Bundle of Rights
3. Only such interference as is necessary shall be made in order to avert the damage
owner may demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him.
This is basically the same rule as Article 11, ¶44 of the Revised Penal Code – prevention of a greater injury.
Requisites:
1. The interference must be necessary to avert imminent danger.
2. The threatened damage must be greater than the damage caused to the owner.
3. Only such interference as is necessary shall be made in order to avert the damage.
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
An example of Article 432 is a case in criminal law. In that case a car was burning near a gas station. The car was pushed away from the gar station.
However in the process, a house was burned.
B is running away from drug addicts. B passes a house. B smashes the door and is able to save himself. B’s actions are justified. B is not guilty of malicious mischief since B was trying to prevent injury to himself.
General Rule: Compensation may be demanded by the property owner.
Exception: No compensation if the injury is caused by the property owner and the person who intervened was not at fault.
B is drunk. B is walking home and singing “Bayan Ko”. B passes J’s house. J has a Doberman. The Doberman attacks B. B stabs the Doberman with a Swiss army knife. Did B act under Article 432? Yes. Does B have to pay? No, because the danger came from the property itself, the Doberman, and it was not B’s fault.
B sees Doberman sleeping. B starts shouting at the Doberman. B kicks the dog. Dog attacks B. B stabs the dog. B is justified in killing the dog under Article 432. B has a right to defend himself. However, B has to pay J since B provoked the dog.
Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of ownership raises disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
Assuming that the possessor claiming the ownership is illegitimate, the true owner (not in possession) must go to court. He cannot apply the doctrine of self-help under Article 429 since he is not in possession. Article 433 applies when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property.
Remedies
1. Action for forcible entry
The action of forcible entry is for the recovery of the material or physical possession and must be brought in the MTC within 1 year from the date of the forcible entry.
2. Accion publiciana
A plenary action for the recovery of the possession of real estate, upon mere allegation and proof of a better right thereto, and without allegation of proof of title. This action can only be brought after the expiration of 1 year.
3. Accion reivindicatoria
An action whereby the plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its possession.
4. Quieting of title
Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is 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 remove such cloud or to quiet the title.
An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.
Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.
Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or other obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive prescription.
Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have received from the latter, or reimburse him for expenses that may have redounded to the plaintiff's benefit.
Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in conflict with this Code.
Art. 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal of a cloud therefrom shall be governed by such rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgated.
Like accion publiciana, it involves only real property and is either curative or preventive. Unlike accion publiciana, quieting of title applies to both ownership and possession. In quieting of title, the complaint must allege the existence of an apparently valid or effective instrument or other claim which is in reality void, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable.
Article 476 seems to interchange removal of a cloud with quieting of title. In common law, there is a distinction. Under common law, an action to quiet title must set forth an adverse claim, but it must not be specific. Only a general claim is made. An action to remove a cloud requires a specific claim.
Article 476 can either be a preventive (¶2) or a remedial action (¶1).
Quieting of title is a quasi in rem action.
If the plaintiff in an action to quiet title is in possession of the property, then the action to quiet title is imprescriptible (Faya vs. CA).
As long as a person is in possession of the property, it is presumed that the person in possession is the owner. The burden is on the challenger to prove otherwise. The 1st sentence of Article 433 is similar to Article 541.
However, under Article 1131 for purposes of prescription, just title is not presumed. If one seeks to acquire title by prescription, the burden is on the applicant claiming to be the owner. In Article 1131, it is the possessor who is the applicant. The possessor is the one who has the burden to prove that he acquired the property through prescription. It is not presumed. In Articles 433 and 541, the possessor does not claim to own it by prescription. The possessor takes a defensive stance.
Art. 541. A possessor in the concept of owner has in his favor the legal presumption that he possesses with a just title and he cannot be obliged to show or prove it.
Art. 1131. For the purposes of prescription, just title must be proved; it is never presumed.
Art. 434. In an action to recover, the property must be identified, and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the weakness of the defendant's claim.
Two things must be proved in an accion reivindicatoria:
1. The identity of the property 2. Plaintiff’s title to it
Art. 435. No person shall be deprived of his property except by competent authority and for public use and always upon payment of just compensation.
Should this requirement be not first complied with, the courts shall protect and, in a proper case, restore the owner in his possession.
This is not really part of civil law. This is merely an adoption of the Constitutional provision on eminent domain.
Art. 436. When any property is condemned or seized by competent authority in the interest of health, safety or security, the owner thereof shall not be entitled to compensation, unless he can show that such condemnation or seizure is unjustified.
Under police power, the state deprives the individual of the property without just compensation.
P has a pair of socks which he has been wearing for 7 months. It is spreading numerous diseases. The state can take the pair of socks to burn. In doing so, there is no need for compensation.
If the state wants to do research on germ warfare, and the state takes the socks and its germs, the state should compensate P.
Art. 437. The owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it, and he can construct thereon any works or make any plantations and excavations which he may deem proper, without detriment to servitudes and subject to special laws and ordinances. He cannot complain of the reasonable requirements of aerial navigation.
In Roman law there is an old saying, “Cujus est solum, ejus est usque ad coelum et ad inferos (the owner of a piece of land owns everything above and below it to an indefinite extent).” This is not true anymore. Otherwise, airplanes would commit aerial trespass. However, it cannot be denied that the landowner owns the land, the earth and the air. Otherwise, his ownership is useless. Where do you draw the balance? The property owner owns the space and subsoil as far as is necessary for his practical interest and ability to assert dominion. Beyond this, the owner has nothing. This would depend on a case to case basis.
Art. 438. Hidden treasure belongs to the owner of the land, building, or other property on which it is found.
Nevertheless, when the discovery is made on the property of another, or of the State or any of its subdivisions, and by chance, one-half thereof shall be allowed to the finder. If the finder is a trespasser, he shall not be entitled to any share of the treasure.
If the things found be of interest to science of the arts, the State may acquire them at their just price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated.
Art. 439. By treasure is understood, for legal purposes, any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear.
If you find treasure in your land, the treasure is yours.
When a person finds treasure in a land that is not his, ½ goes to the finder and
½ goes to the owner of the land, building or other property.
Requisites When a Person Finds Treasure in a Land That is Not His 1. The deposit must be hidden and unknown (Article 439).
2. There is no lawful owner.
3. Discovery is by chance (Article 438).
There is debate as to what chance means. One school of thought thinks that chance means there was an intent to find treasure except that finding it was serendipitous. Another school of thought is that the finder should not have no intentions in the first place to look for treasure.
4. Discoverer must not be a trespasser.
Accession
Accession is not a mode of ownership. It is a mere concomitant right of ownership. It is a mere incident or consequence of ownership.
Art. 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.
The law wisely does not define accession. It merely tells us what accession does.
2 Kinds of Accession A. Accession discreta
The right pertaining to the owner of a thing over everything produced thereby (Article 442)