PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

Nuisance Coosaw Min. Co. v. South Carolina, 36 L. Ed. 537

McCloskey v. Coast Co., 160 Fed. 794 A suit in equity will lie on behalf of the state to restrain a company from continuing to
unlawfully operate mines belonging to the state, and from interfering with the proper
A private person who suffers injury through a public nuisance cannot maintain an state agents in their control thereof.
action against it. However, he may maintain an action against an invasion of his
property. Donation

Whitenack v. R. Co., 57 Fed. 901 Austria-Magat v. Court of Appeals, 375 SCRA 556
The Brinton, 66 Fed. 71
Frost v. R. Co., 51 Atl. 806 Whether the donation is mortis causa or inter vivos depends upon the intent to
transfer ownership of the subject matter upon the execution of the donation. The
Sloggy v. Dilworth, 36 N.W. 451 characteristics of a donation mortis causa as outline in Bonsato v. Court of Appeals
are that the transferor retains ownership or possession of the subject matter while
Where the land of one person is injured through the erection and maintenance of a alive, the donation is revocable at will, and the transfer will be void should the
nuisance by an adjoining owner upon his lands, the latter is liable to successive transferee die before the transferor.
actions for damages arising from the continuance thereof. He cannot release himself
from such liability by a conveyance of the premises, (though his grantee may also be A donation inter vivos is irrevocable. The deed of donation stipulates irrevocability.
liable;) but a cause of action does not survive against his legal representatives for Accordingly, the prohibition to alienate or encumber the property must be harmonized
damages resulting from the continuance of the nuisance after his death. with the expressed irrevocability. This prohibition even extends to the donor,
Comerciante, and no reservation to retain the right to alienate was ever made. That
Every continuance of a nuisance, or recurrence of the injury, is an additional the property remained in the possession and enjoyment of Comerciante is of no
nuisance, forming in itself the subject-matter of a new action. consequence since the donation contemplated transfer of naked title but retained
beneficial ownership.
State v. Ehrlick, 64 S.E. 935
Also, the acceptance clause present in the deed marks it as one inter vivos.
Equity has no jurisdiction to abate a public nuisance, either civil or criminal, at the
instance of an individual or the state, not affecting or injuring the enjoyment of Maglasang v. Heirs of Cabatingan, 383 SCRA 6
property or other personal rights.
In Maglasang v. Heirs of Cabatingan,34 the deeds of donation contained provisions
Though the keeping of a gaming house is a criminal nuisance, punishable and almost identical to those found in the deed subject of the present case:
abatable by indictment and conviction, there is no jurisdiction in equity to abate it, at
the instance of either an individual or the state, unless it appears to be injurious to That for and in consideration of the love and affection of the DONOR for the DONEE,
personal or property rights and the injury is not otherwise adequately remediable. x x x. the DONOR does hereby, by these presents, transfer, convey, by way of
donation, unto the DONEE the above-described property, together with the buildings
Debs case, 158 U.S. 564 and all improvements existing thereon, to become effective upon the death of the
DONOR; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, that in the event that the DONEE should die
Mountain Copper Co. v. U.S., 142 Fed. 625 before the DONOR, the present donation shall be deemed automatically rescinded
and of no further force and effect. (Emphasis supplied)
Where an owner of property cannot use the same at all without indirectly injuriously
affecting the property of another, the sound discretion of a court of equity is invoked In that case, this Court held that the donations were mortis causa, for the above-
when it is appealed to and asked to abate such use as a nuisance. quoted provision conclusively establishes the donor's intention to transfer the
ownership and possession of the donated property to the donee only after the
Where it is sought to enjoin a lawful business as a nuisance, the court will consider former's death. Like in the present case, the deeds therein did not contain any clear
the comparative injury which will result from the granting or refusing of an injunction, provision that purports to pass proprietary rights to the donee prior to the donor's
and it will not be granted where it would be inequitable and oppressive, as where it death.
would cause a large loss to defendant or others, while the injury, if it is refused, will be
comparatively slight and can be compensated by damages.

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011

 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

As the subject deed then is in the nature of a mortis causa disposition, the formalities Valencia v. Locquiao, 412 SCRA 600
of a will under Article 728 of the Civil Code should have been complied with, failing
which the donation is void and produces no effect.35 Under the Old Civil Code – donations propter nuptias need not be accepted. Under
Ganuelas v. Cawed, 401 SCRA 447 the New Civil Code (prior to effectivity of Family Code) – donations propter nuptias
need not be expressly accepted, but may be impliedly accepted
Donation inter vivos differs from donation mortis causa in that in the former, the act is
immediately operative even if the actual execution may be deferred until the death of Heirs of Sevilla v. Sevilla, 402 SCRA 501
the donor, while in the latter, nothing is conveyed to or acquired by the donee until the
death of the donor-testator.23 The following ruling of this Court in Alejandro v. The essential elements of donation are as follows: (a) the essential reduction of the
Geraldez is illuminating:24 patrimony of the donor; (b) the increase in the patrimony of the donee; and (c) the
If the donation is made in contemplation of the donor's death, meaning that the full or intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi. When applied to a donation of an
naked ownership of the donated properties will pass to the donee only because of the immovable property, the law further requires that the donation be made in a public
donor's death, then it is at that time that the donation takes effect, and it is a donation document and that the acceptance thereof be made in the same deed or in a
mortis causa which should be embodied in a last will and testament. separate public instrument; in cases where the acceptance is made in a separate
instrument, it is mandated that the donor be notified thereof in an authentic form, to
But if the donation takes effect during the donor's lifetime or independently of the be noted in both instruments.42
donor's death, meaning that the full or naked ownership (nuda proprietas) of the As a mode of acquiring ownership, donation results in an effective transfer of title over
donated properties passes to the donee during the donor's lifetime, not by reason of the property from the donor to the donee, and is perfected from the moment the
his death but because of the deed of donation, then the donation is inter vivos. donor is made aware of the acceptance by the donee, provided that the donee is not
The distinction between a transfer inter vivos and mortis causa is important as the disqualified or prohibited by law from accepting the donation.43 Once the donation is
validity or revocation of the donation depends upon its nature. If the donation is inter accepted, it is generally considered irrevocable, and the donee becomes the absolute
vivos, it must be executed and accepted with the formalities prescribed by Articles owner of the property, except on account of officiousness, failure by the donee to
74825 and 74926 of the Civil Code, except when it is onerous in which case the rules comply with the charge imposed in the donation, or ingratitude. 44 The acceptance, to
on contracts will apply. If it is mortis causa, the donation must be in the form of a will, be valid, must be made during the lifetime of both the donor and the donee. It must
with all the formalities for the validity of wills, otherwise it is void and cannot transfer be made in the same deed or in a separate public document, and the donee�s
ownership.27 acceptance must come to the knowledge of the donor.45
In order that the donation of an immovable property may be valid, it must be made in
The distinguishing characteristics of a donation mortis causa are the following: a public document.46 Registration of the deed in the Office of the Register of Deeds or
1. It conveys no title or ownership to the transferee before the death of the in the Assessor�s Office is not necessary for it to be considered valid and official.
transferor; or, what amounts to the same thing, that the transferor should Registration does not vest title; it is merely evidence of such title over a particular
retain the ownership (full or naked) and control of the property while alive; parcel of land.47 The necessity of registration comes into play only when the rights of
2. That before his death, the transfer should be revocable by the transferor at third persons are affected.48 Furthermore, the heirs are bound by the deed of
will, ad nutum; but revocability may be provided for indirectly by means of a contracts executed by their predecessors-in-interest.49
reserved power in the donor to dispose of the properties conveyed;
3. That the transfer should be void if the transferor should survive the On the other hand, the fundamental principle is that a certificate of title serves as
transferee. evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the
person whose name appears therein as the registered owner. 50 The registered owner
To classify the donation as inter vivos simply because it is founded on considerations has the right to possess, enjoy and dispose of the property without any limitations
of love and affection is erroneous. That the donation was prompted by the affection of other than those imposed by law.
the donor for the donee and the services rendered by the latter is of no particular
significance in determining whether the deed constitutes a transfer inter vivos or not, In this case, the deed of donation, on its face, appears to bear all the essential
because a legacy may have an identical motivation. 32 In other words, love and requisites of a valid donation inter vivos. With Teresa de Leon as the donor and
affection may also underline transfers mortis causa Rosendo Florencio as the donee, the deed of donation appears to have been
notarized by Notary Public Tirso Manguiat. On this premise, Florencio, and after his
death, his heirs, acquired ownership over the property although Certificate of Title No.
T-44349 under the name of Teresa de Leon had not yet been cancelled.

However, as pointed out by the RTC and the Court of Appeals, there are cogent facts
and circumstances of substance which engender veritable doubts as to whether the
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011
 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

petitioners have a better right of possession over the property other than the Under the Civil Code, a contract where consent is given through mistake, violence,
respondents, the lawful heirs of the deceased registered owner of the property, intimidation, undue influence or fraud is voidable. But in Baranda v. Baranda, this
Teresa de Leon, based on the Deed of Donation. Court declared that the deeds of sale questioned therein are not merely voidable but
null and void ab initio as the supposed seller declared under oath that she signed the
Shopper’s Paradise Realty, et al. v. Roque, 419 SCRA 93 deeds without knowing what they were. The significant circumstance meant, the
Court added, that her consent was not merely marred by vices of consent so as to
As being itself a mode of acquiring ownership, donation results in an effective transfer make the contracts voidable, but that she had not given her consent at all.
of title over the property from the donor to the donee. In donations of immovable
property, the law requires for its validity that it should be contained in a public Passage of time cannot cure the fatal flaw in an inexistent and void contract.
document, specifying therein the property donated and the value of the charges
which the donee must satisfy. The Civil Code provides, however, that “titles of Additional Note: The filing of the return and payment of donor’s taxes are mandatory.
ownership, or other rights over immovable property, which are not duly inscribed or In fact, the registrar of deeds is mandated not to register in the registry of property
annotated in the Registry of Property (now Registry of Land Titles and Deeds) shall any document transferring real property by way of gifts inter vivos unless a
not prejudice third persons.” It is enough, between the parties to a donation of an certification that the taxes fixed and actually due on the transfer had been paid or that
immovable property, that the donation be made in a public document but, in order to the transaction is tax exempt from the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in either
bind third persons, the donation must be registered in the registry of Property. case, is presented. In the case, it was not complied with.

Calicdan v. Cendeňa, 422 SCRA 272 Morento-Lentfer v. Wolff, 441 SCRA 584

Heirs of Florencio v. Heirs of de Leon, 425 SCRA 447 A donation is a simple act of liberality where a person gives freely of a thing or a right
in favor of another, who accepts it, but when a large amount of money is involved, the
Once a donation is accepted, it is generally considered irrevocable and the donee Court is constrained to take the donee’s purported claim of liberality of the donor with
becomes the absolute owner of the property, except on account of officiousness, more than a grain of salt. A donation of money equivalent to P 3, 297, 800 as well as
failure by the donee to comply with the charged imposed in the donation, or its acceptance should be in writing. It was not. Hence, the donation is invalid for non-
ingratitude. compliance with the formal requisites required by law.

In order that the donation of an immovable property may be valid, it must be made in DECS v. del Rosario, 449 SCRA 299
a public instrument. Registration of the deed in the Office of the Register of Deeds or
in Assessor’s Office is not necessary for it to be considered valid and official. The Donation of real property must be made in a public instrument otherwise it is void. A
necessity of registration comes into play only when the rights of third persons are deed of donation acknowledged before a notary public is a public document. The
affected. Furthermore, the heirs are bound by the deed of contracts executed by their acceptance may be made in the same deed of donation or in a separate instrument.
predecessors-in-interest. An acceptance made in a separate instrument must also be in a public instrument. If
the acceptance is in a separate public instrument, the donor shall be notified in writing
Ocampo v. Ocampo, 427 SCRA 545 of such fact. Both instruments must state the fact of such notification.

Once perfected, a donation is final, its revocation or rescission cannot be effected, The best or primary evidence of a donation of real property is an authentic copy of the
absent any legal ground therefor. A donation may in fact comprehend the entire deed of donation with all the formalities required by Article 749 of the Civil Code.
property of the donor. At any rate, the law provides that donors should reserve, in full When a party wants to prove the contents of a document, the best evidence is the
ownership or usufruct, sufficient means for their own support and that of all their original writing itself.
relatives who, at the time of the acceptance of donation, are by law entitled to be
supported by them. Abello v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 452 SCRA 162

Joaquino v. Reyes, 434 SCRA 260 Donation has the following elements: (a) the reduction of the patrimony of the donor;
(b) the increase in the patrimony of the donee; and, (c) the intent to do an act of
The prohibition against donations between spouses35 must likewise apply to liberality or animus donandi.7
donations between persons living together in illicit relations; otherwise, the latter
would be better situated than the former.36 The present case falls squarely within the definition of a donation. Petitioners, the late
Sumipat v. Banga, 436 SCRA 521 Manuel G. Abello8 , Jose C. Concepcion, Teodoro D. Regala and Avelino V. Cruz,
each gave P882,661.31 to the campaign funds of Senator Edgardo Angara, without
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011
 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

any material consideration. All three elements of a donation are present. The Republic v. Silim, 356 SCRA 1
patrimony of the four petitioners were reduced by P882,661.31 each. Senator
Edgardo Angara�s patrimony correspondingly increased by P3,530,645.249 . There The purpose of the formal requirement for acceptance of a donation is to ensure that
was intent to do an act of liberality or animus donandi was present since each of the such acceptance is duly communicated to the donor. The actual knowledge by the
petitioners gave their contributions without any consideration. donor of the construction and existence of the school building pursuant to the
condition of the donation fulfils the legal requirement that the acceptance of the
Donative intent is a creature of the mind. It cannot be perceived except by the donation by the donee be communicated to the donor.
material and tangible acts which manifest its presence. This being the case, donative
intent is presumed present when one gives a part of ones patrimony to another Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 358 SCRA 598
without consideration. Second, donative intent is not negated when the person
donating has other intentions, motives or purposes which do not contradict donative Although the non-registration of a deed of donation shall not affect its validity, the
intent. This Court is not convinced that since the purpose of the contribution was to necessity of registration comes into play when the rights of third persons are affected.
help elect a candidate, there was no donative intent. Petitioners� contribution of (749, 709, CC).
money without any material consideration evinces animus donandi. The fact that their
purpose for donating was to aid in the election of the donee does not negate the Vda. de Delgado v. Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 758
presence of donative intent
Applying Article 1144 of the Civil Code on prescription of actions based on a written
C. J. Yulo v. Roman Catholic Bishop, et al., 454 SCRA 279 contract, the petitioners should have instituted the action for reconveyance within 10
years from the time the condition in the Deed of Donation was violated, which in this
Considering that the donee’s acts did not detract from the very purpose for which the case was in 1946. As found by the CA, the cause of action of the petitioners has
donation was made but precisely to achieve such purpose, a lack of prior written already prescribed, having instituted the action for reconveyance only in 1970, or 24
consent of the donor would only constitute casual breach of the deed, which will not years after the condition was violated.
warrant the revocation of the donation.
Arcaba v. Vda. de Batocael, 370 SCRA 414
Santos v. Alana, 467 SCRA 176
Respondents having proven by a preponderance of evidence that Cirila and
Under Article 752 of the Civil Code, the donation is officious if it exceeds this limitation Francisco lived together as husband and wife without a valid marriage, the
– no person may give or receive, by way of donation, more than what he may give or inescapable conclusion is that the donation made by Francisco in favor of Cirila is
receive by will. void under Art. 87 of the Family Code.

The ten-year prescriptive period applies to the obligation to reduce inofficious the term "cohabitation" or "living together as husband and wife" means not only
donations, required under Article 771 of the Civil Code, to the extent that they impair residing under one roof, but also having repeated sexual intercourse. Cohabitation, of
the legitime of compulsory heirs. course, means more than sexual intercourse, especially when one of the parties is
already old and may no longer be interested in sex. At the very least, cohabitation is
Dolar v. Municipality of Dumangas, 475 SCRA 458 public assumption by a man and a woman of the marital relation, and dwelling
together as man and wife, thereby holding themselves out to the public as such.
If the corresponding contract of donation expressly provides for automatic rescission Secret meetings or nights clandestinely spent together, even if often repeated, do not
and/or reversion in case of breach of the conditions therein, and the donee violates or constitute such kind of cohabitation; they are merely meretricious.29 In this jurisdiction,
fails to comply with the condition, the donated property reverts back automatically to this Court has considered as sufficient proof of common-law relationship the
the donor. Where the donee denies, the rescission or challenges the propriety stipulations between the parties,30 a conviction of concubinage,31 or the existence of
thereof, then only the final award of the court can conclusively settle whether the legitimate children.32
resolution is proper or not. Quilala v. Alcantara, 371 SCRA 311

A declaration of petitioner’s absolute ownership appears legally possible only when Although the law requires that a Donation of an immovable must be made in a public
the deed of donation is contextually declared peremptorily revoked. document, mere defect in the placement of the required signatures in the document
does not invalidate the donation. The lack of an acknowledgment by the donee before
As between the parties to the donation and their assigns, the registration of the deed the notary public does not also render the donation null and void. The instrument
of donation with the Registry of Deeds is not needed for its validity and efficacy. should be treated in its entirety. It cannot be considered a private document in part

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011

 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

and a public document in another part. The fact that it was acknowledged before a
notary public converts the deed of donation in its entirety a public instrument. Yam v. Court of Appeals, 303 SCRA 1

Republic v. de Guzman, 326 SCRA 90 Art. 1270, par. 2 of the Civil Code provides that express condonation must comply
with the forms of donation. 12 Art. 748, par. 3 provides that the donation and
As a rule, only a Filipino can acquire private lands in the Philippines. The only acceptance of a movable, the value of which exceeds P5,000,00, must be made in
instances when a foreigner can acquire private lands are by hereditary succession writing, otherwise the same shall be void. In this connection, under Art. 417, par. 1,
and if he was formerly a natural-born Filipino citizen who lost his Philippine obligations, actually referring to credits, l3 are considered movable property. In the
citizenship. case at bar, it is undisputed than the alleged agreement to condone P266,196.88 of
the second IGLF loan was not reduced in writing.
Heirs of Velasquez v. Court of Appeals, 325 SCRA 552
Noceda v. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 504
A donation as a mode of acquiring ownership results in an effective transfer of title
over the property from the donor to the donee, and the donation is perfected from the The purpose of partition is to put an end to co-ownership. It seeks a severance of the
moment the donor knows of the acceptance by the donee. And once a donation is individual interest of each co-owner, vesting in each a sole estate in specific property
accepted, the donee becomes the absolute owner of the property donated. On the and giving to each one a right to enjoy his estate without supervision or interference
practical side, the one who has possession of documentary evidence always has the from the other. One way of effecting a partition of the decedent’s estate is by the
upper hand. heirs themselves extrajudicially.

Gestopa v. Court of Appeals, 342 SCRA 105 It was established that Noceda occupied not only the portion donated to him by
Directo but he also fenced the whole area of Lot C which belongs to Directo, thus
In ascertaining the intention of the donor, all the provisions of the deeds must be read Noceda’s act of occupying the portion pertaining to Directo without the latter’s
together. The granting clause shows that Diego donated the properties out of love knowledge and consent is an act of usurpation which is an offense against the
and affection for the donee. This is a mark of a donation inter vivos. property of the donor and considered as an act of ingratitude of a donee against the
donor. The law does not require conviction of the donee; it is enough that the offense
The reservation of the lifetime usufruct indicates that the donor intended to transfer be proved in the action for revocation.
the naked ownership over the properties.
The action to revoke by reason of ingratitude prescribes within one year to be
A valid donation, once accepted, becomes irrevocable, except on the account of counted from the time (a) the donor had knowledge of the fact; (b) provided that it
officiousness, failure by the donee to comply with the charges imposed in the was possible for him to bring the action. It is incumbent upon Noceda to show proof
donation, or in gratitude. of the concurrence of these two conditions in order that the one year period for
bringing the action be considered to have already prescribed. No competent proof
Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, 343 SCRA 637 was adduced by petitioner to prove his allegation. In Civil Cases, the party having the
burden of proof must establish his case by preponderance of evidence. He who
There is an implied trust when a donation is made to a person but it appears that alleges a fact has the burden of proving it and a mere allegation is not evidence.
though the legal estate is transmitted to the donee, he nevertheless is either to have
no beneficial interest or only a part thereof. Property received by compulsory heirs Hemedes v. Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 347
from the decedent under an implied trust is subject to collation.
The donation in favor of Enrique is null and void for the purported object thereof did
Central Philippine University. v. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 511 not exist at the time of the transfer, having already been transferred to Maxima
(Article 1409). Similarly, the sale of the subject property by Enrique to Dominium is
The condition imposed by the donor, i.e., the building of a medical school upon the also a nullity for the latter cannot acquire more rights than its predecessor-in-interest
land donated, depended upon the exclusive will of the donee as to when this and is definitely not an innocent purchaser for value since Enrique did not present
condition shall be fulfilled. When petitioner accepted the donation, it bound itself to any CT upon which it relied.
comply with the condition thereof. Since the time within which the condition should be
fulfilled depended upon the exclusive will of the petitioner, it has been held that its
absolute acceptance and the acknowledgment of its obligation provided in the deed
of donation were sufficient to prevent the statute of limitations from barring the action
of private respondents upon the original contract which was the deed of donation.
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011
 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

Imperial v. Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 393 A simple or pure donation is one whose cause is pure liberality (no strings attached),
while an onerous donation is one which is subject to burdens, charges or future
What, then, is the prescriptive period for an action for reduction of an inofficious services equal to or more in value than the thing donated. 10 Under Article 733 of the
donation? The Civil Code specifies the following instances of reduction or revocation Civil Code, donations with an onerous cause shall be governed by the rules on
of donations: (1) four years, in cases of subsequent birth, appearance, recognition or contracts; hence, the formalities required for a valid simple donation are not
adoption of a child; 16 (2) four years, for non-compliance with conditions of the applicable.
donation; 17 and (3) at any time during the lifetime of the donor and his relatives
entitled to support, for failure of the donor to reserve property for his or their support. In the words of the esteemed Mr. Justice Jose C. Vitug, 14 "Like any other contract, an
18
Interestingly, donations as in the instant case, 19 the reduction of which hinges upon agreement of the parties is essential. The donation, following the theory of cognition
the allegation of impairment of legitime, are not controlled by a particular prescriptive (Article 1319, Civil Code), is perfected only upon the moment the donor knows of the
period, for which reason we must resort to the ordinary rules of prescription. acceptance by the donee." Furthermore, "[i]f the acceptance is made in a separate
instrument, the donor shall be notified thereof in an authentic form, and this step shall
Under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, actions upon an obligation created by law must be noted in both instruments." 15
be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues. Thus, the ten-
year prescriptive period applies to the obligation to reduce inofficious donations, Acceptance of the donation by the donee is, therefore, indispensable; its absence
required under Article 771 of the Civil Code, to the extent that they impair the legitime makes the donation null and void. 16 The perfection and the validity of a donation are
of compulsory heirs. well explained by former Sen. Arturo M. Tolentino in this wise:

From when shall the ten-year period be reckoned? The case of Mateo vs. Lagua, 29 . . . Title to immovable property does not pass from the donor to the donee by virtue
SCRA 864, which involved the reduction for inofficiousness of a donation propter of a deed of donation until and unless it has been accepted in a public instrument and
nuptias, recognized that the cause of action to enforce a legitime accrues upon the the donor duly notified thereof. The acceptance may be made in the very same
death of the donor-decedent. Clearly so, since it is only then that the net estate may instrument of donation. If the acceptance does not appear in the same document, it
be ascertained and on which basis, the legitimes may be determined. must be made in another. Solemn words are not necessary; it is sufficient if it shows
the intention to accept. But in this case it is necessary that formal notice thereof be
It took private respondents 24 years since the death of Leoncio to initiate this case. given to the donor, and the fact that due notice has been given must be noted in both
The action, therefore, has long prescribed. instruments (that containing the offer to donate and that showing the acceptance).
Then and only then is the donation perfected. If the instrument of donation has been
Inofficiousnesss may arise only upon the death of the donor as the value of donation recorded in the registry of property, the instrument that shows the acceptance should
may then be contrasted with the net value of the estate of the donor deceased. also be recorded. Where the deed of donation fails to show the acceptance, or where
the formal notice of the acceptance, made in a separate instrument, is either not
Siguan v. Lim, 318 SCRA 725 given to the donor or else not noted in the deed of donation and in the separate
acceptance, the donation is null and void. 17
The action to rescind contracts in fraud of creditors is known as accion pauliana. For
this action to prosper, the following requisites must be present: (1) the plaintiff asking the acceptance of a donation may be made at any time during the lifetime of the
for rescission has a credit prior to the alienation, 12 although demandable later; (2) the donor. And granting arguendo that such acceptance may still be admitted in evidence
debtor has made a subsequent contract conveying a patrimonial benefit to a third on appeal, there is still need for proof that a formal notice of such acceptance was
person; (3) the creditor has no other legal remedy to satisfy his claim; 13 (4) the act received by the donor and noted in both the deed of donation and the separate
being impugned is fraudulent; 14 (5) the third person who received the property instrument embodying the acceptance. At the very least, this last legal requisite of
conveyed, if it is by onerous title, has been an accomplice in the fraud. 15 annotation in both instruments of donation and acceptance was not fulfilled by
The general rule is that rescission requires the existence of creditors at the time of petitioner. For this reason, the subject lot cannot be adjudicated to him.
the alleged fraudulent alienation, and this must be proved as one of the bases of the
judicial pronouncement setting aside the contract. 16 Without any prior existing debt, Sicad v. Court of Appeals, 294 SCRA 183
there can neither be injury nor fraud. While it is necessary that the credit of the
plaintiff in the accion pauliana must exist prior to the fraudulent alienation, the date of A donation which purports to be one inter vivos but withholds from the donee the right
the judgment enforcing it is immaterial. Even if the judgment be subsequent to the to dispose of the donated property during the donor's lifetime is in truth one mortis
alienation, it is merely declaratory, with retroactive effect to the date when the credit causa. In a donation mortis causa "the right of disposition is not transferred to the
was constituted. donee while the donor is still alive."
Lagazo v. Court of Appeals, 287 SCRA 18
Quijada v. Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 695
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011
 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

ousted therefrom nor prevented from enjoying their fruits. His possession was
Lands which were previously donated may still be sold to a third person. Such sale is uninterrupted and in good faith because of his well-founded belief that the donation
still valid even if at the time the sale was perfected, the donor-seller did not own the propter nuptias was properly executed and the grantors were legally allowed to
land. It is upon the consummation of a perfected sale where the donor-seller is convey their respective shares in his favor. He likewise appropriated to himself the
obliged to deliver the thing sold. whole produce of the parcels of land to the exclusion of all others.

Heirs of Salamat v. Tamayo, 298 SCRA 313 The donation propter nuptias was effected as early as 21 April 1926. It was only in
1986 when the heirs of Segunda Maningding demanded partition of the properties
“It is clear from Article 749 that a transfer of real property from one person to another and conveyance of the produce. Sixty (60) years have already elapsed. Even
cannot take effect as a donation unless embodied in a public document.” granting that Roque Bauzon possessed the properties only upon the death of his
father in 1948, more than thirty (30) years have already passed. In either case,
While it is true that a void donation may be the basis of ownership which may ripen acquisitive prescription has already set in in favor of Roque Bauzon.
into title by prescription, it is well settled that possession, to constitute the foundation
of a prescriptive right, must be adverse and under a claim of title. Sanchez v. Court of Appeals, 279 SCRA 647

Agapay v. Palang, 276 SCRA 340 Collation as mandated by Article 1061 of the Civil Code contemplates properties
conveyed inter vivos by the decedent to an heir by way of donation or other gratuitous
Palang and Agapay's marriage is void. Living in common law, property shall only be title. The deeds of sale did not involve gratuitous transfers of future inheritance; these
considered co-owned if it was acquired through monetary or industrial contribution. were contracts of sale perfected by the Juan and Maria during their lifetime. Hence,
The Supreme Court held that considering her age, Agapay was unlikely able to the property conveyed thereby are not collationable.
contribute P3250 that she claims she earned from her store, for the purchase of the
San Felipe property. Eduarte v. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 391

Further, the fact that Palang and his first wife Vallesterol, compromised to separate City of Angeles v. Court of Appeals, 261 SCRA 90
their property upon donation to Hermenia is without effect. A juridical separation of
property can only be done in court. Hence, the money paid for the property It is clear from the aforequoted amendment that it is no longer optional on the part of
undoubtedly belongs to the 1st marriage, and due to this, so does the land. the subdivision owner/developer to donate the grounds; rather there is now a legal
obligation to donate the same. Although there is a proviso a proviso that the donation
As for the Binalonan property, the testimony of the notary who prepared the deed of of the parks and playgrounds may be made to the homeowners association of the
conveyance stated that Palang paid for the property, but instructed that it be project with the consent of the city of municipality, concerned, nonetheless, the
registered in Agapay's name, in effect a donation. As this was made in adultery or owner/developer is still obligated under the law to donate. Such option does not
concubinage, the donation is void. Moreover, as Agapay and Palang were living as change the mandatory hectare of the provision. The donation has to be made
common law partners, Article 87 of the Family Code stipulates that donation cannot regardless of which donee is picked by the owner/developer. The consent
be done between them. requirement before the same can be donated to the homeowners" association
emphasizes this point.
Heirs of Maningding v. Court of Appeals, 276 SCRA 601
It is clear that P.D. 1216 was an attempt to achieve a happy compromise and a
Even assuming that the donation proper nuptias is void for failure to comply with realistic balance between the imperatives of environmental planning and the need to
formal requisites, 7 it could still constitute a legal basis for adverse possession. With maintain economic feasibility in subdivision and housing development, by reducing
clear and convincing evidence of possession, a private document of donation may the required area for parks, playgrounds and recreational uses from thirty percent
serve as basis for a claim of ownership (30%) to only 3.5% � 9% of the entire area of the subdivision

In the instant case, Roque Bauzon possessed the subject parcels of land in the any condition may be imposed in the donation, so long as the same is not contrary to
concept of owner by virtue of the donation propter nuptias. The possession was law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy. The contention of petitioners
public as it was Roque Bauzon who personally tilled and cultivated the lots. The acts that the donation should be unconditional because it is mandatory has no basis in
of reaping the benefits of ownership were manifest and visible to all. These acts were law. P.D. 1216 does not provide that the donation the open space for parks and
made more pronounced and public considering that the parcels of land are located in playgrounds should be unconditional. To rule that it should be so is tantamount to
a municipality wherein ownership and possession are particularly and normally known unlawfully expanding, the provisions of the decree
to the community. Roque peacefully possessed the properties as he was never
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011
 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

To determine if the over 50,000 square meter area donated pursuant to the amended The cohabitation was an implied condition to the donation, and being unlawful,
deed would yield an excess over the area required by the decree, it is necessary to necessarily tainted the donation itself.
determine under which density category the Timog Park subdivision falls.
The donation made by the husband in contravention of law is not void in its entirety,
If the subdivision falls under the low density or open market housing category, with 20 but only in so far as it prejudices the interest of the wife. The value of her share in the
family lots or below per gross hectare, the developer will need to allot only 3.5% of property donated can not be paid out of the husband’s share of the community profits.
gross area for parks and playgrounds, and since the donated land constitutes "more
than five (5) percent of the total land area of the subdivision 13 there would therefore As privies to their parent, the heirs are barred from invoking the illegality of the
be an excess of over 1.5% of gross area which would not be non-buildable. donation. But their right to a legitime out of his estate is not affected. Hence, the
Petitioners, on the other hand, alleged (and private respondent did not controvert) forced heirs are entitled to have the donation set aside in so far as inofficious, that is,
that the subdivision in question is a "medium-density or economic housing" in excess of the portion for free disposal.
subdivision based on the sizes of the family lots donated in the amended deed, 14 for
which category the decree mandates that not less than 7% of gross area be set Cagaoan v. Cagaoan, 43 Phil. 554
aside. Since the donated land constitutes only a little more than 5% of the gross area
of the subdivision, which is less than the area required to be allocated for non- The property goes to the vendee who first records his title in the registry of property. If
buildable open space, therefore there is no "excess land" to speak of. This then the sale is not recorded by either vendee, the property goes to the one who first takes
means that the condition to build a sports complex on the donated land is contrary to possession of it in good faith, and in the absence of both record and possession, to
law and should be considered as not imposed the one who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

Catholic Bishop of Balanga v. Court of Appeals, 264 SCRA 181 Gonzales v. Gonzales, 35 Phil. 150
Osorio, 41 Phil. 531
Under the doctrine of laches, the consequence of petitioner’s inaction for 49 years
since the execution of the deed of donation, despite its apparently undeniable Nagrampa v. Nagrampa, G.R. No. L-15434, 31 October 1960
knowledge of defendant’s adverse, peaceful and continuous possession of the
subject property in the concept of an owner, is that it has lost its rights to the subject The deed of donation was undoubtedly inter vivos. It was captioned "onerous
property and can no longer recover the same due to its own inexcusable negligence donation inter vivos." It contemplated immediate transfer of ownership. There was no
and grave lack of vigilance in protecting its rights over a tremendously long period of mention of death, the donees "hereby received" the donation, and it provided for
time. registration of the instrument (which donated real property) in the land records. It was
not in the form of a will, since there were no three witnesses and no attestation
Carlos v. Castillo, 23 Phil. 364 clause.1
Such donations (inter vivos) "shall be governed by the general provisions concerning
Manalo v. de Mesa, 29 Phil. 495 contracts and obligations in all matters not determined by this title." Art. 621, Civil
Code (Art. 732, Civil Code of the Philippines). And under Art. 647 of the same title (as
Under the old Civil Code, it is a settled rule that donations with an onerous cause are amended by Art. 764 of the Civil Code of the Philippines), actions for the revocation of
governed not by the law on donations but by the rules on contracts such donation by reason of non-compliance with its conditions prescribe "after four
years counted from such non-compliance." Now, therefore, as the complaint
Di Siok Jian v. Sy Lioc Suy, 43 Phil. 562 described refusal of donees to render services � which refusal constituted the alleged
non-compliance � more than five years before the presentation thereof, it is clear that
Liguez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-11240, 18 December 1957 the court a quo committed no error in dismissing it on the ground of prescription

Liberality of the donor is deemed cause only in those contracts that are of pure In the case of De Guzman et al. v. Ibea et al. (67 Phil. 633), this Court through Mr.
beneficience, that is, contracts designed solely and exclusively to procure the welfare Chief Justice Avancena said that if a donation by its terms is inter vivos, this character
of the beneficiary, without any merit of producing any satisfaction for the donor. is not altered by the fact that the donor styles it mortis causa

In remuneratory contracts, the consideration is the service of benefit for which the Baretto v. City of Manila, 7 Phil. 416
remuneration is given; causa is not liberality in these cases because the contract or Acunin v. Asis, 46 O.G. 4980
conveyance is not made out of pure beneficience, but “solvendi animo.” Franco v. Tutaan, 50 O.G. 4317

Siain Enterprises, Inc. v. F.F. Cruz, 500 SCRA 406

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011
 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

Tax declarations and receipts can only be the basis of a claim of ownership through
Recognition of the preferential right of the littoral owner to the foreshore land formed prescription when coupled with actual possession.
by accretion or alluvial deposits due to the action of the sea. For being part of the
pubic domain, ownership of the area could not be acquired by Western Visayas Secretary, et al. v. Heirs of Dulay, 480 SCRA 452
Industrial Corporation.
Since such failure to comply with the condition of utilizing the property for school
Iglesia ni Cristo v. Ponferrada, 505 SCRA 828 purposes became manifest sometime in 1988 when the DECS utilized another
property for the construction of the school building, the four-year prescriptive period
Since heirs are considered co-owners pro indiviso of the whole property, the signature did not commence on such date. Petitioner was given more than enough time to
of one of them in the verification and certification is sufficient for the trial court to take comply with the condition, and it cannot be allowed to use this fact to its advantage.
cognizance of the case. As co-owners, each of the heirs may properly bring an action It must be stressed that the donation is onerous because the DECS, as donee, was
for ejectment, forcible entry and detainer, or any kind of action for the recovery of burdened with the obligation to utilize the land donated for school purposes. Under
possession. Article 733 of the New Civil Code, a donation with an onerous cause is essentially a
contract and is thus governed by the rules on contract.
The prescriptive period for the reinvindicatory action has not yet commenced to run
when plaintiff was in actual or physical possession of the property when he filed his Since a deed of donation is considered a written contract, it is governed by Article
complaint. 1144 of the New Civil Code, which provides that the prescriptive period for an action
arising from a written contract is ten (10) years from the time the cause of action
Feliciano v. Zaldivar, 503 SCRA 182 accrues. In the case of donation, the accrual of the cause of action is from the
expiration of the time within which the donee must comply with the conditions or
Lands covered by a title cannot be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. obligations of the donation. In the instant case, however, it must be noted that the
subject donation fixed no period within which the donee can comply with the condition
Case law teaches that if the claimant’s possession of the land is merely tolerated by of donation. As such, resort to Article 1197 of the New Civil Code is necessary. Said
its lawful owner, the latter’s right to recover possession is not barred by laches. article provides that if the obligation does not fix a period, but from its nature and the
circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended, the courts may fix the
Herbon v. Palad, 495 SCRA 544 duration thereof. Indeed, from the nature and circumstances of the condition of the
subject donation, it can be inferred that a period was contemplated by the donors.
Until there is partition, the New Civil Code provisions on co-ownership shall govern The donors could not have intended their property to remain idle for a very long
the rights of the parties. The specific shares of the parties cannot be resolved in this period of time when, in fact, they specifically obliged the defendant-appellants to
case since it is not clear from the records whether all of Gonzalo's children from his utilize the land donated for school purposes and thus put it in good use
first marriage were alive at the time of his death. An action for partition is the proper
forum to determine the particular portions properly pertaining to petitioners and Espino v. Vicente, 492 SCRA 330
respondents, as well as the accounting of the profits or income received by
petitioners from the use of the land A donation is an act of liberality whereby a person disposes gratuitously a thing or
right in favor of another, who accepts it. Like any other contract, an agreement of the
Heirs of Cabal v. Cabal, 497 SCRA 301 parties is essential. Consent in contracts presupposes the following requisites: (1) it
should be intelligent or with an exact notion of the matter to which it refers; (2) it
Elementary is the rule that there is no co-ownership where the portion owned is should be free, and (3) it should be spontaneous. The parties’ intention must be clear
concretely determined and identifiable, thought not technically described, or that said and the attendance of a vice of consent, like any contract, renders the donation
portion is still embraced in one and the same certificate of title does make said voidable
portion less determinable or identifiable or distinguishable, one from the other, nor
that dominion over each portion less exclusive in their respective owners. While it is true that deeds which have been notarized are presumed to have been
duly executed, this presumption of regularity can be rebutted by clear and convincing
Prescription, in general, is a mode of acquiring or losing ownership and other real evidence as in this case. As earlier stated, the due execution of the Pagkakaloob
rights through the lapse of time in the manner and other conditions laid down by law, suffered from infirmities which derogate from the presumption of regularity that
namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner, pubic, peaceful, notarization attaches to it. Further, Marcelina testified that she never appeared
uninterrupted and adverse. before Cresenciano C. Santiago who allegedly notarized the Pagkakaloob.

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011

 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

Anent the weight accorded by the Court of Appeals to the tax declarations in the
names of the respondents and the realty tax receipts, we hold that while it is true that The law provides that temporary easement is allowed only after the payment of the
tax declarations and tax receipts are good indicia of possession in the concept of an proper indemnity.
owner, the same must be accompanied by possession for a period sufficient for
prescription. By themselves, tax declarations and tax receipts do not conclusively Avila v. Barabat, 485 SCRA 8
prove ownership. We have reviewed the records of this case and we find that even at
the time of the filing of the application by respondent Emma Vicente for the issuance For this right to be exercised, co-ownership must exist at the time the conveyance is
of a free patent over the subject property, the person occupying the same was made by a co-owner and the redemption is demanded by the other co-owner or co-
Emerenciana Espino. Ireneo Guballa, a Public Land Inspector/Investigator of the owner(s).7 However, by their own admission, petitioners were no longer co-owners
CENRO, and a disinterested third party, testified that Emerenciana and Marcelina when the property was sold to respondents in 1979. The co-ownership had already
were the occupants of the property prior to and at the time that he conducted the been extinguished by partition.
ocular inspection on the premises
The regime of co-ownership exists when the ownership of an undivided thing or right
Heirs of Cipriano Reyes v. Calumpang, 506 SCRA 56 belongs to different persons.8 By the nature of co-ownership, a co-owner cannot point
to any specific portion of the property owned in common as his own because his
In this factual setting, respondents could have filed an action for reconveyance to share in it remains intangible and ideal.9
recover their shares in Lot No. 3880. However, instead of instituting such a suit,
respondents were able to convince Victorino, Luis, and Jovito, all surnamed Reyes, to Every act intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs is deemed to be a
execute a Deed of Quitclaim restoring to them their shares. Therefore, it is clear that partition.10 Here, the particular portions pertaining to petitioners had been ascertained
the quitclaim is not a donation for the three (3) Reyeses––Victorino, Luis, and and they in fact already took possession of their respective parts.
Jovito––who merely acknowledged the ownership of and the better right over the said
lot by the heirs of Victoriana and Telesfora Reyes. Having acquired title over the The purpose of partition is to separate, divide and assign a thing held in common
property in 1954 to the exclusion of respondents Agalas and Manabans, through the among those to whom it belongs. 14 By their own admission, petitioners already
Deed of Quitclaim executed in 1972, the three (3) Reyeses merely acknowledged the segregated and took possession of their respective shares in the lot. Their respective
legal rights of respondents over their shares in the said lot. In fine, the Deed of shares were therefore physically determined, clearly identifiable and no longer ideal.
Quitclaim, not being a donation, no formal acceptance is needed from the Agalas and Thus, the co-ownership had been legally dissolved. With that, petitioners� right to
Manabans. redeem any part of the property from any of their former co-owners was already
extinguished. As legal redemption is intended to minimize co-ownership,15 once a
Republic v. Carrasco, 510 SCRA 150 property is subdivided and distributed among the co-owners, the community ceases
to exist and there is no more reason to sustain any right of legal redemption
In his Deed of Waiver dated December 16, 1991, Mingao merely claimed ownership
of the land and that he is waiving his right and interest thereon in favor of the AC Enterprises, Inc. v. Frabelle, etc., 506 SCRA 625
respondent. The waiver cannot even be considered a donation because it does not
comply with the formalities required in order for a donation of an immovable to be An action for abatement of a private nuisance, more specifically noise generated by
valid pursuant to Article 749 of the Civil Code 16 because respondent's acceptance the blowers of an air-conditioning system, even if the plaintiff prays for damages, is
thereof is lacking one incapable of pecuniary estimation because the basic issue is something other
than the right to recover a sum of money.
Preysler, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 494 SCRA 547
A private nuisance is one which violates only private rights and produces damage to
under Article 656 of the New Civil Code, if the right of way is indispensable for the but one or few persons while a nuisance is public when it interferes with the exercise
construction, repair, improvement, alteration or beautification of a building, a of a public right by directly encroaching on public property or by causing a common
temporary easement is granted after payment of indemnity for the damage caused to injury, an unreasonable interference with the right common to the general public.
the servient estate. In our view, however, "indispensable" in this instance is not to be
construed literally. Great inconvenience is sufficient. 11 In the present case, the trial A private nuisance action is the remedy for an invasion of a property right, while the
court found that irrespective of which route petitioner used in gaining access to his action for the abatement of a public nuisance should be commenced by the city or
property, he has to pass private respondent's subdivision. Thus we agree that municipality.
petitioner may be granted a temporary easement. This temporary easement in the
original writ differs from the permanent easement of right of way now being tried in Noise becomes actionable only when it passes the limits of reasonable adjustment to
the main case. the conditions of the locality and of the needs of the maker to the needs of the
GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011
 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

listener. Injury to a particular person in a peculiar position or of especially sensitive affidavit of Heliodoro Turingan, was not passed upon by the MTCC and the RTC.
characteristics will not render the noise an actionable nuisance. In the conditions of Their respective decisions did not even mention the same.
present living, noise seems inseparable from the conduct of many necessary
occupations. In conclusion, it is well to stress the CA�s admonition that our ruling on the issue of
physical possession does not affect title to the property nor constitute a binding and
The determining factor when noise alone is the cause of complaint is not its intensity conclusive adjudication on the merits on the issue of ownership. The parties are not
or volume – it is that the noise is of such character as to produce actual physical precluded from filing the appropriate action directly contesting the ownership of or the
discomfort and annoyance to a person of ordinary sensibilities, rendering adjacent title to the property.
property less comfortable and valuable.
Patricio v. Dario, 507 SCRA 438
Liability for nuisance may be imposed upon one who sets in motion the force from
which entirely caused the tortuous act, one who sets in motion a force or a chain of Occupancy of the family home either by the owner thereof or by any of its
events resulting in the nuisance. It is sufficient to maintain an action for abatement of beneficiaries must be actual. The law definitely excludes maids and overseers.
a nuisance if his building is rendered valueless for the purpose it was devoted.
The family home shall continue despite the death of one or both spouses or of the
Parayno v. Javellana, 495 SCRA 85 unmarried head of the family for a period of 10 years or for as long as there is a minor
beneficiary, and the heirs cannot partition the same unless the court finds compelling
The abatement of nuisance without judicial proceedings is possible only if it is a reasons therefore. Rule shall apply regardless of whoever owns the property or
nuisance per se. A gas station is not a nuisance per se or one affecting the immediate constituted the family home.
safety of persons or property.
An action to demand partition is imprescriptible or cannot be barred by laches.
Republic v. Jacob, 495 SCRA 529
Heirs of Diaz v. Virata, 498 SCRA 141
Under the Regalian doctrine, all lands not otherwise appearing to be clearly within
private ownership are presumed to belong to the State. Unless public land is shown Laches is defined as the failure to assert a right for an unreasonable length of time,
to have been reclassified as alienable or disposable to a private person by the state, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned or
it remains part of the inalienable public domain. declined to assert it. While it is true that a Torrens title is indefeasible and
imprescriptible, the registered landowner may lose his right to recover the possession
Property of the public domain is beyond the commerce of man and not susceptible of of his registered property by reason of laches.
private appropriation and acquisitive prescription. Occupation thereof in the concept
of owner no matter how long cannot ripen into ownership and be registered as a title. For laches to apply, it must be shown that there was lack of knowledge or notice on
The statute of limitations with regard to public agricultural lands does not operate the part of the defendant that complainant would assert the right in which he bases
against the State unless the occupant proves possession and occupation of the same his suit. The dismissal without prejudice is adequate to apprise a party that an action
after a claim of ownership for the required number of years to constitute a grant from to assert the other party’s right is forthcoming.
the State.
Albon v. Fernando, 494 SCRA 141
Heirs of Lasam v. Umengan, 510 SCRA 496
what is true for subdivision roads or streets applies to subdivision sidewalks as well.
Contrary to the assertion of petitioners, therefore, the conveyances made by the Ownership of the sidewalks in a private subdivision belongs to the subdivision
children of Isabel Cuntapay by her first marriage to respondent are valid insofar as owner/developer until it is either transferred to the government by way of donation or
their pro indiviso shares are concerned. Moreover, the CA justifiably held that these acquired by the government through expropriation.
conveyances, as evidenced by the deed of donation and deed of sale presented by
respondent, coupled with the fact that she has been in possession of the subject lot
since 1955, establish that respondent has a better right to possess the same as
against petitioners whose claim is largely based on Isabel Cuntapay�s last will and
testament which, to date, has not been probated; hence, has no force and effect and
under which no right can be claimed by petitioners. Significantly, the probative value
of the other evidence relied upon by petitioners to support their claim, which was the

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011

 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

Tamayo v. Huang, 480 SCRA 156 contract to sell, deed of sale and/or other similar instrument with the Register of
Deeds (Section 17, paragraph 1).
In case the developer of a subdivision or condominium fails in its obligation under
Section 20, Section 23 gives the buyer the option to demand reimbursement of the From the foregoing, it is clear that petitioners are required to register the Contracts to
total amount paid, or to wait for further development of the subdivision, 27 and when Sell in favor of respondent Lee, and their failure to do so is a violation of Section 17 of
the buyer opts for the latter alternative, he may suspend payment of installments until P.D. No. 957.
such time that the owner or developer had fulfilled its obligation to him.
Ugale v. Gorospe, 501 SCRA 376
Apropos, to require clearance from the HLURB before stopping payment would not
be in keeping with the intent of the law to protect innocent buyers of lots or homes Lands covered by title cannot be acquired by prescription or by adverse possession
from scheming subdivision developers. To give full effect to such intent, it would be and allegations of uninterrupted possession for many years cannot prevail over
fitting to treat the right to stop payment to be immediately effective upon giving due respondent’s certificate of title which is the best proof of ownership thereof.
notice to the owner or developer or upon filing a complaint before the HLURB against
the erring developer. Such course of action would be without prejudice to the Borbajo v. Hidden View, et al., 510 SCRA 243
subsequent determination of its propriety and consequences, should the suspension
of payment subsequently be found improper Borbajo contends that the appellate court erred in reversing the finding of the RTC
that she is the developer of Hidden View Subdivision I. According to her, and as borne
The contract not having been cancelled in accordance with law, it has remained valid out by her testimony before the RTC, she was the true developer of Hidden View
and subsisting. It was, therefore, within petitioner�s right to maintain his option to Subdivision I even though the License to Sell was issued in the name of Bontuyan.
await the completion of the development of and introduction of improvements in the
subdivision and thereafter, upon full payment of the purchase price, without interest, we are bound by the value in law and the evidentiary weight of the titles in the name
compel respondents to execute a deed of absolute sale. of Borbajo. As long as the titles are not annulled, Borbajo remains registered a co-
owner and therefore her right to use the road lots subsists.
Zamora Realty, et al. v. O.P., 506 SCRA 591
Likewise, with Borbajo as a registered co-owner of the road lots, it is utterly pointless
Where the subject matter of the contract is a subdivision lot, the applicable law is to discuss whether she is entitled to the easement of right of way. Both from the text
PD957 and as such, the right of the seller to consider the contract to sell ineffectual in of Article 64936 of the Civil Code and the perspective of elementary common sense,
case of failure of the prospective buyer to pay the amortization, is limited. Considering the dominant estate cannot be the servient estate at the same time. One of the
the purpose of PD957 and the evil sought to be prevented, a verbal notice of the characteristics of an easement is that it can be imposed only on the property of
intention to suspend remittance of payment is sufficient. another, never on one�s own property. An easement can exist only when the servient
and the dominant estates belong to different owners.37
The law provides two remedies in case of incomplete development of the subdivision
projects which are available to the prospective buyer, not to the developer: Borbajo, being a registered co-owner of the three (3) road lots, is entitled to the
1. reimbursement of the total amount paid, including amortization interests but injunctive relief
excluding delinquency interests, with interests thereon at the legal rate
2. for the buyer to suspend amortization payments until the completion of the Guanga v. dela Cruz, 485 SCRA 80
project
possession does not mean that a man must have his feet on every square meter of
Sia v. People, 504 SCRA 507 the ground. It is enough that the property in dispute is subject to the action of one’s
will
Simply stated, P.D. No. 957 provides that when a registered owner of a parcel of land
wishes to convert the same into a subdivision project, he must register the Gayoso v. Twenty-Two Realty, et al., 495 SCRA 295
subdivision plan with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) (Section
4). Should he decide to sell the lots therein, he must also register the subdivision The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or unlawful detainer shall be
project with the HLURB and the subdivision plan with the Register of Deeds (Section conclusive with respect to the possession only.
17, paragraph 2). Thereafter, a registration certificate is issued to the subdivision
owner and he may then apply for a License to Sell the lots in the subdivision project.
Whenever a lot is subsequently sold, the subdivision owner is required to register the

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011

 PROPERTY DOCTRINES COMPILATION

Quevada v. Court of Appeals, 502 SCRA 233

The prescriptive period to file an action for ejectment is suspended while the case is
pending before the barangay authorities.

dela Cruz v. Court of Appeals, 510 SCRA 103

A person who wants to recover physical possession of his real property will prefer an
ejectment suit because it is governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure which
allows immediate execution of the judgment unless the defendant perfects an appeal
in the RTC and complies with the requirements to stay execution, all of which are
nevertheless beneficial to the interests of the lot owner or the holder of the right of
possession.

Moralidad v. Pernes, 497 SCRA 532

The term or period of the usufruct originally specified provides only one of the bases
for the right of a usufructuary to hold and retain possession of the thing given in
usufruct.

By express provision of the law, the usufructuaries do not have the right to
reimbursement for the improvements they may have introduced on the property. If the
rule on reimbursement or indemnity were otherwise, then the usufructuary might
improve the owner out of his property.

GRACE XAVIERE E. ESCOSIA / 2A ATENEO 2011