consequences of the wrongful possession of the decedent, if it is not shown that he was aware of the flaws affecting it; but the effects of possession in good faith shall not benefit him except upon the death of the decedent.
Can good faith be tacked onto bad faith? J.H. yes, JPSP, no.
Article 535
. Minors and incapacitated person may acquire the possession of things; but they need the assistance of their legal representatives in order to exercise the rights which from the possession arise in their favor.Reason for the rule?
Practicality – candy example.
Example: A minor may acquire the possession of a fountain pen donated to him, but in a case of court action regarding ownership of the pen, his legal representatives must intervene. What type of acquisition of possession is referred to in this article?
This article refers to acquisition of possession only in those matters where the incapacitated person has capacity to act such as occupation of res nullius, succession, prescription, or donation.
Article 536
. In no case may possession be acquired through force or intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto.He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
What are the modes through which possession may not be acquired?
a. Force or Intimidation;
b. Tolerance – possession is with the consent of the owner and redounds to his benefit;
c. Clandestine, secret possession.
Article 537
. Acts merely tolerated, andthose executed clandestinely and without the knowledge of the possessor of a thing, or by violence, do not affect possession.
What does it mean that the “acts…do not affect possession?”
(a) The intruder does not acquire any right to possession;
(b) The legal possessor, even if ousted, is still the possessor and is:
a. Entitled to the benefits of prescription;
b. Entitled to the fruits; c. Entitled as possessor for all
purposes favorable to his possession.
(c) The intruder cannot acquire the property by prescription.
You wake up in the morning and there is squatter in your yard – clandestine.
Caretaker on your land with understanding that he will leave when you need the land –
tolerance.
Article 538
. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the case of co-possession.Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred;
if there are two possessors, the one longer in possession;
if the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title;
and if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit appending determination of its possession or
ownership through proper proceedings.
Does this mean that property can be possessed by only one?
No, property may be physically possessed by more than one but not legally possessed. Compare to rule on double sale.
What is the general rule regarding possession as a fact and what are the exceptions?
The general rule is that possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities.
The exceptions are:
(a) co-possessors – there is no conflict of interest; they are co-owners;
(b) possession in different concepts or degrees – both owner and tenant are possessors as a fact at the same time; one in the concept of owner and the other in the concept of holder.
What are the rules or criteria to be used in case of conflict or dispute regarding possession?
(a) The present possessor shall be preferred;
(b) If both are present, the one longer in possession;
(c) If the dates of possession are the same, the one who presents a title;
(d) If all conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination by the court. What are the rules in case of double sale or double donation?
In this case, preference of ownership (not possession) is determined:
(a) movable property
a. preference to he who first possessed in good faith (b) immovable property
a. first who registered his right in good faith in the registry of property
b. if there was no registration, the person who first possessed in good faith
c. if there was no possession, the person who presents to oldest title, provided it was acquired in good faith
Execution of the deed of sale in a public document is equivalent to delivery of possession of the property .
Wong v. Carpio
Giger sold the property to Mercado by virtue of a deed of sale with right to repurchase; Mercado was issued a certificate/s of title. Mercado visited the property periodically, harvested coconuts, and made copra. He did not put up any signs, structures, or anything to indicate actual possession.
Several years after the sale, Wong went to the land and saw that it was unoccupied; he then bought it from Giger and was issued a certificate/s of title.
A few months after the sale to Wong, Mercado learned that the former’s laborers built a hut were occupying the land; Mercado was pleased.
Despite his initial elation, Mercado later filed a complaint for forcible entry against Wong. Wong raises the defense that Mercado has not established prior possession and that his acts of gathering coconuts and making copra were only tolerated by the true owner, Giger. ISSUE: Whether Mercado had possession of the property.
HELD: Yes, Mercado had possession. Article 531 of the Civil Code provides that “possession is acquired by the material
occupation of a thing or the exercise of a right, or by the fact that it is subject to the action of our will, or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right.”
Also, the execution of a sale through a public instrument is equivalent to the delivery of the thing, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.
Applying the aforementioned doctrines, the
execution of the deed of sale in a public document (it was notarized) was
equivalent to delivery of possession of the property.
Since prior possession of Mercado was proved, Wong must remove himself from the property.
It seems that, in relation to Article 531, even the gathering of coconuts (enjoyment of a right to the fruits) constitutes possession.
Obiters:
The SC also said that entry into the property by force, intimidation, strategy, or stealth, as a cause of action in forcible entry covers all of the ways by which one can wrongfully enter a property. The act of entering the property and excluding the rightful possessor therefrom implies the exertion of force.
Wong must pay rent from the time he learned of a defect in his title; in this case, from the time of service of summons.
An 82 year old title is incontrovertible and conclusive against the whole world.
Bishop v. CA