=======================

PROPERTY, OWNERSHIP, AND ITS MODIFICATIONS

can be found in Book II of the civil code of the Philippines
Art. 414 of Civil Code gives us the definition of property and property is a thing which may be the object of
appropriation
- when we say appropriate, we make one's own, in other words a property is a thing that can be owned, it is open to
public ownership or private ownership or maybe it has no owner but it is capable of being owned, then that is property

So there are three important characteristics to say that a thing is a property and these characteristics are

1. UTILITY - means the ability to serve as a means to satisfy human wants

So property ideally is used by a human being or a person in order to serve some wants or need.
I say need or wants because the purpose of property need not to be essential. So even if its non essential if it serves a
purpose, it will meet the requirement of utility

2.SUBSTANTIVITY - it exist independently of other things

In other words it can be segregated from its class or it can be separated from other things. It has substance and that it is
independent of other things

3. APPROPRIABILITY - it can be the object of a juridical relation

We say that property is open to ownership but when we say appropriability its not limited to absolute ownership
So what are the examples of property based on these characteristics?
HOUSE - has utility because it serve to shelter
• it also meet the characteristics of substantivity because it exist independently of other things , it can be
segregated from other houses
• apropriability because it can be a subject of juridical relation. House can be own, but it can be lease, can be
mortgage
• since all the characteristics are met so therefore a house is a property.
CAR is also a property because it has utility. it can be used for transportation
• Now, it is substantive? Yes because it can be segragated from its class. it is independent of other cars
• Now, do car meet the appropriabiilty requirment?
• Of course, it can be owned but it can also be leased or mortgage

Now, Right to Property is constitutionality protected right.

Art. III Section 1 of the Constitution that '' no person shall be deprived of life liberty and property without the due
process of law.
So owning property,using and enjoying your property that is constitutionally protected by law.

There are several classifications of property but the most important classification of property IS IMMOVABLE AND
MOVABLE.
IMMOVABLE OR REAL PROPERTY
MOVABLE OR PERSONAL PROPERTY
The importance of its classification is that different provisions of the law governs the acquisition, possession,
disposition , loss and registration of movable and immovable property
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY - according to roman law it is which cannot be transferred from one place to another because it
is impossible to do so or it cannot be transferred without suffering injury or destruction

IN ART 415 OF CIVIL CODE IT IS SPECIFIED DIFFERENT KIND OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

(1) land, building roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil
Land is the best example of immovable property. It is immovable by its very nature. And even if land is moved by an
earthquake, an extraordinary happening, the land should still be considered immovable. A shovelful of land however,
should be considered personal property, since this no longer adheres to the soil. If land is rented, it is still immovable.so
anything that is adhered to the soil by nature is immovable property
(2) Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land or form an integral part of an immovable;
by nature it is immovable
No matter what their size may be, trees and plants are considered real property, by nature if they are the spontaneous
products of the soil, and by incorporation, if they were planted thru labor. But the moment they are detached or
uprooted from the land, they become personal property, except in the case of uprooted timber, if the land is timber
land. This is because, although no longer attached, the timber still forms an “integral part” of the timber land
— immovable. (See 3 Manresa 22). Indeed, trees blown by a typhoon still remain part of the land upon which they rest,
and should be considered real property
EXAMPLE:
A filed registration proceedings for a parcel of land. The land contained trees and plants still annexed to the soil. If A
succeeds in having the land registered under his name, will he also be considered the owner of the trees and plants?

HELD: Yes, trees and plants annexed to the land are parts thereof, and unless rights or interests in such trees or plants
are claimed in the registration proceedings by others, they become the property of the person to whom the land is
adjudicated. (Lavarro v. Labitoria, 54 Phil.

Buildings are considered immovable provided they are

more or less of a permanent structure, substantially adhering to the land, and not mere superimpositions on the land
like barong-barongs or quonset fi xtures and provided there is the intent of permanent annexation
(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;
Examples: A fixed statue in the garden of a house, a permanent painting on the ceiling, a picture embedded in the
concrete walls of a house, a rug or carpet fastened to the floor, as in the case of wall to wall carpeting.
(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;
Essential Requisites
1) The placing must be made by the owner of the tenement, his agent, or duly authorized legal representative.
2) The industry or works must be carried on in the building or on the land. A transportation business is not carried on in
a building or in the compound.
3) The machines, etc., must tend directly to meet the needs of said industry or works. (ADAPTABILITY).
4) The machines must be essential and principal elements in the industry, and not merely incidental.
[Thus, cash registers, typewriters, calculators,computers, fax machines, etc., usually found and used in hotels,
restaurants, theaters, etc. are merely incidentals, and not and should not be considered immobilized by destination, for
these businesses can continue or carry on their functions without these equipments. The same applies to the repair or
service shop of the transportation business because the vehicles may be repaired or serviced in another shop belonging
to another. On the other hand, machineries of breweries used in the manufacture of liquor and soft drinks, though
movable by nature, are immobilized because they are essential to said industries; but the delivery trucks and adding
machines which they usually own and use and are found within their industrial compounds are merely incidentals and
retain their movable nature.

(b) Paragraph 5 refers to real property by destination or purpose

Examples of the machinery, receptacles, instruments, implements.
1) Machines placed in a sugar central (and therefore ,if the central has already been the subject of a real estate
mortgage, the machines become subject also to such mortgage).
2) Machines attached to concrete foundations of buildings in a fi xed manner such that they cannot be separated
therefrom without unbolting the same and cutting some of their wooden supports. (Machinery v. Pecson, L-7057, Oct.
29, 1954).
(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;
The “houses” referred to here may already be deemed included in paragraph 1 when speaking of “constructionsof all
kinds adhered to the soil.” (See 3 Manresa 31). (b) The Animals Inside
Inasmuch as there used to be doubts before as to whether or not the animals in the “houses” are included as real
property, the Code Commission decided to eliminate confusion on the matter. (See 1 Capistrano, pp. 338- 339).
(c) Suppose the Animals are Temporarily Outside
It is submitted that even if the animals are temporarily outside, they may still be considered as “real property,’’ as long
as the intent to return is present, as in the case of a homing pigeon. But from the point of view of criminal law, they
must be considered as personal property, and may properly be the object of theft or robbery.
(d) Alienation of the Animals
When the animals inside the permanent animal
houses are alienated onerously or gratuitously, it is believed that the transaction is an alienation of personal property,
unless the building or the tenement is itselfalso alienated. This is because in said alienation, the animal structures must
of necessity be detached from the immovable. Hence, an ordinary inter vivos donation of a pigeon-house need not be in
a public instrument.
(7) Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land;
Fertilizers still in the barn and even those already onthe ground but wrapped inside some newspapers or any other
covering are still to be considered personal property, for they
have not yet been “actually” used or spread over the land.

(8) Mines, quarries, and slag dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either running or
stagnant;
Mines, including the minerals still attached thereto,are real properties, but when the minerals have been extracted, the
latter become chattels. (See 40 C.J., pp.903-904).
(b) “Slag dump’’ is the dirt and soil taken from a mine and piled upon the surface of the ground. Inside the “dump’’ can
be found the minerals. (Nordstrom v. Sivertson-Johnson Min., etc. Co., 5 Alaska 204).
(c) The “waters” referred to are those still attached to or running thru the soil or ground. But “water” itself as
distinguished from “waters,” is clearly personal property.
Upon the other hand, canals, rivers, lakes, and such part of the sea as may be the object of appropriation, are classifi ed
as real property
(9) Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fxed place on
a river, lake, or coast
Floating House
A floating house tied to a shore or bank post and used as a residence is considered real property, considering that the
“waters” on which it fl oats, are considered immovables. In a way, we may say that the classifi cation of the accessory
(the fl oating house) follows the classifi cation of the principal (the waters). However, if the fl oating house makes it a
point to journey from place to place, it assumes the category of a vessel.
(b) Vessels
1) Vessels are considered personal property. As a matter of fact, they are indeed very movable. (See PhilippineRefi ning
Co., Inc. v. Jarque, 61 Phil. 229).
2) Because they are personal property, they may be the subject of a chattel mortgage. (McMicking v. Banco Español-
Filipino, 13 Phil. 429; Arroyo v. Yu de Sane, 54 Phil. 7). However, a chattel mortgage ona vessel should be registered not
in the Registry of deeds or Property, but in the record of the Collector of Customs at the Port of Entry. (Rubiso and
Gelitov. Rivera, 37 Phil. 72; Arroyo v. Yu de Sane, 54 Phil.7). In all other respects, however, a chattel mortgage on a
vessel is generally like other chattel mortgages as to its requisites and validity. (Phil. Refi ning Co.,Inc. v. Jarque, 61 Phil.
229).
3) Although vessels are personal property, they partake to a certain extent of the nature and conditions of real property
because of their value and importance in the world of commerce. Hence, the rule in the Civil Code with reference to
acquisition of rights over immovable property (particularly the rules on double sale) can be applied to vessels. (This is
especially so since the rules in the Civil Code, Art. 1544, on a double sale of realty are repeated in the Code of
Commerce.) Hence, priority of registration by a purchaser in good faith will give him a better right than one who
registers his right subsequently. (Rubiso v. Rivera, 37 Phil. 72). This is true whether the ships or vessels be moved by
steam or by sail. (Rubiso v. Rivera, supra).
(par. 10 ) Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property.
Under the old Civil Code, the words “administrative concessions for public works” were used instead of “contracts for
public works.”
(b) Rights
The properties referred to in paragraph 10 are not material things but rights, which are necessarily intangible. (See 3
Manresa 11). The piece of paper on which the contract for public works has been written is necessarily personal
property, but the contract itself, or rather, theright to the contract, is real property. A servitude or easement is an
encumbrance imposed on an immovable for the benefi t of another immovable belonging to another owner, or for the
benefi t of a person, group of persons, or a community (like the easement of right of way). (Arts.613-614). Other real
rights over real property include real mortgage (see Hongkong and Shanghai Bank v. Aldecoa and Co., 30 Phil. 255),
antichresis, possessory retention, usufruct and leases of real property, when the leases havebeen registered in the
Registry of Property; or even if notregistered, if their duration is for more than a year.
Upon the other hand, the usufruct of personal property or a lease of personal property, should be considered personal
property.
====================
MOVABLE PROPERTY ( ARTICLE 416 -417 ) CIVIL CODE
Article 416. The following things are deemed to be personal property:
(1) Those movables susceptible of appropriation which are not included in the preceding article;
So the law says, if it is not included in article 415 of Civil Code , karuyag sidngon movable ito na property
so if thing is not attached to the soil , the thing doesnt meet the test of immovable by nature, if it is not attached by the
owner to made permanent then it is movable
ex: pen our using , watch your wearing or even your favorite bag
(2) Real property which by any special provision of law is considered as personal property;
ex: growing crops as considered personal property of Chattel Mortgage Law
machinery placed on a tenement by a tenant who did not act as the agent of the tenement owner
(3) Forces of nature which are brought under control by science;
ex; electricity, gas, light, nitrogen.
U.S. v. Carlos
FACTS:
The defendant used a “jumper” and was thus able to divert the fl ow of electricity, causing loss to the Meralco of over
2000 kilowatts of current. Accused of theft, his defense was that electricity was an unknown force, not a fluid, andbeing
intangible, could not be the object of theft.
HELD: While electric current is not a fluid, still its manifestations and effects like those of gas may be seen and felt. The
true test of what may be stolen is not whether it is corporeal or incorporeal, but whether, being possessed of value, a
person other than the owner, may appropriate the same. Electricity, like gas, is a valuable merchandise, and may thus be
stolen.
(4) In general, all things which can be transported from place to place without impairment of the real property to
which they are fixed.
example: basta na move move mo hiya, considered as movable
— machinery not attached to land nor needed for the carrying on of an industry conducted therein; portable radio; a
laptop computer; a diploma hanging on the wall.

Three Tests to Determine whether Property Is Movable or Immovable

Manresa mentions three tests:
(a) If the property is capable of being carried from place to place (test by description);
(b) If such change in location can be made without injuring the real property to which it may in then meantime be
attached (test by description); and
(c) If finally, the object is not one of those enumerated or included in Art. 415 (test by exclusion).
Then the inevitable conclusion is that the property is personal property.

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

(1) Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable sums; and
Paragraph 1: “Obligations and actions which have for their object movables or demandable sums.’’
(a) Examples: If somebody steals my car, my right to bring an action to recover the automobile is personal property by
itself. If my debtor owes me P1 million, my credit as well as my right to collect by judicial action is also personal
property. This is because, although the law uses the term “obligations,” same really refers to rights or credits. If my
credit has not yet matured, my right to collect it eventually is considered personal property, even if in the meantime, the
money is not yet due. Of course, till the debt matures, I have no right yet to actually collect; but a right to collect in the
future exists already (now); and this is why I am allowed to bring in the meantime, actions to preserve my right. If the
object is illegal, it is not considered demandable and therefore no right exists. Note, however, that a right to recover
possession for instance of a piece of land is considered real, and not personal property. This is because the object of my
right is an immovable.
(b) A promissory note is personal property; the right to collect it is also personal property; but a mortgage on real estate
is real property by analogy. (Par. 10, Art. 415; see also Hilado v. Register of Deeds, 49 Phil. 542; Hongkong and Shanghai
Bank v. Aldecoa and Co., 30 Phil. 255).
(2) Shares of stock of agricultural, commercial and industrial entities, although they may have real estate. (336a)
Examples:
A share of stock in a gold mining corporation is personal property; but the gold mine itself, as well as any land of the
corporation, is regarded as real property by the law. The certifi cate itself evidencing ownership of the share, as well as
the share itself, is regarded as personal property. Being personal, it may be the object of a chattel mortgage
===========
PROPERTY IN RELATION TO THE PERSON TO WHOM IT BELONGS
Art. 419. Property is either of public dominion or of private ownership.
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMINION:
 (1) Those intended for public use, such as roads, canals ,rivers, torrents, ports and bridges constructed by the State,
banks, shores, roadsteads, and others of similar character;

(2) Those which belong to the State, without being for public use, and are intended for some public service or for the
development of the national wealth.
‘Public Dominion’ Defined
In a sense, public dominion means ownership by the State in that the State has control and administration; in another
sense, public dominion means ownership by the public in general, in that not even the State or subdivisions thereof may
make them the object of commerce as long as they remain properties for public use. Such is the case, for example, of a
river or a town plaza.

Three Kinds of Property of Public Dominion

(a) For public use — like roads, canals (may be used by ANYBODY).
(b) For public service — like national government buildings,army rifles, army vessels (may be used only by duly
authorized persons).
(c) For the development of national wealth — like our natural resources.
PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMINION
Concept: It is not owned by the state but pertains to the state, which, as territorial sovereign exercises certain juridical
prerogatives over such property. The ownership of such properties is in the social group, whether national, provincial or
municipal.
Purpose: To serve the citizens and not the state as a juridical person.
CHARACTERISTICS:
Outside the commerce of man
They are outside the commerce of man, and cannot be leased, donated, sold, or be the object of any contract but they
may be the object of repairs or improvements and other incidental things of similar character.
(b) They cannot be acquired by prescription; no matter how long the possession of the properties has been, “there can
be no prescription against the State regarding property of the public domain.”
(c) They cannot be registered under the Land Registration Law and be the subject of a Torrens Title; if erroneously
included in a Torrens Title, the land involved remains property of public dominion.
(e) In general, they can be used by everybody

Mun. of Cavite v. Rojas

30 Phil. 602
FACTS: The Municipal Council of Cavite in 1907 withdrew and excluded from public use a part of its plaza in order to
lease same for the benefi t of defendant Rojas. Issue was the validity of the lease.
HELD: The lease is null and void, because streets and plazas are outside the commerce of man, since they are properties
for public use. In creating the lease, the municipality exceeded its authority because it did something it was not
empowered to do. The lessee must therefore vacate the premises. In turn, the municipality must reimburse the rentals
which had already been paid to it. (In this case, the lessee had not received any benefi t, from the lease. If there had
been such benefi t there might have been no reimbursement of rent, as held in Sanchez
v. Mun. of Asingan, L-17635, Mar. 30, 1963). [NOTE: While in case of war or during an emergency, town plazas may be
temporarily occupied by private individuals, still, when the emergency ceases, the temporary occupation or use must
also cease. Indeed, a town plaza cannot be used for the construction of market stalls or of residences. Such structures
constitute a nuisance subject to abatement according to law. (Espiritu, et al. v. Mun. Council of Pozorrubio,
Pangasinan,L-11014, Jan. 21, 1958). Neither may a town plaza be donated to the Roman Catholic Church. (Harty v. Mun.
of Victoria, 13 Phil. 152).].
Commonwealth v. Meneses
38 O.G. 123, p. 2389
FACTS: A fi shery was constructed on a river. For many years, the constructor of the fi shery remained in its possession.
Issue: whether or not the constructor has acquired ownership over said river.
HELD: Rivers are not subject to private appropriation. The law of prescription does not apply to them.
Insular Government v. Aldecoa
19 Phil. 505
FACTS: In 1907, the government demanded from Aldecoa and Co., the possession of a piece of land which had
beenformed by the action of the sea. Aldecoa and company claimed ownership on the ground that the adjacent land
was theirs, andthat their erection of a wall was responsible for the forming of the new parcel of land.
HELD: The land produced by the action of the sea is of public ownership and cannot therefore be acquired by any
private person or entity inasmuch as same belongs to the state.Furthermore, the company did not ask government
permission to set up the wall.

Government v. Cabangis
53 Phil. 112
FACTS: In 1896, A owned a parcel of land, but because of the action of the waves of Manila Bay, part of said land
wasgradually submerged in the sea. It remained submerged until 1912 when the government decided to make the
necessary dredging to reclaim the land from the sea. As soon as the land had been recovered A took possession of it.
Issue: the ownershipof the reclaimed land.
HELD: The government owns the reclaimed land in the sense that it has become property of public dominion, because in
letting it remain submerged, A may be said to have abandoned the same. Having become part of the sea or the
seashore, it became property for public use. When the government took steps to make it land again, its status as public
dominion remained unchanged; therefore, A is not entitled to the land

City of Manila v. Garcia

L-26053, Feb. 21, 1967
FACTS: Squatters entered land belonging to the City of Manila, and constructed dwellings thereon. The lot was a public
lot intended for school purposes. When their occupancy was offi cially brought to the attention of the city authorities,
someof the squatters were given “lease contracts’’ by then Mayor Fugoso. Others received “permits’’ from Mayor de la
Fuente.
The squatters were then charged nominal rentals. When the city decided to use the lot for the expansion of the Epifanio
de los Santos Elementary School, it asked the squatters to vacate the premises and to remove the improvements. The
squatters refused. The City then sued to recover possession of the lot.
Issue: May the squatters be ejected?
HELD: Yes, for they never really became tenants. The property being a public one, the Manila mayors did not have the
authority to give permits, written or oral, to the squatters.
The permits granted are, therefore, considered null and void.

==================
PROPERTY OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
refer to all property belonging to private persons either individually or collectively and those belonging to the State and
any of its political subdivisions which are patrimonial in nature.
OWNERSHIP
The right to enjoy, dispose, and recover a thing without further limitations than those established by law or the will of
the owner.
If I am the owner of a house, I can:(a) live in it (b) use it (c) receive rentals from a tenant in case I lease it (d) destroy it
(e) sell or mortgage or donate or alter it (f) recover it from anyone who has deprived me of its rightful possession

Rights included:
1. Right to enjoy: includes
a) to possess (jus possidendi)

The right to possess means the right to hold a thing or to enjoy a right. In either case, it means that the thing or right is
subject to the control of my will. (Arts. 1495, 1496, 1497).
(b) If I sell what I own, I am duty bound to transfer its possession, actually or constructively, to the buyer. (Arts. 1495,
1496, 1497).
If I lease my house to L, L has the right to physically possess my house for the duration of the lease as long as he
complies with the conditions of the contract, otherwise, if I should eject him forcibly from the house, he may bring an
action of forcible entry against me, even if I am the owner. (Masallo v. Cesar, 39 Phil. 134).
b) to use (jus utendi)
The right to use includes the right to exclude any person,as a rule, from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this
purpose, the owner-possessor may use such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual or
threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of the property.(Art. 429).
c) to the fruits (jus fruendi) and accessions
The right to the fruits includes the right to three kinds of fruits — natural, industrial and civil fruits (such as rents =from
buildings). The right to natural fruits extends to the young of animals. (Art. 441). It has been held that only owners, and
not mortgagees, can claim damages for injury to the fruits of a piece of land and for injury caused by the deprivation of
possession. The recovery of these damages is indeed an attribute of ownership. (Calo v. Prov. Sheriff of Laguna, [CA] L-
214-R, Mar. 5, 1954).
d) to abuse (jus abutendi)
In Roman law, jus abutendi did not really mean the right to abuse, but the right to consume. However, modern
terminology allows both meanings. A person can indeed burn his own house if in an isolated place, but not where the
burning would endanger the properties of others. A person can dispose of his wealth, but he must leave enough for his
own support and for those whom he is obliged to support. (Art. 750). If a person wastes his money for the purpose of
depriving his compulsory heirs of their rightful legitime, he may be declared a spendthrift or prodigal. (Martinez v.
Martinez, 1 Phil. 182).

8) Jus Disponendi
The right to dispose includes the right to donate, to sell, to pledge or mortgage. However, a seller need not be the
owner at the time of perfection of the contract of sale. It is suffi cient
that he be the owner at the time of delivery. (Art. 1459). It is essential in the contract of mortgage or pledge that the
mortgagor or the pledgor be the owner of the thing mortgaged or pledged, otherwise the contract is null and void. (Art.
2085; see also Contreras v. China Banking Corp., [CA] GR 74, May 25, 1946). A mortgage, whether registered or not, is
binding between the parties, registration being necessary only to make =the same valid as against third persons.
(Samanillo v. Cajucom, et al., L-13683, Mar. 28, 1960). A husband cannot ordinarilydonate property of considerable
value to his wife as long as the marriage lasts. Such a donation is considered null and void.(Art. 133; Uy Coque v. Navas,
45 Phil. 430). The same rule is applicable to a donation between a common-law husband and a common-law wife,
according to a decision promulgated by theCourt of Appeals.
(9) Jus Vindicandi
The right to recover is given expressly in Art. 428 which provides that “the owner has also a right of action against the
holder and possessor of the thing in order to recover it.”
Moreover “every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein, he shall be
protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws and the Rules of Court.” (Art. 539, par.
1). Thus, jus vindicandi is transmissible to the heirs or assignees of the person entitled to it. (See Waite v. Peterson, et
al., 8 Phil. 449). If somebody actually possesses a piece of property, and claims to be the owner thereof, the law raises a
disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must then resort to judicial process for the recovery of the
property. (Art. 433). In other words, the true owner must not take the law into hisown hands.
==========
‘Ownership’ Defined
Ownership is the independent and general right of a person to control a thing particularly in his possession,
enjoyment,disposition, and recovery, subject to no restrictions except those imposed by the state or private persons,
without prejudice to the provisions of the law.
Kinds of Ownership

(a) Full ownership (dominium or jus in re propia) — this includes all the rights of an owner.

(b) Naked ownership (nuda proprietas) — this is ownership where the right to the use and the fruits has been denied.

(c) Sole ownership — where the ownership is vested in only one person.
(d) Co-ownership (or Tenancy in Common) — when the ownership is vested in two or more owners.
Each co-owner, together with the other co-owners, is the owner of the whole, and at the same time, the owner of an
undivided aliquot part thereof
(19) Right of Ownership Not Absolute
The right of ownership is not absolute. There are limitations which are imposed for the benefi t of humanity, and which
are based on certain legal maxims, such as the following:
(a) The welfare of the people is the supreme law of the land.
(b) Use your property so as not to impair the rights of others. “Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas.’’ “The owner of a
thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person.’’(Art. 431).
(20) The Limitations on Ownership
(a) Those given by the State or the Law.
(b) Those given by the owner (or grantee) himself.
(c) Those given by the person (grantor) who gave the thing to its present owner.
(21) Examples
(a) Limitations imposed by the State — police power, power of taxation, power of eminent domain.
(b) Limitations imposed by the Law — the legal easement of waters, the legal easement of right of way.
(c) Limitations imposed by the owner — when the owner leases his property to another, said owner in the meantime
cannot physically occupy the premises; when the owner pledges his personal property, he has in the meantime to
surrender its possession.
(d) Limitations imposed by the grantor — the donor may prohibit the donees from partitioning the property for a period
not exceeding twenty

Police power is the right of the State to regulate and restrict personal and property rights for the common weal.
==================

There is no law that states that legitimate siblings will receive different inheritance based on their age or gender.
According to Article 774 of the New Civil Code, "Succession" or "Inheritance" is a method of ownership in which
property, rights and obligations within the limits of human inheritance are transferred upon the death of a person
through "will" or writing of the last will or as prescribed by law.

Therefore, the right to the inheritance of the parents can only be acquired if the parents have died and it cannot be
acquired during their lifetime. Parents have the right to sell or mortgage their property while they are alive even without
the consent of their heir because they do not yet have the right to it. If the parent has died, only then is the right to
inheritance transferred and this inheritance is equally divided among all legitimate children, regardless of age, sex and
other circumstances because the law determines this known as "LEGITIMES".

LEGITIME is the right of the heir or heir to inherit the property of his parent reserved by law for him. It cannot be
changed, reduced or increased by anyone who does not comply with the New Civil Code because it is fixed by law. It can
only be waived by the heir if his parent is dead and it must be written and signed by the heir.
====================

Usaping Heritance o Mana sa ariarian/lupa ng yumaong magulang pano nga ba hahatiin ito ng mga magkakapatid?

- sa batas meron tayong tinatawag na TESTATE o pagkamatay na may huling habilin. basta may Last will and testament
ang tawag dito ay TESTATE inheritance.
- meron din tayong tinatawag na INTESTATE o pagkamatay na walang huling habilin o ang tawag ay INTESTATE
inheritance.
- karaniwan na ngyayari pag namatay ang isang magulang na may ariariang lupa walang last will and testament at bahala
na ang mga maiiwan nyang anak na maghati hati sa lupa.
- ang problema nga lang is di maiwasan na nagtatalo o nagkakagulo dahil sa partihan o hatian ano nga ba ang dpat gawin
para mahati ito ng maayos?

Eto ang paraan.

- sa korte ay mag file kayo ng case na INTESTATE proceedings dapat may (abogado) na gagabay o syang magaasikaso at
magpagawa ng;
1. Extrajudicial settlement - kung kayo ay boluntaryo na magkakasundo na partihin o hatiin na ang lupa o hating kapatid.
2. Affidavit of self adjudication - kung kayo ay nagiisa lamang na magmamana.
Paano pag hndi nagkakasundo ang mga magkakapatid sa hatian? That's the time na mag file ng case sa court ng
INTESTATE proceedings at bahala na ang korte na mag divide o hati sa mga taga pagmana.
- kung may last will and testament mas mainam para maiwasan ang pagtatalo pagdating sa hatian ng ariarian. at pwede
ipa approve sa korte habang buhay pa ang magulang.
Paano kung na approved na ng korte ang last will and testament at kinalaunan nagbago ang isip ng magulang dahil
buhay pa sila e nagkakagulo na sa hatian hehehe at nagalit ang magulang sinira ang last will and testament pupwede ba
iyon???

Sagot: Yes pwede dahil ang idea ng last will and testament ay AMBULATORY ibig sabihin pwedeng baguhin hanggat sa
mamatay ang magbibigay mana. sa madaling sabi kung anu ang huling habilin ng magbibigay mana yun ang masusunod.

TESTATE AND INTESTATE SUCCESSION.

=============

TRANSLATION IN ENGLISH
Matter of Inheritance or Mana in the property/land of the deceased parent, how will the siblings divide it?
- in law we have what is called a TESTATE or death with a last will. as long as there is a Last will and testament it is called
TESTATE inheritance.
- we also have what is called INTESTATE or death without a last will or what is called INTESTATE inheritance.
- it usually happens when a parent who owns land dies without a last will and testament and it is up to the children left
behind to divide the land.
- the only problem is that it is inevitable to argue or get into trouble because of the party or division, what exactly should
be done to divide it properly?

Here's the way.

- in court, you file a case of INTESTATE proceedings, there must be a (lawyer) who will guide or handle it and have them
do;
1. Extrajudicial settlement - if you voluntarily agree to divide or divide the land or divided siblings.
2. Affidavit of self adjudication - if you are the sole heir.
What if the siblings do not agree on the division? That's the time to file a case in the court of INTESTATE proceedings and
it's up to the court to divide or divide among the heirs.
- if there is a last will and testament it is better to avoid disputes when it comes to dividing the property. and can be
approved by the court while the parent is still alive.
What if the court has approved the last will and testament and later the parents change their minds because they are
still alive and they are having trouble with the division hehehe and the parents get angry and destroy the last will and
testament, is that possible???

Answer: Yes, it is possible because the idea of ??the last will and testament is AMBULATORY, which means it can be
changed until the death of the bequeather. In short, what is the last will of the bequeathor will be followed.

===================
Paano ang ligal na proseso para sa paghahati sa ari-arian ng namatay na magulang?

Paano Po Ba Ang Hatian Sa Mana Ng Magkakapatid Sa Mga Naiwang Ari-Arian (Gaya Ng Lupa) Ng Kanilang Magulang Na
Pumanaw Na?

Ang Mga Naiwang Anak Ng Kanilang Magulang, Ang Lahat Po Ay May Karapatan Na Tumanggap Ng Equal o Pare-
Parehong Halaga Ng Mana Sa Kanilang Magulang Na Namayapa Na.

Ang Pagiging Panganay o Bunso Ay Walang Epekto Sa Matatanggap Na Mana, Dahil Ito Po Ay Dapat Equally Divided At
Ang Halaga Ng Mana Ng Mga Anak Ay Hindi Puweding Bawasan o Dagdagan Ng Sinuman, Ikaw Man Ay Nakakatanda o
Bunso. Dahil Ito Po Ay Fix Na Ng Batas, Ayon Po Sa Article 774 Ng Ating New Civil Code.
Ang Lahat Po Na Magkakapatid Ay Pare-parehong Nagmamay-ari (Co-owner) Ng Property Na Naiwan Ng Kanilang
Magulang.

Ang isang tagapagmana (heir) ay considered po na co-owner with respect sa kanyang share o parte. Ito po ay pwede
niyang ibenta o isangla, pero hindi po ang buong property o buong lupain ayon sa Article 493 ng ating Family Code. Take
note, ang puwedi mo lang ibenta ay ang iyong share o parte.

Sa mana-mana po kasi ng magkakapatid, ang nadidihado po kadalasan ay ang mga babae o yong kapatid na napawalay,
halimbawa nakapag-asawa at napunta sa malayong lugar, kaya hindi na iniisip na bigyan ng parte or share. May kapatid
din lalo na kung lalake, dinadaan naman po sa tapang, sa kadahilanang siya ay sakim o gahaman,
if sugad hini
first, they must make an extrajudicial settlement - its like a contract of all heirs, magsarabot hira on how they will divide
the property and mapirma kamo ngatanan
but then, kon for example mayda gusto nga mag urog?
no im the eldest, so my share must be bigger. tas madiri liwat an iba nga anak
The law says that all the heirs must have equal share, pantay pantay a ira katungod ha property but if diri
nagkkaintindihay ngan mayda gusto nga mag urog you can go to the court and you can file what is called intestate
proceedings

so here, igpapatawag han huwis an tanan nga mga magburugto for exmaple ngan kon diri gud magkasundo, an huwis na
an magdedecide ha partition han property

=============
TRANSLATION
How To Divide The Inheritance Of Siblings In The Remaining Properties (Such As Land) Of Their Parents Who Have
Passed Away?

The Surviving Children Of Their Parents, All Have The Right To Receive An Equal Or The Same Value Of The Inheritance
To Their Parents Who Have Passed Away.
Being the eldest or the youngest has no effect on the inheritance received, because it must be equally divided and the
value of the children's inheritance cannot be reduced or increased by anyone, whether you are the oldest or the
youngest. Because This Is Fixed By Law, According To Article 774 Of Our New Civil Code.
All Siblings Are Equal Owners (Co-Owners) Of The Property Left By Their Parents.

An heir is considered a co-owner with respect to his share or part. He can sell or mortgage this, but not the entire
property or the entire land according to Article 493 of our Family Code. Take note, the only thing you can sell is your
share or part.

In the inheritance of brothers and sisters, the ones who suffer are usually the women or the brothers who have
separated, for example, got married and went to a far away place, so they don't think of giving a part or share. There is
also a brother, especially if it's a man, who is passed over with courage, because he is greedy or greedy,

if this is truefirst, they must make an extrajudicial settlement - its like a contract of all heirs, argue about how they will
divide the property and sign it but then, if for example someone really wants to shake?
no im the oldest, so my share must be bigger. the other child will be hated again
The law says that all the heirs must have equal share, equal rights to the property, but if you don't understand and there
is someone who wants to do it, you can go to the court and you can file what is called intestate proceedings.
so here, the judge will summon all the parties for exmaple and if they cannot agree, the judge will decide on the
partition of the property

========
Yes. The New Civil Code of the Philippines states that an illegitimate child is entitled to one-half (1/2) of the share of a
legitimate child (Articles 895 and 983). So, if the decedent is survived by his spouse, legitimate children and illegitimate
children, the surviving spouse’s share shall be similar to the share of a legitimate child. The illegitimate child is entitled to
one-half (1/2) of the share of a legitimate child (Article 999).
Thus, the law does not treat legitimate and illegitimate children similarly insofar as inheritance is concerned.
-========
Maari bang magmana ang isang illegitimate child sa kanyang mga magulang?
Oo. Nakasaad sa New Civil Code of the Philippines na ang isang illegitimate child ay may karapatan sa kalahati (1/2) ng
bahagi ng isang lehitimong bata (Artikulo 895 at 983). Kaya, kung ang namatay ay naiwan ng kanyang asawa, mga
lehitimong anak at mga anak sa labas, ang bahagi ng nabubuhay na asawa ay magiging katulad ng bahagi ng isang
lehitimong anak. Ang illegitimate child ay may karapatan sa kalahating (1/2) ng bahagi ng isang lehitimong anak (Article
999).
Kaya, hindi tinatrato ng batas ang mga lehitimong bata nang magkatulad kung tungkol sa mana.
============
MGA POINTERS SA PAG-BABAHAGI NG MANA O INHERITANCE
1. Ang mga taga-pagmana, na kadalasan ay mga anak, ay mag-ka-karoon lamang ng karapatan sa lupa o naiwang pagma-
may-ari ng kanilang magulang, kapag ang kanilang magulang ay namatay;

2. Kung pare-parehas na anak na legal, ang bawat anak ay dapat makatanggap ng "equal share" na siyang naka-saad sa
batas. Hindi mahalaga kung ang anak ay panganay o bunso, at kung ito ay mayaman o mahirap. Sa batas, dapat ay
pantay ang matanggap ng bawat isa;

3. Ang lupa na siyang minana ay maaring hatiin base sa sukat o sa halaga. Mas mainam na ito ay hatiin base sa halaga,
dahil ang lupa, bagamat parehas ng sukat, ay maaring magkaiba ng halaga. Ang lupa na malapit sa kalsada at nasa
tinatawag na "commercial area" ay mas malaki ang halaga o katumbas sa pera;
4. Maaring wala pang partikular na lupa ang maging hatian ng mga tagapagmana, at manatiling mga "co-owners" ng
isang lupa, na siyang lalabas sa titulo bilang "fraction" na pag-ma-may-ari (e.g. Juan Dela Cruz (1/2) at Pedro Dela Cruz
(1/2);
5. Kung mayroon naman na partikular na hatian, mas mainam na ito ay base sa halaga, sapagkat bukod sa Estate Tax ay
pagbabayarin din ng BIR ng Donor's Tax sapagkat sa kanilang tingin, bilang co-owner, ay ipinauubaya na ng tagapagmana
ang kanyang karapatan sa partikular na lupa para sa kapwa nito tagapagmanan. Kung mas malaki ang nakuha ng isa, mas
malaki ang babayaran ng mas nakakuha ng mas maliit na halaga, sa Donor's Tax; at

6. Kung ang matatangap ng isang tagapagmana ay bawas ng 1/4 ng dapat niyang matanggap sa ilalim ng batas,
magkaroon ng tinatawag na "lesion."
=============
POINTERS ON SHARING INHERITANCE OR INHERITANCE
1. The heirs, who are usually children, only have the right to the land or left ownership of their parent, when their parent
dies;
2. If there are equal legal children, each child must receive an "equal share" as stated in the law. It does not matter
whether the child is the eldest or the youngest, and whether it is rich or poor. In law, everyone should receive equally;

3. The land that is inherited can be divided based on size or value. It is better to divide it based on the value, because the
land, although the size is the same, can be different in value. The land near the road and in the so-called "commercial
area" has a greater value or monetary equivalent;

4. There may be no specific land to be divided among the heirs, and remain "co-owners" of a land, which will appear on
the title as "fraction" ownership (e.g. Juan Dela Cruz ( 1/2) and Pedro Dela Cruz (1/2);

5. If there is a specific division, it is better that it is based on the value, because apart from the Estate Tax, the BIR will
also pay the Donor's Tax because in their view, as a co-owner, the heir has given up his right in particular land for its
fellow heirs. The more one gets, the more the one who gets the smaller amount pays, in Donor's Tax; and

6. If what an heir receives is reduced by 1/4 of what he should receive under the law, there will be a so-called "lesion."