Bar Q and A #20

Possession is a real right, while occupation is one of the original modes of acquiring ownership and other real rights. Possession, the holding of a thing or the exercise of a right does not in itself constitute ownership. There can be possession without ownership.

As George’s counsel, I will give Manny a written demand to vacate within a definite period, say 15 days. After the lapse of 15-day period, I will file an action for unlawful detainer to recover the possession of the apartment from Manny. Manny’s occupation of the premises was by mere tolerance of his parents. When all the co-heirs/co-owners assigned the 2-door apartment to Janine in the extrajudicial partition, Janine became the sole owner of the same. He continued to occupy it under the same familial arrangement. Upon the sale of the property to George, Manny’s lawful occupation of the property was terminated and Manny’s refusal to sign the lease contract and to vacate the premises after the period to vacate lapsed made his occupation unlawful, hence, entitlingGeorge to the remedy of unlawful detainer.

As to the pending crops planted by Felix in good faith, Fred has the option of allowing Felix to continue the cultivation and to harvest the crops, or to continue the cultivation and harvest the crops himself. In the latter option, however, Felix shall have the right to a part of the expenses of cultivation and to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of possession. (Art. 545 NCC)

No. The suit will not prosper because Pablo was not unlawfully deprived of the car although he was unlawfully deprived of the price. The perfection of the sale and the delivery of the car was enough to allow Alfonso to have a right of ownership over the car, which can be lawfully transferred to Gregorio. Art. 559 applies only to a person who is in possession in good faith of the property, and not to the owner thereof. Alfonso, in the problem, was the owner, and, hence, Gabriel acquired the title to the car. Non-payment of the price in a contract of sale does not render ineffective the obligation to deliver. The obligation to deliver a thing is different from the obligation to pay its price. (EDCA Publishing Co. v. Spouses Santos G.R. No. 80298, April 26, 1990)

The remedy available to Jacob is accion publiciana, or an action for the recovery of the better right of possession or possession as a real right. It also refers to an ejectment suit filed after the expiration of one year from accrual of the cause of action or from the unlawful withholding of possession of the realty.

Since the entry made by Liz is through stealth, Jacob could have filed an action for forcible entry. Ordinarily, the one-year period within which to bring an action for forcible entry is generally counted from the date of actual entry on the land, except that when the entry is through stealth, the one-year period is counted from the time the plaintiff learned thereof. Here, since more than year had elapsed since Jacob learned of the entry made by Liz through stealth, the action that may be filed by Jacob is no longer forcible entry, but an accion publiciana [Canlas v. Tubil, G.R. No. 184285 (2009); Valdez v. CA, G.R. No. 132424 (2006)].

An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner (Art. 613, NCC).

Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides (Art. 562 NCC). An easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon an immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner (Art. 613, NCC).

a) There can be no easement over a usufruct. Since an easement may be constituted only on a corporeal immovable property, no easement may be constituted on a usufruct which is not a corporeal right.

b) There can be no usufruct over an easement. While a usufruct may be created over a right, such right must have an existence of its own independent of the property. A servitude cannot be the object of a usufruct because it has no existence independent of the property to which it attaches.

c) There can be no easement over another easement for the same reason as in (a). An easement, although it is a real right over an immovable, is not a corporeal right. There is a Roman maxim which says that: There can be no servitude over another servitude.

Usufruct is a right given to a person (usufructuary) to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance. (Art. 562, Civil Code)

On the other hand, commodatum is a contract by which one of the parties (bailor) delivers to another (bailee) something not consumable so that the latter may use it for a certain time and return it.

In usufruct, the usufructuary gets the right to the use and to the fruits of the same, while in commodatum, the bailee only acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits.

Usufruct may be constituted on the whole or a part of the fruits of the thing (Art. 564, Civil Code). It may even be constituted over consumables like money (Alunan v. Veloso, 52 Phil. 545). On the other hand, in commodatum, consumable goods may be subject thereof only when the purpose of the contract is not the consumption of the object, as when it is merely for exhibition (Art. 1936, Civil Code).

Bartolome has the right to remove the improvement if it is possible to do so without causing damage to the property (Art. 579, NCC). He may also set off the improvement against any damages which the property held in usufruct suffered because of his act or the acts of his assignee (Art. 580, NCC).

Petronila's contention is correct. Under Article 606 of the Civil Code, a usufruct granted for the time that may elapse before a third person reaches a certain age shall subsist for the number of years specified even if the third person should die unless there is an express stipulation in the contract that states otherwise. In the case at bar, there is no express stipulation

that the consideration for the usufruct is the existence of Petronila's son. Thus, the general rule and not the exception should apply in this case.