OWNERSHIP

Ownership

• The complete dominion, title, or proprietary

right in a thing or claim.
– Black's Law Dictionary
 Ownership
• “An independent (and general) right of
exclusive enjoyment and control of a thing, for
the purpose of deriving therefrom all
advantages required by the reasonable needs of
the holder of such right , and the promotion of
the general welfare, BUT subject to the
restrictions imposed by law and the right of
others.”
- Justice J.B.L. Reyes
 Ownership

• Art. 427. Ownership may be exercised over

things or rights.
 Kinds of Ownership
• (a) Full ownership (dominium or jus in re propia) — this
includes all the rights of an owner. (Art. 427)

• (b) Naked ownership (nuda proprietas) — this is ownership

where the right to the use and the fruits has been denied.

– NOTE:
1) Naked ownership plus usufruct equals full ownership.
2) Usufruct equals full ownership minus naked ownership.
3) Naked ownership equals full ownership minus usufruct.
 Kinds of Ownership
• (c) Sole ownership — where the ownership is vested in
only one person.

• (d) Co-ownership (or Tenancy in Common) — when the

ownership is vested in two or more owners.

– Manresa says: “The concept of co-ownership is unity of the

property, and plurality of the subjects. Each co-owner,
together with the other co-owners, is the owner of the whole,
and at the same time, the owner of an undivided aliquot part
thereof.” (3 Manresa 368-387).
 Ownership

• Art. 428. The owner has the right to enjoy and

dispose of a thing, without other limitations
than those established by law.
The owner has also a right of action against
the holder and possessor of the thing in order
to recover it.
 Ownership
• Attributes of Ownership
(Rights of an owner under Roman Law)
(a) jus possidendi — the right to possess
(b) jus utendi — the right to use
(c) jus fruendi — the right to the fruits
• jus accessiones – the right to accessories
(d) jus abutendi — the right to consume (and also to
transform or abuse)
(e) jus disponendi — the right to dispose
(f) jus vindicandi — the right to recover.
 Ownership
• Under Art. 428, the owner has:

(a) the right to enjoy

(b) the right to dispose

(c) the right to recover or vindicate.

 Ownership
• The right to enjoy includes:
(a) the right to possess
(b)the right to use
(c) the right to the fruits
• The right to dispose includes:
(a) the right to consume or destroy or abuse
(b) the right to encumber or alienate
 Ownership- Right to Recover
• 2nd Paragraph of Article 428:
– “The owner has also a right of action against the holder and
possessor of the thing in order to recover it.”
• Relate to Article 433:
– “… The true owner must resort to judicial process for the recovery
of the property.”
• Relate to Article 536:
– In no case may possession be acquired through force or
intimidation as long as there is a possessor who objects thereto.
He who believes that he has an action or a right to deprive
another of the holding of a thing, must invoke the aid of the
competent court, if the holder should refuse to deliver the thing.
LEGAL REMEDIES TO RECOVER POSSESSION
OF ONE’S PROPERTY:

1. Personal Property
– REPLEVIN: (governed by Rule 60, Rules of Court)
• an action or provisional remedy where the
complainant prays for the recovery of the
possession of personal property
LEGAL REMEDIES TO RECOVER POSSESSION
OF ONE’S PROPERTY:
2. Real Property
a. Accion Interdictal
– Summary action to recover physical or material possession
only
b. Accion Publiciana
– Ordinary civil proceeding to recover the better right of
possession, except in cases of forcible entry and unlawful
detainer. 
c. Accion Reivindicatoria
–  Action to recover real property based on ownership.  Here,
the object is the recovery of the dominion over the property
as owner.
LEGAL REMEDIES TO RECOVER POSSESSION
OF ONE’S PROPERTY:
• ACCION INTERDICTAL
1. FORCIBLE ENTRY
• 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. (FISTS).
2. UNLAWFUL DETAINER
• 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.
 FORCIBLE ENTRY UNLAWFUL DETAINER
As to  when possession became unlawful
Possession of the defendant Possession is inceptively
is unlawful from the lawful but becomes illegal
beginning as he acquires from the time defendant
possession by Force, unlawfully withholds
intimidation, strategy, possession after the
threat or stealth expiration or termination of
his right thereto.

As to the necessity of demand

No previous demand for the Demand is jurisdictional if
defendant to vacate is the ground is non-payment of
necessary rentals or failure to comply
with the lease contract
 
 FORCIBLE ENTRY UNLAWFUL DETAINER
As to necessity of proof of prior physical
possession
Plaintiff must prove Plaintiff need not have
that he was in prior been in prior physical
physical possession of possession
the premises until he
was deprived thereof
by the defendant

As to when the 1 year period is counted from

1 year period is 1 year period is counted
generally counted from from the date of last
the date of actual entry demand or last letter of
on the land demand
 ACCION INTERDICTAL doctrines
• If an owner deprives a person lawfully entitled to
possession thru FISTS, said tenant may bring an action
of forcible entry even as against the owner. This is
because the owner in the example presented had
surrendered material possession to the tenant by
virtue of the lease contract. The fact that he is the
owner is immaterial.

• In forcible entry, the plaintiff is derived of physical

possession of his land or building by means of force,
intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth. Thus, he must
allege and prove prior possession.
 ACCION INTERDICTAL doctrines
• A, in a complaint for forcible entry stated in the complaint
that he had been “deprived” of the land he owned. Is this
sufficient?
• HELD: No, this is not sufficient for he did not state in what
way he had been deprived.

• A, in a complaint for forcible entry stated in the complaint

that the defendant had “unlawfully turned the plaintiff out
of the possession” of his land or building. Is this sufficient?
• HELD: Yes, this is sufficient. It is true that prior physical
possession must be alleged. But this can be implied from
the fact that the complaint states that the plaintiff had
unlawfully been deprived of his possession.
ACCION INTERDICTAL doctrines
• City of Manila v. Gerardo Garcia, et al.
L-26053, Feb. 21, 1967
FACTS: The City of Manila is the owner of parcels of land forming one area
in Malate, Manila. Shortly after liberation, several persons entered upon
these premises without the City’s knowledge and consent, built houses of
second class materials, and continued to live there till action was
instituted against them.
In 1947, the presence of the squatters having been discovered, they were
then Art. 428 CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES 99 given by then Mayor
Valeriano Fugoso written permits each labelled a “lease contract.” For
their occupancy, they were charged nominal rentals.
In 1961, the premises were needed by the City to expand the Epifanio de
los Santos Elementary School. When after due notice the squatters
refused to vacate, this suit was instituted to recover possession. Defense
was that they were “tenants.”
ACCION INTERDICTAL doctrines
• City of Manila v. Gerardo Garcia, et al.
L-26053, Feb. 21, 1967

HELD: They are squatters, not tenants. The mayor

cannot legalize forcible entry into public property by
the simple expedient of giving permits, or for that
matter, executing leases. Squatting is unlawful and
the grant of the permits fosters moral decadence.
The houses are public nuisances per se and they can
be summarily abated, even without the aid of the
courts. The squatters can therefore be ousted.
 ACCION INTERDICTAL doctrines
• 1-year reglementary period for filing an unlawful
detainer case is counted from the time of the
“unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession.’’
Such unlawful deprivation occurs upon expiration or
termination of the right to hold possession. And such
right legally expires or terminates upon receipt of the
last demand to vacate.
• The demand to vacate must be absolute, not
conditional. Moreover, the complaint must state
WHEN the demand was made, and the fact that such
demand had been served personally, or by serving
written notice, or by posting such notice.
 ACCION INTERDICTAL doctrines
• A person or squatter who occupies the land of
another at the latter’s tolerance or
permission, without any contract between
them, is necessarily bound by an implied
promise that he will vacate upon demand,
failing which, a summary action for ejectment
or unlawful detainer is the proper remedy
against him.
 ACCION INTERDICTAL doctrines
• Tiu v. Court of Appeals L-32626, Jan. 28, 1971
– FACTS: Tenant persists in remaining on the
premises, alleging that lessor is not the owner, and
is not a Filipino citizen. He, however, admits the
existence of the lease contract, and its expiration.
Issue: Has tenant a proper defense?

– HELD: No, because ownership is not the issue

involved in an unlawful detainer or ejectment
case.
 Allegation of Ownership by
Defendant in Accion Interdictal
• “When the defendant raises the defense of ownership in
his pleadings and the question of possession cannot be
resolved without deciding the issue of ownership, the issue
of ownership shall be resolved only to determine the issue
of possession.” (Sec. 16, Rule 70, Rules of Court)

• “The judgment rendered in an action for forcible entry or

detainer shall be conclusive with respect to the possession
only, and shall in no wise bind the title or affect ownership
of the land or building. Such judgment shall not bar an
action between the same parties respecting title to the
land or building.’’ (Sec. 18, Rule 70, Rules of Court)
 LEGAL REMEDIES TO RECOVER
POSSESSION OF ONE’S PROPERTY:
2. Real Property
Accion Publiciana
– Recovery of the better right to possess, and
is a plenary action in an ordinary civil
proceeding before the RTC.
– The issue involved is not possession de
facto but possession de jure.
– brought  within  a  period  of  10  years
otherwise  the  real right to possess is lost
 ACCION PUBLICIANA doctrines
• Accion publiciana or plenaria de posesion is also used to
refer to an ejectment suit fi led after the expiration of 1
year from the accrual of the cause of action or from the
unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.
• An accion publiciana, which naturally is res judicata only
insofar as one of the parties is held to have the better
right of possession, does NOT bar a subsequent action
between the same parties where one seeks to compel
the other to execute a formal deed of sale over the
same property to enable him to obtain a transfer
certificate of title in his name, and to quiet title over the
same.
 LEGAL REMEDIES TO RECOVER
POSSESSION OF ONE’S PROPERTY:
2. Real Property
a. Accion Reivindicatoria
– Action to recover real property based on
ownership.  Here, the object is the recovery
of the dominion over the property as owner.
–  Must be brought in the RTC
– brought within 10 or 30 years as the case
may be
– Issue involved is ownership and for this
purpose, evidence of title or mode may be
introduced
ACCION REIVINDICATORIA doctrines
• It is permissible to file both an action for
ownership and for detainer over the same
land, and between the same parties, because
the issues involved are different.
• Insofar as real property is concerned, ordinary
prescription which requires, aside from other
requirements for prescription, good faith and
just title runs for 10 years; extraordinary
prescription, which does not require good
faith or just title, runs for 30 years.
ACCION REIVINDICATORIA doctrines
• In the reivindicatory action, the issue involved is
ownership, and for this purpose, evidence of title or
mode may be introduced.
• On this point of ownership, the action differs from
accion publiciana where the issue is the better right
of possession (possession de jure); and from
“forcible entry” or “unlawful detainer,” where the
issue is material possession (possession de facto).
• All three actions however, though involving real
property, are actions in personam, and are therefore
binding only upon the parties and privies thereto.
ACCION REIVINDICATORIA doctrines
• When brothers, thru fraudulent representations have
been able to succeed in obtaining title in their names of a
parcel of land, thereby depriving their sister of her rightful
share in the inheritance, a constructive trust is created in
favor of said sister.
• The adjudication by the court of ownership in favor of one
party does not necessarily include the adjudication of
possession over the same. The exception is when the
party defeated has not been able to show any right to
possess independent of his claim of ownership. In such a
case, what the declared owner should do, if he desires to
enforce his right to possess the property, is to file a
motion for a writ of execution.
ACCION REIVINDICATORIA doctrines
• The basic rule is that after the lapse of one year,
a decree of registration is no longer open to
review or attack although its issuance is attended
with fraud.
• This does not mean however that the aggrieved
party is without remedy at law.
• If the property has not yet passed to an innocent
purchaser for value, an action for reconveyance
is still available. If the property has already
passed to an innocent purchaser for value, the
action is one for damages.
 Ownership
• The Limitations on Ownership

(a) Those given by the State or the Law

(b) Those given by the owner (or grantee) himself.

(c) Those given by the person (grantor) who gave

the thing to its present owner.
 Limitations on Ownership
• Examples:
(a) Limitations imposed by the State — police power, power of
taxation, power of eminent domain
(b) Limitations imposed by the Law — the legal easement of
waters, the legal easement of right of way.
(c) Limitations imposed by the owner — when the owner leases his
property to another, said owner in the meantime cannot physically
occupy the premises; when the owner pledges his personal
property, he has in the meantime to surrender its possession.
(d) Limitations imposed by the grantor — the donor may prohibit
the donees from partitioning the property for a period not
exceeding twenty (20) years.
 Ownership

• Art. 429. 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.
 DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP
• The right to counter, in certain cases, force
with force.
• A person is allowed to take the law into his
own hands and to use force
• Similar to Article 11 (Par. 1) of the Revised
Penal Code.
 DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP
• ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following
do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or rights,
provided that the following circumstances concur:
First. Unlawful aggression;
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to
prevent or repel it;
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the
person defending himself.
• (Revised Penal Code)
 DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP
• REQUISITES:
1. Person who employs force or violence must be the
owner (actual or presumed), or a lawful possessor.
2. Person must be in actual physical possession. NO
DELAY in the exercise of such right.
3. There must be an actual or imminent
danger/agression.
4. Only reasonable force is employed by the owner
or lawful possessor.
 DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP
• GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. v. CA
• FACTS:
• Spouses Jose are US residents and owns land in Antipolo, Rizal.
• They executed a special power of attorney authorizing German
Management Services to develop their property into a residential
subdivision.
• They have already acquired the proper permits to do so but they
discovered that the land was occupied by farmers.
• Farmers were in actual possession of the land. They have occupied the
land for the last 12-15 years and already have their crops all over the
property.
• Petitioner tried to forcibly drive the farmers away and demolish and
bulldoze their crops and property.
 GERMAN MANAGEMENT & SERVICES, INC. v. CA

• ISSUE:
• Whether or not the actions of Petitioner could be
justified under the principle of self-help.
• HELD:
• The doctrine of self-help can only be exercised at the
time of actual or threatened dispossession which is
absent in this case.
• When possession has already been lost, the owner
must resort to judicial process for the recovery of
property.
 DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP
• PEOPLE v. NARVAEZ
• FACTS:
• Davis Fleischer, Rubia, and company were fencing land in the
boundary of the highway and the hacienda owned by Davis’ father.
• At the place of the fencing is the house and rice drier of appellant
Mamerto Narvaez.
• At that time, appellant was taking his rest, but when he heard that
the walls of his house were being chiselled, he arose and there he
saw the fencing going on.
• If the fencing would go on, appellant would be prevented from
getting into his house and the bodega of his ricemill.
 DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP
• PEOPLE v. NARVAEZ
• FACTS:
• So he addressed the group, saying 'Pare, if possible you stop
destroying my house and if possible we will talk it over what
is good,' addressing the Rubia, who is appellant's compadre.
• The deceased Fleischer, however, answered: 'No, gademit,
proceed, go ahead.‘
• Appellant apparently lost his equilibrium and he got his gun
and shot Fleischer, hitting him. As Fleischer fell down, Rubia
ran towards the jeep, and knowing there is a gun on the
jeep, appellant fired at Rubia, likewise hitting him.
 DOCTRINE OF SELF-HELP
• PEOPLE v. NARVAEZ
• ISSUE:
• Whether or not Appellant had a right to resist an invasion of
his property.
• HELD:
• Citing Article 429 of the Civil Code, the SC appreciated the
special mitigating circumstance of incomplete self-defense
in favor of Narvaez.
• The unlawful physical invasion of Appellant’s property was
considered as unlawful agression, but held that his
resistance was disproportionate to the attack.
 Ownership

• Art. 430. Every owner may enclose or fence

his land or tenements by means of walls,
ditches, live or dead hedges, or by any other
means without detriment to servitudes
constituted thereon.
 RIGHT TO ENCLOSE OR FENCE
• Must be legitimately exercised and must not be
attended with bad faith
• Must be without detriment to constituted easements
and servitudes
– ARTICLE 637. Lower estates are obliged to receive the
waters which naturally and without the intervention of man
descend from the higher estates, as well as the stones or
earth which they carry with them.
The owner of the lower estate cannot construct works which
will impede this easement; neither can the owner of the
higher estate make works which will increase the burden.
 RIGHT TO ENCLOSE OR FENCE
• Lunod v. Meneses
• FACTS: The lands of A were being flooded because B,
the owner of certain lands, in order to maintain a
fishpond, closed his (B’s) estate, thus closing the
outlet to the river of water on A’s property.
• ISSUE: Whether B had the right to fence his estate.
HELD: No, B had no right to prevent the outflow of the
water from A’s estate. While he had the right to fence
his estate, still he should not impair the servitudes or
burdens constituted thereon.
 Ownership

• Art. 431. The owner of a thing cannot make

use thereof in such manner as to injure the
rights of a third person.
 Ownership

• Relate to Article 19 Civil Code

– Every person must, in the exercise of his rights and
in the performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and
good faith.
 Ownership

• No Injury to Rights of Third Persons

• State may validly restrict an owner’s rights in

view of its inherent police power

• Relate to ABATEMENT of NUISANCES

 Ownership
• Examples:
– saxophone in the middle of the night
– Burning a house on an isolated farm v. house in
Manila
– Nuisances may be abated judicially or
extrajudicially, and one responsible for the
existence or continuation of a nuisance can be
held liable by those who may suffer injury thereby.
(Arts. 694-707)
 Ownership

• Art. 432. 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.
 STATE OF NECESSITY
• Interference by a third person with another’s
property is justified
• Similar to Article 11 (Par. 4) of the Revised
Penal Code.
 STATE OF NECESSITY
• ARTICLE 11. Justifying Circumstances. — The following do not
incur any criminal liability:
4. Any person who in order to avoid an evil or injury, does an
act which causes damage to another, provided that the
following requisites are present:
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than that done to
avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it.
• (Revised Penal Code)
 STATE OF NECESSITY
• REQUISITES:
1. there is a situation of grave peril, an actual or
imminent danger, either upon the person of the actor
or a third person or their property;
2. The interference is necessary to avert such danger;
3. the threatened damage is much greater compared to
the damage incurred by the owner of such
interference;
4. state of necessity is not brought about by the
intentional provocation of the party invoking the same.
 Ownership

• Art. 433. Actual possession under claim of

ownership raises a disputable presumption of
ownership. The true owner must resort to
judicial process for the recovery of the
property.
Disputable Presumption of Ownership
• Art. 433 is similar to Art. 541 which provides that
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.
• Two requirements to raise a disputable
(rebuttable) presumption of ownership:
1. Actual possession;
2. Claim of ownership.
Disputable Presumption of Ownership
• Art. 433 is similar to Art. 541 which provides that
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.
• Two requirements to raise a disputable
(rebuttable) presumption of ownership:
1. Actual possession;
2. Claim of ownership.
 Ownership

• 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.
Requisites in an Action to Recover
(a) Property must be identified.
(b) Reliance on title of the plaintiff (and not on
the weakness of defendant’s title or claim).
– This is because it is possible that neither the
plaintiff nor the defendant is the true owner of
the property in question.
Requisites in an Action to Recover
(a) Property must be identified.
– The boundaries of the land sought must be proved, so
that if a person fails to specify which portion of a parcel
of land is the portion he is supposed to have inherited,
his action to recover the property will necessarily fail.
– In cases of doubt as to the land’s identity, the lower
court should require each party to present plans
prepared by some competent person.
– 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.
Requisites in an Action to Recover
(b) Reliance on title of the plaintiff (and not on
the weakness of defendant’s title or claim).
– If the claims of both plaintiff and defendant are
weak, judgment must be for the defendant, for
the latter, being in possession, is presumed to be
the owner, and cannot be obliged to show or
prove a better title.
Requisites in an Action to Recover
(b) Reliance on title of the plaintiff (and not on the weakness
of defendant’s title or claim).
– Evidence which may be presented by plaintiff to show ownership:
1. Torrens certificate
2. Titles granted by the Spanish Government, like those effected
by royal cedula
3. Long and actual possession.
4. Occupation of a building for a long time without paying rentals
therefor.
5. Testimony of adverse and exclusive possession of ownership
corroborated by tax declaration of properties, payment of taxes,
and deeds of mortgage.
 Ownership

• 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.
POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN

• While eminent domain refers to the right,

expropriation usually refers to the procedure,
thru which the right is exercised.
• De Facto case of Eminent Domain
–  expropriation resulting from the actions of nature
as in one case where land becomes part of one
sea.  The owner loses his property in favor of the
state without any compensation.
 Ownership

• 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.
 POLICE POWER
• Seizure as an Exercise of Police Power
– This article is based on police power, which in turn
is based on the maxim that “salus populi est
suprema lex”.
• Abatement of Nuisances
• Observance of Due Process
 POLICE POWER
• Examples/ Jurisprudence:
1. Squatters’ houses – nuisances per se; fosters moral
decadence
2. Building declared a fire hazard
3. Ordinance prohibiting the sale of fresh meat
outside the city markets
4. Houses constructed, without governmental
authority, on public streets and river beds - obstruct
at all times the free use by the public of said places,
and accordingly constitute a nuisance per se.
 Ownership
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.
 SURFACE RIGHTS
• 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
• Under Article 437, however, if a person owns a
piece of land:
– he owns its surface, up to the boundaries of the land,
with the right to make thereon allowable constructions,
plantings, and excavations, subject to limitations.
SURFACE RIGHTS
 SURFACE RIGHTS
• Limitations:
(a) servitudes or easements;
(b) special laws — like the Mining Law;
(c) ordinances and subdivision regulations;
(d) the reasonable requirements of aerial
navigation;
(e) principles on human relations (justice, honesty,
good faith) and the prevention of injury to the
rights of third persons. (Arts. 19 and 431)
 Ownership
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.
 Ownership
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
HIDDEN TREASURE

Who owns the

treasure chest?
 HIDDEN TREASURE

Who owns the

treasure chest?
 HIDDEN TREASURE

What if it was a Who owns the

lease contract? treasure chest?
HIDDEN TREASURE
Who owns the
treasure chest?
HIDDEN TREASURE
HIDDEN TREASURE
Who owns the
treasure chest?
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• Owner of the land is the owner of its sub-
surface or sub-soil
• Treasure Found on One’s Own Property:
– Owner/Finder owns the treasure
– If X finds a hidden treasure in his house, he alone
owns the treasure. If he is married, the treasure
belongs to the ACP or CPG (if this is the married
couple’s chosen property regime). (Art. 154, FC)
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• In order that the rule regarding the discovery of hidden
treasures by a stranger on property belonging to
another may be applied, what requisites must concur?
1. The treasure must consist of money, jewelry or other
precious objects;
2. It must be hidden and unknown;
3. There is no lawful owner;
4. The discovery must be made by chance; and,
5. The discoverer must be a stranger and not a
trespasser.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• For the finder to be entitled to one-half, the discovery
on another’s property must be “by chance.”
• 2 SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT REGARDING “BY CHANCE”:
1. If  there  is  deliberate  search,  it  is  not  to  be
construed  as  “by chance”.
2. Even if there is a deliberate search, it is still “by
chance” since there is uncertainty of finding a
treasure.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• “BY CHANCE”:
– There must be no purpose or intent to look for the
treasure. (Navarro Amandi).
– Dean Francisco Capistrano and Dean Vicente
Francisco are however, of the opinion that the
phrase “by chance” was intended by the Code
Commission to mean “by good luck”.
– One who intentionally looks for the treasure is
embraced in the provision.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• “BY CHANCE”:
– If, however, discovery is on another’s property,
permission must be sought, otherwise the finder will
be considered a trespasser.
– According to Paras, “by chance” really means “by good
luck,” whether there was a deliberate search for the
treasure or not but there was no prior agreement on
how the treasure, if found, would be divided.
• extremely difficult to find hidden treasure without looking
for it deliberately, for in many instances, the treasure is
buried, (“hidden”).
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• Would a prehistoric tomb or buried city that
is discovered constitute hidden treasure?
– A prehistoric tomb or buried city that is discovered
would not constitute a hidden treasure but the
movables found in the tomb fall within the terms
of the law in defining treasure.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• May a thing that had been considered lost by
its owner, or if he has already abandoned it,
constitute hidden treasure?
– A thing that had been considered lost by its
owner, or if he has already abandoned it, and third
persons do not know of its existence, becomes
hidden treasure subject to the rules in Article 438.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• Are the rules in Article 438 applicable if the treasure
is found in the walls of buildings?
• The rules in Article 438 are applicable even if the
treasure is found in the walls of buildings. When the
building and the land belong to two different
persons, each is considered separate from the other,
and property found in the building will belong to the
owner of the building, and that found in the land to
the owner to the owner of the land, completely or to
the extent of one-half, as the case may be.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• Who are considered strangers?
• Anyone who is not the owner. The term also
includes a lessee, a usufructuary, or a paid
laborer working for the owner of the land,
provided he has not been engaged precisely to
look for hidden treasure.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• X found a hidden treasure inside the land of Y.
How will the treasure be divided if X is a
usufructuary of the land; lessee; farmer;
laborer hired to look for it?
• If X is a usufructuary, or lessee, or farmer, he is
entitled to ½ of the hidden treasure because
they are considered as strangers to the land.
• If X is a laborer intended to look for it, he is
entitled to his wage or salary only.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• When there are several persons engaged in
some work such as digging or demolition, and
hidden treasure is found, who is considered
the finder of the treasure?
• The finder is he who actually discovered the
treasure.
• The person who first brings to view the hidden
treasure, even in part, is the finder, although he
may not take material possession thereof.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• What is the effect if the finder of the treasure
conceals it from the owner of the land?
• He does not merely lose his share, but he
becomes civilly and criminally liable for taking
something not belonging to him, which is the
share of the landowner.
• He will also be responsible for all the
consequences of possession in bad faith with
respect to the loss or deterioration of the thing.
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• TREASURE HUNTING:
– R.A. 8492, National Museum Act of 1998
• Provides for issuance of permits for the
discovery/recovery of hidden treasures
– DENR A.O. 2002-04 in relation to E.O. 35 dated 15
September 2001
• Transfer of power to issue permits/licenses from OP to
DENR
• Provides for the “sharing” of hidden treasures
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• TREASURE HUNTING:
– Treasure hunting within PUBLIC LANDS:
• 75% to the Government
• 25% to the permit holder
– Treasure hunting within PRIVATE LANDS:
• 30% to the Government
• 70% shared by the permit holder and the landowner
– Shipwreck/Sunken Vessel recovery:
• 50% to the Government
• 50% to the permit holder
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• THE CASE OF THE GOLDEN ARINOLA
 HIDDEN TREASURE
• THE CASE OF THE WHALE VOMIT