Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Property - Possession
Property - Possession
561) 1
2015
party may set forth in their pleadings. holder, but with regard to the right
If petitioner can prove prior to use and right to the fruits, U is in
possession in himself, he may the concept of an owner.
recover such possession from even
the owner himself . Whatever may Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in
be the character of his prior good faith who is not aware that there
possession, if he has in is favor exists in his title or mode of acquisition
priority of time, he has the security any flaw which invalidates it.
that entitles him to stay on the He is deemed a possessor in bad
property until he is lawfully ejected faith who possesses in any case
by a person having a better right by contrary to the foregoing.
either accion publiciana or accion Mistake upon a doubtful or
reindivicatoria. difficult question of law may be the
De Luna was able to prove basis of good faith. (433a)
prior possession over the property. This article can only be applied if there is a
(De Luna vs CA, 1992) flaw.
Art. 525. The possession of things or Bad Faith is Personal. Just because
rights may be had in one of two a person is in bad faith does not necessarily
concepts: either in the concept of mean that his successors-in-interest are
owner, or in that of the holder of the also in bad faith. As a matter of fact, a child
thing or right to keep or enjoy it, the or heir may even be presumed in good
ownership pertaining to another faith, notwithstanding the father’s bad faith.
person. (432) (Sotto v. Enage, [CA] 43 O.G. 5057)
When a contract of sale is void, the Art. 530. Only things and rights which
possessor is entitled to keep the fruits are susceptible of being appropriated
during the period for which it held the may be the object of possession. (437)
property in good faith, which good faith of Only those things and rights which
the possessor ceases when an action to are susceptible of being appropriated
recover possession of the property is filed (PROPERTY).
against him and he is served summons The following cannot be appropriated
therefor. (Development Bank of the Phils. v. and hence cannot be possessed: property
Court of Appeals, 316 SCRA 650 (1999)) of public dominion, res communes,
easements (if discontinuous or non-
Art. 529. It is presumed that possession apparent), things specifically prohibited by
continues to be enjoyed in the same law.
character in which it was acquired, until
the contrary is proved. (436)
CHAPTER 2
Presumption on the CONTINUITY ACQUISITION OF POSSESSION
OF CHARACTER OF POSSESSION
whether in good faith or bad faith — “It is HOW POSSESSION IS ACQUIRED
presumed that possession continues to be Art. 531. Possession is acquired by the
enjoyed in the same character in which it material occupation of a thing or the
was acquired, until the contrary is proved.’’ exercise of a right, or by the fact that it
is subject to the action of our will, or by
Other presumptions: the proper acts and legal formalities
Art. 527 Good Faith established for acquiring such right.
Art. 529 Continuity of Character of (438a)
Possession
Art. 533 Non Interruption of possession Ways of acquiring possession
Art. 541 Just title To be considered in possession, one
Art. 561 Non interruption of possession of need not have actual or physical
property unjustly lost but legally occupation of a thing all times. There
recovered are three ways of acquiring possession,
Art. POSSESSION DURING namely:
1138[2] INTERVENING PERIOD — “It is
presumed, that the present
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 4
2015
in two different personalities except in Pajuyos absence did not affect his
the cases of co-possession actual possession of the disputed
A sale with pacto de retro transfers the property. Possession in the eyes of the
legal title to the vendee, and in the law does not mean that a man has to
absence of an agreement to the have his feet on every square meter of
contrary, carries with it the right to the the ground before he is deemed in
possession of the property sold. possession. One may acquire
possession not only by physical
ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR occupation, but also by the fact that a
POSSESSION thing is subject to the action of ones will.
1. The corpus or the thing physically Actual or physical occupation is not
detained; always necessary. (Pajuyo vs CA)
2. The animus or intent to posses
whether evidences expressly or 1. Rizal - Registration
impliedly Cement - Applicant presented
Co. v. witnesses
Case doctrines Villareal - Opposition presented tax
Possession alone is not sufficient to declaration
acquire title to alienable lands of the - Whether applicant in
public domain because the law requires actual possession? YES
possession AND occupation. - Credence to the
Possession is broader than testimony of the
occupation because it includes witnesses
constructive possession. When the law - Right to possess flows
adds the word occupation, it seeks to from ownership
delimit the all encompassing effect of - Possession acquired by
constructive possession. One’s material occupation of
possession must not be a mere fiction. the thing
Acutla possession of a land consists in - Tax dec, survey plan are
the manifestation of acts of dominion not enough to prove
over it of such a nature as a party would possession
naturally exercise over his own property. 2. Wong - Deed of sale
(Ong v Republic) v. Carpio - Planted
- Did not constituted house
Possession cannot be acquired thereon
through force or violence. To all intents - Knew there where
and purposes, a possessor, even if laborers there, happy
physically ousted, is still deemed the there were people
legal possessor. (Cequena v Bolante) - Wong went to the land
Pajuyo and Guevarra were and tried to register it
squatters, hence in pari delicto. (also built a house and
However the application of the pari fenced)
delicto rule is not available in cases of - Mercado went to the land
forcible entry and unlawful detainer as it to make copras, brought
will violate the established rule on public attention of the police
policy. - Filed forcible entry
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 6
2015
acquired and enjoyed in the concept In order than an action for recovery
of owner of possession may prosper, it is
3. As claimant under a possessory indispensable that he who brings the
information title (meh) action fully proves not only his
4. As claimant under a certificate of title ownership but also the identity of the
Mere possession cannot defeat the property claimed, by describing the
title of a holder of a registered location, area and boundaries thereof.
Torrens title to real property Insufficient identification of the portion of
But the true owner of the property land claimed in absolute ownership
may be defeated by an innocent cannot ripen into ownership. (Serina v
purchaser for value notwithstanding Caballero)
the fraud employed by the seller
(forger) in securing his title The notice of adverse claim did not
Generally, a forged deed is a nullity interrupt the running of prescriptive
and conveys no title. However, there period. A notice of adverse claim is
are instances when such a merely a notice. There must be a civil
document may become the root of a interruption, that is receipt of judicial
valid title. As when the certificate of summon. The open, continuous,
title was already transferred from the exclusive and notorious possession by
name of the true owner to the forger, respondents of the subject property for a
and while it remained that way, the period of more than 30 years in
land was subsequently sold to an repudiation of petitioners’ ownership had
innocent purchaser for value (land been established. During such length of
titles!) time, respondents had exercised acts of
5. As possessor of forest land (not dominion over the subject property, and
possible!) paid taxes in their name. Jurisprudence
is clear that although tax declarations or
Mere tax declarations of ownership do realty tax payments of property are not
not vest or prove ownership of the conclusive evidence of ownership,
property in the declarant nor are even nevertheless, they are good indicia of
sufficient to sustain a claim for possession in the concept of owner for
possession over a land, in the absence no one in his right mind would be paying
of actual possession of the same. taxes for a property that is not in his
They are merely an indicum of a claim actual or at least constructive
of ownership possession. They constitute at least
Nevertheless, they are good indicia of proof that the holder has a claim of title
possession in the concept of owner over the property. As is well known, the
Payment of realty tax coupled with payment of taxes coupled with actual
actual possession in the concept of possession of the land covered by the
owner is one of the most persuasive and tax declaration strongly supports a claim
positive indicia, which shows the will or of ownership. (Heirs of Crisologo vs
desire of a person to possess with claim Ranon)
of ownership or to obtain title to the land
or property Juliana Frando is deemed to have
acquired equitable title to the property,
Case doctrines because her heirs have adequately
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 14
2015
proved her open, continuous, exclusive NB: Presumption of just title does not
and notorious possession and apply in acquisitive prescription.
occupation of alienable and disposable Adverse possessor must prove his just
land of the public domain. Her heirs title.
were in the concept of an owner as
shown by the fact that they have been Burden of proving just title
receiving the proceeds of the land and The onus probandi is on the plaintiff who
other evidences. Juliana Frando’s seeks the recovery of property
possession thus ripened into ownership, A person who is not, in fact, in
even if the sales patent was said to be possession cannot acquire a
denied, because she has been in prescriptive right to a land by the mere
OCEAN possession of an alienable and assertion of a right therein. Where the
disposable agricultural public land for a possessor is really the owner, the fact
period of 30 years, the prescribed period that a third person questions his right
under CA 141. does not impair said right.
The heirs of Gamos’s possession An owner and possessor whose title is
was by mere tolerance, hence cannot true and valid cannot be required to
ripen into ownership. (Heirs of Gamos show that his possession is or has been
vs Heirs of Frando) adverse as against a new claimant who
has neither title nor possession.
Art 541 A possessor in the concept of
owner has in his favor the legal What are the different kinds of title?
presumption that he possesses with a 1. Titulo verdadero y valido or true and
just title and he cannot be obliged to valid
show or prove it. This is the title presumed in this
provision
Possessor in concept of owner presumed Sufficient to transfer ownership
with just title without need of possessing the
Just title does not always mean a property for the period necessary for
document or a written instrument acquiring title by prescription
Title is that upon which ownership is 2. Titulo justo or just title
based For the purposes of prescription,
Actual or constructive possession under there is just title…
claim of ownership raises the disputable o When the adverse claimant came
presumption of ownership. In other into possession of the property
words, a possession is presumed through one of the modes
ownership until the contrary is shown. recognized by law for the
A possessor is presumed to have a just acquisition of ownership or other
title, and he cannot be obliged to show real rights,
or prove it. o but the grantor was not the owner
o Reason? To protect the owner or could not transmit any right
from inconvenience, otherwise, For prescription, just title must be
he will always have to carry his proved, it is never presumed.
titles under his arms to show It must be remembered that the
them to whoever who wants to burden of proving the status of a
see it purchaser in good faith lies upon him
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 15
2015
who asserts that status. It is not to the beneficiary or the other co-
sufficient to invoke the ordinary owners
presumption of good faith, that is, 3. That the evidence thereon must be
that everyone is presumed to have clear and convincing (Aguirre v CA)
acted in good faith, since the good
faith that is here essential is integral The mere possession of a strip of
with the very status that must be land for a period of 20 years is not
established. (Aguirre v CA) sufficient to acquire ownership by
3. Titulo colorado or colorable title acquisitive prescription. It must be
One which a person has when he acquired in good faith and with just
buys a thing in good faith, from one title(Color of title), or for a period of 30
who is not the owner but whom he years without just title and whether or
believes to be the owner not in good faith [Art. 1117]. Further, the
The just title required for acquisitive strip of land is acquired without just title
prescription is titulo Colorado because there is no mode of transferring
4. Titulo putativo or putative title title. (Titong vs CA)
One which a person believes he has
title but in fact he has not because Art 542 The possession of real property
there was no mode of acquiring presumes that of movables therein, so
ownership long as it is not shown or proved that
As when one is in possession of a they should be excluded.
thing in the mistaken belief that it
had been bequeathed to him Possession of real property presumed to
include movables
What’s the difference between titulo Article 542 refers to material possession
Colorado and titulo verdadero y valido? In only of real or personal things, not
Colorado, there is a need for prescription to rights
transfer ownership. In true and valid title, It is normal that movables which are
there is no need for prescription, ownership found in an immovable belong to the
is transferred once the mode of transfer has possessor of the latter
been perfected. (Be it by sale, donation, If the building is occupied by the lessee,
succession, etc). we can suppose the same with respect
to him because in this case, the
possessor is the lessee
Case doctrine Again, this is a mere presumption.
In order that a co-owner’s possession
may be deemed adverse to the cestui Art. 542 is applicable even if Possession is:
que trusti or the other co-owners, the a. in the concept of owner or of
following elements must concur: holder
1. That he has perfomrmed b. in one’s own name or in another’s
unequivocal acts of repudiation c. in good faith or in bad faith
amounting to an ouster of the
beneficiary or the other co-owners Art 543 Each one of the participants of a
2. That such positive acts of thing possessed in common shall be
repudiation have been made known deemed to have exclusively possessed
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 16
2015
the part which may be allotted to him years, for he is deemed to have possessed
upon the division thereof, for the entire his portion exclusively and continuously for
period during which the co-possession a period of 12 years.
lasted. Interruption in the possession of
the whole or a part of a thing possessed Interruption in possession of the thing
in common shall be to the prejudice of Both the benefits and the prejudices that
all the possessors. However, in case of might have taken place during the co-
civil interruption, the Rules of Court possession shall attach to each of the
shall apply. co-participants
Prescription obtained by a co-possessor
Effect of interruption: The possession can shall benefit the others
no longer be considered continuous; hence Interruption in the possession of the
the running of the prescriptive period for whole or part of a thing shall be to the
acquisition is interrupted. prejudice of all the possessors.
Exclusive possession of previous co-owner Possession is interrupted for purposes
deemed continuous of prescription either
Article 543 speaks of co-possession of a o Naturally (when through any
thing, not of co-ownership cause it should cease for more
Nevertheless, its principle is applicable than 1 year)
to co-possession of a real right o Civilly (when the interruption is
Co-possession can be over a thing or a produced by judicial summons to
right the possessor)
All participants of a thing possessed in In civil interruption, only
common constitute only one personality those possessors served
and the personality ceases when there with judicial summons are
is a partition. affected.
From that moment of cessation, the For civil interruption to
personality of each participant begins. take place, the possessor
Each co-possessor is deemed (not must have received
merely presumed!) to have possessed judicial summons.
exclusively and continuously during the When will summons not be
period of co-possession the part deemed to have been
assigned to him in the division. issued and shall not give
The effects of the division retroact to the rise to interruption?
commencement of the co-possession. 1. If it should be void for
But the division shall be without lack of legal
prejudice to the rights of creditors. solemnities, or
2. If the plaintiff should
Harry, Ron, and Hermione have been co- desist from the
possessors in the concept of owners of a complaint or should all
15 hectare parcel of land until they divided the proceedings to
the property equally on the 8th year. If on lapse, or
the 4th year after the division, Draco claims 3. If the possessor should
ownership of the portion allotted to Harry, be absolved from the
Harry can assert title by acquisitive complaint.
prescription through possession for 10
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 17
2015
but they have been gathered or severed Useful expenses shall be refunded
when good faith ceases only to the possessor in good faith with
A possessor in bad faith has no right the same retention, the person who has
whatsoever to the fruits, gathered or defeated him in the possession having
pending, except only necessary the option of refunding the amount of
expenses for gathered fruit (Art 443, the expenses or of paying the increase
449). Since civil fruits are produced day in value which the thing may have
by day, Art 545 does not apply to them. acquired by reason thereof.
In the case of fruits already gathered at
the time good faith ceases, it is Art 544 Art 547 If the useful improvements can
that is applicable. be removed without damage to the
If there are pending natural and principal thing, the possessor in good
industrial fruits at the time good faith faith may remove them, unless the
ceases, the two possessors shall share person who recovers the possession
in the expense of cultivation and the exercises the option under paragraph 2
charges (expenses made not on the of the preceding article.
property itself but on account of it, such Option granted to possessor in GF
as taxes, interest on mortgages) in only if the owner does not choose to
proportion to the time of possession. exercise the rights granted to him under Art.
They will also share on the fruits in 546.
proportion to the time of possession as
well. Art 548 Expenses for pure luxury or
What if there are no fruits or the fruits mere pleasure shall not be refunded to
are less than expenses? the possessor in good faith; but he may
o If there is no net harvest because remove the ornaments with which he
there are no fruits or the fruits are has embellished the principal thing if it
less than the expenses, art 545 suffers no injury thereby, and if his
won’t apply. If the fruits are successor in the possession does not
merely insufficient, the same prefer to refund the amount expended.
should be divided in proportion to
their respective expenses. Right of removal is given to both
o No fruits? Each should bear his possessors in GF and BF.
own expenses subject to the right
of the possessor in good faith to Art 549 The possessor in bad faith shall
be refunded for necessary reimburse the fruits received and those
expenses under Art 546, unless which the legitimate possessor could
the owner of new possessor have received, and shall have a right
exercises his option referred to only to the expenses mentioned in
above. paragraph 1 of Article 546 and in Article
443. The expenses incurred in
Art 546 Necessary expenses shall be improvements for pure luxury or mere
refunded to every possessor; but only pleasure shall not be refunded to the
the possessor in good faith may retain possessor in bad faith, but he may
the thing until he has reimbursed remove the objects for which such
therefore. expenses have been incurred, provided
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 20
2015
benefit of the person who has liable for necessary expenses even if
succeeded in recovering possession. the thing for which they were incurred
(456) no longer exists.
Necessary expenses are not considered
“The person who has succeeded” refers improvements.
to the OWNER.
Art. 554. A present possessor who
Improvements caused by nature or time shows his possession at some previous
Article 551 covers all the natural time, is presumed to have held
accessions mentioned in Articles 457 to possession also during the intermediate
465 which must follow the ownership of period, in the absence of proof to the
the principal thing, and generally, all contrary. (459)
improvements that are not due to the
will of the possessor. Presumption of possession during
The former possessor got the benefits intervening period
from the property during his possession. This article contemplates a situation
It is but just that the improvements where a present possessor is able to
mentioned which take place after the prove his possession of a property at a
possession is recovered inure to the prior period but not his possession
owner or lawful possessor. Hence, he during the intervening period.
should not pay for them. He is presumed to have possessed the
property continuously without
Art. 552. A possessor in good faith shall interruption, unless the contrary is
not be liable for the deterioration or loss proved.
of the thing possessed, except in cases The presumption is useful for purposes
in which it is proved that he has acted of prescription.
with fraudulent intent or negligence,
after the judicial summons. Art. 555. A possessor may lose his
A possessor in bad faith shall be possession:
liable for deterioration or loss in every 1. By the abandonment of the
case, even if caused by a fortuitous thing;
event. (457a) 2. By an assignment made to
another either by onerous or
Art. 553. One who recovers possession gratuitous title;
shall not be obliged to pay for 3. By the destruction or total loss
improvements which have ceased to of the thing, or because it goes
exist at the time he takes possession of out of commerce;
the thing. (458) 4. By the possession of another,
subject to the provisions of Article
Improvements which have ceased to exist 537, if the new possession has
The improvements referred to were lasted longer than one year. But
enjoyed by the possessor alone. the real right of possession is not
Having ceased to exist, the owner or lost till after the lapse of ten years.
lawful possessor who came too late (460a)
cannot benefit from them. But he is
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 23
2015
when the thing has that the thing has Catholic - RESPONDENTS
no owner no owner Vicar PROVED: predecessor’s
Apostolic house was borrowed by
v. CA VICAR
Destruction, total loss, or withdrawal from - after the church
commerce
allowed it free use, they
Destruction or total loss covers not only became bailors and
that which is caused voluntarily or petitioner bailee
intentionally but also that which is - Bailee’s failure to return
caused by accident. the subject matter to the
A thing is lost when it perishes, or goes bailor DID NOT MEAN
out of commerce, or disappears, etc. ADVERSE
(Art 1189)
POSSESSION ON
THE PART OF THE
Possession of another for more than one BORROWER
year - Adverse claim of VICAR
This refers to possession de facto (as a did not ripen into
fact or material possession) and not de ownership
jure (legal right or real right of - REPSONDENTS IN
possession) POSSESSION IN GF
After one year, the former possessor SINCE 1906
can no longer bring any action for - VICAR 1951 - Bailee
forcible entry or unlawful detainer.
Possession by mere tolerance even for
over a year does not affect possession U.S. v. Rey
de facto. 8 Phil. 500
After 10 years, the possessor or owner FACTS: A vessel Cantabria while on its
may bring an accion publiciana or way to Albay was shipwrecked, resulting
reivindicatoria to recover possession de among other things in the loss of P25,000;
jure unless he is barred by prescription. P15,000 of which were later salvaged by a
group of men who distributed the amount
Recovery by lawful owner or possessor among themselves. The real owner,
Possession may also be lost when it is however, had no knowledge of the loss till
recovered from the person in after six weeks, shortly after which period,
possession by the lawful owner in a searchers were sent. But by that time, the
reivindicatory action or by the lawful money was nowhere to be found.
possessor in an action to recover the
better right of possession. ISSUE: Was there abandonment, and can
the money still be recovered from the
Case Doctrine finders?
Abandonment for a long period of
time converts the thing to a res nullius. HELD: There was no abandonment for the
However, abandonment does not apply to spes recuperandi had not yet gone, nor the
land, much more a registered land. (Yu vs animus revertendi finally given up. This is
de Lara) evident from the fact that a search party
had looked for the money. Hence, the
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 25
2015
owner can still recover, less the necessary this case, the possessor has not lost his
expenses for salvaging the same. legal right to the object.
A property owner cannot be held to o He retains his juridical control of
have abandoned the same until at least he the thing which remains in his
has some knowledge of the loss of its patrimony.
possession or the thing.
There is no real intention to abandon Art. 557. The possession of immovables
property when as in the case of a shipwreck and of real rights is not deemed lost, or
or a fire, things are thrown into the sea or transferred for purposes of prescription
upon the highway. to the prejudice of third persons, except
in accordance with the provisions of the
Mortgage Law and the Land Registration
Art. 556. The possession of movables is laws. (462a)
not deemed lost so long as they remain
under the control of the possessor, even Loss of possession of immovables and real
though for the time being he may not rights with respect to third persons
know their whereabouts. (461) Third persons are not prejudiced except
in accordance with the provisions of the
Loss of possession of movables mortgage law and the registration law.
The possession of movables shall be Against a recorded title, ordinary
deemed lost when they cease to be prescription of ownership or real rights
under the control of the possessor either shall not take place to the prejudice of a
because: third person, except in virtue of another
o They have come into the title also recorded and the time shall
possession of a third person; or begin to run from the recording of the
o Although, they have not been latter.
taken by another,
The possessor has Example:
completely no idea of their O bought an unregistered land from
whereabouts or location A. O registered the deed of sale in the
(the pet rat has been Registry of Property. O went abroad and
missing for sometime; or left his land. P possesses the same for 30
Even if known, they cannot years. O has lost his possession and
be recovered, whether as ownership over the same, insofar as the P
a matter of fact (an is concerned, but not insofar as G, H, and I
unopened box of pastillas (strangers) are concerned. For said
has been dropped in a strangers, relying on the Registry, are still
deep lake) or of law (a privileged to consider O possessor and
movable lost by owner.
prescription).
Possession is not lost by the mere fact Art. 558. Acts relating to possession,
that the possessor does not know for executed or agreed to by one who
the time being the precise whereabout possesses a thing belonging to another
of a specific movable when he has not as a mere holder to enjoy or keep it, in
given up all hope of finding it (like a ring any character, do not bind or prejudice
misplaced or lost in particular vicinity). In the owner, unless he gave said holder
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 26
2015
Undoubtedly, one who has lost a had mistakenly debited from FMICs
movable or who has been unlawfully account and credited to Tevestecos,
deprived of it cannot be said to have and subsequently traced to Francos
voluntarily parted with the possession account. In fact, this is what BPI-FB did
thereof. This is the justification for the in filing the Makati Case against
exceptions found under the second Franco, et al. It staked its claim on the
sentence of Article 559 of the Civil money itself which passed from one
Code. (Ledesma vs CA) account to another, commencing with
the forged Authority to Debit.
BPI-FB contends that its position is It bears emphasizing that money
not unlike that of an owner of personal bears no earmarks of peculiar
property who regains possession after it ownership, and this characteristic is all
is stolen, and to illustrate this point, BPI- the more manifest in the instant case
FB gives the following example: where which involves money in a banking
Xs television set is stolen by Y who transaction gone awry. Its primary
thereafter sells it to Z, and where Z function is to pass from hand to hand as
unwittingly entrusts possession of the a medium of exchange, without other
TV set to X, the latter would have the evidence of its title. Money, which had
right to keep possession of the property passed through various transactions in
and preclude Z from recovering the general course of banking business,
possession thereof citing Art. 559. even if of traceable origin, is no
BPI-FBs argument is unsound. To exception.
begin with, the movable property Thus, inasmuch as what is
mentioned in Article 559 of the Civil involved is not a specific or determinate
Code pertains to a specific or personal property, BPI-FBs illustrative
determinate thing. A determinate or example, ostensibly based on Article
specific thing is one that is 559, is inapplicable to the instant case.
individualized and can be identified Article 559 does not apply to
or distinguished from others of the money. (BPI Family Savings vs Franco)
same kind.
In this case, the deposit in Franco’s
accounts consists of money which, Art. 560. Wild animals are possessed
albeit characterized as a movable, is only while they are under one's control;
generic and fungible. The quality of domesticated or tamed animals are
being fungible depends upon the considered domestic or tame if they
possibility of the property, because of its retain the habit of returning to the
nature or the will of the parties, being premises of the possessor. (465)
substituted by others of the same kind,
not having a distinct individuality. Possession of animals
Significantly, while Article 559 Animals may be:
permits an owner who has lost or has 1. Wild or animals living in a state of
been unlawfully deprived of a movable nature independently of and without
to recover the exact same thing from the the aid and care of man (great white
current possessor, BPI-FB simply claims shark, ornate wobbegong, brazilian
ownership of the equivalent amount of slug)
money, i.e., the value thereof, which it
Property – Possession (Art. 523 – Art. 561) 29
2015
Example:
P possessed a parcel of land on Jan.
1, 2000. In 2005, P was ousted by O. P was
able to recover the possession in 2010. P is
considered to have possessed the land
from 1995.