in their former condition at the expense of the person who built,
planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the
price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.
2.
Forcible demolition or removal of the improvement at the

expense of the BPS. Demolition for building. Removal for
planting. Forcible removal of the improvement to restore the
property in its former condition. In other words the status quo,
the things existing prior to the time the improvements were
introduced. Human ka ma pugos ikaw pa gyd ang mu gasto.
3.
He may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the

land, and the sower the proper rent. Compel meaning
pugson ka. So therefore kung akoy tag-iya muingon ko kanang
yutaa bah nga imong gi tukuran, bayari na.
The just value is the assessed value. Builder or planter to pay
the value of the land. Sower to pay the proper rent
Art. 451 In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is
entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower.
Comments
The option is given to the landowner. In any of these options, there will
always be damages.
But bad faith is only a state of mind. So, how do you prove it? Asa man na
siya muangkon. Lisod kayo, maayo ra tang muingon.
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who
built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of
the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the
same as though both had acted in good faith.
PROPERTY Reviewer
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner

whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without
opposition on his part.
Good faith is either:
a.
b.
Without knowledge; or
With knowledge, but he registered his opposition.
But there is a consolation for the builder, planter, sower.

452 The
Art.
reimbursement
builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to

for the necessary expenses of preservation of the
land.
Comments
Example, ang yuta naa sa kilid sa sapa. Kung kusog ang uwan, mubaha na
diha sa sapa. Unsa may resulta? gradual erosion. To prevent erosion,
nagtukod ka ug dike. So, na preserve ang yuta. The expenses for the
construction of the dike to prevent erosion is a necessary expense.
Necessary expenses That which if not made shall cause the loss or
deterioration of the thing.
Nganong gihatagan ug reimbursement? - because just the same, even if
you did not put those improvements, the landowner would have done the
same to preserve the property.
Apil sad ng useful expenses. That which will increase the value of the thing.
That is also covered.
Art. 448.
XXXXX
However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its
value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such
case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not
choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The
parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of
disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
Comments
Ug pananglitan, i.consider ni buyer ang presyo, unsaon mani niya? Wa
mani na estimate. Nya daku kayu ang value sa yuta. D nya makaya
mobayad. So unsay g.ingun sa balaud? Forced lease, pinugsanay na
pagpa.abang. Way labot ang soil ana ha abang lang. Ug d magkasinabot?
Then the court will make the terms for them. So kung mahimo forced lease
lang sa.
So kung magkasinabot, kung pila imong bayran, ug di ka mangilad nga dka
kabayad. So ingkaso ok sa abang, according to their terms, the court will
not come in. Pero abang gani boluntaryu man ug kagustuhan sa duha. Pero
kining abanga, mao raning abang nga pinugsanay, nya kung abang gani
imong conscience free. Obligado ka as a solution to put an end to the
conflicting rights under 448. Ingkaso ok sa abang pero d cya mo tuman sa
terms, then the court will come in. Ang court na ang mo himo sa terms and
condition.
Accession
Accession can be accession discrete and accession continua. The first is
the right of the owner to anything which is produced by the property. It can
be civil, natural or industrial fruits. The second is the right of the owner to
anything which is attached to his property. So all right we go to 457.
Bodies of Water
Sato pa ang yuta nag atubang ug sapa, ang yuta na daplin sa sapa.
Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong
the accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of the waters.

Comments
The owner of a land adjoining a river, accretion belongs to the riparian
owner. Accretion which is gradually received from the effects of the current
of the water.
During rainy season, natural ang sapa class puno kayu, di kalikayan naa
nay residue after that gradually deposits sa sapa, along the bank of a river.
Kining small residue carried by the water, mag anam ka dako. Sato pa there
is attachment.
Pasagdi ang panahun nga cyay magbuhat ug accretion. Ayaw na butangi
dha. Mao na cyang soil deposit or sediment. Kanang process tawgun nang
accretion. Ang kanang nadeposit, soil deposit na cya. Because of the force
of water, ang soil or sediment deposit mao ni tawag nato alluvium.
The alluvial deposit, in effect because of accretion, it enlarges the property
of the riparian owner. So kining ginangmay na mga deposit nga nipilit sa
imong yuta because of accretion belongs to you not to the government. So
who owns the deposit? To the owner of the land adjoining the river belongs
the accretion. Gradually deposited. Anam-anam. Dli kalit. Do we have to
apply for registration? Ipso facto owner.
Article 458. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not
acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease of the waters, or lose
that inundated by them in extraordinary floods.
Comments
Lain naman na. dli naman na river. Pond! Usually, fresh water, stagnant
water, smaller than a lake. Ang lagoon lain sad to. A body of water
surrounded by natural depression.
Ponds or lagoons. For example pag summer inot kayu, nay parti sa pond
nga na.ughan. Nganu man? Due to the natural decrease of water. Sato pa
na.ughan nani kay tungod sa evaporation. Ang kining naughan nga parti,
ako maning yuta dri sa kilid, dko ka ingun nga ang soil deposit ako nasad
ni. I do not acquire the land left dry due to the natural decrease of water.
Kung panaglitan ang kanang lagoon dha, dako kayung baha, daghan kayug
tubig. Neither will you lose that property because of flood. So kung
naglunop gani, d mawagtang imong yuta. Kung ma.ughan gani, dli ikaw ang
tag.iya. unsa may makuha nato ana? Nga kahinaw man ta ang imo, imo
nya ang ila, ila rasad.
Avulsion
So in avulsion first it is detached followed by attachment so kinahanglan
nadapat jud na siya sa yuta sa uban so kung ang yuta glutaw2x ra sa tunga
so walay attachment.
Article
464 islands which may be formed on the seas within the

jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or floatable
rivers belong to the state.
465 islands which through successive accumulation of alluvial

Article
deposits are formed in non-navigable and non-floatable rivers belong
to the owner of the margins of the banks nearest to each of them, or to
the owners of both margins if the island is in the middle of the river, in
which case it shall be divided longitudinally in halves. If a single
island thus formed be more distant from one margin than from the
other, the owner of the nearer margin shall be the sole owner thereof.
Comments
Asa labing duol ang isla siya ang makapanagiya and longitudinally means
divide it lengthwise. Pero this is only in theory because no person in the
Philippines owns an island in the river.
Right of accession with respect to movable property
Article
466 Whenever two movable things belonging to different

owners are, without bad faith, united in such a way that they form a
single object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the accessory,
indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value.
Elements
1.
Involves movable property
2.
Belonging to different owners
3.
They are joined together to form a single object
Now the question is who owns the property as a result of this provision? Ex:
table scenario. A table is consist of a wood and pieces of nails. Kahoy ug
lansang tingali class kani akoy tagiya sa kahoy ikay tagiya sa lansang. So
both are movables kahoy ug lansang, belonging to different owners, akoy
tagiya sa kahoy ikaw tagiya sa lansang. So glansangan ang kahoy nahimo
siyang lamisa to form a new object. Now who owns the table? Ang principal.
Determination of the Principal
Art. 467. The principal thing, as between two things incorporated, is

Aticle
461 River beds which are abandoned through the natural

change in the course of waters ipso facto belong to the owners whose
lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the area lost.
However, the owners of the land adjoining the old bed shall have the
right to acquire the same by paying the value thereof, which value
shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new bed.
If you are the owner of the land occupied by new river bed then you
are covered by the value because the old river bed belongs to you in
proportion to the area lost. Gani ipso facto ang panaag-iya nimo, it is
by operation of law, but under the water code the owner of the land
which is occupied by the new bed can undertake a project at his own
expense to restore the water back to its old bed.
Article 462 whenever a river, changing its course by natural causes,

opens a new bed through a private estate, this bed shall become of
public dominion
Article 436 whenever the current of a river divides itself into branches,
deemed to be that to which the other has been united as an ornament,

or for its use or perfection.
Comments
In the example given, the nail has been used in the construction of the
wooden table. It has been used to attach the pieces of wood, for its use and
perfection. So the nail is the accessory, and the wood is the principal. They
have been united to form a table.
Thus, in accordance with the rule set forth in art. 466 (The owner of the
principal thing acquires the accessory), the owner of the pieces of wood
acquires the table formed. However, said owner is required by law to
indemnify the former owner of the accessory for its value (see Art. 466, last
phrase).
Term for the unity between the pieces of wood and the nails, forming
the table
Adjunction or conjunction that which takes place whenever movables
belonging to different owners are united in such a way that they cannot be
separated without injury.
Determining factor in case one cannot determine which is the
principal and which is the accessory
leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the owner of the land
retains his ownership. he also retains it if a portion of the land is
separated from the estate by the current.
Art. 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the preceding

article which of the two things incorporated is the principal one, the
thing of the greater value shall be so considered, and as between two
things of equal value, that of the greater volume.
Rules with regard to commixtion/confusion

1.
Commixtion/confusion is by the will of both owners - each owner
shall acquire a right proportional to the part belonging to him,
bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused.
If the both are also of equal volume, the combined merits of the
movables shall be considered, taking into account which of them is
more dominant.
Comments
Said article also gives a presumption as to which is the principal with regard
to certain thingsIn painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter,
engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or
parchment shall be deemed the accessory thing.
Art. 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without injury,
their respective owners may demand their separation.
Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment or
perfection of the other, is much more precious than the principal
thing, the owner of the former may demand its separation, even
though the thing to which it has been incorporated may suffer some
injury.
2.
Commixtion/confusion is by chance and the things are not

separable without injury preceding rule applies
3.
Commixtion/confusion occurs by the will of only one owner, who

is in good faith preceding rule applies
One who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith he shall lose
the thing belonging to him thus mixed or confused, besides being obliged to
pay indemnity for the damages caused to the owner of the other thing with
which his own was mixed. (Art. 472, 473)
Rules with regard to specification
1.
The one employing the material of another is in good faith he
shall appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own,
indemnifying the owner of the material for its value.
Comments
The respective owners of the movable demand the separation of the things
united provided that they can be separated without injury (Art. 469, 1st par.)
2.
The one employing the material of another is in good faith, but

the more precious than the transformed thing or is of more
value owner of material is given the following options:
appropriate the new thing to himself, after first paying indemnity
for the value of the work OR demand indemnity for the material.
3.
The one employing the material of another is in bad faith - the

owner of the material shall have the right to appropriate the work
to himself without paying anything to the maker OR to demand of
the latter that he indemnify him for the value of the material and
the damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the
material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the
latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than
that of the material. (Art. 474)
There may be instances when the accessory is more precious/more

valuable than the principal. In this case, the owner of the accessory may
demand its separation, even though the thing to which it has been
incorporated may suffer some injury (Art. 469, 2nd par.)
Rules in case either or both of the owners are in bad faith
OP Owner of principal
OA owner of accessory
1.
2.
3.
OP good faith; OA bad faith OA shall lose the thing

incorporated and shall have the obligation to indemnify OP for
the damages he may have suffered (Art. 470, 1st par.). In sum,
the consequence to OA is: loss of accessory + damages.
1.
Specification the principal is the labor
2.
Adjunction/conjunction the principal is that to which the other

has been united as an ornament
OP bad faith; OA good faith OA shall the right to choose

between OP paying him the value of the accessory or that the
thing belonging to him be separated, even though for this
purpose it may be necessary to destroy the principal thing; and
in both cases, furthermore, there shall be indemnity for damages
(Art. 470, 2nd par). In sum, the consequence to OP is: payment
of the accessorys value OR removal of the accessory,
regardless of the injury to the principal (at the option of OA)
+ damages.
3.
Commixtion/confusion determination of principal inapplicable
Both OP and OA in good faith their rights shall be determined

as if both acted in good faith (Art. 470, last par).
Kinds of accession with regard to movable property
Rules with respect to the different kinds of accession for movable

property in determining the principal
1.
Commixtion there is a mixture of things solid belonging to

different owners (e.g., mixture of rice)
2.
Confusion there is a mixture of things liquid belonging to

different owners
3.
Specification that which takes place whenever a person

imparts a new form to materials belonging to another person
(e.g., flour of one person is used by another to make bread; cloth
of one is used by another to make a dress)
PROPERTY Reviewer
CO-OWNERSHIP
Art.
484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an

undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. In default of
contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by
the provisions of this Title.
Co-ownership
Co ownership presupposes plurality of owners. Co owners because all
of you are both owners if there be 2. If there be more, all of you just the
same. And then the plurality of the subject, referring to the co-owners, the
complimentary requirement is the unity of object, which is not materially
partitioned nor divided. So we would want to know what is the rule should
there be plurality of owners.
Circumstances/sources/causes that would give rise to co-ownership
1. Law e.g. therefore if 2 persons having different genders
would cohabit with each other and both acquired properties
during their cohabitation, the relationship of both with respect to
the properties they have acquired, it should be governed by coownership, there being no valid legal marriage between them.
The source is the law, the provision is the family code.

2. Occupation this is the seizure of corporeal property without

an owner with the intent to become the owner there of. Such as if
there are 2 or more persons who have caught a wild beast, then
share and share alike.
3. Contract e.g. 5 persons agreed to purchase a single parcel
of land and so therefore the 5 buyers with respect to the property
are considered co-owners also arising from contract of sale
entered into.
4. Chance fortune; fortuitous event; e.g. the hidden treasure
that you might discover from the property of another, you said
belongs to the finder and to the owner of the land the other half.
So prior to the division they are co-owners of the treasure.
5. Confusion / Comixtion by chance or accident which were
mixed up. It is not accessory follows the principal rule but rather
they are co-owners.
6. Donation e.g. supposing there are 2 or more donors.
7. Succession e.g. upon the death of a person, the spouse and
the children are co-owners of the properties left by the decedent
prior to partition because partition would put an end to coownership.
Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the
charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any
stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void.
So the only way to reconcile is to make a rule, that contracts entered into by
the co-owners other than the profit sharing or benefits for that matter shall
be enforceable except in the share of profits and benefits which is directly
mandated by law to be proportional to their interest, the law says any
stipulation to the contrary shall be void.
Naa pai pakapin gihapon ang last sentence sa art 485, naay accessory
provision mubo kayo. Art 485 last sentence, the portions belonging to the
co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal unless the contrary
is proved. There is a presumption. To what extent is the interest of the coowner, it is presumed to be equal unless the contrary is proved. If you will
claim lower or higher interest than that of the presumption, then you are
duty bound to prove (unless the contrary is proved). It is open for rebuttal on
the part of the persons who may have a claim higher than the equal which
is presumed by law.
Sa ato pa, ang atong interest, dghan man ta, pareha ug panagsama
hangtod imong mapa matud-an nga ang imuha dako, interest we are talking
about. Atong mapa matud-an, ingon xa nga dili uy, ky nganu man, ang
presumption is equal pero probahan nimo, dili uy, inig partition bah, gip alit
man to nako ang share sa atong kauban.
Limitations
Being the owner, you are not at liberty to just do anything. Ang imong pagka
owner di man gyud mahulog ug exclusive ky naa gud CO, co-owner ka
lang. Myta ug walay co, owner gyd ka, sa ato pa, tnan nimong kagustuhan
unless prohibited by law, pero co-owner man lang ka, so restricted in
certain sense. So in effect, I can consider it as restriction. As a co-owner,
how do you use your property being a co-owner?
The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be

presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.
First limitation, each co-owner may use the thing owned in common
provided he does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is
intended.
Entitlement to the benefits, profit, or expenses incurred with respect

to the property co-owned
Kitang tanan, duna tai panagsamang katungod sa pag gamit for the
purpose intended. But then, nay problem, how can you determine that it is
the purpose adopted by the co-owners? Mahimo man ang nature sa object
dili mao ang ilang gi sunod.
With respect to the profits and benefits, then that is proportional to the
respective interest that a co-owner may have in the property in common.
Not only the profits but including the burden or expenses incurred, the same
rule, proportional to the interest. The bigger is the proportion of your
interest, the bigger is your share both the profits as well as the expenses.
Suppose the co-owners have agreed to enter into an agreement whereby
they will receive share and share alike. Let us say, there are 5 co-owners,
they will receive 20% for each and every one of them, disregarding their
interest, what is the status of that agreement? The agreed e.g the other ,
the other 1/6, 1/3, so they have agreed otherwise, disregarding the
proportional interest, totally disregarding the provision of the first sentence
of 485. What is the status of the contract, freely and voluntarily agreed and
entered into by the co-owners, can you enforce that? e.g. interest is 50% or
, but to receive only 1/5 or 20%. Can that be enforced? Which would
prevail, the agreement, or the new civil code?
Notice the 2nd sentence of art. 485, Any stipulation in a contract to the
contrary shall be void. That means if you stipulate other than your
respective interest, it shall not be considered, that is void. But if the contract
is favorable to you, you can also argue the 2nd paragraph of art. 484, In
default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be
governed by the provisions of this Title. How can we reconcile art. 484, and
art. 485? All other stipulations, by the co-owners, is superior than the
provisions of the code, except in the matter of profit sharing, that is the
exception which is proportional to the respective interest that is the only
way to reconcile.
Pero puro ka mai argument, for those in favour of a contract, you can
invoke the last sentence. In the absence of a contract, the applicable
provisions will be the Civil Code, volume two. That means that contract is
superior than the provisions of the civil code. But if you will also look at the
provisions of 485, the profits, benefits shall be shared by the co-owners in
proportion to their respective interest. The law continues to its second
sentence, any stipulation to the contrary shall be void, so void sd to ang
contract in the profit sharing, i-invoke sd nmo ang second sentence.
1.
Pananglitan ha, kaning barko, for maritime transportation. Supposedly the

co-owners have agreed that we will utilize the vessel or the ship as a
warehouse for grains. Adto nato i-secure ddto momentarily, bugas, humay,
mais ibutang sa barko. Tinuod kargahanan na pero karon gi himo man lang
bodega, storage instead of transporation. Tan-awa, wa cya ma igo sa
purpose for which it is intended ky parte man na ug transportation, storage
man, warehouse man, therefore mag pundo na, di ka dagan ky wa mai
warehouse mag dagan-dagan. How do you know that, that is the purpose
intended by the co-owners because it might vary, the nature of the thing or
object co-owned by them. Kadto daan, gi himo nilang warehouse, di man ka
kapugong ug mao nai ilang kabubut-on. Therefore, critical kayo.
How do I know the purpose of the co-owners?
a. First and foremost, the agreement of the co-owners.
The agreement will control. Ibalik atong example ganina, lima ta
co-owners sa barko and we have agreed nga kaning barkoha ni
gamiton ta ni nga storage sa negosyo nga bugas, storage sa rice
or corn. Now, gi himo nilang storage ha, can you now as a coowner, ask for a removal of the grains or the rice or corn stored
inside so that he can use it for maritime transportation? No sir,
because the purpose intended by the co-owners is that a
warehouse for storage.
You cannot defeat the agreement. Superior ng agreement, mao
nai number one. Tan-awa, mo vary sa nature, naa bai barko
buhaton nimo ug ing-ana, dili oi. Transportation, either
passenger or cargo, but never as a warehouse or storage. Ni
vary ilang purpose base sa kasabutan. Nevertheless, maoy mo
control. The agreement is superior than the nature of the thing
co-owned by them. So you cannot order the removal, naa mai
agreement. Pananglitan walai agreement, so unsaon nimo pag
khbw sa purpose. Ingon man ka, in accordance with the purpose
to which is intended.
b. If there is no agreement between parties as to the purpose, then look at
the use for which it is adopted according to its nature.
Ibalik kuno tong barko, wa moi kasabutan nga warehouse ha,

unsa mai gamitan adto, unsa mai purpose anang barko?
Pamasahero or karga, sa ato pa, transporation, that is the
nature.
c. If there is no agreement and ang nature adopted is not applicable also,
then apply the previous use of which it was previously devoted to know the
purpose intended by the co-owners
So mo ingon ka, gi gamit man ni kani adto ug kargahanan ra
kung barko man gani. But in reality, kamong mga co-owners
magsabot mo mao nai in reality pero khbw man kas provision sa
law. Kini man gd atong civil law, dghan tag remnants sa kinaraan
nga ma again, wa man sd usba. But we have to know that ky
that is the law, arun dili ta ma blanko noh, naa tai guide.
2.
Second limitation, that it is in such a way as not to injure the interest of

the co-ownership (Art 486).
Kung mo ingon kag you are filing the case on my behalf and with respect
only to my share, i-dismiss man na ky nganung khbw man ka nga mao na
imong share nga wa pa man mag bahin, mao nang in the name of all the
co-owners. Therefore, the resulting decision, favourable or adverse shall be
binding upon them also, besides you acted as a trustee for the others coowners. So binding, kana, nag kiha man ta sa laing taw, a third person.
Now, supposing a co-owner will file an ejectment case against his coowner, nganu man? Ang iyang co-owner lain naman, gi assert man niya
ang absolute ownership, he no longer recognizes the co-ownership. The
article that was just read is addressed to an ejectment addressed to a third
person, pero kini class nga problema ky what if addressed to another coowner. Will you be permitted to sue your co-owner para ma ejected cya
diha sa property? Pwede ba magamit nimo na nga article, co-owner against
a co-owner? Ang imong mga rason sa pag kiha kai nganu nag angkonangkon man na cya nga cya rai tag-iya considering nga wa pa mo khbw sa
inyohang respective share, ika duha nga rason kai iyang gi angkon ang
property as his exclusive property, so imong gusto nga pahawa-on cya. The
answer is YES, the action for ejectment by a co-owner against a co-owner
is permissible.
Why? Because co-ownership is a form of trust and therefore, every coowner is the trustee for the other. So unsa mai ilang existing relationship?
There is that existing relationship of fiduciary relationship which is an
attribute. Ang imong buhaton, unsaon maka ayo, dka mo buhat ug maka
daot.
Co-owner against co-owner, ang imo bayang kaso ejectment. Unsay

reason? Tinuod co-owner ka pero you cannot pinpoint the metes and
bounds because there is no partition, nganong kabaw man kang imo na nga
wa paman na mabahin.
3.
Ang ikaduhang rason, nalagot ka kay giangkon naman gud niya tanan, kay
suddenly papahawaon ka ning animal.
Third limitation, is to prevent the other co-owners from using it

according to their right.
Do not prevent other co-owners from using of similar rights you are doing.
Pananglitan class, tulo tang co-owners, tukoron kuno ug balay dinhi nga
yuta, akong puy-an or akong pa abangan, beh asa paman sila? Ug kitang
tanan mamuyo, walai problema, pero gipa abangan man nako, I am
receiving rentals unya from the rentals, tagaan ko lang sad sila, dili pareha
nga bahin ha, tagaan ra mog 5k pero gipa abangan nako ug 10k.
Pirmiro, wan a sila kagamit kay naa man ka, double mn na imong sala, you
prevented them from using the property by constructing that house without
their permission. As in fact, inig abot gani nato class sa Art 491, the
demolition can even be ordered ug tukoron ran a nimo ddto. Nganu man?
Pirmiro, you prevented them from using the same property kay gi ukopar
man na nimo tanan. Ika duha, di na ka trustee ana ky gi negosyo man nimo
apil imong imong mga co-owners. They are entitled to a share, in proportion
to their interest. Dili ra ang abang oi, pila ang na kita ana, anything that it
produces mao na ilang share, noh? Accession.
So mao nai mga limitations, puro tinarong, use it for purpose intended, see
to it that it will not prejudice other co-owners, then the third, do not prevent
the others from using, sa ato pa, i-monopolize nimo? Dili oi, kung ing-ana,
mura sila ug dili co-owner, mura ra ug ikaw rai ansolute owner if prevent
them, dili nimo ka pug-ngan. Pareha ug panagsama atong katungod class
bisan pag magsuon mo ky possible man nga co-owners mo, kana diay ma
inherit ninyo before partition, co-owners man mo.
Ejectment Cases
Situation: Informal settlers, mo puyo na sila didto sa property owned in
common bisan walai pag tugot nimo, ang co-owners lima kabuok, class nay
ni puyo ngadto walai pananghid ni bisan kinsa sa mga co-owners, so unsa
mai remedy nimo? The remedy is ejectment.
Now, pila ka co-owners ang mo file sa ejectment case?
But then the issue, can you eject the defendant co-owner?
Can you file an action against a co-owner? The answer is yes, but not for
ejectment, because he cannot be ejected, the reason is that he is a part
owner and therefore entitled to the possession of his respective share, di ka
kapapahawa niya.
Unsa man diay ikiha nako? For Compulsory recognition of co-ownership.
Ejectment dili mahimo. To compel him to recognize co-ownership ra, di ka
kapapahawa, entitled man na siya. The decision is binding upon all
because if it were to be binding only upon the co-owner who initiated the
action then it will become a tool or instrument for harassment sa defendant.
Art.
488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other coowners to contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or
right owned in common and to the taxes. Any one of the latter may
exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his
undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses
and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the coownership. (395a)
489. Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of the
Art.
co-owners, but he must, if practicable, first notify his co-owners of the
necessity for such repairs. Expenses to improve or embellish the
thing shall be decided upon by a majority as determined in Article
492. (n)
Article 487, anyone of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment.
Expenses and preservation of the thing

Expenses where if not attended to will endanger the existence of the
property, or diminish its value or productivity, mao nay necessary expenses,
including the taxes.
Now, anyone class, bisag si kinsa. So gi sayon na, and co-ownership is a

form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the other co-owner.
Precisely mao na nga ang kiha sa isa, kiha na sa tanan. Nganu man? Ky for
the benefit and in the name of all co-owners, sa ejectment.
Balay owned in common, ting-uwan na, di nimo ayuhon, ma-accelerate

iyang depreciation, ang tubig sa uwan makasud man, magabok ang bay.
Necessary expense, needed for the preservation of the thing owned in
common na, kay kung di gastuan, mu-collapse na, that means termination
of co-ownership.
Ari ta sa decision, will it be binding upon them, them means those coowners who did not file the ejectment but who consented. So lima kabuok,
upat ang wala, ky isa ra man ang ni kiha, is the decision binding upon the
other four co-owners who did not initiate the action? The answer is yes
whether it is favourable or adverse. They are bound because that action
was instituted in the name of all the co-owners.
10

PROPERTY Reviewer
Article 489. Kinahanglan bah og concurrence? Dili uyy, bisag usa lan. Bisag
kinsa sa co-owner, mag-hire ba siyag contractor para naay ipaayo na diha,
carpenter, whatever. Kaayuhan man na, beneficial man sa tanan.
But then, naa may second line, i-notify if practicable. Dapat mandatory so
they could be heard also, nagno ang gibutang if practicable man. If ikaw
co-owner, consult the other co-owners nimo uyy, di lang kay consult, notify

gyud, at least makaparticipate sila. Maybe they have other ideas to effect
the repairs which is not costly. Pero diri, dili mandatory, tan-awa, naay
comma nya if practicable, dili mandatory. Nya wala rabay sanction ang
balaod. Unsay penalty? Wa. Para nako, mandatory gyud unta ang notice.
Reimbursement
But here, one is sufficient and he can compel others to reimburse, to
contribute. Art. 488.
The co-owner who initiated the repairs necessary can ask for
reimbursement, can compel the other co-owners to contribute to the
expenses. Mapugos na nimo, I can go to court and file a case against you
kung dili ka, for the reimbursement of the just value of the expenses. Unjust
enrichment at my expense, kita gung duha ang na-benefitted.
his share in favor of a 3rd person who is the repairman in this case thereby
ma-ok na ang tanan?
No not yet, because for C to pay Php 2,000 constitutes novation (Art. 1291),
changing the object of the obligation thus it needs the consent of the
repairman who is the creditor. i.e. money as the object of the obligation and
gibayaran ni C og interest sa property.
Expenses for the preservation of the thing, including taxes, can be initiated
by one co-owner without prejudice to reimbursement from the other coowners. If they are financially capable then he can ask the other co-owners
to contribute to defray the expenses incurred for the preservation. If one is
willing but he does not want to part away money, he can renounce should
he opt to do so but you cannot compel him to renounce.
Renouncement of share as exemption to reimburse NE

But then, naay controversial kayo diha, 2nd sentence. Any of the co-owners
may exempt himself, how? By renouncing so much of his interest equal or
commensurate to the share of the expenses. Sa ato pa, mahimo, akoy coowner ayy, di lang ko uyy, akong interest kuha-I lang toh mu.renounce ka
ba, meaning a portion of your interest is taken away. To what amount?
Equivalent to your share in the expenses. Wa ko mubayad og kwarta, ang
akong gibayad interest in the property owned in common.
Mechanics of Renunciation
First, establish the interest of the renouncer co-owner.
Let us appraise the property owned in common first so that we would know
the extent I own and we would know pila ang nakuha.
Lastly, the Php 2,000 will either go to one of the co-owners by way of
reimbursement, so mapun-an iyang share og Php 2,000, or perhaps to a
3rd person if he has not yet received payment.
Next, determine his share in the expenses for preservation.

Then, overlay it to his interest in the community property (Php 2,000 is 1/5
of Php 10,000 representing his share in the property in the example given
so what is left is Php 8,000).
We go by example, huwami lang ang mata sa agila:

A, B, C are co-owners;
The point is, if you are a co-owner, you can initiate the repairs which are
necessary including taxes.
Value of property co-owned by them upon appraisal = 30,000;

Expenses for preservation incurred (necessary expenses) = 6, 000
Expenses in proportion to the interest which is 1/3 in this case
Art.
A 10,000
B 10,000
C 10,000
(2,000)
(2,000)
(2,000)
491 None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the

others, make alteration int he thing owned n common, even though
benefits for all would result therefrom. However, if the withholding of
the consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to
the common interest, the courts may affortd adequate relief.
C cannot pay, so C renounced so much of the amount necessary to cover

his share.
So, what is 2,000 compared to my interest as an individual interest of
10,000? = 1/5 (one-fifth)
1/5 of 10,000 is incidentally 2,000 sad, so I will renounce 2,000 worth out of
the 10,000. So my individual interest in the co-ownership is reduced to
8,000. Ngano man? I renounce so much of my interest equivalent to the
value of my share in the expenses.
Tanawa imong share sa expenses. So that we will know what amount you
will part away by renunciation and then the remainder in order for you to
know your share in the co-ownership. So Php 8,000 na lang because the
Php 2,000 went to the expenses.
Renunciation is an improper term because what is known as renunciation in
law is actually dacion empago. If you recall Art. 1245 dacion empago is a
process whereby the debtor alienate is his property/ies in order to satisfy
monertary liablitity. What C is actually doing is payment in kind because
what he paid for his monetary obligation is his interest in the community
property.
You cannot compel the co-owner to renounce his share who cannot
reimburse the cash spent for the necessary expenses because renunciation
must be free and voluntary (succession). A co-owner is allowed to renounce
but cannot be compelled to do so therefore it is discretionary on his part.
However, you can compel him to contribute to the necessary expenses.
Appraisal shall be made at the time of payment of the debt. Remember,
whe you contracted the repairs, there might be a fluctuation of the prices of
the materials to be used for such repair that is why appraisal is to be made
at the time of payment of the debt not at the time of renunciation nor at the
time the expenses were incurred.
A owes the repairman because he is the one who contracted the his
services. A and B already paid Php 4,000 as their shares of the Php 6,000
debt so what remains to be collected is Cs Php 2,000, who is not a debtor
because it was A who contracted with the repairman. Now, can A renounce
Alteration
It is more or less permanent in character not merely transitory. There is a
metaphysical change or a change as to the use of the property even to the
extent of transforming the thing. Basta alteration gali, it is an act of
ownership. Therefore you perform an act as if you are the sole owner.
When it comes to alteration, there is a need of the consent of ALL the coowners to make it valid otherwise you are only bound with respect to your
own share, ayaw og ilabot ang uban. E.g. There is a warehouse, a property
owned in common, about to be converted into a boarding house. There is a
transformation class. You do not call it a warehouse anymore but a
boarding house so there is alteration because its use is changed from a
warehouse to a habitation on the part of the boarders. In this case, the
consent of all the co-owners is needed.
Consent is given is
a.
Express or
b.
Implied/ Tacit approval.
There is implied approval when ang gibuhat nimo, and the other co-owners
know that you are making an alteration but they did not complain. Express
is self-explanatory.
Illustration: Supposing there is never an express or tacit approval from the
other co-owners and you nevertheless altered the property by putting up an
extension, what would be the result of that alteration? That alteration is
illegal. Hence as a consequence, the co-owner who caused/initiated the
same shall suffer the loss or expenses in case loss occurs as a penalty for
the illegal alteration. Moreover, the illegal alteration can be ordered
demolished by the other co-owners who did not give their consent. Third,
damages pa jud sustained by the property held in common.
How about if the co-ownership made a profit? Such profit will be forfeited to
the co-ownership.
Art.
492. For the administration and better enjoyment of the thing

owned in common, the resolutions of the majority of the co-owners
shall be binding.
There shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the coowners who represent the controlling interest in the object of the coownership.
Should there be no majority, or should the resolution of the majority
be seriously prejudicial to those interested in the property owned in
common, the court, at the instance of an interested party, shall order
such measures as it may deem proper, including the appointment of
an administrator.
Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the coowners, and the remainder is owned in common, the preceding
provision shall apply only to the part owned in common. (398)
Administration and better enjoyment

This is where a demarcation line with alteration is difficult to put in place.
E.g. A contract of lease of long duration is an act of ownership which is
tantamount to alteration thus needs the consent of all co-owners; but if you
lease out the property on monthly basis in order for the co-ownerhsip to
derive some benefit out of the property held in common, there is no
alteration.
Alteration (AL) vs. Administration and Better Enjoyment (AB)
1.
AL may result to the transformation of the thing.
AB no transformation at all.
Unsay effect sa administration and better enjoyment sa property held in
common? Lahi man kung i-quantify nimo because it is not all but rather
majority only. Sa ato pa subaya tanan, in ejectment bisan si kinsa, bisan
usa ra. But alteration gani dapat tanan co-owners to be binding. Pero better
enjoyment of the property gani or administration or management, that is
majority of the partners ang gikinahanglan. So, ni vary ang voting ana. All
or one is sufficient or majority.
Majority
And then if you are to talk about majority here, it refers to the majority of the
co-owners representing the controlling interest. (Equity Majority)
Kani gung majority duha man gud na. majority as to the number of coowners. For example there are 5 co-owners. What is the majority?
Physically, per head, per capita, class 3 moy majority. Mao nay madali nato.
Ako noh naa koy kaugalingong tawag ana, tawgon ko nag PHYSICAL
MAJORITY. Pero ang gipasabot sa balaod, majority of the interest in the
property owned in common. Sa ato pa ang akong interest ron is 51, ang
uban nakong kauban upat kabuok 49 combined interest sila. I hold the
majority that is plus 1. Ako usa rako pero majority nako. Ingon sila ikaw
ra usa kabuok majority naka? Natural kay dili man tawo ang gibasihan, dili
man ang co-owner ang gibasihan pila sila. It is the extent of the interest. 51
gud akong interest ani sa property. Ang ilang upat combined 49. Therefore,
naa nako ang majority.
Ang gipasabot sa balaod tawgon ko na siyang EQUITY MAJORITY to
distinguish physical. So, equity majority that means the extent of interest
that a partner may have in a given community property, must be more than
. So 51. What about for others? They are minority.
O sa ato pa administration for better enjoyment whose vote is necessary?
My vote is very important because that will determine the act of the
partners. Asa ko mobutar maoy matuman. Ngano man? Ma-overrule
tamong upat bisan pa gusto mo ug dili ko ganahan.
Pananglitan di 51. Lima ming partners. A and B 20 a piece. C is 19. D is 21.
E is 20. Now wa man nako ang 51. Ako holder ko 25 (sayop ni ka Sir with
regards sa numbering above) pero in a certain proposed ownership action
ako na 25 ni confirm man ang holder sa 26 percent. Ang combined interest
namo 51. Ah kaming duha sufficient na para sa decision.
So unsay bearing anang plus 1? When it comes to administration and
better enjoyment of the property, ah you are supreme basta mu-hold ka ug
majority alone or in concurrent with another that will equal to 51. Ngano
man? Ang decision making naa man ninyo. Parte unsa man? Ah for better
enjoyment and adinistration, alteration or ejectment 1 is sufficient. With
regards to preservation 1 is sufficient.
12

PROPERTY Reviewer
Differently, mo vary ang number unsay katuyuan. Mao nay majority

Pero naay problem, uoat ka co-owners. Pananglitan class 25 a piece total
hundred. A proposed act to be done, somebody or someone from the coowners. Mobotar ang tulo, pila 75. Well and good. Ang usa proponent man
to natural madefeated siya kay 75 na more than majority naman gani. But
then naay problem, pananglitan A and B, C and D buwang man nabahin
man ang boto nila. A and B combined 50. Same with C and D. Hain may
majority diha? OK, way majority.
Bisan unsaon nimo iyang proposed co-ownership, act or action. How can
you break the tie this time? Sir way majority? Wa. Ug ari sad ka sa tawo
tabla gihapon. Dos-dos. Unsaon man ani? Para nako the proposition of the
proponent must necessarily fail for lack of majority either physical or equity
majority. Wa man na. sa equity tabla. Unya physically tagurha gihapon. So
therefore must necessarily fail for lack of majority. So di na madayon imong
proposition.
Expenses for alteration
(Inaudible question) demolition? It will be the co-owner who initiated it
solely. Otherwise it will be unjust to the others to be required to share for
the expenses.
Those with respect to expenses in making the alteration. Solely borne by
the co-owner.
Expenses for demolition? Ngano man? Penalty man gud na class sa co
owner mura bag makaingon ka how dare you we are co-owners therefore
we have equal right to posses and use and then you exhibit your right as a
co-owner. Ngano nagbutang man ka ana na wala may pagtugot namo?
Mura bag ma-challenge ka. Mura kag tag-iya. Kay mao man na ang
alteration class. Ug tan-awon nimo individually ang example sa alteration, it
is an act of ownership meaning an act which can be done by an owner.
*Note: For the topic on Possession: Self-study kay wa nadaw time si sir
mag discuss
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and
of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore
alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in
its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect
of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall
be limited to the portion which may be alloted to him in the division
upon the termination of the co-ownership. (399)
Share in Property/Partition
If you are the co-owner, you cannot pinpoint the metes and bounds of your
property before partition. Precisely owned in common. Tulo ta kabuok. Di ko
makaingon kaning yutaa ba kaning 1 hectare. Ang ako ana 1/3 gikan didto
padong ngari. Ngano kabalo man ka? Na wala man nay partition?
Makaingon lain ka I own 1/3 of that property. Kutob lang ka diha. Ngano
man? Pending partition.
Partition man ana mo-earmark individually. And partition will put an end to
co-ownership precisely. So pending partition you are in a state of coownership.
No because you only have an ideal share, aliquot share, spiritual share or
proportionate share because I own 1/3 on that part. Because co-owner man
ko, unsaon man nako pag assert sa akong co-ownership? Di ko makatudlo
asa kung unsaon nako pag assert sa co-ownership as an owner. Moingon
rako I own 1/3. Pero then ang 93 gives you the right.
Unsa pananglitan imong katungod? You can assert, you can exercise to
show that you are the owner of that particular 1/3. Way ikita tinuod ug
asang dapita pero naa koy katungod. Why?
I am the absolute owner pertaining to my share kay absolute owner man ko.
Kay di man na matudlo nimo therefore I can dispose, I can encumber, I can
mortgage and I can even substitute myself in favor of another person for its
enjoyment mahimo gani. Who will prevent a co-owner from selling his
property? Wala? Kay Lawful owner man ka. Ngano magbuot man sila?
Mahimo kang stranger after seliing it. Ang purchaser will become the coowner who is subrogated to your rights. But you cannot be prevented.

Kung iprenda nimo, o why not? Iprenda nako akong 1/3 share. Absolute
owner man ko pero di ko ka prenda sa intero kay sa uban man nang coowner nako ang 2/3 ana. 1/3 raman ako.
2.
Mahimo ni class in the first place? Yes, provided it is not

exceeding 10 years.
If ever I will mortgage the entire property, well that is binding only with
respect to my share. Mobaligya ka, you are selling your share.
Pananglitan, dili pabahinon sa sulod sa kinsi ka tuig. The first 10

is valid. The excess is void. Therefore, passed the 10 years you
can demand for the partition notwithstanding the agreement
because that is void. Only the void part or portion of the
agreement.
Ug iprenda nimo. Okay kanang realistic na example. One co-owner

mortgage the property to another. Unable to redeem, na-remate. Asa may
rematehon niya? Again di ka katudlo asa pero you know 1/3 of that property
adjudicated to him after partition. Asa man ang lugar sa iya kung
magpartition, mao to ang naremate kay wa paman ang partition.
Now, pagkaremate you are given 1 year as a co-owner to redeem after
foreclosure. Pananglitan, the mortgagor was not able to redeem and there
is another co-owner who redeemed the property within 1 year. Ako ray lain
co-owner, siya ang mortgagor-co-owner. Di man siya kabayad, akong
gilukat. Now, who owns the property redeemed by another co-owner? Ang
tag-iya ang mortgagor gihapon without prejudice to reimbursement of
course sa co-owner who actually redeemed. Why? Subrogated raman siya
sa right. Kinahanglan siya ulian. Or and co-ownership or redeemer.
For how lang man diay ang prohibition for partition? NOT
EXCEEDING 10 YEARS. Although may be renewed for a period
not exceeding 10 years.
Therefore, maximum 10 years. So di sad ka kademand atong
bahinon on the 3rd year. Imong pirma o sa atong kasabutan.
3.
So tan-awon nimo. was it redeemed within 1 year during the period of

redemption? Yes, given man na siya. If so, he retains the ownership. Ngano
man? Right man na niya. Although wa niya ma exercise but nevertheless
he is under obligation to reimburse.
When the donor or testator provides that it shall not be

partitioned for a period not exceeding 20 years, if the property
was acquired by donation or succession.
Sa donation, ni tugot ang donor. Pananglitan 2 ka buok donation.
Pila kabuok donees 5 ka buok. They are in the state of coownership. Ingon ang donor, The property given to the donees
shall not be partitioned within 20 years. That is valid not
exceeding 20 years.
But if the redemption took place after the lapse of 1 year, then the person
who redeemed it is the owner. Ngano man? It is no longer a property owned
in common. Di naman ko co-owner. Wa nagud niya ang ownership atong
1/3. Na foreclose na. Therefore if ma ako pa gyud na, ako gyud ng
kauglingon. That means ako share ma-hug na ug 2/3 in effect.
In sum, basta past 1 year. the redeemer-coowner is the owner. Pero within
a year gani, it belongs to the mortgagor-coowner. Ngano man? Because he
owns the thing, he owns the right to redeem. He is under the obligation to
reimburse the co-owner who actually redeems it. That is fair.
Supposing the co-owners agreed not to partition for a period not

exceeding 10 years.
Therefore, mu demand ka ug partition? No, covered pa man ni

sa prohibition. (Referring to former example) Kinsay, ga buhat
ana? Kana gi impose by the donor or testator, gi tugot man na.
4.
If partition will render the thing unserviceable for the purpose

intended.
Naay auto ay, typical example. 3 ka owners. Kanang makina ako
na. Ang imo 4 ka ligid, ang iya ang chassis. Ma gamit pa na?
Wala na. It cant be used for the purpose intended. Therefore, it
renders unserviceable. So di gyud mahimo mu partition ka sa
butang, ngano man? It defeats the use of that property.
Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership.

Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing
owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
Unsay solution ana sir? Article 498 NCC. Ang kanang car, ok r
aka anha lang ni nimo? Unya reimburse nalang pila ang sa amo.
Kay among share ana equivalent sa respective interest. Ug
tunga man gani 1/3 sila each. Ilisi nalang ni ug kwarta imo na
ang car. Pero ug di pa gyud musugot, ang kwarta di kaabot. Sell
the property and divide the proceeds. Mao nay short-cut dinha.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain

period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may
be extended by a new agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not
exceed twenty years.
Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his
co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes
the co-ownership. (400a)
Causes of termination of co-ownership

Termination of co-ownership, meaning absolute ownership on the part of
each and every owner, to whom the property was adjudicated.
1.
Partition
Gi partition naman ninyo. Unsay co-ownership nga namirma naman mo. So

tapos na ang partition.
Comments
Anytime you can ask for its partition. Now, when partition cannot be
demanded. No person can be compelled to remain in the co-ownership. He
can ask partition anytime. Tingali anytime, can be day or night.
Instances partition is not allowed or cannot be demanded
1.
2.
Prescription
Sometimes, you lose the property to a third person by reason of

prescription. So there are times, ma wa gyud nimo. A lapse on your part or
the requirement of the law for its possession and occupancy have already
arrived or lapsed and then they can now ask prescription.
When prohibited by law.

3.
Kana diay inyong property, kamo magti-ayon, conjugal
partnership or gains. Diba, bisag absolute community, puro man
mo tag-iya. Of course, deductions or charges and expenses can
be divided. Can you ask for the partition? During the marriage?
Not allowed.
Ang balay naguba sa bagyo. Unsaon nalang na nato. Or ug nay negligence

causing the total loss or destruction without fault on the part of the coowners.
4.
Kana inyong condo, kanang mga part-owners. Kini atong bubong

bah, bahin ta ha? Not allowed. By operation of law it is not
prohibited. You cant demand partition. So when the law provides
that it cannot be partitioned.
Total destruction or loss of the thing owned in common
In case of merger of the property owned in common in favor of 1

co-owner.
Sa ato pa 4 ka co-owners, ang 3 shares gibaligya sa 1 ka co-owner.

Consolidated na ang entire property sa 1 co-owner. Wa naman nahalin
naman ngari nako.
The purpose of co-ownership is the common enjoyment of the

thing or right owned in common, while in Partnership the purpose
is to obtain profits.
Effects of Partition
1.
Terminates the co-ownership.
2.
There shall be mutual accounting of benefits or profits received

and reimbursements for expenses made. (500)
3.
Co-Ownership as no juridical personality which is separate and

distinct from that of the co-owners, while Partnership has.
Unsay gi gastoan, subayon na tanan. Why? Kay bahinon man

ang gi gasto proportionate to our interest.
4.
3.
The individual owners, used to be co-owners, will reciprocally

warrant the property adjudicated to the other for eviction or
against hidden defects.
Eviction is to deprive or to dispossess. Mao nay eviction.
Pananglitan gi embargohan ka sa usa ka tao kay siya diay ang
tinuuray nga naka tag-iya sa property being partitioned. So
therefore having been dispossessed in whole or part then I can
resort to the other co-owners nako. Ngano man? Gi embargohan
man akong property. Breach of warranty.
As to personality:
As to duration:
An agreement not to divide the community property for more
than ten years is not allowed by law, such an agreement would
be perfectly valid in the case of partnership. This is so, because
under the law, there is no limitation upon the duration of
partnership.
5.
As to power of members:
A co-owner has no power to represent the co-ownership, unless
there is an agreement to that effect; while a partner has the
power to represent the partnership, unless there is a stipulation
to the contrary.
Or quality, hidden defects. Ug personal property na, ilang

panaad na wala gyud nay depekto kanang na bahin nimo
against hidden defect. Pero warranty against hidden defect.
Panaglitan dili patent ang defect. Relo unya ang hour hand okay
and minute hand opposite ang dagan. Therefore klaro kayo, dili
man na hidden. Naay warranty? Ang hidden ra man ang ilang gi
guarantee.
6.
Supposing it is exposed, is it covered by the warranty? What is

not included is excluded. Hidden, gi tago. Which could not have
been discovered unless you are an expert.
7.
As to division of profits:
In co-ownership the division of the benefits and charges is fixed
by law, while in Partnership the division of profits and losses may
be subject to the agreement of the partners.
As to effect of death:
The death of a co-owner has no effect upon the existence of the
co-ownership, while in partnership the death of a partner shall
result in the dissolution of partnership.
Kung gi embargohan ka, they will make reimbursements in

money to replenish your share.
Partnership diay, mu warrant man ka sa thing contributed.
He shall be bound for warranty against eviction regards to
specific determinate thing (inaudible) Ka klaro. He shall be
bound by the warranty.
Law of sale, samot. Unsay man warranty sa sale. Implied
warranty against hidden defect na class. No need to stipulate or
sign any other document. Attached na na sa sale. The seller
warrants against eviction. So meaning na exposed ka ana sa
sale, na exposed ka ana sa partnership.
Art. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with
the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title
constituting it or the law otherwise provides.
Karon sad sa partition, co-owner will reciprocally warrant against

eviction.
Usufruct
Usus is use then fructos is fruits. These are the essential things in usufruct,
the right to use and the right over the fruits. It is a real right of temporary
nature which authorizes its holder to enjoy all the benefits which result from
the normal enjoyment or exploitation of anothers property, with the
obligation to return at the designated time, either the same thing or, in
special cases, its equivalent.
Lahi na ang warranty ug guaranty. Warranty panaad, guaranty

lahi na siya. Imong gipaniguro ig unsa gani naa ka. Mao bitaw na
ang imong remedy breach of warranty dili breach of guaranty.
Or, in special cases, its equivalent

Duna may usufruct na dili ka mag.uli sa butang. Mag.uli ka lang sa value.
Pero abnormal ni siya nga usufruct.
Now, ka agi naman ka sa co-ownership ma appreciate na nimo ang

difference sa partnership. Therefore, what are the differences and
similarities.
Usufruactuary has
The right to use the thing, and
Right over the fruits derived from the thing held in usufruct.
There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing
Two Parties
1.
Naked owner
-
Denied of the use because it is now forfeited to the
usufructuary
or right belongs to different persons. (Art 484)
Distinguish Co-Ownership from Partnership

Co-ownership is distinguished from an ordinary partnership in the following
ways:
1.
2.
Circumstance that are sources of usufructuary rights

1.
14

As to purpose:
PROPERTY Reviewer
Constituted by law
225 of the Family Code, if living with parents and still a minor,
what are the rights of the parents? Property exceeds 50K of the
value of the property. What are their rights? Parental usufruct of
the property of the minor whose value exceeds 50K or the
income yearly exceeds 50K. They may have property due to
inheritance. Say a minor received 50M worth of properties. (Art
225)
As to creation:
Co-Ownership may be created by law, contract, succession,
fortuitious event, or occupancy, while Partnership is always
created by contract.
2.
Usufructuary
2.
In an act expressed in an inter vivos or mortis causa.

Those expressed in donation. The usufructuary right and the

property are separate, buwag sila. Ex. I am the owner of a
property however, I vested the usufructuary to an Australian
citizen, valid? Diba, foreigners are not allowed to own property.
However, in usufruct do you transfer the property? No, only the
use and fruits are transferred and not the title of the property.
The naked ownersgip still belongs to the property owner. (A563)
By will that the usufructuary right is given to Juan while the
ownership is given to Pedro.
Use and fruits- usufructuary
3.
Prescription
Art. 564. Usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part of the
fruits of the thing, in favor of one more persons, simultaneously or

successively, and in every case from or to a certain day, purely or
conditionally. It may also be constituted on a right, provided it is not
strictly personal or intransmissible.(469)
This is just a classification.

565. The rights and obligations of the usufructuary shall be
Article
those provided in the title constituting the usufruct; in default of such
title or in case it is deficient, the provision contained in the two
following chapters shall be observed.
You have to look at the title constituting the usufruct to determine your
rights and obligation. That will answer the question, what will govern
usufruct. It is not directly the civil code but shall be governed primarily by
the title constituting the usufruct. Therefore if your property is given through
donation, you should look at the language given in the donation to what
extent is your right over the property because this is the primary source.
-the law is clear that if ever the title is deficient then the provisions of these
two following chapters shall be observed thus it is secondary.
Primary source: Title of the Usufruct
Secondary source: Civil Code
Before you are constituted as a usufructuary, or you are given the rights
thereof, we go to Article 583.
Article 583. The usufructuary, before entering upon the enjoyment of

the property, is obliged:
1.
To make after notice to the owner or his legitimate

representative, an inventory of all the property, which
shall contain an appraisal of the movables and a
description of the condition of the immovables;
2.
To give security, binding himself to fulfill the

obligations imposed upon him in accordance with this
Chapter.
Obligations of a usufructuary
So before you can avail of your right as a usufructuary there are obligations
that are things you need to do. Number 1 obligation is you need to make an
inventory with due notice to the owner or his legal representative. The
purpose of the inventory is so that you can make valuations of the movable
property and status and condition of the immovable property. You have to
look at the status of the property before you receive or get into the
usufructuary so that you will not cause or have any liability.
566. The usufructuary shall be entitled to all the natural,
Article
industrial and civil fruits of the property in usufruct. With respect to
hidden treasure which may be found on the land or tenement, he shall
be considered a stranger.
Comments
Your usufructuary right constituted already attaches upon constitution.
Inventory is needed only for the enjoyment.
Why is there a notice needed to be given to the naked owner, when the
usufructuary is the one who makes the inventory? In order so the owner can
make objections as to the valuation.
2nd Obligation: MUST PROVIDE SECURITY
A personal bond, pledge or mortgage, anything the owner can resort to for
any liabilities upon the termination of the usufruct.
Cases where obligation to give security is not required?
Under Art. 584, there are 2 cases.
Art.
584. The provisions of No. 2 of the preceding article shall not

apply to the donor who has reserved the usufruct of the property
donated, or to the parents who are usufructuaries of their children's
property, except when the parents contract a second marriage.
Comments
(1) Donor has reserved in usufruct the property donated.
Ex. Donor and donee. 1 hectare was given. But the donor
reserves the right to the usufruct while still alive. It is transmitted
upon death of the donor to the donee.
Usufructuary, you are entitled to all the fruits as well as the used of my
property but that will happen only after death because Im going to, twilight
years pa nako, mao na ako gamiton sa pagka-karon, I will reserved my time
to use as well as the fruits of the property donated to you. The naked
ownership is already given upon donation, which transfers ownership.
So ari ang usufuctuary right, donation- imo nani, sa ato pa ikaw ang naked
owner; ako ang usucfructuary, dili nako owner karon, conforme ka. So,
concluded na, sige from being the absolute owner, Iam now reduced to a
mere usufructuary. Ang donee, he is now the owner of the property
because donation transfers ownership. So, ako donor at the same time
usufructuary. (Donation can be revoked by reason of ingratitude). Ang
akong capacity karon, donee- naked owner, ang donor intawon na reduced
to a usucfructuary. So, do not ask for security, why? Because he is
excused, you will be ungrateful if you will do that to your donor.
Parental usufruct, whose company if the value of the property exceeds
50,000 or perhaps the annual gross income exceeds 50,000. Parents are
permitted to used it, but ang kinita-an ana para na sa tag-iya, dili na nimo
mahimo na i-transfer bisag kinsa, purely personal right na siya.
So, duha ang ihatag na exemption, dili man kay duhaa ra, 84 ra in relation
to 225 in FC, kini d.i 86, if no one shall be injured thereby, ngano man
mohatag ko og security kung wala koy kadaot na mahimo in the process of
exercising my right as a usufructuary. Pananglitan, I am given the
usufructuary right of a monthly pension for one year, ang pension niya
kada-buwan sulod sa one year ihatag sa ako, kinsa may masakit ana na
bayran unya nako in determination of usufruct? Wala gyud, if no one shall
be injured thereby there is no need for any security, kay ang function sa
security nimo is to precisely to answer for whatever liability in determination
of usufruct.
The function of security is to answer for whatever monetary liability in
determination of usufruct. If the property is not susceptible to any injury to
person or damage, wala kay matagaan sa security.
Naa pay usa, naa sa 87. Caucion Juratoria, if the usufructuary has not
given security claims by virtue of a promise under oath the delivery of
the furniture necessary for its used and that he and his family shall be
allowed to live in the house included in the usufruct. Naa moy idea
unsa na caucion juratoria? Ako class, unable to pay to give a bond or
security and the object given to me nga by way of usufruct.
When a person comes to you and says, My family and I need a place to
rest tonight, as we have nowhere else to go. He has neither bond nor
security to give you, what will you do? Should a person be denied because
he has no property to give as security? Isnt that oppression over the poor
and underprivileged?
still it is the usufructuary that will be liable to the naked owner. Of course
you can ask for reimbursement from the substitute or sub-usufructuary.
Thats where the law comes inan example is caucion juratoria. When one
has no bond to give, he files a petition in court that he will comply all of the
obligations of a usufructuary and ask for the delivery of the thing subject
matter of the usufruct under oath. This is the basic concept of usufructuary.
Mura bag lease, lessee ko, paabangan nakog laing tao, sub-lessee siya.
Bale 3 nami, sub-lessee, sub-lessor (at the same time lessee), then lessor.
For example the sub-lessee committed an act resulting to the destruction of
property due to negligence. Ari ta sa lessor, kinsa man duolon sa lessor?
Ang lessee or ang sub-lessee? Ang lessee gyud. Kay ngano man? kay ang
iyang katungod gipasa ug lain, then primarily the lessee will be liable
because the no contract between the lessor and the sub-lessee. So the
lessee will pay, but without prejudice to reimbursement. Same thing
happens in usufructuary.
When one desires to make use of the thing under usufruct but cannot afford
the security, caucion juratoria gives you the right to enter or make use of the
property. In other words, this is a humanitarian gesture of the Court.
Because is it not inhumane to hear when one is denied entry to property
because he cannot afford to pay the security? To deny this would render a
law arbitrary.
Our laws are hinged on the concept of social justicethose who have less
in life, should have more in law. Thus the concept of caucion juratoria(1)
a promise under oath, (2) before the court, (3) in a form of a petition, (4) that
you be permitted to occupy or perhaps, get the property subject matter of
the usufruct to make use of it. This is a grant of mercy, a form of exemption,
out of ones nothingness.
It would be absurd to ask security from one who has absolutely none to
provide. (Article 587, NCC)
Article 588. After the security has been given by the usufructuary, he
ART. 592 (Ordinary Repairs)

The usufructuary is obliged to make the ordinary repairs needed by
the thing given in usufruct.
By ordinary repairs are understood such as are required by the wear
and tear due to the natural use of the thing and are indispensable for
its preservation. Should the usufructuary fail to make them after
demand by the owner, the latter may make them at the expense of the
usufructuary.
shall have a right to all the proceeds and benefits from the day on
which, in accordance with the title constituting the usufruct, he should
have commenced to receive them.
Ordinary Repairs
On the process of using thing in the course of time, such thing would
naturally suffer deterioration. Ordinary refer refers to the wear and tear of
the property due to its natural use and needed for preservation.
Comments
If a usufructuary for example, was constituted on the 1st of May 2014, and I
failed to comply with the obligations of giving security or inventory, but as of
today (July 9, 2014) I was able to comply, I can exercise all my rights as
well as the benefits accrued from the property or thing under usufruct.
When is the reckoning point of my rights to the benefits and interest? It is
from the time my usufructuary rights were constituted, because a security is
given only for the purpose of entering into the possession or enjoyment of
the property or making use of the thing under usufruct.
Responsible for ordinary repairs: It is the usufructuary, because he is the

person who benefited from the thing. Thats why in case of damage,
destruction, and deterioration the usufructuary is responsible for ordinary
repairs.
To illustrate, for example the property involved is land, I may not be

afforded entry because of my lack of giving a security, but all the benefits
and interest accruing therefrom are still mine. Laktod nga pagkasulti,
RETROACTIVE EFFECT. All the benefits, advantages and interest derived
from the thing accruing from May 1st, 2014 shall be forfeited by the naked
owner in my favor. They are mine. Ang imong pagka usufructuary daan na
nimo adto pang pagka Mayo uno. All that you lose is the possession over
the property subject of the usufruct because of your failure to give security.
589. The usufructuary shall take care of the things given in
Art.
usufruct as a good father of a family.
Degree of diligence
Ordinary diligence. For example, you are lent a car for your comfort and
convenience due to the incessant rains. You are required to take care of it
with ordinary diligence. Diligence of a good father of the family is the same
as ordinary diligence.
If the usufructuary refuses to make the ordinary repair, what can the naked
owner do? (Ex. Nabuslot ang atop sa balay tungodsa init-bugnaw na
panahon) The naked owner may undertake the ordinary repairs. But all the
charges will be shouldered by the usufructuary. So there will be
reimbursement. When? Upon the termination of the usufruct.
ART. 593 (Extraordinary Repairs)

Extraordinary repairs shall be at the expense of the owner. The
usufructuary is obliged to notify the owner when the need for such
repairs is urgent.
ART. 594 If the owner should make the extraordinary repairs, he shall
have a right to demand of the usufructuary the legal interest on the
amount expended for the time that the usufruct lasts.
Should he not make them when they are indispensable for the
preservation of the thing, the usufructuary may make them; but he
shall have a right to demand of the owner, at the termination of the
usufruct, the increase in value which the immovable may have
acquired by reason of the repairs.
Art. 590. A usufructuary who alienates or leases his right of usufruct

shall answer for any damage which the things in usufruct may suffer
through the fault or negligence of the person who substitutes him.
Sub-usufruactuary
Ikaw usufructuary class, possible ba class naa kay sub-usufructuary? Yes,
that is allowed. Abot nimu sa 572, daghan kayo na ug right ang
usufructuary he can alienate his right.
For example the sub-usufructuary while using the property, it resulted to
destruction of property by reason of his negligence. Who will pay the naked
owner, the usufructuary or the sub-usufructuary?
Remember the liability of a usufructuary is direct to the owner. Therefore,
even if the negligence is caused by the substitute or the sub-usufructuary,
16

PROPERTY Reviewer
Extraordinary Repairs
Kung ordinary gani- Usufructuary. Extraordinary gani charge to the naked
owner.
Can you compel the naked owner to make the extraordinary repairs?
Urgent or not. The law only says that it is chargeable to the naked owner.
There is no provision of law whatsoever that states that you can compel the
naked owner to make the extraordinary repairs. In only pronounces who
shall be liable for the expenses. Para nako that is discretionary, wala may
law na nag compel nako.
When the usufructuary pays for the extraordinary repairs he has the
following rights:

1.
2.
Refund of the cost plus interest; or

Paid the increase in value of the property.
How to compute for the increase? The value of the property already
completed minus the value of the property before the repairs were made.
Unsa may katungod sa naked owner who is not obliged to make ordinary
repairs but he now pays for the ordinary repairs? Reimburesment, siya ang
nka gasto sa trabaho na di iyaha.
Kung unsa man gani imong bayronon usufructuary kay wa nimo buhata ang
repairs, di jud ka ka-eskapo kay ngano man? The security shall answer for
the obligations of the usufructuary which was not effected and caused the
naked owner to pay for the repairs. Kung di ka tagaan niya, the security
shall be answerable. Plus interest ng expenses.
Gikan sa obligation kay preparatory to the exercise of right. Nganong niabot
ta diha sa obligation nga layo pa man nah, precisely because there is an
obligation before entry upon the enjoyment of the thing. Katong inventory
and security. Karon kay nakahatag nata ato, ari nata sa katungod. Ari tas
Art. 566. Ngano man? Finally, you are now in possession of the thing
subject of the usufruct. Unless excused to ha, katong 4 kabuok. In this
case, you can enter the premises kay wa may security kinhanglan.
Art. 566. The usufructuary shall be entitled to all the natural, industrial
and civil fruits of the property in usufruct. With respect to hidden
treasure which may be found on the land or tenement, he shall be
considered a stranger.
Hidden Treasure vis a vis Usufruactuary

All fruits belong to the usufructuary. Lets go to the second line. What about
hidden treasure? Is he entitled? Xxx With respect to hidden treasure
which may be found on the land or tenement, he shall be considered a
stranger. Usufructuary, you do not have the right to the half because you
are not the owner.
If, however, you are the finder, then you are entitled to one-half. Sa ato pa,
stranger means he is not entitled to the share since he is not the owner.
Pero you are entitled to a share if you are the finder.
Kay iyang pangayu.un naa gud na dri sa akong yuta nya ikaduha fruits
mana. Ay dli na fruits, ang hiddern treasure, it is part of the capital. Dli na
cya fruit. Capital means the property in usufruct minus the fruits and
interest. So paningufa jud usufruactuary gusto man kaha ka ug hidden
treasure, paninguha jud nga makakita ka. Nganu man? Kay entitled man ka
as a finder but dli ka entitled as an owner kay dli man ikaw ang tag.iya sa
object of the usufruct.
Art 567. Natural or industrial fruits growing at the time the usufruct
begins, belong to the usufructuary.
Those growing at the time the usufruct terminates, belong to the

owner.
In the preceding cases, the usufructuary, at the beginning of the
usufruct, has no obligation to refund to the owner any expenses
incurred; but the owner shall be obliged to reimburse at the
termination of the usufruct, from the proceeds of the growing fruits,
the ordinary expenses of cultivation, for seed, and other similar
expenses incurred by the usufructuary.
The provisions of this article shall not prejudice the rights of third
persons, acquired either at the beginning or at the termination of the
usufruct.
Comments
March first 2014, beginning na ha nya natapos December 1,
2014(termination, pagtapus). Nay pagsugud naa sai pagtapus. Kini class
(referring to the dates) period of usufruct ni cya. Now pagsugud sa usufructang beginning, butang ta lng fruit bearing coconut trees. Tang tangun ta
ning coconut, fruit bearing trees lang. Mangga and saging.
Now the trees are worth 20,000 pesos. Dri ta sa termination, nay manga,
papaya, pinya starapple worth 30,000pesos. Gipananum ni sa usufruct
owner.
Sige these mango trees were planted by the naked owner. Class butangan
ko lang og valuation for purposes alright. Diri, after na sa usufructuary right,
gipananom sad ni sa usufructuary unya worth Php 30,000 tanan. We dont
have a problem during the period of the usufruct because tanang kinitaan
will go to the usufructuary.
Standing (not yet harvested fruits), growing and harvested fruits at the
beginning of the usufruct belongs to the usufructuary. So ang bunga sa
mangga which is valued at Php 45,000 na gitanom sa naked owner will now
belong to the usufructuary. Tanawa ha, wala jud xay hago pero tungod lang
kay pag-sulod sa usufructuary by virtue of the usufruct siya na ang nanagiya sa bunga sa mangga which makes him Php 45,000 richer. Is this not
unjust enrichment? Will the usufructuary not pay for the naked owners
expenses for cultivation, seeds and fertilizer sa mango trees he planted?
Art. 567. Natural or industrial fruits growing at the time the usufruct
Those growing at the time the usufruct terminates, belong to the

owner.
In the preceding cases, the usufructuary, at the beginning of the
usufruct, has no obligation to refund to the owner any expenses
termiantion of the usufruct, from the proceeds of the growing fruits,
the ordinary expenses for cultivation, for seed, and other similar
expenses incurred by the usufructuary.
The provisions of this article shall not prejudice the rights of third
persons, acquired either at the beginning or at the termination of the
usufruct.
So there will be no reimbursement to the naked owner.
So imong notation:
1.
Fruits at the beginning of the usufruct belongs to the
usufructuary.
2.
The ususfructuary has no obligation to refund/reimburse the
naked owner without prejudice to the rights of third persons.
Whatever is spent let us say by a third person. Naa roy taw siya didto
nitabang ug limpyo , pagguna para kusog mutubo. If there is a 3rd person
who participtated in cultivating harvesting or preserving it, natural katong
tawhana naay suhol naay bayad to. So kung ang 3rd person naay claim
nga 3000 kay nkagasto siya ug 3000 so ang kaning 3rd person mangayo jud
gihapon nag ilis sa usufructuary. In other words ang balaod gpalabi ang 3rd
person who may have a lien over the property than the naked owner. Ang
balaod gtagaan ug importansya ang laing taw nga nitabang lang. way bili
ang tagiya sa yuta. Wala guy reimbursement ang owner.
A third person who may have a right should not be prejudiced over the
property occupied by the usufructuary.
Third persons are entitled to whatever claims the may have against the
usufructuary.
Usufructuary vs naked owner no reimbursement.
Usufructuary vs third person who may have help directly or indirectly in the
production of the fruits entitled to refund
In this provision the law favored the third person rather than the owner.
Article 567. Natural or industrial fruits growing at the time the usufruct
Comments
Those growing at the time the usufruct terminates, belong to the owner.
In the preceding cases, the usufructuary, at the beginning of the usufruct,

has no obligation to refund to the owner any expenses incurred; but the
owner shall be obliged to reimburse at the termination of the usufruct, from
the proceeds of the growing fruits, the ordinary expenses of cultivation, for
seed, and other similar expenses incurred by the usufructuary.
The provisions of this article shall not prejudice the rights of third persons,
acquired either at the beginning or at the termination of the usufruct
This provision also speaks of PENDING FRUITS
At the time the usufruct begins and there are pending fruits existing left
ungathered in which the naked owner cultivated, the ownership of such
fruits shall belong to the usufructuary without any obligation to reimburse
the naked owner for whatever expenses he may have incurred for the
production of such fruits.
While at the time the usufruct terminates or during termination and
there are still pending fruits the ownership of such belongs to the naked
owner but he has the obligation to reimburse from the proceeds of the
growing fruits, the ordinary expenses of cultivation, for seed, and other
similar expenses incurred by the usufructuary.
The naked owner is obliged to pay the expenses in court.
Situation: the usufructuary shells out 40,000 as legitimate expenses,
entitling him to reimbursement by the naked owner. The proceeds from the
growing fruits is only 35,000. Who will shoulder the 5,000 difference? Is the
naked owner obliged to reimburse the 5,000 or should the usufructuary just
let it pass?
Naked owner is no longer obliged to pay the 5,000 because the law is
clearIn the preceding cases, the usufructuary, at the beginning of
the usufruct, has no obligation to refund to the owner any expenses
termination of the usufruct, from the proceeds of the growing fruits,
the ordinary expenses of cultivation, for seed, and other similar
expenses incurred by the usufructuary. (Art. 567)
Beyond such proceeds, the naked owner is no longer liable.
So the rule is: in the event that the expenses are greater than the
proceeds of the growing fruits, limited liability rule appliesthe
obligation of the naked owner to reimburse the usufructuary is
limited to said proceeds.
Note that the foregoing rule applies only between the
usufructuary and the naked owner. Third persons should not be
prejudiced as to their legitimate claims connected with the fruits
(e.g., naked owner hires a third person to tend to the fruits).
Thus, if there are claims from a third person, the usufructuary or
the naked owner should pay it, depending on who bound himself
to pay such third person.
Art. 568. If the usufructuary has leased the lands or tenements given
in usufruct, and the usufruct should expire before the termination of
the lease, he or his heirs and successors shall receive only the
proportionate share of the rent that must be paid by the lessee.
Effect of lease to a third person of the thing in usufruct by the
usufructuary
Sugod sa March, pagka April, gipa abangan nko ni Juan dela Cruz ang
object of the usufruct. Ok. Cge. Unya ky naa man abang, that means abang
is civil fruit, therefore, aku tu ky usufructuary man ko. Ang problema lng ky
ang lease contract 2 years man. Unya pagka Dec. 1st, natapos naman aku
usufructuary right, that means, kutob rko dha ang abanga. And belongs to
the usufructuary, in proportion to the usufruct may last. What about the
excess? Ibutang ta lng 1 year nya ang sobra, knsay muduwat atu? By
implication, it is the naked owner, because it is now reverted to the naked
owner, the very property given in usufruct. Dba nabalik na niya? Tapos
naman.
Termination of the usufruct. On the arrival of the period constituting the
usufruct. Ang implication nga ang naked owner, beyond the period of the
usufruct, belongs to the naked owner. While those rentals, during the
18

PROPERTY Reviewer
usufruct, belongs to the usufructuary. and belongs to the usufructuary in

proportion to the time that the usufruct may last.
Tanawa ang 572, ngano gud tawun, para nko ha, ngano gud tawun mka pa
abang ka beyond the period, beyond December 1, period of usufruct, you
have no more right. And then what right are you giving to the lessee when
you have no more right in the first place. How can you transfer a right which
you do not own.
Art. 572. The usufructuary may personally enjoy the thing in usufruct,
lease it to another, or alienate his right of usufruct, even by a

gratuitous title; but all the contracts he may enter into as such
usufructuary shall terminate upon the expiration of the usufruct,
saving leases of rural lands, which shall be considered as subsisting
during the agricultural year.
Expiration of Usufruct, implication
Ang lease contract, beyond the period of the usufruct, can never be
sanctioned because art. 572 says, shall terminate upon the expiration of
the usufruct. Pananglitan mu drag pa na ang term sa lease, beyond the
period of the usufruct, then that is void, because terminate naman ang
rights sa usufructuary. Where the usufructury has no more right, how can
he pass a right which no longer is existing. All the contract entered into by
the usufructuray is coterminous with his right as a usufructuary.
Where the right to usufruct has been terminated, it terminates all the
contracts likewise entered into by the usufructuary. Rentals subsequent to
the termination belongs to the naked owner, ky ngano naa pa diay life ang
lease contract? Wla naman. Because the source of the right, himself has no
more right.
Art. 569. Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily, and belong to the
usufructuary in proportion to the time the usufruct may last.
Comments
Art 569, deemed to accrue daily, civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily, and
belong to the usufructuary in proportion to the time the usufruct may last.
Mao na ang heading adtong rule sa fruit in the beginning ug termination,
rule to sa fruit nga natural and industrial, kay nganu man? Dili man to mo
apply. Deemed to accrue daily man ang civil fruits, ma split gyd nimo dayon
asa kutob ang usufruct.
568 If the usufructuary has leased the lands or tenements given in
Art
usufruct, and the usufruct should expire before the termination of the
lease, he or his heirs and successors shall receive only the
proportionate share of the rent that must be paid by the lessee.
Comments
Kanang parteha, wa tai question ana, proportionate amount ang madawat
sa heirs and successors. Pero inig basa nimo sa comment, ang succeeding
rentals ky epekto pa man ang lease sa ilang comment, so kinsa man ang
maka dawat ky naturally ang naked owner ky humana man ang usufruct.
Mao nai gi ingon nako, wala na xa oi, wala na cyay madawat, wan a cya
makabyad ky wana mai lease.
Art 570 Whenever a usufruct is constituted on the right to receive a
rent or periodical pension, whether in money or in fruits, or in the

interest on bonds or securities payable to bearer, each payment due
shall be considered as the proceeds or fruits of such right.
571 The usufructuary shall have the right to enjoy any increase
Art
which the thing in usufruct may acquire through accession, the
servitudes established in its favour, and, in general, all the benefits
inherent therein.
Accession during the period of the Usufruct

Mga attachment ba, natural or industrial, you are entitled to it, just like any
other owner. Nganu man? Because that occurred during the time you were
occupying the premises.
Obligation to preserve the form
Now, sa definition nato class, obligation to preserve the form and
substance, obligation na sa usufructuary. So, kung motorcycle ni, iuli nako
nimo ang motorcycle of course, di nato i.alter unsa iyang nature. Ang basic
concept sa usufruct, unsay gihuwaman i-uli nimo nga mao gihapon nga
butanga. Og naay gadaut, ordinary expenses, common preservation,
ipaayo nimo kay imo man na usufructuary, to return it to the condition of
usefulness.
But then duna may usufruct, with the obligation to return it at a fix time, in a
special case the equivalent thereof. So, naay usufruct diha nga di ka maguli sa butang, mao nay gitawag og abnormal usufruct, di man maoy
naandan, 74, abnormal usufruct.
574. Whenever the usufruct includes things which cannot be used
Art.
without being consumed, the usufructuary shall have the right to
make use of them under the obligation of paying their appraised value
at the termination of the usufruct, if they were appraised when
delivered. In case they were not appraised, he shall have the right to
return at the same quantity and quality, or pay their current price at
the time the usufruct ceases.
Abnormal Usufruct
Abnormal na class ang 74, because you are not going to preserve the form
and substance. Ngano man? The nature of the thing here is consumable.
Unsa toh nang consumable? Those which cannot be used or appropriated
without being consumed. Pananglitan ha, pandesal, tan-aw nimo
unconsummable, imo lang ipahid sa imong simud, busog nako. Therefore,
it is consumable then. Kanang kwarta, consumable man na, unsaon
paggamit nimo nga di mawa gikan nimo. You have to part with money as to
buy these goods. Money can be the object of usufruct. Loan itawag ta ana.
Ilisan nimo. Pero nay diperensya, sa usaufruct, mag-uli lang ka sa
equivalent niya nga amount without interest, whereas ari ka sa loan capital
+ interest.
Accurate definition- It is a real right, of temporary nature, which authorizes
the holder to enjoy all the benefits or advantages arising from its normal use
or exploitation, with the understanding to return it at a definite time or in a
special case, the equivalent .
Unsa man ning special case? Precisely mao ni siya class ang abnormal
usufruct. Kwarta, huwam ko nimo 10,000, usufruct na, unsa may iilis ko
nimo? The same amount, 10,000. Timan-i by nature of its use, mawa gyud
na gikan nimo. Bisag unsay buhaton nimo ana, pero of course uli-an taka,
dili the same thing, same amount ra. Ang nature sa usufruct, identical
thing, pero sa abnormal usufruct, amount ra dili identical kay og mao na di
ko kagasto, maglista ka sa serial number, unsaon man nako paggasto,
igpalit nimo ipakita lang ang kwarta, ayaw ihatag.
Pangutana do you have the obligation to preserve the thing? Wala, by the
nature of its use, consumable, mao nang gitawag nag abnormal.
Art. 573 Whenever the usufruct includes things which, without being
consumed, gradually deteriorate through wear and tear, the
usufuctuary shall have the right to amke use thereof in accordance
with the purpose for which they are intended, and shall not be obliged
to return them at the termination of the usufruct except in their
condition at that time, but he shall be obliged to indemnify the owner
for any deterioration they may have suffered by reason of his fraud or
negligence.
Deterioration
The point that we are trying to drive at in 573 is that all things deteriorate
with its normal use as the natural order of things. In this kind of usufruct,
you are going to return the thing in the condition it is found at the time of the
termination of the contract. The naked owner cannot complain by reason of
the wear and tear during normal use. The usufructuary may have the
obligation to preserve the form and substance under Art. 562 but the
deterioration of the thing is cuased by the wear and tear brought about by
the continued use of the property so the usufructuary is not liable to pay for
such deterioration unless damages are caused due to the negligence on the
part of the usufructuary.
2 kinds of Abnormal Usufruct
1.
Property which is Consumable in nature e.g. money
2.
Property which is Non-consumable but the Wear and Tear is

dictated by nature due to its normal use or exploitation e.g.
motorcycle
JOKE: but if isud na nimo sa aparador nya trapohan kada-oras
dili jud na xa madaan but void na ang contract due to the
unsound mind of one of the contracting parties.
Common denominator of the two is that you are not going to preserve its
form and substance.
ARTICLE 578.The usufructuary of an action to recover real property or

a real right, or any movable property, has the right to bring the action
and to oblige the owner thereof to give him the authority for this
purpose and to furnish him whatever proof he may have. If in
consequence of the enforcement of the action he acquires the thing
claimed, the usufruct shall be limited to the fruits, the dominion
remaining with the owner.
Action to recover property

A parcel of land, subject matter of usufruct. O is the owner, U is the
usufructuary. Who has the right to file an action in a case involving that land
subject of usufruct against a third person? Is it the naked owner or is it the
usufructuary? Silang duha. Either. Because the naked owner is still the
owner while the usufructuary may. Di sya owner ha but then authorized
man sya sa balaod. In fact he can compel the naked owner to execute a
necessary special power of attorney to effect the filing of the action. In fact
he can compel the naked owner to produce a document or proof so he can
use it during the litigation.
DONATION
Kanus-a man ang donation ma-perfected? 734 kay gitubag na diretso.
Donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the
734.
acceptance by the donee.
Sa libro ha, ig kahibaw gyud kuno sa donor nga nidawat na ang donee,
perfected ang donation. Sige, ako noh prospective donee. Ang akong donor
taga Bacolod. He was to donate a car worth half million.
So pada kog suwat tua man siya nipuyo sa Bacolod City manifesting my
willingness to acceptance of the donation. So, nagpada kog suwat. Ang
suwat nadawat July 11 Friday informing him that I am willing to accept. Is
the contract of donation perfected? Kahibaw naman siya, kadawat siya,
nabasa niya. Ah nidawat ang donee. Gitan-aw paman gani niya ang suwat
ug ingon ug thank you thank you. Siyay nidonate, siya rapud ni thank you.
Alright, ang ako perfected naba? Following the language of the law,
Donation is perfected from the moment the donor knows of the acceptance
by the donee. Not outright. Tan-awa ang matter of form gi-comply ba ang
748, 749.
Ang gidonate awto,movable property, ang value half million, 500k. buot
pasabot kitang tanan nahibawo nga ang value sa 500k noh sobra na sa 5k
diba? Following the letter of the law, makaingon ka perfected na kay ngano
man? Squarely falling under 734.
734. The contract of donation is perfected from the moment the
Art
donor knows of the acceptance by the donee.
Art. 748. The donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing.
An oral donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or of

the document representing the right donated.
If the value of the personal property donated exceeds five thousand
pesos, the donation and the acceptance shall be made in writing,
otherwise, the donation shall be void.
Form
In due form. Sa ato pa ang husto na pamaagi sa unsay gusto sa balaod
Unya class gawas sa form? Valid na gyud ni ui?
There is something na wa ma appreciate ni siya. Kana ang Art. 1323. Wa
gyud sila mag huna huna sa application ana.
Art.
1323 An offer becomes ineffective upon the death, civil

interdiction, insanity, or insolvency of either party before acceptance
is conveyed.
Wa gyud nila na elaborate sa donation. Sa obligation ni. The offer becomes
ineffective upon the death, civil interdiction, insanity or insolvency of either
party before acceptance is conveyed.
Kung pananglitan gidawat ang suwat nato class gibasa niya. Then gibasa
niya, kung ang donor namatay one day earlier. Ako lang ang nakadawat
ang prospective donee. Nadawat nako ang suwat niya informing me na he
will donate. Mail nako nadawat niya June 11, 2014, aaah willing ang donee.
Tungod lang na he knows the acceptance of the donee, na perfected na
ba? Ang circumstances na you will consider before you say yes:
(1)
Balik ta sa donation, nadawat nako karun, ako ang

donor, ang acceptance. Ordinarily, perfected na siya
because I came to know of the acceptance. But class,
yesterday the donee died. Is there a perfected
contract of donation, considering you have knowledge
of the acceptance. Answer: there is no donation.
Why? Donee died the day before. Donor came to
know of acceptance July 5. Donee died July 4 (the
day before). Sa ato pa pagkadawat nako sa July 5,
wa na class. What is there for me to accept? What is
my capacity as a donor? I came to know the
acceptance of the donee, but when I came to know of
the acceptance, one day earlier namatay naman.
Donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously

of a thing or right in favor of another, who accepts it (Art. 725, CC)
When a person gives to another a thing or right on account of the

latters merits or of the services rendered by him to the donor,
provided they do not constitute a demandable debt, or when the gift
imposes upon the done a burden which is less than the value of the
thing given, there is also a donation. (Art. 726, NCC)
Is it in the proper form

Unsa man ang proper form kung P500,000 ang gi
donate? It has got to be in writing, public or private.
That letter would be sufficient because that is in
writing. All right, na manifested man in writing.
(2)
na siya. And therefore ang offer to donate, in order na

ma effective, kinahanglan buhi ang offeror ang offeree
at the time of acceptance. Kung buhi walay nabuang.
Kung dili buang, walay na insolvent. Ug dili sad ka
civil interdicted.
Tan-awa either party buhi pa ba

Why? Ug usa ka party namatay na, butang ta lang 1
hour before you received the acceptance, then the
donation cannot be a perfected contract.
Ako ang donor, gipadad-an ko ug suwat. Nadawat
nako karun, akong frustrated donee nidawat.
Therefore, my knowledge will perfect then or give rise
to a perfected donation, ordinarily. But then I said,
layo pa kaayo na ui. Think about it. Is it proper as to
form? I submit the form is proper, this is a letter but
nevertheless it is in writing. So therefore, that will
qualify.
Art. 1323 is still controlling. It says the offer becomes
ineffective upon the death, insanity, civil interdiction or
insolvency of either party before acceptance in
conveyed. Therefore, either party.
Supposing my donor died yesterday. Nadawat nako
ang suwat karun. Unya namatay gihapon siya. Unsa
man ang resulta? There is no perfected contract.
Why? Class, the offer to donate on the part of the
donor is no longer effective. Katung suwat niya na
muhatag siya ug donation nako, sugot ba ko, offer to
donate. Ni baws ko na sugot ko, nadawat na niya.
If the donation is simple or remuneratory, the formalities prescribed by the

following must be complied with:
The donation of a movable may be made orally or in writing. An oral
donation requires the simultaneous delivery of the thing or of the

document representing the right donated. If the value of the personal
property donated exceeds five thousand pesos, the donation and the
acceptance shall be made in writing. Otherwise, the donation shall be
void. (Art 748,NCC)
order that the donation of an immovable may be valid, it must be

In
made in a public document, specifying therein the property donated
and the value of the charges which the donee must satisfy.
The acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a
separate public document, but it shall not take effect unless it is done
during the lifetime of the donor.
If the acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor shall be
notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall be noted in
both instruments. (Art 749, NCC)
If the donation is conditional, the formalities prescribed by the above

articles are applicable to that portion which exceeds the value of the
burden imposed, while the formalities prescribed for the execution of
ordinary contracts are applicable to that portion which is the
equivalent of such burden. (Art 733, NCC)
Kung walay nahitabo sa parties, and in due form,

perfected donation.
Supposing, donor received it on July 5 but ang akong
donee died yesterday, July 4. Mu offer gani to give,
that is an offer to donate. It is covered by Art. 1323.
Unsay ngan nimo sa tao. Offeror ang nihagad.
Offeree ang gihagad. In donation, kanang
pagpahibaw nimo na tagaan la niya, offer to donate
20

PROPERTY Reviewer
If the donation is onerous, the formalities prescribed for the execution of

ordinary contracts shall be complied with (Art 733, NCC)
And if donation is mortis causa, the formalities prescribed by the CC (Art
804-814) for the execution of wills shall be complied with (Art 728, NCC)
OFFER TO DONATE (Situation)

An offer to donate a personal property that exceeds the value of 5k

BECOMES INEFFECTIVE the moment the donor dies without the donee
accepting the offer yet.

CIVLAW Property

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVLAW Property

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CIVLAW Property

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

[PROPERTY

Those already appropriated, and

Those which may be the object of appropriation

Those which are not appropriated

Those, which can never be the object of appropriation.

The Sun , the sky, the air, the ocean, etc.

(3) Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a

All things which are or may be the object of appropriation are

Art. 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:

Art. 415. The following are immovable property:

property should remain undivided for a certain period

Art. 417. The following are also considered as personal property:

A limitation imposed by the owner himself this limits the

(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial entities,

Growing Fruits/Standing crops

Example: If the owner pledges the property, the

Example: If the owner lease his property, the property

Limitations arising from the exercise of some other similar rights.

Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights.

Example: You have a lot which is adjacent to another

Thus we conclude that ownership is never absolute because it has its

Extent an owner is allowed to exercise

General limitations imposed by the state based on the police

Example: If there is fire and your building is the one

Example: Taxes, which are levied by the law making

Specific limitation imposed by law

Limitation by the person transmitting the property by contract or

Example: Your lot is adjacent to a highway. You are

Example: The testator tells you that: I will give this

That there is an actual or threatened unlawful physical

In bisaya: g.hulga ka nga mawala imung butang, iyang gbuhat supak sa

Every owner may enclose or fence his land or tenements by means of

If the finder is a stranger, and also authorized, you still

The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of

No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent

Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other

Requisites before one is entitiled to

which is produced thereby or which is incorporated or attached

By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and

If the finder is the owner of the land himself, who

Article 441. To the owner belongs:

442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil,

Spontaneous products of the soil

444. Only such as are manifest or born are considered as

Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another

Accession discreta embraces natural, industrial and civil fruits.

Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another

Sub-classifications are thus, in accession continua, the attachment

Landowner is in good faith kung no knowledge nga nay nagtrabaho sa

So padayon ang pagpanagiya sa owner sa materials. Madefeat ang right of

I am the landowner and at the same time builder but I

If the landowner is in BAD FAITH while the owner of the material is in

BPS forfeits the improvement without indemnity to the land

Forcible demolition or removal of the improvement at the

He may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the

It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner

But there is a consolation for the builder, planter, sower.

builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to

Article 458. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not