OWNERSHIP

Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over things or rights.

It is the juridical relation of a person over a thing by virtue of which said person has the exclusive
power or authority to receive all the benefits and advantages arising from said thing, save those
restricted by law or the recognized rights of others.

REMEMBER- OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION ARE DIFFERENT FROM EACH OTHER.

Kinds of ownership

1. Full ownership – Includes all the rights of an owner;

NOTE: Naked ownership + Usufruct
2. Naked ownership – Ownership where the rights to the use and to the fruits have been
denied;
NOTE: Full ownership – (minus) Usufruct
3. Sole ownership – Ownership is vested in only one person; and
4. Co-ownership– Ownership is vested in two or more persons. There is Unity of the property,
and plurality of the subjects.

Characteristics of ownership

1. Elastic – Power/s may be reduced and thereafter automatically recovered upon the
cessation of the limiting rights;
2. General – The right to make use of all the possibilities or utility of the thing owned, except
those attached to other real rights existing thereon.
3. Exclusive – There may be two or more owners, but only one ownership;
4. Independent – Other rights are not necessary for its existence; and
5. Perpetual – Ownership lasts as long as the thing exists. It cannot be extinguished by nonuser
but only by adverse possession.

REMEDIES TO RECOVER PROPERTY

Legal remedies to recover possession of one’s property

1. Personal property – Replevin
2. Real property
a. Accion Interdictal;
i. Forcible entry; or
ii. Unlawful detainer.
b. Accion Publiciana; or
c. Accion Reinvindicatoria.

Replevin-
It is the remedy when the complaint prays for the recovery of the possession of personal property.
NOTE: A property validly deposited in custodia legis cannot be subject of a replevin suit

Accion interdictal-
It is a summary action to recover physical or material possession only and it must be brought within
one year from the time the cause of action arises. It may be:
1. Forcible Entry; or
2. Unlawful detainer.

Accion publiciana-
It refers to an ejectment suit filed within 10 years after the expiration of one year from accrual of
cause of action or from the unlawful witholding of possession of the realty. It is an ordinary civil
proceeding to recover the better right of possession, except in cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer.

Accion reinvindicatoria-
It is an action to recover real property based on ownership. Here, the object is the recovery of the
dominion over the property as owner.

REQUISITES FOR RECOVERY OF PROPERTY

1. Clearly identify the land he is claiming in accordance with the title/s on which he bases his
right of ownership; and NOTE: Burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the affirmative
of an issue. The description should be so definite that an officer of the court might go to
the locality where the land is situated and definitely locate it.
2. Prove that he has a better title than the defendant.
a. Best proof is a Torrens certificate; and
 b. Tax receipts, tax declarations are only prima facie evidence of ownership; it is
rebuttable.

NOTE: Plaintiff’s title must be founded on positive right or title and not merely on the lack or
inefficiency of the defendant’s title. In other words, he shall not be permitted to rely upon the
defects of the defendant’s title (NCC, Art. 434).

Reasons why the plaintiff is NOT allowed to rely on the weakness of defendant’s title

1. Possibility that neither the plaintiff nor the defendant is the true owner of the property. In
which case, the defendant who is in possession will be preferred;
3. One in possession is presumed to be the owner and he cannot be obliged to show or
prove a better title;
4. Possessor in the concept of an owner is presumed to be in good faith and he cannot be
expected to be carrying every now and then his proofs of ownership over the property;
and
5. He who relies on the existence of a fact, should prove that fact. If he cannot prove, the
defendant does not have to prove

DISTINCTION BETWEEN FORCIBLE ENTRY AND UNLAWFUL DETAINER

Forcible Entry (F) Unlawful Detainer (U)

1. As to when possession became unlawful

A. F-Possession of the defendant is unlawful from the beginning as he acquired possession
by; (FISTS) a) Force; b) Intimidation; c) Strategy; d) Threat; or e) Stealth.
B. U-Possession is inceptively lawful but becomes illegal from the time defendant
unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right thereto.
NOTE: The question of possession is primordial, while the issue of ownership is generally
unessential in unlawful detainer
2. As to necessity of demand
A. F-No previous demand for the defendant to vacate is necessary
B. U-Demand is jurisdictional if the ground is non-payment of rentals or failure to comply
with the lease contract.
3. As to necessity of proof of prior physical possession
A. F-Plaintiff must prove that he was in prior physical possession of the premises until he
was deprived thereof by the defendant.
B. U-Plaintiff need not have been in prior physical possession. NOTE: The fact that
petitioners are in possession of the lot does not automatically entitle them to remain in
possession
4. As to when one-year period is counted from
A. F-One-year period is generally counted from the date of actual entry of the land.
B. U-One-year period is counted from the date of last demand or last letter of demand.

Art. 429. The owner of lawful possessor of a thing has the right to exclude any person from the
enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose, he may use such force as may be reasonably
necessary to repel or prevent an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion of usurpation of
his property

PRINCIPLE OF SELF-HELP
This principle authorizes an owner or lawful possessor of a property to use reasonable force to
prevent or repel an actual or threatened unlawful physical invasion or usurpation of property
(NCC, Art. 429). There must be no delay in the pursuit, otherwise, his recourse will be to go to the
court for the recovery of property.

Requisites of the Principle of Self-Help (RODA)

1. Reasonable force used
2. Such force is used by the owner or lawful possessor
3. There is no delay
4. Actual or threatened physical invasion or usurpation of the property.

Test of reasonableness –
The reasonableness of the defensive acts resorted to by a possessor is determined not
by what he imagined to exist but by the objective situation.

Doctrine of Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas-

The owner of a thing cannot make use thereof in such manner as to injure the rights of a third
person (NCC, Art. 431). Property owner can use his property in any manner he desires provided
he does not injure the rights of others sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
DOCTRINE OF STATE OF NECESSITY
The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the interference of another with the same, if the
interference is necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage, compared
to the damage arising to the owner from the interference, is much greater. The owner may
demand from the person benefited indemnity for the damage to him (NCC, Art. 432).

This principle authorized the destruction of property which is lesser in value to avert the danger
poised to another property of greater value.

Requisites of Doctrine of State of Necessity

1. Interference necessary to avert an imminent danger and the threatened damage to
the actor or a third person;
2. Damage to another is much greater than the damage to the property.

Art. 437. Extent of ownership of parcel of land

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.

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 or 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.

HIDDEN TREASURE
Treasure is understood, for legal purposes, as any hidden and unknown deposit of money, jewelry,
or other precious objects, the lawful ownership of which does not appear

Rule regarding discovery of hidden treasure

GR: If the finder is the owner of the land, building, or other property where it is found, the
entire hidden treasure belongs to him.

XPN: If the finder is not the owner or is a stranger (includes the lessee or usufructuary, he is
entitled to ½ thereof (NCC, Art. 566).

If the finder is married If the finder is married, he or she gets one half of the treasure or its value. His
or her spouse is entitled to share one-half of that share, it being a conjugal property (NCC, Art.
117, par. 4, FC).

Requisites in order that the finder be entitled to any share in the hidden treasure (ACTA)
1. Discovery was made on the property of Another, or of the State or any of its political
subdivisions;
2. Made by Chance; and
3. He is not a Trespasser or Agent of the landowner (NCC, Art. 438, par. 2). NOTE: If the
things found be of interest to science or the arts, the State may acquire them at their just
price, which shall be divided in conformity with the rule stated (NCC, Art. 438).

“By chance” The finder had no intention to search for the treasure. There is no agreement
between the owner of the property and the finder for the search of the treasure.