IRIKA JANE B.

MEHOY

1. What is the so called “bundle of rights”?

The bundle of rights theory inherent to property ownership are the right to use
(Jus-Utendi), the right to enjoy the fruits of (Jus-Fruendi), the right to dispose (Jus-
Disponendi), the right to abuse (Jus-Abutendi), the right to recover (Jus-
Vindicandi), and the right to possess (Jus-Possidendi). The rights incident to
ownership are, the right:

a. to enjoy and dispose of a property without other limitations than those

established by law;
b. to file action against third parties to recover ownership;
c. to use force as may be reasonably necessary to repeal or prevent an
actual or threatened unlawful invasion or usurpation of his property (Art.
429, NCC, relate to Art. 312, RPC);
d. the right to enclose or fence property - walls ditches, live or dead hedges
- or by any other means without detriment of servitudes constituted
thereon;
e. to demand indemnity for damages caused to property;
f. the right to compensation in the event of expropriation;
g. the right to be restored to possession in case of unlawful dispossession;
h. the right to the surface and subsurface of the land, right to construct
thereon any works, plantation and excavation without detriment to
servitude and subject to special laws and without right to complain of the
reasonable requirements of aerial navigation;
i. the right to hidden treasure;
j. the right to accession and fruits of the property; and
k. the right to "quiet title" to real property or any interest therein.

2. What are the different kinds of ownership?

The different kinds of ownership are the following:
a. Full ownership (dominion of jus in re propia) – this includes all the rights of
an owner;
b. Naked ownership (nuda proprietas) – this is ownership where the right to the
use and the fruits has been denied;
c. Sole ownership – where the ownership is vested in only one person; and
d. Co-ownership – when the ownership is vested in two or more owners.

3. What are the limitations by law on enjoyment of property?

Limitations on right of property ownership:

a. CONSTITUTIONAL (Those given by the State) - such as police power,

eminent domain or expropriation of private property for public use,
taxation and escheat when revision of private property to state ownership
in case of death of property owner without an heir;
b. LEGAL (Those given by the Law) - zoning ordinances, regulations on
subdivision projects, building code, and other special laws and
regulations; and
c. CONSENSUAL/VOLUNTARY (Those given by the owner or grantee
himself and those given by the person or grantor who gave the thing to
its present owner- easements and servitudes, usufructs,
lease agreements, restrictions in subdivision and condominium deeds or
restriction.

4. How does the inherent powers of the State restricts the right of an individual to his
ownership of his property? DO NOT DEFINE! BE ANALYTICAL. The question is “HOW”.

Police power is a limitation on the right of ownership in the sense that

property may be interfered with, even destroyed, if the welfare of the community
so demands it.
 While real as well as personal property may be taxed, and unless the taxes
are paid there is a danger that the property may be seized and confiscated by the
government

Lastly, eminent domain is a limitation on the right of ownership in a sense

that it may be exercised even over private properties of cities and municipalities,
and even over lands registered with a Torrens title.

5. What are the different actions to recover property?

The following are the different actions to recover property:

a. The proper action to recover personal property is replevin, governed by Rule

60 of Rules of Court.

b. While for recovery of real property, there are three usual actions, as follows:
i. Accion Interdical
• Forcible entry - is a summary action to recover material or
physical possession of real property when a person
originally in possession was deprived thereof by force,
intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth;
• Unlawful detainer - is the action that must be brought when
possession by a landlord, vendor, vendee or other person of
any land or building is being unlawfully withheld after the
expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by
virtue of any contract, express or implied.
ii. Accion Publiciana – is intended for the recovery of the better right
to possess, and is a plenary action in an ordinary civil proceeding
before a Regional Trial Court.
iii. Accion Reinvindictoria – is action defined as an action to recover
ownership over real property.
 iv. Ancillary remedies common to both
• Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction
• Writ of Possession

6. Explain the doctrine of self-help and the doctrine of state of necessity and distinguish
one from the other. DO NOT DEFINE! BE ANALYTICAL. The question is DISTINGUISH.

Article 429 of the Civil Code speaks of the principle of self-help states that
“the owner or 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 or usurpation of his property.” While Article 432 of the same code
refers to a state of necessity states that “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.”

In the former, it pertains to a certain force was already imposed which

requires the use of self defense in order to protect or prevent any unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property; while the latter pertains to a force which
was not yet imposed and the owner has the necessity to choose of an act which
might prevent injury to his property. Moreover, the former was a cure while the
latter is a prevention.

7. Distinguish between Forcible Entry from Unlawful Detainer? Distinguish between

Accion Publiciana from Accion Interdictal

The forcible entry is a summary action to recover material or physical

possession of real property when a person originally in possession was deprived
thereof by force, intimidation, strategy, threat, or stealth; While, unlawful
detainervis the action that must be brought when possession by a landlord,
vendor, vendee or other person of any land or building is being unlawfully withheld
after the expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any
contract, express or implied. In forcible entry, the possession was unlawful from
the very beginning; in unlawful detainer, the possession was lawful in the
beginning but became unlawful afterwards.

The accion publiciana 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. What is involved here is not possession de facto but possession de jure;
While accion reinvindicatoria is an action to recover real property based on
ownership. Here, the object is the recovery of the dominion over the property as
owner. Notably, where the facts averred in the complaint reveals that the action is
neither one of forcible entry nor unlawful detainer but essentially involves a
boundary dispute, the same must be resolved in an accion reinvindicatoria.
Moreover, in the reivendicatory action, the issue involved is ownership, and for this
purpose, evidence of title or mode may be introduced. On this point ownership, the
action differs from accion publiciana where the issue is the better right of
possession.

8. While Angel was walking on the way to PUP College of Law, her cellphone was
snatched along the street by a “batang hamog”. She ran after the thief but did not overtake
him. The next day, she saw the thief again and asked the tanods to assist her. Luckily,
this time the boy was overtaken and she found the same cellphone in his possession.
Can she claim the Doctrine of Self-Help” to recover her cellphone? Support your answer.

No, she can’t claim the doctrine of self-help to recover her cellular phone.
 According to the law, the owner of lawful possessor of a thing has the right
to exclude any person from yhe enjoyment and disposal thereof. For this purpose,
he may jse such force as may be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent an actual
or threatened unlawful physical invasion of usurpation of his property.

Angel, whose phone was snatched by batang hamog, claiming the

possession of the cellular phone on the basis of the doctrine of self-help was
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.

Hence, she can’t claim the doctrine of self-help to recover her cellular phone.

9. What is accession Continua? What are the 5 principles of Accession Discreta?

Accession continua refers to all things inseparably attached or incorporated

thereto whether naturally or artificially.

Accession discreta is the right of ownership to the fruits. The general rule is
that to the owner of the principal belong the natural, industrial and civil fruits. There
are four (4) exceptions to this rule. They are (1) possession in good faith; (2)
usufruct; (3) lease; and (4) antichresis. There are other rules regarding accession
discrete: (1) He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made
by a third person in their production, gathering, and preservation. (Article 443 of
the Civil Code); and (2) Necessary expenses of production, gathering and
preservation must be borne by the receiver of the fruits.

10. Mr. Cruz purchased a 500 sq. meter residential lot in Sta. Mesa Manila valued for 5
million. In good faith, he built a residential house on the lot of Mr. Uy, which is valued at
5.3 million. The construction was unknown to Mr. Uy. Upon Mr. Uy’s discovery….

(a) Who has the better right over the constructed residential house? Why?_
 It is Mr. Uy, the owner of the land who has better right over the
constructed residential house and who is authorized to exercise the options
under Article 448 because his right is older and by principle of accession, he
is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing.

(b) Can Mr. Uy compel Mr. Cruz to remove the residential house? No. Why?

No, Mr. Uy cannot compel Mr. Cruz to remove the residential house
because such alternative is not granted him under the Article 448 of the Civil
Code

(c) Can Mr. Uy compel Mr. Cruz to buy the land? Yes Why?

Yes, Mr. Uy can compel Mr. Cruz to buy the land, since its value is no
considerably more than the value of the apartment, the difference being only
0.5 million.

(d) Assume that Mr. Cruz agrees to buy the land but fails to comply, may Mr. Uy
demand removal of the house? Yes Why?

Yes, according to the law, since the landowner has chosen to sell the
land, the builder must pay. If he cannot pay, he should not be allowed to use
the land to the owner’s detriment. Hence, he must remove the residential
house.

(e) Before a settlement is reached between the parties, may Mr. Uy demand rental
from Mr. Cruz? No.. Why?

No Mr. Uy may not demand rental from Mr. Cruz. Before the settlement
is reached between Mr. Uy and Mr. Cruz, Mr. Uy may not legally demand
 rental for his land, for after all Mr. Cruz is a builder in good faith, and is
entitled to retain in the meantime. This right of retention would be
insignificant of he was to be made to pay.

(f) Will your answers be the same Mr. Cruz was a lessee? No. Why?

No, because Article 448 of the Civil Code does not apply to s lessee.
As a lessee, there is a presumption that Mr. Cruz knows that the said land
was owned by Mr. Uy, hence Mr. Cruz acted in bad faith.

(g) Will your answers be the same if Mr. Cruz was a co-owner and he built the
residential house prior to the partition? No. Why?

No. Considering that Mr. Cruz was a co-owner and he built a

residential house in a land without partition yet, he acted in bad faith, thus,
he is not entitled to any options provided in the Article 448 of the Civil code.

11. Mr. Arthur Rivera, a licensed geologist and working with the DENR came into
possession of a map believed to contain the location of a part of the Yamasita treasures.
The location of the map when plotted will reveal the treasures were hidden in a property
owned by Sps. Carlos & Nida Romana. However, upon further investigation, Mr.
Rivera discovered that the property has become a river bed due to the natural change in
the course of the river. Without permission from the DENR or the government or from the
spouses Romana, Mr. Rivera pursued his searched and successfully found therein the
treasures believed to be so worth several billions of pesos.

a) Is Mr. Rivera entitled to the treasures? Yes. Why?

No, Mr. Rivera is not entitled to the treasures.

 According to Article 428 of Civil Code, 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

In this case, the treasure was found in a property of public dominion,

the new river bed. Since Mr. Rivera did not have authority from the
government and, therefore, was a trespasser, he is not entitled to the one-
half share allotted to a finder of hidden treasure. All of it will go to the State.

Hence, Mr. Rivera is not entitled to the treasures.

b) If yes, how is his share to be apportioned and with whom?

As a general rule, if the finder is the owner of the land, building, or

other property where it is found, the entire hidden treasure belongs to him.
The exception is, if the finder is not the owner or is a stranger (includes the
lessee or usufructuary, he is entitled to ½ thereof. However, for Yamashita
treasure as provided in the given case, the State is entitled to 75% share and
the finder to 25%, in accordance with PD 7056-A. Moreover, 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.

c) Assuming he is not entitled, how would you justify said position?

 In addition to being a trespasser as I answered on the letter A above,
Article 428 of the Civil Code, in order that the finder be entitled to the 1/2
share, the treasure must be found by chance, that is by pure luck. In this
case, since Mr. Rivera found the treasure not by chance but because he
relentlessly searched for it, he is not entitled to any share in the hidden
treasure.