1.
Rizal
Cement
Co. v.
Villareal
2. Wong v.
Carpio
3. Somodio
v. CA
4.
MaglucotAw v.
Maglucot
5. Cequena
v. Bolante
MMCN
POSSESSION
Registration
Applicant presented witnesses
Opposition presented tax declaration
Whether applicant in actual possession? YES
Credence to the testimony of the witnesses
Right to possess flows from ownership
Possession acquired by material occupation of the
thing
Tax dec, survey plan are not enough to prove
possession
Deed of sale
Planted
Did not constituted house thereon
Knew there where laborers there, happy there were
people
Wong went to the land and tried to register it (also
built a house and fenced)
Mercado went to the land to make copras, brought
attention of the police
Filed forcible entry
Whether Mercado established prior possession? YES
Wong liable to pay rent? YES; summons extinguishes
GF
Possession acquired by material occupation
Clear that seller passed title to buyer
Actual, longer, with title, judicial determination
After partition, they immediately took possession
Somodio planted ipil-ipil, coconut
Allowed Ayco to enter premises and constructed nipa
hut
Time came, he wanted to remove Ayco
Forcible entry was filed
Whether Somodio had prior possession? YES
Ejectment cases, only issue is who is entitled to
possession
True regardless of character of possession
Constructive possession (not every square meter)
Petitioner filed for recovery of possession
Respondent rented portions and built houses, but
stopped paying rentals
Maintained that there was valid partition
There was sketch plan and tax dec
Whether estopped from questioning title? YES
Parties to a partition and took possession are estopped
from questioning title
They already occupied the lot
Payment of rentals reveal that their possession was
that of a holder
There was a superior right
Oral partition was in order
There was ratification of oral partition
MENDOZA contended that HONORATA came into
possession through violence and force
Despite their dispossession, petitioner DID NOT LOSE
6. Aragon
v. Insular
Govt
7. Catholic
Vicar
Apostolic
v. CA
8. EDCA
Publishing
v. Santos
9. De
Garcia v.
CA
legal possession because possession cannot be
acquired through force and violence
Still deemed legal possessor
Land was cultivated by petitioners father
When father died margarita took possession of the
land and cultivated with his son, Miguel
Resided on the lot
POSSESSION CANNOT BE ACQUIRED THROUGH FORCE
OF VIOLENCE.
GOVT may disturb the petitioners only on the ground
that they have abandoned their property OR totally
destroyed and has become public domain by the
erosive action of the sea
APPLICANTS never abandoned their possession
Property has been injured
Owners compelled to expenditures by way of fill or a
retaining wall
PROPERTY NOT HAD BEEN TOTALLY LOST
Have not lost their right of possession
Gradual encroachment private property may not
become property of public ownership
Applicants no intention to abandon it.
RESPONDENTS PROVED: predecessors house was
borrowed by VICAR after the church allowed it free
use, they became bailors and petitioner bailee
Bailees failure to return the subject matter to the
bailor DID NOT MEAD ADVERSE POSSESSION ON THE
PART OF THE BORROWER
Adverse claim of VICAR did not ripen into ownership
REPSONDENTS IN POSSESSION IN GF SINCE 1906
VICAR 1951 - Bailee
Possession of movable acquired in GF is equivalent to
title
One who has lsot anymovable or unlawfully deprived
thereof, may recover it from person in possession
IF: acquired in public sale owner cannot obtain its
return without reimbursing the price paid
Fact that Cruz had not yet paid the price is a matter
between EDCA and Cruz AND did not impair title
acquired by SANTOS
Santos had seen the invoice EDCA issued
Assured Santos that the book had been paid for on
delivery
EDCA less cautious in trusting an impostor
INVOICE books had been paid
VESTED OWNERSHIP TO SANTOS
GUEVARA unlawfully deprived of diamond right,
entitled to recover from GARCIA (found in possession)
EXCEPT: GF at public sale
Owner cannot obtain without reimbursing the price
Right of owner CANNOT be defeated even by proof
1
10. Dizon
v. Suntay
11.
Ledesma v.
CA
12.
Azarcon v.
Eusebio
13.
Cordero v.
Cabral
14.
Mendoza v.
De
Guzman
15. Robles
v.
MMCN
that there was GF by the acquisition
Common law cannot apply (misplaced confidence)
ENTITLED TO RECOVER
Pawnshop
DIZON cannot claim defense of estoppel
Estoppel has its roots in equity with good faith as its
basis.
Justice comes to Suntays rescue
Having engaged in a business where presumably
ordinary prudence would manifest itself to ascertain
WON the individual offering jewelry by way of pledge is
entitled to do
So: IF NO SUCH CARE BE TAKEN: difficulty of resisting
profit he should he the last to complain if thereafter
the right of the true owner of such jewelry should be
recognized.
Motor vehicles
Delivered
Check dishonored
Whether citiwide was unlawfully deprived? NO
When one had been unlawfully deprived of the thing
he has NOT voluntarily parted of it and thus possessor
cannot validly acquire title to the said thing.
IN THIS CASE: there is perfected UNCONDITIONAL
CONTRACT OF SALE BET Citiwide and SUAREZ
Citiwide not unlawfully deprived
It had voluntarily transferred title to the same
LEDESMA buyer in GF and for value CANNOT be
deprived.
Dispute over the possession of a PUBLIC LAND
A person ordered to leave certain premises is not
prohibited from taking with him his own effects and
possession UNLESS there is an express prohibition
At the time GF ceases, and there are natural or
industrial fruits, possession shall have a right to a part
of the expenses of cultivation and harvest, in
proportion to the time of possession
As much as there is no evidence that they are
possessors in bad faith, GOOD FAITH CEASED WHEN
THE RESPONDENTS WERE SERVED WITH SUMMONS TO
ANSWER
Possessors in bad faith, court ruled that they shall
reimburse the fruits received and those which the
legitimate possession could have received from the
time that their good faith ceased
Right of retention until reimbursed for the
improvements existing on the land
Right to be indemnified? YES
Amount of the expenditure which is the necessary and
useful expenses incurred by the defendant
GF always presumed
HERMANOS did not prove bad faith of EVARISTA
Hermanos
16. MWSS
v. CA
1.
Bachrach
v. Elianof
2.
Hemedes
v. CA
3. Fabie v.
Gutierrez
4. VDA
Aranas v.
Aranas
5. Locsin v.
Valenzuela
EVARISTA occupied house by permission of owner
And continued with consent of heirs
Had contract with the owner of the building
Said improvements are useful and EVARISTA possessor
in GF
Retain until the same is paid
449 He who builds in bad faith on the land of another
LOSES what is built without right to indemnity
NAWASA lost whatever useful improvements it had
made without right
546: possessor in GF shall be refunded for useful
expenses with right of retention UNTIL reimbursed
547: possessor in GF may remove useful
improvements if it can be done without injury.
REMOVAL applies only to pure luxury provided NO
INJURY.
USUFRUCT
bequeathed to his wife all the fruits and usufruct of the
remainder of his estate after payment of the legacies
Bachrach owner of 108,000 shares
Whether dividend belong to capital or usufructuary?
Usufructuary entitled to N, I and C fruits of the
property
All earning prior to death, belong to capital
After death, usufructuary
Land foreclosed with annotation of usufructuary in
favor of Kausapin
If the property sold judicially, owner shall be liable to
usufructuary for whatever the latter may lose by
reason thereof
Josefa Fabie usufructuary of the income of certain
houses
Jose contended that Josefa has only the right to
RECEIVE rents when due but no right to administer
Whether Josefa has the right to administer property?
YES
All acts of administration, necessary repairs, vested
Can also choose tenant
Owner has no legitimate cause to complain
Priest died with a last will
Nephew would enjoy of the fruits of testators 3rd
group of properties upon his death
As usufructuary has the right to enjoy the property
from normal enjoyment
Not perpetual, end upon his death
Not prohibited to dispose the fruits
Must be respected
Disposition of naked owner should not prejudice
usufructuary
6 co-owners of large tract of land
Emancipation of tenants
Portion where Schons usufructuary rights fell within
the OPERATION LAND TRANSFER
Whether usufructuary or owners entitled to amounts
2
MMCN
paid by tenants?
Pertain to owner; compensation for dominion over the
land which they were deprived
Cannot be characterized as rentals
Usufructuary in favor of Schon was extinguished upon
the EOT PD 27
Give security for payment of interest OR replace with
another
609 applied by analogy
