CASES RULING
A. PROTECTING PROPERTY
 BASIC DISTINCTIONS
 REMEDIES
 RIGHT TO RECOVER POSSESSION
German Management & Services, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 177 SCRA 495
doctrine of self-help enunciated in Article 429 of the New Civil
Code. 11 Such justification is unavailing because the doctrine of self-help
can only be exercised at the time of actual or threatened
dispossession which is absent in the case at bar. When possession
has already been lost, the owner must resort to judicial process for the
recovery of property.
the party in peaceable quiet possession shall not be turned out by a
strong hand, violence or terror. 9 Thus, a party who can prove prior
possession can recover such possession even against the owner himself.
Whatever may be the character of his prior possession, if he has in his
favor priority in time, he has the security that entitles him to remain on the
property until he is lawfully ejected by a person having a better right
by accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.
Caisip v. People 36 SCRA 17
Art. 429 of our Civil Code, reading:
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.
(3) the act of removing weeds from the ricefield was beneficial to its owner
and to whomsoever the crops belonged, and, even if they had not
authorized it, does not constitute a criminal offense; and
(4) although Gloria and her husband had been sentenced to vacate the
land, the judgment against them did not necessarily imply that they, as the
parties who had tilled it and planted thereon, had no rights, of any kind
whatsoever, in or to the standing crops, inasmuch as "necessary expenses
shall be refunded to every possessor,"5 and the cost of cultivation,
production and upkeep has been held to partake of the nature of necessary
expenses.
People v. Pletcha, Jr. 22 CA Rep. 807
invoking "self-help"
Art. 429 of the Civil Code, appellant asks Us for a reversal, on the ground that the law
gives him as the owner the right to use reasonable force to exclude any person
threatening his peaceful ownership. We note this is a new provision of the Civil Code.
Art. 429 of the New Civil Code:
"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."
"The principle of self-help authorizes the lawful possessor to use force, not only to
prevent a threatened unlawful invasion or usurpation thereof; it is a sort of self-defense.
It is lawful to repel force by force. He who merely uses force to defend his possession
does not possess by force. The use of such necessary force to protect propriety or
possessory rights constitutes a justifying circumstance under our Penal Code."
(Tolentino, A., Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, Ed. 1972, pp. 58-59).
Corollary to this is what the Constitution provides in Sec. 1, Art. IV:
"Sec. 1. No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law,
nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."
The appellant has real interest on that parcel of land sought to be fenced by virtue
of his 19-year uninterrupted and open occupation. The court a quo itself sustain
the appellant in its decision when it said:
"Indeed it is deplorable that one is to be dispossessed of a thing which he had come to
sentimentally consider as his own after a long occupation." (
Dr. Arturo M. Tolentino, Civil Law Commentator, classifies actual invasion of property:
"It may consist of a mere disturbance of possession or of a real dispossession. In case of mere
disturbance of possession, force may be used against it at anytime as long as it continues. If the
invasion consists of real dispossession, force to regain possession can be used only
immediately after the dispossession
Appellant cannot just be expected to close his eyes and fold his hands while other persons
trespass his land. In the instant case, the complainants had already begun seriously
segregating a four-hectare portion of his land by fencing it.
We, therefore conclude that appellant need not rush to the court to seek redress before
reasonably resisting the invasion of his property. The situation required immediate action and
Art. 429 gave him the self-executory mechanics of self-defense and self-reliance. We find that it
was not the appellant, who enjoys the legal presumption of just title, who took the law into his
hands, but it was the complainants for trying to scare away the appellant by acts of vandalism
and strategy
Andamo v. Intermediate Appellate Court 191 SCRA 195
It must be stressed that the use of one's property is not without
limitations. Article 431 of the Civil Code provides that "the owner of a
thing cannot make use thereof in such a manner as to injure the
rights of a third person." SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS.
Article 2176 of the Civil Code imposes a civil liability on a person for
damage caused by his act or omission constituting fault or negligence,
thus:
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes damage to
another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay for
the damage done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no preexisting contractual relation between the parties, is called a
quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this chapter.