B. NATURAL ACCESSION the accessory.

The alluvium, by mandate of Article 457 of the New Civil Code,

§ 52. Natural Accession is automatically owned by the riparian owner from the moment the soil deposit
[52.1] Four Forms can be seen. The same rule applies even if the riparian land was bought under
As discussed in supra §40.2, there are four forms of natural accession: installment plan, in which case, the benefits of accretion belong to the purchaser
(1) Alluvion; even when said accretion took place before the last installment was paid.
(2) Avulsion; The reason behind the law giving the riparian owner the right to any land or
(3) Natural change of course of river; and alluvion deposited by a river is to compensate him for the danger of loss that he
(4) Formation of island. suffers because of the location of his land.
If estates bordering on rivers are exposed to floods and other evils produced by
Art. 457. To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the accretion the destructive force of the waters and if by virtue of lawful provisions, said
which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the waters.
estates are subject to encumbrances and various kinds of easements, it is proper
Art. 458. The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do not acquire the land that the risk or danger which may prejudice the owners thereof should be
left dry by the natural decrease of the waters or lose that inundated by them in compensated by the right of accretion.
extraordinary floods.
[53.4] Requisites of Alluvion
§53. Alluvion Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457 requires the
concurrence of the following requisites:
[53.1] Definition (1) that the accumulation of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible;
Alluvium or alluvion has been defined as the gradual and imperceptible addition (2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river; and
to the banks of rivers314 or as the increment which lands abutting rivers gradually (3) that the land where the accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of the
receive as a result of the current of the waters.315 Alluvium is the soil deposited on river.
the estate fronting the river bank, while accretion is the process whereby the soil
is deposited. These are called the rules on alluvion which if present in a case, give to the
owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers or streams any accretion gradually
[53.2] Riparian Owners Distinguished from Littoral Owners received from the effects of the currents of waters.
The owner of the estate fronting the river bank is called the riparian owner.
Riparian owners are, strictly speaking, distinct from littoral owners, the latter [53.4.1] First Requisite
being owners of lands bordering the shore of the sea or lakes or other tidal waters. A sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is hardly the alluvial process
contemplated under Article 457 of the New Civil Code.
It is the slow and hardly perceptible accumulation of soil deposits that the law
[53.3] Rule on Alluvion grants to the riparian owner. This is what distinguishes alluvion from avulsion.
The rule on alluvion is embodied in Article 457 of the New Civil Code which In alluvion, the deposit of soil is gradual and imperceptible; whereas in avulsion,
states that “to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the it is sudden and abrupt.
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the current of the
waters.” [53.4.2] Second Requisite
The riparian land, or the land adjoining the bank of the river is the principal and The requirement that the deposit should be due to the effect of the current of the
the alluvial deposits accumulated gradually along such riparian land constitute river is indispensable. This excludes from Article 457 of the New Civil Code all
deposits caused by human intervention. Alluvion must be the exclusive work of Avulsion has been defined as the accretion which takes place when the current of
nature.325 Hence, the riparian owner does not acquire the additions to his land a river, creek or torrent segregates a known portion of land from an estate on its
caused by special works expressly intended or designed to bring about accretion. banks and transfers it to another estate. Or, the accretion taking place in the estate
[53.4.3] Third Requisite on the bank of a river caused not by the slow and constant action of the waters
Under Article 457, the accretion must take place on a land adjacent to the banks but by the violent and sudden action of a torrent.
of the river. Note, however, that while Article 457 mentions only of accretions
Art. 461. River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course
on the banks of rivers, this must be interpreted in conjunction with Article 84 of of the water’s ipso facto belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the
the Spanish Law of Waters which provides: new course in proportion to the area lost. However, the owners of the lands
“Accretions deposited gradually upon land contiguous to creeks, streams, rivers adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value
and lakes, by accessions or sediments from the water thereof, belong to the thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied by the new
owners of such lands.” bed.
But with respect to a creek, it must have regular and continuous current. The rule
does not apply to canals or esteros which are not creeks and have no current but Art. 464. Islands which may be formed on the seas within the jurisdiction of the
are simply drainage system. Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or floatable rivers belong to the State.
The Laguna de Bay, on the other hand, is a lake, the accretion on which, by the
Art. 467. The principal thing, as between two things incorporated, is deemed to be
express mandate of Article 84 of the Spanish Law of Waters cited above, belongs that to which the other has been united as an ornament, or for its use or perfection.
to the owners of the land contiguous thereto.
Art. 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the preceding article which
[53.5] Right of Riparian Owner to Alluvium Is Ipso Jure of the two things incorporated is the principal one, the thing of the greater value
The right of the owners of the bank adjacent to rivers to the accretion which they shall be so considered, and as between two things of equal value, that of the greater
volume.
receive by virtue of the action of the waters of the river is ipso jure and there is In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the
no need of an action of the owner of the bank to possess the new addition since board, metal, stone, canvas, paper or parchment shall be deemed the accessory
it belongs to him by the very fact of the addition. thing.
However, such accretion does not automatically become registered land just
because the lot which receives the same is covered by Torrens title. Thus, the QUIETING OF TITLE (n)
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein,
accretion to registered land does not preclude acquisition of the additional area by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is
by another person through prescription. apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable,
or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
[53.6] Exception to the Rule on Alluvion remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
Article 458 of the New Civil Code serves as an exception to the general rule on An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real
property or any interest therein.
alluvion. It is noteworthy that this article refers only to ponds and lagoons but is
not applicable to a lake since with regard to a lake the rule of alluvion is Chapter 4
applicable in accordance with the Spanish Law of Waters. RUINOUS BUILDINGS AND TREES
IN DANGER OF FALLING
[54.1] Definition
Art. 482. If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in danger of falling, and enjoyment of the same. The foregoing being the case, there is no coownership
the owner shall be obliged to demolish it or to execute the necessary work in order when the different portions owned by different people are already concretely
to prevent it from falling.
If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the administrative authorities determined and separately identifiable, even if not yet technically described.
may order the demolition of the structure at the expense of the owner or take
measures to insure public safety.
[62.2.3] Recognition of Ideal Share
There must be recognition of ideal shares, which determines the rights and
Title III. CO-OWNERSHIP obligations of the co-owners. It is a basic principle in civil law that before a
Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or
property owned in common is actually partitioned, all that the co-owner has is an
right belongs to different persons.
In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire property.
the provisions of this Title.
[62.7] Sources of Co-ownership
[62.2] Requisites of Co-ownership Co-ownership may be created by any of the following causes:
There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right
belongs to different persons. Hence, in order that a co-ownership may exist the (1) By law: Examples:
following requisites must concur:
(a) Co-ownership will arise if by the will of their owners two things of the
[62.2.1] Plurality of Subjects same kind or different kinds are mixed. Co-ownership will likewise arise
There must be plurality of subjects, who are the co-owners. The regime of co- if by the will of only one owner, but in good faith, two things of the same
ownership exists when ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to or different kinds are mixed or confused.
different persons. Thus, co-ownership is a manifestation of the private right of (b) When a man and woman who are capacitated to marry each other, live
dominion, where in lieu of its being exercised by the owner in an inclusive exclusively with each other as husband and wife without the benefit of
manner over things or rights, there are two or more owners. marriage or under a void marriage, the property acquired by both of them
through their work or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-
[62.2.2] Unity of the Object ownership.39 In cases of cohabitation not falling under Article 147 of the
There must be unity of the object (or material indivision), which means that there Family Code, only the properties acquired by both of the parties though
is a single object which is not materially divided, and which is the element which their actual joint contribution of money, property, or industry shall be
binds the subjects. The juridical concept of co-ownership is unity of the object or owned by them in common in proportion to their respective
property and plurality of subjects. As a consequence, a co-owner of an undivided contributions.
parcel of land is an “owner of the whole, and over the whole he exercises the
right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is truly (2) By contract: An agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period,
abstract. “Hence, each co-owner of property which is held pro indiviso exercises not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new
his rights over the whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other agreement.
limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners. The
underlying rationale is that until a division is made, the respective share of each (3) By succession: Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the
cannot be determined and every co-owner exercise, together with his co- decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the
participants, joint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use
payment of debts of the deceased. The testator may likewise prohibit the partition Art. 491. None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make
of the estate among the heirs for a period not to exceed twenty (20) years. alterations in the thing owned in 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 afford
(4) By fortuitous event or chance: Co-ownership will arise if two things of the adequate relief.
same kind or different kinds are mixed by chance and the things are not separable
without injury. 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
(5) By occupancy: As when two or more persons catch a wild pig or get forest shall be no majority unless the resolution is approved by the co-owners who
products or when a hidden treasure is accidentally discovered by a stranger, 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
is not a trespasser, on the land of another.
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,
Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. including the appointment of an administrator.
Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one of the co-owners, and the
Art. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to remainder is owned in common, the preceding provisions shall apply only to the
contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common part 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 Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits
the expenses and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the co- and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage
ownership. 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 allotted to him in the
Art. 489. Repairs for preservation may be made at the will of one of the co-owners, division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
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. [70.4] Alienation of Entire Co-owned Property
As a mere part owner, a co-owner cannot alienate the shares of the other co-
owners. The prohibition is premised on the elementary rule that “no one can give
[66.3] Effect of Failure to Comply with the Notice Requirement what he does not have” — nemo dat quod non habet. As a person can sell only
If the giving of notice is practicable and the co-owner who undertook the repair what he owns or is authorized to sell, the buyer can as a consequence acquire no
for preservation failed to previously notify the other co-owners of the necessity more than what the seller can legally transfer. Based from this principle, no co-
of such repair, will the absence of such notice deprive him of the right to demand owner has the right to alienate the entire property owned in common. However,
contribution from the other co-owners for the expenses he incurred? According even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his
to Senator Tolentino, such failure does not deprive the co-owner who incurred own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale,
the expenses of the right to recover the proportionate shares of the other co- following the well-established principle that the binding force of a contract must
owners in the expenses. The only effect of such failure is to place upon the co- be recognized as far as it is legally possible to do so — quando res non valet ut
owner who incurred the expenses the burden of proving the necessity of the ago, valeat quantum valere potest (when a thing is of no effect as I do it, it shall
repairs and the reasonableness of the expenses. have effect as far as [or in whatever way] it can).166 Since a co-owner is entitled
to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without
the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights
of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of Merger, as a mode of terminating the co ownership, takes place when all the
the property. Since the sale is not null and void, the proper action in cases like interests in a co-ownership are consolidated in one person. This may happen, for
this is not for the nullification of the sale. And since such sale had the effect of example, when the shares of the other co-owners are acquired by one co-owner
making the buyer a co-owner of the property, an action for the recovery of either by way of purchase or through the exercise of the right of legal redemption.
possession of the thing owned in common from the buyer who substituted the co-
owner or co-owners who alienated their shares is likewise not proper169 since the [72.3] Destruction of Thing or Lost of Right
possession by the buyer, being a new co-owner, will not be regarded as adverse A state of co-ownership exists only because there is unity of the object or
to the other co-owners but is, in fact, beneficial to all of them. It is now settled property and plurality of subjects. Note that a co-ownership is only a state of fact
that the appropriate recourse of co-owners in cases where their consent was not which exists so long as the property remains materially undivided. Hence, the
secured in a sale of the entire property as well as in a sale merely of the undivided moment that the state of fact no longer exists because the object of the co-
shares of some of the co-owners is an action for partition under Rule 69 of the ownership is either destroyed or lost, the co-ownership also ceases.
Revised Rules of Court. Such partition should result in segregating the portion
belonging to the seller and its delivery to the buyer. Neither recovery of [72.4] Redemption by One Co-Owner of the Entire Property
possession nor restitution can be granted since the buyer is a legitimate proprietor The rule in this jurisdiction is that the redemption by one co-heir or co-owner of
and possessor in joint ownership of the common property claimed. the property in its totality does not vest in him ownership over it since redemption
is not a mode of terminating a co-ownership.
Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co- A redemption by a co-owner within the period prescribed by law inures to the
owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar benefit of all the other co-owners. In such a situation, therefore, the redemption
as his share is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time,
made by one co-owner will simply entitle him to collect reimbursement from the
not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new remaining co-owners pursuant to the provisions of Article 488 considering that
agreement. redemption entails a necessary expense.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty This is exemplified in the case of Adille v. Court of Appeals. In this case, the land
years. Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. No in question originally belonged to one Feliza Alzul as her own private property.
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. Sometime in 1939, Feliza sold the property in pacto de retro to certain third
persons, the period of repurchase being three years. During the period of
redemption, her son in the first marriage repurchased the subject property, who
thereafter was able to secure title to the property only in his name. Subsequently,
however, the other children of Felisa in her second marriage fi led an action for
§ 72. Extinguishment of Co-ownership
partition and accounting claiming that they were co-owners of the subject
[72.1] Causes of Extinguishment of Co-ownership
property, being heirs. The son of Felisa in the first marriage contends that the
Co-ownership may be extinguished or terminated by any of the following causes:
subject property devolved
(1) By the merger in one person of all the interest of the co-ownership;
upon him upon the failure of his co-heirs to join him in its redemption within the
(2) By prescription of the thing or right in favor of third persons or a co-owner;
period required by law. Answering this particular contention, the Supreme Court
(3) By destruction of the thing or loss of the right which is owned in common;
held —
and
The right of repurchase may be exercised by a co-owner with aspect to his share
(4) By partition of the property owned in common.
alone. While the records show that the petitioner redeemed the property in its
[72.2] Merger
entirety, shouldering the expenses therefor, that did not make him the owner of Partition, in general, is the separation, division and assignment of a thing held
all of it. In other words, it did not put to end the existing state of co-ownership. in common among those to whom it may belong. The thing itself may be
Necessary expenses may be incurred by one co-owner, subject to his right to divided, or its value.
collect reimbursement from the remaining co-owners. There is no doubt that
redemption of property entails a necessary expense. Under the Civil Code:
ART. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to
contribute to the expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common [74.5] When Partition Not Available
and to the taxes. Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation The action for partition will not be available in the following instances:
by renouncing so much of his undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share
of the expenses and taxes. (1) When there is an agreement among the owners to keep the thing
No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the coownership. The result undivided. However, such agreement must not exceed ten years. Where
is that the property remains to be in a condition of co-ownership. While a vendee the parties stipulate a definite period of indivision which exceeds the
a retro, under Article 1613 of the Code, “may not be compelled to consent to a maximum allowed by law, said stipulation shall be void only as to the
partial redemption,” the redemption by one co-heir or co-owner of the property period beyond such maximum. However, the period of ten years may be
in its totality does not vest in him ownership over it. Failure on the part of all the extended by a new agreement.
co-owners to redeem it entitles the vendee a retro to retain the property and (2) When the donor or testator prohibits partition for a period which shall
consolidate title thereto in his name. But the provision does not give to the not exceed twenty (20) years. Although the Civil Code is silent as to the
redeeming co-owner the right to the entire property. It does not provide for a effect of the indivision of a property for more than twenty years, it would
mode of terminating a co-ownership. be contrary to public policy to sanction co- ownership beyond the period
Neither does the fact that the petitioner had succeeded in securing title over the set by the law. Otherwise, the 20-year limitation expressly mandated by
parcel in his name terminate the existing co-ownership. While his half-brothers the Civil Code would be rendered meaningless.
and sisters are, as we said, liable to him for reimbursement as and for their shares (3) When the law prohibits partition such as when the origin or juridical
in redemption expenses, he cannot claim exclusive right to the property owned nature of co ownership prevents partition:
in common. Registration of property is not a means of acquiring ownership. It Examples:
operates as a mere notice of existing title, that is, if there is one. The petitioner (a) The spouses, who are governed by a regime of absolute community,
must then be said to be a trustee of the property on behalf of the private cannot agree to partition the community property without a judicial
respondents. The Civil Code states: order.
ART. 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining (b) The heirs cannot partition the family home upon the death of the
it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of person or persons who constituted the same unless the court finds
the person from whom the property comes. compelling reasons therefore. Upon the death of the person or persons
who constituted the family home and there are two or more heirs, the
whole estate of the decedent (including the family home) is, before its
Art. 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition, be liable for defects of title and partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of the
quality of the portion assigned to each of the other co-owners. debts of the deceased. As a rule, any one of the co-owners may demand
partition at any time. However, so long as the family home continues as
§ 74. Partition such pursuant to the provisions of Article 159 of the Family Code, the
[74.1] Definition
 heirs are prohibited from partitioning the family home unless the court [84.2] Requisites for acquisition of possession
finds compelling reason therefore. As discussed in supra § 80.2, the acquisition of possession presupposes the
(4) When partition would render the thing unserviceable for the use for which it existence of two essential elements:
is intended. (1) the corpus; and
(2) the animus possidendi.

Title V. POSSESSION The first refers refer to the material holding of the thing or the exercise of the
POSSESSION AND THE KINDS THEREOF right which may be acquired through any of the modes mentioned in this article.
Art. 523. Possession is the holding of a thing or the enjoyment of a right. The second, on the other hand, refers to the intent to possess the thing or right.
Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists
In other words, possession is not acquired in law in the absence of intent to
in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. possess it although there is physical holding of the thing. For example, if stolen
He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the goods are placed in the bag of a person by another without the former’s
foregoing. knowledge and consent, the former is not considered a possessor in law because
Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.
of the absence of intent to possess the goods.
ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION
Art. 531. Possession is acquired by the material occupation of a thing or the [84.3] Material Occupation
exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the The term “material occupation” in Article 531 of the New Civil Code is used in
proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right. its ordinary grammatical meaning, to mean “actual physical possession” or
“material apprehension.” Obviously, this mode applies only to corporeal objects
Art. 532. Possession may be acquired by the same person who is to enjoy it, by his and does not find application to acquisition of possession over a right. In this
legal representative, by his agent, or by any person without any power whatever;
but in the last case, the possession shall not be considered as acquired until the sense, the term “material occupation” in Article 531 is synonymous to
person in whose name the act of possession was executed has ratified the same, “occupation” as a mode of acquiring ownership under Article 712 of the New
without prejudice to the juridical consequences of negotiorum gestio in a proper Civil Code because both involve the material apprehension of things corporeal.
case. They differ, however, in the following respects:
(1) the term “occupation” in Article 531 is used in its ordinary grammatical
§ 84. Acquisition of Possession meaning whereas the term “occupation” in Article 712 is used in a juridical and
[84.1] Modes of Acquiring Possession technical meaning;
Possession is acquired in any of the following ways: (2) in Article 531, occupation is a mode of acquiring possession; whereas, in
(1) By material occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right; Article 712, occupation is a mode of acquiring ownership;
(2) By subjecting the thing or right to the action of our will; and (3) in Article 531, the occupation must be coupled with intent to possess;
(3) By the proper acts and legal formalities established for the acquisition of such whereas, in Article 712, what is required is intent to own or appropriate;
right. (4) in Article 531, occupation as a mode of acquiring possession applies whether
the property is with an owner or not; in Article 712, however, occupation can
The first appears to be an original mode of acquisition while the others refer to take place only with respect to property without an owner;
derivative modes.
(5) in Article 531, occupation as a mode of acquiring possession can have as its delivery known as tradicion simbolica and tradicion longa manu. Tradicion
object a parcel of land; in occupation as a mode of acquiring ownership under simbolica takes place through delivery of symbols or
Article 712, it cannot have as its object a parcel of land. some object which represent those to be delivered thus placing the thing under
The term “material occupation” in Article 531 includes two forms of constructive the control of the transferee. Through this mode, the delivery of the keys to a
delivery: warehouse is sufficient to transfer possession.
(1) tradicion brevi manu and
(2) tradicion constitutum possessorium. [84.6] Proper Acts and Legal Formalities
This third mode of acquiring possession refers to any juridical act by which
Note that in these kinds of constructive delivery, material occupation is possession is acquired or to which the law gives the force of acts of possession.96
involved.82 But for those kinds of constructive delivery where material occupation Examples of these juridical acts are donations, intestate and testate succession,
is not involved, such as tradicion symbolica and tradicion longa manu, the mode writs of possession, judicial or administrative possession and execution of public
of acquisition of possession is by subjecting the thing to the action of our will instruments. In the case of Muyco v. Montilla, et al., the possession given by the
and not material occupation. sheriff to the assignees of the original purchasers of the hacienda, in compliance
with the order of the court in an action brought against the former owners of said
[84.4] Doctrine of Constructive Possession hacienda was viewed by the Supreme Court as constituting the proper acts and
The doctrine of constructive possession applies when the possession is under title legal formalities referred to in Article 531 of the New Civil Code.
calling for the whole. As a rule, the possession and cultivation of a portion of a [84.7] Acquisition of Possession Over Rights
tract under claim of ownership of all is a constructive possession of all, if the As discussed in supra § 84.3, material occupation is not available as a mode of
remainder is not in the adverse possession of another.84 Stated otherwise, the acquiring possession over rights since the same requires actual physical
actual possession of part of the property is deemed to extend to the whole because possession and applies only to corporeal objects. With respect to rights,
possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a man has to have his feet possession over it is acquired through any of the following means:
on every square meter of ground before it can be said that he is in possession. (1) by exercise of such right;
For this doctrine to apply the following requisites must be present: (2) by subjecting it to the action of our will; and
(1) the alleged possessor must be in actual possession of a portion or part of (3) by proper acts and legal formalities.
the property;
(2) he is claiming ownership of the whole area; [84.8] By Whom Possession Acquired
(3) the remainder of the area must not be in the adverse possession of another In the same way that possession may be exercised by the owner or holder either
person; and personally or through an agent, its acquisition may likewise be made personally
(4) the area claimed must be reasonable. by the person who is to enjoy it or through his agent or legal representative.99 It
may even be acquired by any person, for and on behalf of the person who is to
[84.5] Subjection to Action of Will enjoy it, even in the absence of any authority from the latter. Of course, the
This particular mode does not involve any material apprehension to distinguish “agent” referred to in Article 532 of the New Civil Code is someone who has
it from the first mode (material occupation). It connotes, however, a degree of been authorized to acquire possession by the person who is to enjoy it. In other
control over the thing sufficient to subject the same to the action of one’s will. words, he is acquiring possession not for himself but for his principal. In such a
What is important in this mode is the intention to possess manifested by certain situation, possession is considered acquired by the principal from the time that
facts which are present. Included in this mode are the two forms of constructive the same is acquired by the agent.
If a person has not been authorized by the intended principal but possession is dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if all these
nonetheless acquired by the former only in representation of the latter, the conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending
determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings.
intended principal may or may not ratify the act of possession in his name. In the
event that the intended principal ratifies the act of possession done in his name,
the possession shall be considered acquired by him only upon such ratification. Art. 540. Only the possession acquired and enjoyed in the concept of owner can
The rule above, however, is without prejudice to the juridical consequences of serve as a title for acquiring dominion.
negotiorum gestio in a proper case. According to Senator Tolentino, when a
§ 89. Possession in the Concept of Owner
person voluntarily manages the affairs of another (negotiorum gestio), the The following are the effects of possession in the concept of owner:
ratification by the person for whom the thing was acquired will retroact to the (1) It raises a disputable presumption of ownership (Art. 433, NCC).
time of apprehension by the gestor, and the possession of the former must be (2) It creates a disputable presumption that the possessor has just title and he
deemed to have been acquired from that moment. cannot be obliged to show it. (Art. 541, NCC)
(3) It can ripen into ownership through acquisitive prescription (Art. 540, NCC),
subject to the additional requirements under Article 1118 of the Civil Code.
[84.9] Capacity to Acquire Possession
The rule with respect to the requirement of capacity to act in relation to
acquisition of possession is embodied in Article 535 of the New Civil Code
which reads: [89.1] Presumption of Just Title
“Art. 535. Minors and incapacitated persons may Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a disputable presumption of
acquire the possession of things; but they need the assistance of their legal ownership. In addition, the possessor in the concept of owner (en concepto de
representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the possession arise in dueño) has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a just title
their favor.” and he cannot be obliged to show it. This presumption can be availed of by the
It is clear from this article that it is applicable only to acquisition of possession possessor in cases where another person claims a better right over the property.
by minors and incapacitated person over things but not over rights. As explained In action reivindicatoria, for example, the person who claims that he has a better
in supra § 84.7, possession over rights may only be acquired through any of the right to the property has the burden of proving his title, in addition to proving the
modes therein discussed. Note that in any of said modes, capacity to act is identity of the land claimed. In other words, the plaintiff must rely on the strength
necessary for the acquisition of possession. of his own title, not on the weakness of the defendant’s title because the latter
With respect to acquisition of possession over things, Article 535 contemplates enjoys the presumption of just title which he cannot be obliged to show. The
principally of acquisition through “material occupation” since this mode does not presumption, however, is disputable and may be rebutted by proof to the
require capacity to act. However, the law likewise contemplates of other means contrary. So long as the person claiming a better right is unable to prove his own
of acquisition for which the minor or other incapacitated persons has the title, the presumption prevails in favor of the possessor en concepto de dueño.
necessary capacity, such as pure or simple donations and succession, whether Hence, the latter is not even required to prove his title. If such other person,
testate or intestate. however, prevails in overthrowing the presumption by proving the existence of
his title upon which the claim is based, the possessor is now obliged to show and
Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different prove his title.
personalities except in the cases of co-possession. The presumption of the existence of a just title in favor of the possessor en
Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor concepto de dueño may not be availed by him for the purpose of acquiring
shall be preferred; if there are two possessors, the one longer in possession; if the
ownership through acquisitive prescription. For the latter purpose, the law
requires that the just title of the possessor must be proved: [101.3] Cases Where There Is No Recovery
“Art. 1131. For the purposes of prescription, just title must be proved; it is never There are cases where the owner may no longer recover the movable property
presumed.” (New Civil Code) even if he has lost the same or he has been unlawfully deprived thereof. In the
following cases, the owner of a movable property who has lost it or has been
unlawfully deprived of it may no longer recover the thing from the possessor:
Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the (1) If the possessor acquired the thing at a merchant’s store, or in fairs, or in
possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
markets in accordance with the Code of Commerce and special laws;
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the (2) Where the possessor acquired the thing by sale under statutory power of sale
same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having or under the order of a court of competent jurisdiction;
the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in (3) When the possessor is a holder in due course of a negotiable document of title
value which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof. to goods or where the owner is barred by the principle of negotiable instruments;
(4) Where the owner is barred by reason of his own acts or neglect from denying
Art. 547. If the useful improvements can be removed without damage to the the seller’s title; and
principal thing, the possessor in good faith may remove them, unless the person (5) Where the owner can no longer recover the thing from the possessor by reason
who recovers the possession exercises the option under paragraph 2 of the of prescription.
preceding article.

Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the
possessor in good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with which he has
embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor
in the possession does not prefer to refund the amount expended.

Art. 555. A possessor may lose his possession:

(1) By the abandonment of the thing;

(2) By an assignment made to another either by onerous or gratuitous title;

(3) By the destruction or total loss of the thing, or because it goes out of commerce;

(4) By the possession of another, subject to the provisions of Article 537, if the new
possession has lasted longer than one year. But the real right of possession is not
lost till after the lapse of ten years.

Art. 559. The possession of movable property acquired in good faith is equivalent
to a title. Nevertheless, one who has lost any movable or has been unlawfully
deprived thereof, may recover it from the person in possession of the same. If the
possessor of a movable lost or of which the owner has been unlawfully deprived,
has acquired it in good faith at a public sale, the owner cannot obtain its return
without reimbursing the price paid therefor.