QUIETING OF TITLE  be considered as title to the property.

”
At best, tax declarations are an indicia
of possession in the concept of an
When  may  an  action  be  brought  to 
owner. However, non declaration of a
remove  the  cloud  or  to  quiet  the 
property for tax purposes does not
title  to  real  property  or  any 
necessarily negate ownership (Sps.
interest therein?
Azana vs. Lumbo, G.R. No. 157593,
March 22, 2007).
(1) The plaintiff must have a legal or
 
equitable title to, or interest in the real
property which is the subject-matter
CO-OWNERSHIP 
of the action (Art. 477, NCC.)  
How  do  you  determine  the  share 
(2) There must be a cloud on such of  the  co-owners  in  the  benefits 
title (Art. 476, NCC.); and  charges  arising  from  the 
co-ownership? 
(3) Such cloud must be due to some  
instrument, record, claim, The share of the co-owners in the
encumbrance or proceeding which is benefits and charges arising from the
apparently valid or effective but is in co-ownership shall be proportional to
truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, their respective interests and any
voidable, or unenforceable, and is stipulation in a contract to the
prejudicial to the plaintiffs title (Art. contrary shall be void. (Art. 485, par.
476, NCC.); and 1, NCC.) Consequently, in order to
determine the share of the co-owners
(4) The plaintiff must return to the in the benefits and charges, we must
defendant all benefits he may have first determine their respective
received from the latter, or reimburse interests in the co-ownership. Under
him for expenses that may have the law, such interests are presumed
redounded to his benefit. (Art. 479, equal, unless the contrary is proved.
NCC.) (Art. 485, par. 2, NCC.)

Are tax declarations conclusive What  are  the  limitations  upon 

evidence of ownership of the  right  of  a  co-owner  to  use 
properties stated therein? the thing owned in common? 

Jurisprudence is consistent in ruling The thing should be used only:

that tax declarations are not
conclusive evidence of ownership of (1) in accordance with the purpose for
properties stated therein. A disclaimer which it is intended;
is even printed on their face that they
are “issued only in connection with (2) in such a way as not to injure the
real property taxation and should not interest of the co-ownership; and
 If  the  different  stories  of  a 
(3) in such a way as not to prevent house  belong  to  different 
the other co-owners from using it owners,  and  the  titles  of 
according to their rights. (Art 486, ownership  do  not  specify  the 
NCC.) terms  under  which  they  should 
contribute  to  the  necessary 
A  and  her  sister  B,  are  expenses  and  there  exists  no 
co-owners  of  a  two-storey  agreement  on  the  subject,  what 
building.  The  upper  floor  of  the  rules shall be observed? 
building  was  occupied  for   
residential  purposes  by  B  and  The following rules shall be observed:
her  husband,  H,  while  the  ground 
floor,  which  was  divided  into  (1) The main and party walls, the roof
several  spaces,  was  leased  to  and the other things used in common,
several  storeowners.  One  of  the  shall be preserved at the expense of
spaces,  however,  was  used  by  H  all the owners in proportion to the
as  his  office.  Later,  after  a  value of the story belonging to each;
quarrel,  A  brought  an  action 
against  B  and  H  demanding  for  (2) Each owner shall bear the cost of
payment  of  her  ½  share  of  the  maintaining the floor of his story; the
rentals  for  the  use  of  the  part  floor of the entrance, front door,
of  the  house  which  they  were  common yard and sanitary works
occupying. Decide the case.  common to all, shall be maintained at
  the expenses of all the owners pro
B cannot be compelled to pay rentals rata;
to her sister, A. In living in the upper
floor, she was merely exercising her (3) The stairs from the entrance to the
right as a co-owner. She did not first storey shall be maintained at the
prejudice her sister; neither did she expense of all the owners pro rata,
prevent her from also living there had with the exception of the owner of the
she desired to do so. It is different, ground floor; the stairs from the first
however, in the case of the space in to the second storey shall be
the ground floor which H used as an preserved at the expense of all,
office. The latter is clearly liable to A except the owner of the ground floor
for 1/2 of the rent which such space and the owner of the first story; and
should have earned if rented to so on successively. (Art. 490, NCC.)
others. Under the law, he cannot use
such space gratuitously because that Distinguish  between  the  right  of 
would prejudice his sister-in-law. a  co-owner  to  make  repairs  for 
(Pardell vs. Bartolome, 23 Phil. 450.) the  preservation  of  the  property 
owned  in  common,  to  perform  acts 
  of  administration,  and  to 
perform  acts  of  ownership  or  withdraws it from the use to which
alteration.  they believe it is intended.
 
(1) With regard to acts of Acts of administration are transitory
preservation: in character, while acts of alteration
are more permanent.
Repairs for preservation may be made
at the will of one of the co-owners, but The former do not affect the
he must, if practicable, first notify the substance or form of the thing, while
other co-owners of the necessity for the latter relate to the substance or
such repairs. (Art. 489, NCC.) essence of the thing itself.

(2) With regard to acts of In relation to the right of a co-owner,

administration: the former require the consent or
resolution of the majority of the
Acts of administration can be co-owners, while the latter require
performed only with the concurrence the consent of all.
of the majority of the co-owners. (Art.
492, NCC.) R,  S,  and  T  are  co-owners  of  a 
10-hectare  agricultural  land  in 
(3) With regard to acts of alteration: Quezon  City.  R  is  the 
administrator.  S  and  T  are  in 
Acts of alteration can be performed Spain.  May  R  convert  the  land  to 
only with the concurrence of the other a  memorial  park  without  the 
co-owners. (Art. 491, NCC.) knowledge  and  consent  of  S  and 
T? Explain. 
What  is  meant  by  acts  of   
administration  and  acts  of  R cannot convert the land into a
alteration?  Distinguish  one  from  memorial park without the knowledge
the other.  and consent of S and T. Undoubtedly,
  to convert an agricultural land into a
Acts of administration are those memorial park constitutes an act of
which refer to the enjoyment, alteration or ownership which,
exploitation and alteration of the thing according to Art. 491 of the NCC,
which do not affect its substance or requires the concurrence of all the
form, while acts of alteration are co-owners, because such act involves
those by virtue of which a co-owner, in a change of the use for which the
opposition to the expressed or tacit property is intended. According to
agreement of all the co-owners, and in Manresa, acts of alteration are those
violation of their will, changes the acts by virtue of which a co-owner, in
thing from the state in which the opposition to the expressed or tacit
others believe it should remain, or agreement of all the co-owners, and in
violation of their will, changes the
thing from the state in which the However, the administration may be
others believe it should remain, or delegated by the co-owners to one or
withdraws it from the use to which more persons, whether co-owners or
they believe it is intended. (3 Manresa not. In such case, the powers and
447.) Thus, even assuming that the duties of such administrators shall be
transformation of the land into a governed by the rules on agency.
memorial park will benefit all the Should there be no majority, or should
co-owners, the law still requires the the resolution of the majority be
concurrence of all. (Art. 491, NCC.) seriously prejudicial to those
interested in the property owned in
How  do  you  determine  the  common, the court, at the instance of
majority  of  the  coowners?  What  an interested party, may order the
is  the  effect  if  a  co-owner  appointment of an administrator.
desires  to  make  an  improvement 
on  the  property,  but  he  cannot  Is  the  lease  of  the  entire 
secure  the  consent  of  the  community  property  an  act  of 
majority?  administration  or  an  act  of 
  ownership or alteration? 
To constitute a majority, the resolution
must be approved by the co-owners Lease of personal property is a mere
who represent the controlling interest act of administration, and therefore,
in the object of the community requires the resolution of the majority
property. (Art. 492, par. 2, NCC.) of the co-owners. However, lease of
Should there be no majority, or should real property may be an act of
the resolution of the majority be administration or an act of alteration
seriously prejudicial to those depending upon the circumstances of
interested in the property owned in each particular case.
common, the court, at the instance of
an interested party, shall order such Thus:
measures as it may deem proper,
including the appointment of an (1) If the lease is recorded in the
administrator. Registry of Property, whatever may be
  the duration thereof, it is an act of
Who  has  the  right  of  ownership, and therefore, requires the
administration  of  the  property  unanimous consent of all
owned in common?  the co-owners, since under the law, a
special power of attorney is required.
The management of the property (See Art. 1647, NCC.)
owned in common lies, in the first
place, in the co-owners themselves. In (2) If the lease is not recorded in the
this management, the majority of Registry of Property, but the duration
interest control, and their decisions thereof is more than one year, it is
are binding upon the minority. also an act of ownership, and
therefore, requires the unanimous repudiation have been made known to the
consent of all the co-owners, since, cestui que trust or the other co-owners; and
(3) that the evidence thereon must be clear
again, under the law, a special power
and convincing”
of attorney is required. (See Art.
1878, No. 8, NCC.)
One  of  the  co-owners  of  a  parcel 
of  land  took  possession  of  a 
(3) If the lease, however, is not
part  of  it,  but  did  not  by  any 
recorded in the Registry of Property
express  or  implied  act  show  that 
and the duration thereof is only one
he  repudiated  the  co-ownership. 
year or less, it is an act of
Can  the  other  co-owners  ask  for 
administration, and therefore, merely
partition? 
requires the resolution of the majority
 
of the co-owners.
The co-owner can ask for partition.
This is because his possession hardly
Can  the  possession  of  a  co-owner 
proved an act of repudiation as there
ripen into ownership? Why? 
was no showing that said possession
 
was to the exclusion of the other
The possession of a co-owner cannot
coheirs. The action for partition has
ripen into ownership for the reason
not yet prescribed. An action to
that the possession was merely in the
demand partition is imprescriptible or
concept of a trustee for the other
cannot be barred by laches. (Del
co-owners.
Banco vs. IAC, 156 SCRA 57.)

In Salvador vs. CA, 243 SCRA 239,

the Court held that:
POSSESSION 
 
“The possession of a co-owner is like that of a Distinguish  between  ownership 
trustee and shall not be regarded as adverse to
and possession 
the other co-owners but in fact as beneficial to
all of them. Acts which may be considered
adverse insofar as owner, his receipt of rents, Ownership exists when a thing
fruits or profits from the property, erection of pertaining to one person is completely
buildings and fences and the planting of trees subjected to his will in a manner not
thereon, and the payment of land taxes, prohibited by law and consistent with
cannot serve as proof of exclusive ownership, if
the rights of others. Ownership
it is not borne out by clear and convincing
evidence that he exercised acts of possession confers certain rights to the owner,
which unequivocably constituted an ouster or one of which is the right to dispose of
deprivation of the rights of the other co-owners the thing by way of sale.
"Thus, in order that a co-owner’s possession
may be deemed adverse to the cestui que trust
Possession is defined as the holding
or the other co-owners, the following elements
must occur: (1) that he has performed
of a thing or the enjoyment of a right.
unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to Literally, to possess means to actually
an ouster of the cestui que trust or the other and physically occupy a thing with or
co-owners; (2) that such positive acts of without right. Possession may be
had in one of two (2) ways: 175.) But then, what is the character
possession in the concept of an of his possession? It must be noted
owner and possession of a holder. that he is only a mere “kasama,” a
laborer hired by the sublessee, S. He
Possessors in the concept of is therefore, merely an agent of S; his
owners may be the owners personality is merely an extension of
themselves or those who claim to be that of S; he is not a real possessor,
so. On the other hand, those who although he is exercising the
possess as mere holders possession of the real possessor. It is,
acknowledge in another a superior therefore, submitted that he is in
right which he believes to be possession in the name of another,
ownership, whether his belief be right and at the same time, in the concept
or wrong. of a mere holder by virtue of his
  agreement with his principal, S.
O,  the  owner  of  a  riceland, 
leases  the  same  to  L  who,  in  From what has already been stated,
turn,  subleases  it  to  S.  S  hires  the only logical conclusion as far as S
a  kasama,  K,  who  actually  is concerned is that he is the real
cultivates  the  land,  but  does  possessor, but only in the concept of a
not  stay  thereon.  As  a  matter  of  mere holder. His possession, however,
fact,  nobody  lives  on  the  land.  is being exercised through his hired
Who  among  O,  L,  S,  and  K  may  be  laborer, K. Although he is only a mere
said  to  have  possession  of  the  holder, he is possessing the property
rice land?   in his own name by virtue of his
  contract with the lessee.
It is submitted that only S and K may
be said to have possession of the rice What  is  meant  by  (a)  a  possessor 
land — the first, in the concept of a in  good  faith?  (b)  a  possessor 
mere holder, but in his own name, and in bad faith?  
the second also in the concept of a  
mere holder, but in the name of A possessor in good faith is one
another. who is not aware that there exists in
his title or mode of acquisition any
There is not much of a question flaw or defect which invalidates it.
regarding the possession in fact by K.
While it is true that he does not stay A possessor in bad faith is one who
on the land, and, as a matter of fact, is aware that there exists in his title or
nobody lives there, yet he actually mode of acquisition some flaw or
cultivates the land. defect which invalidates it. (Art. 526,
NCC.)
Therefore, the doctrine of constructive
possession can be applied to his case.
(Ramos vs. Dir. of Lands, 39 Phil.
What  requisites  must  concur  in  recover possession, good faith ceases
order  that  one  may  be  classified  from the moment the possessor
as  a  possessor  in  good  faith  or  receives the judicial summons to
a possessor in bad faith?  appear at the trial.

Requisites for possession in good In  case  of  a  conflict  between 

faith: two  (2)  persons  regarding  the 
possession  of  a  certain 
(1) The possessor should have property,  who  shall  be 
acquired the thing through some title preferred? 
or by some mode of acquisition  
recognized by law Possession as a fact cannot be
recognized at the same time in two
(2) there must be a flaw or defect in (2) different personalities except in
such title or mode of acquisition; and the case of co-possession. Should a
question arise regarding the fact of
(3) the possessor should not be aware possession:
of such flaw or defect.
(1) the present possessor shall be
Requisites for possession in bad faith: preferred

(1) The possessor should have (2) if there are two (2) possessors,
acquired the thing through some title the one longer in possession
or by some mode of acquisition
recognized by law (3) if the dates of possession are the
same, the one who presents a title;
(2) there must be a flaw or defect in and
such title or mode of acquisition; and
(4) if all these conditions are equal,
(3) the possessor should be aware of the thing shall be placed injudicial
such flaw or defect. deposit pending determination of its
possession or ownership through
When  does  possession  in  good  proper proceedings. (Art 538, NCC.)
faith lose this character? 
  What  are  the  remedies  which  are 
Possession in good faith loses this available  to  a  possessor  in 
character from the moment facts exist order to protect his possession? 
which show that the possessor is not
unaware that he possesses the thing With regard to immovable property:
improperly or wrongfully. (Art. 528,
NCC.) If there are no facts from which (a) Action for forcible entry and
the interruption of good faith may be unlawful detainer, which is an action
determined, and an action is filed to to recover the material possession of
the property, and which must be With regard to movable property:
instituted within one year from the
time the cause of action accrues in the Action for replevin, which is an
proper municipal or justice of the action for the manual delivery of
peace court. (Rule 72, Rules of Court.) personal property. (Rule 60, Rules of
In addition to the action for forcible Court.)
entry, the plaintiff may within 10 days
from the filing of the complaint If  the  possessor  is  ousted  from 
present a motion to secure from the his  possession  by  the  true  owner 
court a writ of preliminary mandatory of  the  property,  what  are  the 
injunction to restore him in his rights  of  the  two  (2)  parties 
possession. The court shall decide the with  respect  to  fruits  received 
motion within 30 days from the filing or harvested by the possessor? 
thereof. (Art. 539, par, 2, NCC.)  
The rights of the two (2) parties shall
This accessory remedy is also depend upon the character of the
available either in an action for possession of the possessor.
forcible entry or in an action for
unlawful detainer where an appeal is If the possessor was in good faith,
taken, if the higher court is satisfied he is entitled to all of the fruits
that the appeal is frivolous or dilatory. received before his possession was
The period of 10 days shall be counted legally interrupted. Natural and
from the time the appeal is perfected. industrial fruits are considered
(Art. 1674, NCC.) received from the time they are
gathered or severed, while civil fruits
(b) Accion publiciana, which is a are deemed to accrue daily and belong
plenary action to recover the to the possessor in good faith in that
possession of the property, and which proportion. (Art. 544, NCC.) The true
must be instituted in the proper Court owner of the property, on the other
of First Instance within 10 years after hand, shall be entitled to the fruits
the possession has been lost. received by the possessor after the
latter’s possession was legally
(c) Accion reinvindicatoria, which is interrupted by the service of the
an action to recover the possession of judicial summons.
the property based on ownership, and
which must be instituted in the proper If the possessor was in bad faith,
Court of First Instance within 10 or 30 he shall reimburse not only the fruits
years, as the case may be, after the which he had received, but also those
owner has been deprived of his which the true owner could have
property. received with the exercise of due
diligence (Art. 549, 1st sentence,
NCC.), after deducting expenses which
he might have incurred in their
production, gathering and harvesting. as the doctrine of irreinvindicability.
(Arts. 549, 443, NCC.) {Aznar vs. Yapdiangco, 13 SCRA 486.)

What  is  meant  by  (1)  necessary  Nevertheless, this rule is subject to
expenses,  (2)  useful  expenses,  the following exceptions:
and  (3)  ornamental  expenses  or 
expenses for pure luxury?  (a) if the true owner has lost the
  movable; and
Necessary expenses are those (b) if such owner has been
which are incurred for the unlawfully deprived thereof.
preservation of the thing.
In both of these cases, the true
Useful expenses are those which are owner can still recover the
incurred for the greater productivity or movable from the possession of
utility of the thing. anyone without any obligation
whatsoever, unless the latter had
Expenses for pure luxury are those acquired such movable in good faith at
which are incurred for the convenience a public sale, in which case, the
and enjoyment of the possessor but owner, who had lost it or who had
which do not affect the existence, been unlawfully deprived of it, cannot
productivity, or utility of the thing recover it without reimbursing the
itself. price paid therefor. (Art. 559, par. 1,
NCC.)
Can  the  true  owner  recover  a 
movable  thing  from  a  possessor 
who  is  in  possession  of  such 
thing in concept of owner? 
 
It depends.

If the possessor acquired the

thing in bad faith, there is no
question that the owner can recover it
from him without any obligation
whatsoever.

If he acquired it in good faith, then

the true owner cannot recover it
because “possession of movable
property acquired in good faith is
equivalent to a title*” (Art. 559, par.
1, NCC.) This rule is sometimes known