Recovery Of Possession And Ownership | Actions To Recover

Ownership? Possession? What’s the difference between the two? These two concepts differ in meaning and must be defined properly. In this article, we shall discuss recovery of possession and ownership, the distinctions between the two actions to recover real property, whether possession or ownership.

The juristic idea of the concepts of possession and ownership is normal to all frameworks of law. Recovery of Possession as one of the remedies that the Specific Relief Act of 1963 accommodates, recuperation of ownership of the property is one of the vital solutions for the prosecutor. Getting a whole property once again into the right spot of the standard cash and harms is something which is the endowment of value to the custom-based law.

Ownership is a right endless in place of client unhindered in mark of aura and limitless in place of term. Independent and general right of an individual to control a thing especially in his possession, pleasure, manner and recuperation, subject to no limitations aside from those forced by the state or private people, without bias to the arrangements of the law.

There is also an article released by Inquirer.net that ownership is not the same as possession.¹ It is written by Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis the Dean of Lyceum of the Philippines University, Chairwomen of the Philippine Association of Law Schools and the founder of Mawis Law Office.

Acquisition of Ownership

There are different modes of actions on how to acquire ownership. Article 712 of the Civil Code of the Philippines states that:

“Ownership is acquired by occupation and by intellectual creation. Ownership and other real rights over property are acquired and transmitted by law, by donation, by estate and intestate succession, and in consequence of certain contracts, by tradition. They may also be acquired by means of prescription”.²

The following are the modes of acquiring ownership as enumerated on the Civil Code of the Philippines.

1. Occupation;
2. Intellectual creation;
3. Donation;
4. Succession;
5. Prescription;
6. Law; and
7. Tradition

In view of the foregoing, we will discuss the difference of Ownership and Possession and on how we can recover it. Let’s focus on the different classification of real rights in the Civil Code. The following are the classifications:

1) when there is full control and enjoyment;

2) when there is partial control and enjoyment;

3) real rights of security or guaranty; and

4) of acquisition.

The first classification is when there is full control and enjoyment. To this, Ownership and Possession were discussed.

What is a recovery of possession?

Recovery of possession, when legally done, is an action by one person to get back something that is rightfully his. This may be through a legal court action. If personal property is to be recovered, the action is what we call Replevin under the Rule 60 of the Rules of Court.

Replevin is a civil action for the recovery of personal property that is governed by Rule 60 of the Rules of Court. It is necessary that the plaintiff’s personal property be illegally held or seized by someone in violation of his or her rights. On the other hand, if the subject of recovery is a real property, we have to file an action to recover possession and/or ownership as the case may be.

If what the person desires, being an owner but divested of possession, is merely to retrieve the same, he can file a suit such as interdictal or publiciana. Whereas, if he desires to recover both ownership and possession, he can sue for recovery of ownership, with corollary prayer for return of possession.

Recovery of Possession and Ownership | The Four Remedies

Under the law and the Rules of Court, an owner is given an assortment of legal remedies to recover possession of real property from the illegal occupant. The choice of which action to pursue rests on the owner. Should he/she elect to file a summary action for unlawful detainer, he/she must prove all the essential jurisdictional facts for such action to prosper. The most important of which, is the fact that the respondent’s entry into the land was lawful and based on the former’s permission or tolerance. Absent this essential jurisdictional fact, the action for unlawful detainer must be dismissed.³

Should the one who wants to recover his real property elect to file an action for the recovery of possession, since the circumstances for which the ejectment suit may be applicable do not exist anymore, he can do, as well.

If indeed, he wants the ownership of another person be voided, the individual can choose to sue for recovery of ownership, if he has valid grounds to to do so. The necessary consequence of such action, if he wins, is that the possession of the property will turned over in his favor.

What are the 3 kinds of actions available to recover possession of real property?

There are three (3) remedies available to one who has been deprived of possession of real property. These are:

(1) accion interdictal or ejectment suit;

(1.a) an action for unlawful detainer;

(1.b) a suit for forcible entry;

(2) accion publiciana; and

(3) accion reinvidicatoria.

Nevertheless, we shall discuss accion publiciana and accion reinvicatoria.

Accion publiciana (action with notice to the public) is a remedy to recover a better right to possess (de jure). In Yusingco vs Busilak,⁴ the Supreme Court ruled that;:

“Accion publiciana is the plenary action to recover the right of possession which should be brought in the proper regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of realty independently of title. In other words, if at the time of the filing of the complaint more than one year had elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of possession or defendant’s possession had become illegal, the action will be, not one of the forcible entry or illegal detainer, but an accion publiciana. On the other hand, accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership also brought in the proper regional trial court in an ordinary civil proceeding.”⁵

Accion publiciana is a plenary action to recover possession de fact (after one [1] year) or de jure. It’s a real action. It’s in personam. The basis is real right of possession, which prescribes in ten (10) years. An accion publiciana, otherwise called accion plenaria de posesion, is a whole activity for recuperation of ownership in a normal common continuing to decide the better and lawful right to have, freely of title.

Accion reivindicatoria under Article 434 of the Civil Code states:

“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.” Accion reivindicatoria seeks the recovery of ownership and includes the jus utendi and the jus fruendi brought in the proper regional trial court. Accion reivindicatoria is an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks recovery of its full possession.⁶

Accion reivindicatoria is an activity to recuperate responsibility for property. It’s a genuine action. It’s in personam. The design is to recuperate ownership and, subsequently, possession. The premise is ownership, which prescribes in ten (10) years if possession is in good faith or in thirty (30) years a long time in case ownership is in bad faith. Prescription doesn’t run against a proprietor of land enlisted under the Torrens framework. In any case, laches may set in regardless of whether land is enlisted.

It was stated in the case of Heirs of Alfonso Yusingco vs. Busilak⁷ a judgment guiding a gathering to convey ownership of a property to another is in personam; it is definitive, not against the entire world, but rather just between the gatherings and their replacements in interest by title ensuing to the initiation of the activity.

In Interlink Movie Houses, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals⁸, actions in personam, such as collection for a sum of money and damages, the court acquires jurisdiction over the person of the defendant through personal or substituted service of summons.

According to Ma. Soledad Deriquito-Mawis the Dean of Lyceum of the Philippines University, Chairwoman of the Philippine Association of Law Schools and the founder of Mawis Law Office that ownership is not the same as possession. Juridically speaking, possession is distinct from ownership.

It is actually the case that an enlisted proprietor has a right of possession over the property as this is one of the characteristics of ownership. Definitely, the enlisted proprietor of genuine property is qualified for its ownership.

Ownership and Possession | The Distinctions

The principal contrast among possession and ownership is that possession is having actual care or control of an article while ownership is a right by which something has a place with somebody. Since these two terms allude to two distinct implications, ownership, and possession of an object, land or licensed innovation can be held by two individuals.

The term ownership alludes to the selective lawful right to has something. Ownership can allude to claiming of an article, land or protected innovation; ownership for is named private, group or normal. Deciding one’s responsibility for ownership incorporates choosing who has the rights and obligations over that property.

The term co-ownership implies that more than one individual has a legitimate right to exactly the same thing. Possession can be characterized as having actual authority or control of an item. Comprehend that belonging isn’t same as ownership; however, both belonging and responsibility for object are held by similar individual as a rule.

The lawful contrasts among possession and ownership are unpredictable, and the term ownership is arranged into various classifications to keep away from disarray coming about because of this intricacy.

Genuine possession, as clarified above, is actual care or control of an item. Back to back possession alludes to a circumstance individual where an individual has real control of a property without having any actual contact with the property.

Difference between Ownership and Possession 

• Definition, Ownership is the act, state, or right of owning something while Possession is the act, state, or right of having physical custody and/or controlling something.
• Right, Ownership gives the right to possession while Possession does not give the right to ownership.
• Owner, Ownership is always with the owner of a property while Possession can be given to someone else.
• Classification, Ownership can be classified as private, collective and common while Possession can be classified as actual, constructive, criminal, etc.

Characteristics of Possession

Actual possession is when a certain person actually and physically possesses certain properties, whether real or personal.

Constructive possession is when a certain individual who has no actual or physical hold or possession the mentioned properties; yet, he ahs the total and absolute control over it. The control may be exercised on the possessor’s or owner’s behalf through an intermediary or agent structural cover, as the case may be.

Criminal possession is when a certain person got hold of the property through illegal means, such as robbery, theft, or other criminal acts.

Conflict of Possession

In case of conflict of possession, Article 1544 of the civil code may answer it, specifically when there is double sale. Article 1544 states that:

“If the same thing should have been sold to different vendees, the ownership shall be transferred to the person who may have first taken possession thereof in good faith, if it should be movable property.⁹

Should it be immovable property, the ownership shall belong to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property.¹⁰

 Should there be no inscription, the ownership shall pertain to the person who in good faith was first in the possession; and, in the absence thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. (1473)”¹⁰

Ownership of an immovable property which is the subject of a double sale shall be transferred:

(1) to the person acquiring it who in good faith first recorded it in the Registry of Property;

(2) in default thereof, to the person who in good faith was first in possession; and

(3) in default thereof, to the person who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith.

The requirement of the law then is two-fold: acquisition in good faith and registration in good faith. Good faith must concur with the registration. If it would be shown that a buyer was in bad faith, the alleged registration they have made amounted to no registration at all.¹¹

In San Lorenzo Development Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that sale is not a mode, or the legal means by which ownership is created, transferred, or destroyed, but a title. Thus, sale by itself does not transfer or affect ownership; the most that sale does is to create the obligation to transfer ownership.¹²

In another case, it was held that if a vendee in a double sale registers the sale after he has acquired knowledge of a previous sale, the registration constitutes a registration in bad faith and does not confer upon him any right. If the registration is done in bad faith, it is as if there is no registration at all, and the buyer who has first taken possession of the property in good faith shall be preferred.¹³

Right of Ownership the independent and general right of a person to control a thing particularly in his possession, enjoyment, disposition, and recovery, subject to no restrictions except those imposed by the state or private persons, without prejudice to the provisions of the law.

Rights of owner under the Roman law

1. Jus possidendi – the right to possess
2. Jus utendi – the right to use
3. Jus fruendi – the right to the fruits
4. Jus abutendi – the right to consume (and also to transform or abuse)
5. Jus disponendi – the right to dispose
6. Jus vindicandi – the right to recover

Conclusion

Wherefore, ownership and possession differs from one another. Civil Code of the Philippines clearly defines its definition. Actions and remedies are stated and well used by different parties. These remedies may be utilized if it is really needed. Independent and general right of a person to control a thing particularly in his ownership, delight, way and recovery, subject to no constraints beside those constrained by the state or private individuals, without inclination to the courses of action of the law.

Good faith should agree with the registration. On the off chance that it would be shown that a purchaser was in bad faith, the supposed registration they have made added up to no enlistment by any means. Let’s always remember that our constitution briefly secures our rights to own and possess properties.

1. Inquirer: Ownership is not the same as possession[↩]
2. Article 712, Civil Code of the Philippines[↩]
3. Javelosa vs.Madriaga, G.R. No. 204361, July 04, 2018[↩]
4. G.R. No. 210504, January 24, 2018[↩]
5. Ibid.[↩]
6. Cañezo vs Bautista, G. R. No. 170189, September 1, 2010[↩]
7. Supra., G.R. No. 210504, Jan. 24, 2018[↩]
8. G.R. No. 203298, January 17, 2018[↩]
9. Article 1544, Civil Code of the Philippines[↩]
10. Id.[↩][↩]
11. San Lorenzo Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124242 , January 21, 2005[↩]
12. Deed of Sale| Inquirer Business[↩]
13. San Lorenzo Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, supra note 8, citing Abarquez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 95843, September 2, 1992, 213 SCRA 415.[↩]