Documents

JULY 10

Description
P
Categories
Published
of 6
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
Share
Transcript
  PROPERTY | MIDTERM NOTES | AUF  –  SOL 2014 Page 1 | Bantay JULY 10, 2014 OWNERSHIP : there are certain essential rights of an owner of a thing: - Traditional elements of ownership → arises from the mere fact that you are the owner of the thing: 1) Right to ENJOY the fruits: to USE. 2) Right to DISPOSE: to sell, to exchange. 3) Right to CONSUME. 4) Right to RECOVER: to vindicate because you are the owner. - Is there a right to ABUSE? NO, Jus abutendi refers only to CONSUME the thing through its proper use. o  Bottom line: no right to abuse. LIMITATIONS OF THE RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP : - To the inherent powers of the state: POLICE POWER, EMINENT DOMAIN, TAXATION. o  When a property is taken by the state pursuant to the police power of the state, is just compensation required? NO, there is no right to claim just compensation.   At best, the owner subjected to the police power can only get an intangible and altruistic feeling that he has somehow contributed to the promotion of public welfare. o  When is the owner entitled to just compensation then? When the property is taken under the power of EMINENT DOMAIN.    For public use → constitutionally mandated. o  Can property be taken by way of payment for taxes (what you owe to the government)? It is allowed. - Restrictions imposed by the source of the property (example: when the property is merely inherited / donated). o  The donor can include restrictions as regards to the use of the property. o  He can set up conditions that must be complied with. o  Otherwise, the donor may even revoke the donation upon failure to follow them. o   EXAMPLE: ESPANA STREET → located in the middle of Quezon Boulevard and Quezon  Avenue, so logically, it should be called Quezon. The reason is that such street used to be part of the Dominican Friar Estates and when it was donated, there was a condition for it to still be called ESPANA STREET. - Restrictions imposed by the owner himself → involves contracts among other owners. o  Example: easement of right of way of adjoining lot owners. You cannot impede the proper use of that right of way. - Inherent limitations: in conflict with the other rights / other properties. ART. 430:  if you are the owner, you can enclose your property with a fence. - It is a right expressly granted to the owner by the law. CUSTODIO VS. CA : remember, there was no existing right of way existing when the fence was constructed. - Allowed, despite the great inconvenience of the owner of the adjoining property. - No damages recovered → an owner is granted by law to enclose his estate with a fence. - Damnum absque injuria . MODES OF RECOVERY : if you are the owner of a thing and someone who has no better right has taken possession of it, the owner can recover/vindicate the thing though: (1) MOVABLE: the remedy is to file an action for a WRIT OF REPLEVIN. o  There is a requirement of presenting a bond. (2) IMMOVABLE: a)  ACCION INTERDICTAL : to recover the material possession of the thing to be filed within 1 year from the time of dispossession. i. UNLAWFUL DETAINER ii. FORCIBLE ENTRY b)  ACCION PUBLICIANA : who has the better right of possession? o  Filed if more than 1 year had passed since the time of dispossession. NOTE: in accion interdictal and accion publiciana , the issue of ownership is not involved. c)  ACCION REIVINDICATORIA : plenary action based on ownership. o   o  You file this because you are the OWNER of the property. - Can an action for forcible entry against the OWNER of the property prosper? GERMAN MANAGEMENT VS. CA : YES, such action can proper / be maintained. - When German Management went to the property, there were already people living and cultivating crops on it. Then it used force to drive out the tillers so they can proceed with their development plans. - The action for forcible entry is merely a quieting process and it never determines the actual title to an estate. The issue of title is not included. - In this case, there were people who were cultivating the land.  PROPERTY | MIDTERM NOTES | AUF  –  SOL 2014 Page 2 | Bantay o  It also filed an action for FORCIBLE ENTRY → LC dismissed that action because German Management is not in actual possession of the property. - SC: a party in a party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a strong hand, or through violence or terror. o  Can you file an action of forcible entry against the owner of a property? YES. o  A party who can prove PRIOR POSSESSION can recover its possession even against the owner himself, through an action of forcible entry, as was done in this case. - DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP is unavailing because the doctrine of self-help can only be exercised at the time of ACTUAL or THREATENED dispossession which is absent in the case at bar. o  Cannot be invoked by the owners when possession has ALREADY been lost. o  you cannot use force.  A leased his land to B, his neighbor. At the end of the lease, A threatened to file an action against B. Can a still avail of the doctrine of self-help? - What if A already filed such action, can he use the doctrine and drive B away through forceful means? NO. - The DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP can only be invoked when there is an UNLAWFUL PHYSICAL USURPATION / invasion of one’s property. o  You need to go to court. o  If it is NOT actual or threatened PHYSICAL action, and it is through legal action, then you answer it by going to the court. ART. 432: DOCTRINE OF STATE NECESSITY / EMERGENCY :  A was injured and bleeding to death and he happens to be near the drugstore of B. Can A insist on using B’s products to stop his bleeding? - YES, A can use the products. - Same as in the case when A’s car is burning and he sees B who owns a fire extinguisher. A can use B’s fire extinguisher. o  B cannot prevent A from getting his fire extinguisher if the interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger. o  He has to pay damages. - It is necessary, however, that the interference with another’s property be indispensable to avert th e threatened danger or damage: MUST BE GREATER. o  The other person then cannot prevent the interference, but he is entitled for reparations. ART. 431: “TO INJURE RIGHT OF OTHERS.”  ANDAMO VS. IAC : LIMITATION: - The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the rights of a third person. - There were two estates: one is higher, and the other was lower. The owner of the higher estate constructed certain artificial bodies of water there. The only problem is that when it rains, the water, including the soil, will cascade down to the lower estate. ART. 434: the possessor of a property has the presumption of title in his favor.   - Any person who claims that he has a better right to the property, as owner thereof, must prove: 1) That he has a better title than the defendant to the property: must rely on the strength of his title and not to the weakness of the defendant’s claim. 2) The identity of the property. ART. 437: RIGHT TO SPACE AND SUBSOIL: the owner of the land owns the space above and the soil below his property (what is beneath). - The right does not include MINERALS as it belongs to the State. - Up to what depth will your right as your owner extend below the surface of your property? o  Up to such depth you can still make reasonable use of the property. Hangga’t kaya mong gamitin . NPC VS. IBRAHIM : NPC, without the notification and consent of the owner, constructed underground tunnels on the land owner’s property  to draw waters from a river. - The owner now wanted to construct a 150-meter deep well and discovered the tunnels. - SC: The owner is entitled to damages and NPC was liable for the full compensation of the land. - REASON: the nature of the easement practically deprives the owners of its normal beneficial use. REPUBLIC VS. CA : a property cannot be partly mineral and party agricultural. - The land in this case used to be the subject of a mining claim, duly registered with the government. But there were some people cultivating some portions of the property. - SC: it is either mineral or agricultural, NOT BOTH. The classification must be categorical; the land must be either completely mineral or completely agricultural. - As long as mining operations were being undertaken thereon, or underneath, it did not cease to be so and become agricultural, even if only partly so.  PROPERTY | MIDTERM NOTES | AUF  –  SOL 2014 Page 3 | Bantay ART. 438  –  439: HIDDEN TREASURE : must be HIDDEN and UNKNOWN deposit of money, jewelry or other precious objects. - Is oil included? NO, as it is a MINERAL. o  It is not money, jewel or other precious objects. o  Regalian Doctrine: the State owns it.  A saw his neighbor, B, digging a hole in his yard and burying a  jar full of gems on B’s yard. -  A then “found” it → NOT A HIDDEN TRESURE: the owner of the treasure is not unknown. - What if A, who was leasing (or given the usufruct of) B’s land, heard from an old man that there is a treasure on that land? A looked for it and found it. Is he entitled to it? o  YES, ½. - What if A was a trespasser? He is NOT entitled. - What if A was hired by B precisely to find the treasure on his (B’s) land? A is entitled to the compensation based on the provisions of their contract. o   You don’t get a share of the treasure as a FINDER. ART. 440: ACCESSION : - Is accession a mode of ownership? NO. o  The modes of ownership are prescription, law, occupation, donatio etc. Accession is NOT included. o  It is a mere consequence / incident of ownership. - Generally speaking, the right of accession is the right of the owner of a thing and everything that it produces, whether the attachment be natural or artificial. - Various KINDS: (1) DISCRETA: accession over the fruits. a) NATURAL FRUITS: example → the natural guava trees that grow due to pollination / excretion of birds. b) INDUSTRIAL FRUITS: anything that resulted from human labor or cultivation.   Example: mango trees planted. c) CIVIL FRUITS: example → rents from buildings / lands. (2) CONTINUA: things which are incorporated or attached to the property (component). a) MOVABLES: adjunction / conjunction, commixtion (confusion), specification. b) IMMOVABLES: accession industrial (BPS), accession natural   (alluvion, etc.). - When a property produces something, the GENERAL RULE is that the owner owns the fruits. o  EXCEPTIONS where the owner does not own the fruits. a) Possession in good faith: entitled to the fruits until good faith terminates. b) Usufruct: usufructuary is entitled to the fruits. c) Lease: lessee is entitled to the fruits. d)  Antichresis: example →  A borrows money from B and as a security of his loan, A mortgage the fruits of his land, where the fruits will be applied to the payment of the principal / interest, if any.   Everything must be in writing.   Similar to a mortgage except for the fact that the debtor RETAINS the possession of the property.   In antichresis, possession is delivered to the antichretic creditor. ART. 443: producing, gathering and harvesting / preservation. - NO DISTINCTION of good faith or bad faith: the expenses for production, gathering and harvesting, incurred by another have inured to the benefit of the owner who receives the frits → entitled to reimbursement for his expenses. - Whether the person who spent for the production, gathering and harvesting is in good faith or in bad faith, he is still entitled to reimbursement of those expenses. BACHRACH VS. TALISAY : Is a bonus, granted to a worker who mortgaged his land on behalf of the company, considered as civil fruits that follows the principal? - NOT civil fruits. - The “bonus” is an income from risk taken by the land owners. - It is not produced by the land → at least NOT directly  as to constitute as a “fruit” of the property . ART. 445 : “ON THE LAND OF ANOTHER”  - NOT applicable when an owner builds, plants, or sows in the land of CO-OWNERSHIP.  A and B are co-owners of a property. - If there has already been a PARTITION, and the building of A has previously built encroaches upon the land of B, then ART. 448 is applicable. o  At least by analogy. - If there is no partition yet, then these rules will not apply because it is a case of an owner building on his own land. ART. 447 : when you are the owner of a land, and you used the materials of third person, you rights are:  PROPERTY | MIDTERM NOTES | AUF  –  SOL 2014 Page 4 | Bantay 1) If in GF: pay the value. 2) If in BF: pay back the value + reparation of damages. NOTE: if the LO and the MO are both in good faith, it is possible for MO to demand the return of the materials IF doing so will not cause injury to the property. - If the LO is in BF, regardless of the consequences, the MO can get back her materials. - MO can remove then in any event. - If the MO gets back her materials, can she also recover damages? YES. REMEMBER: a person who is in bad faith is always liable for damages. RIGHTS OF THE OWNER OF THE MATERIALS: 1) LO is in GF: to remove them only in case he can do so without injury to the work constructed. 2) LO is in BF: may remove them in any event + indemnity for damages. ART. 448 : A owns a land, and B built a building on A’s  land in good faith. A, the land owner, is in good faith and discovered about it when the building was already constructed. His rights are: 1) To appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting + indemnity. 2) To oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. Can they compel each other? NO. a) He LO cannot be compelled to buy the building, as his right is OLDER. o  Before the building has been built, the owner already owns the land. o  By his right of accession. o   That’s why the option to choose is given to him. b) B can be compelled to pay the price of the land. o  EXCEPTION: when the value of the land if CONSIDERABLY MORE than that of the building.  A (GF) built a building on B’s land. The value of the building is P1.9M and the land is valued P2M (there is a difference of P100K). - Can B be compelled? YES, as it is not considerably more. - When is it considerably more? Example: when the land is valued at P2M and the building was for P300K only. o  In this case, B cannot be compelled.  A, in GF, built a house on B’s land in 1985. It was only in 2005 when B accosted A and told A that A built on his (B’s) land.  After which, B demanded him to VACATE the house. - Can B do that? NO, it is not one of the options given to him by law. - What if B said “I don’t want to buy your house and I don’t want to sell my land to you either?”   o  Can the LO refuse to exercise those options and simply ask the B to vacate? NO. - What if the option selected by the B is to  APPROPRIATE A’s building? o  Payment of indemnity. o   VALUE OF THE BUILDING → PRESENT VALUE. o  Can B demand the payment of rent from 1985 to 2005? NO, since he is in GF, he has the right of retention until fully reimbursed.   The builder in good faith cannot be compelled to pay rents during the period of retention. - What if the option selected by B is to SELL HIS LAND to  A, since the value of the land is not considerably more than the building? Can B compel A to pay rent from 1985 to 2005? o  YES , until when? Until A hasn’t fully paid the value of the land. o  If A has already paid the land in full, then he need not have to pay rent. He is the owner of the land already. - What if the option chosen is the BUY A’s BUILDING, from that point on, is A required to pay rent? o  NO , because of A’s right of retention and it implies tenancy. o  If you are compelled to pay rent, then that would defeat your right of retention. - Supposing that the building produces fruits in the form of rent because you are leasing units in the building to tenants. Who is entitled to those fruits / rents in the meantime? If indemnity is not yet paid when the option chosen is to APPROPRIATE THE BUILDING …   TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT according to the decisions of the SC From the moment the builder becomes aware of the defect / flaw of his title or mode of acquisition, technically, he ceases to be in good faith. At that moment, then he has no rights over the rents. TECSON and SAN DIEGO : the builder still has the rights over the fruits during the period of retention. Retention implies tenancy, so he is still entitled to the fruits. RECONCILE : that fact that A was now aware that he is the rightful owner of the land will NOT DETRACT from the fact that he is in good faith. He is still entitled to the rights of a builder in good faith  –  he does not cease to be in GF. How do we reconcile that with the doctrine that once good faith ceases, you are no longer entitled to the fruits? When you are in bad faith, one is no longer entitled to the fruits.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks