Ramos v IAC 175 SCRA 70 July 5, 1989 Facts: This case is a claim of ownership involving a parcel of land covered

by TC Title No. T-92071 in the name of private respondent Rodolfo Ramos. Petitioner spouses Brigido Ramos and Felicidad Juan, praying for the cancellation of the name of respondent Rodolfo Ramos. Petitioners alleged that the property in question was titled in the name of respondent Rodolfo Ramos for convenience and in trust, petitioners claiming to be the beneficial owners thereof all along. Petitioner further claim that respondent Rodolfo Ramos took over the tenancy rights to the land in 1976. Petitioners also contended that the land in dispute, being supposedly a part of an abandoned river bed, is automatically owned by them as owners of the adjoining lot. The land covering an area of 24, 793 sq m was adjudicated to Rodolfo Ramos. Consequently, a contract of sale was executed between private respondent Rodolfo Ramos and the Land Authority. Annotated as encumbrances on said certificate of title are the conditions that, except by hereditary succession, the land shall not be subdivided, sold or in any manner transferred or encumbered, without the prior written consent of the Governor of the Land Authority and only to qualified persons specified therein. Issue: lot? Whether an abandoned river bed could be automatically owned by owners of the adjoining

Ruling: No. Article 461 provides that "river beds which are abandoned through the natural change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the owners of the land occupied by the new course" with the owners of the adjoining lots having the right to acquire them only after paying their value.

Laluan v Malpaya 65 SCRA 494 July 30, 1975

Facts: Petitioners Laluans, the Laguits, and the Sorianos a complaint against Apolinario Malpaya, Melecio Tambot and Bernardino Jasmin for recovery of ownership and possession of two parcels of land. They base their claim on their alleged right to inherit, by legal succession, from Marciana Laluan who died intestate and without any children.

Issue: Can they recover ownership over said land? Ruling: In order to maintain an action to recover ownership, the person who claims that he has gain to recover the ownership, the person who claims that he has a better right to the property must prove not only his ownership of the property claimed but also the identity thereof. The party who desires to recover must fix the identity of the land he claims. And where doubt and uncertainty exist as to the identity of the land claimed, a court should resolve the question by recourse to the pleadings and record as well as to the extrinsic, oral or written.

Masallo v Cesar 39 SCRA 134 Nov 13, 1918 Facts: Plaintiff averring that he is the owner of the tract of land in question brought an action of eviction Lezo against the defendant recovering possession thereof. Petitioner contended that the defendant by force and intimidation deprived him of the possession of the land in suit, and has since that time withheld it from him to his damage in the sum of P25. The defendant answered, denying the averments of the complaint regarding the alleged eviction, and asserted that the land in question is her property and has been in her possession without interruption for more than twenty years. It was established that the defendant had been in possession of the land in question for a long period prior to the occurrence of the incidents out of which this litigation arose. Issue: Who has a better right of possession over said property? Ruling:

A person who does not have actual possession of real property cannot transfer constructive possession by the execution and delivery of a public document by which the title to the land is transferred.

Baluran v Navarro 79 SCRA 308 Sept 30, 1977 Facts: Spouses Paraiso were the owners of a residential lot. The Paraisos executed an agreement entitled "BARTER" whereby as party of the first part they agreed to "barter and exchange" with spouses Balurans their residential lot with the latter's unirrigated Riceland, of approximately 223 square meters without any permanent improvements with the condition that: That both the Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part shall enjoy the material possession of their respective properties; the Party of the First Part shall reap the fruits of the unirrigated riceland and the Party of the Second Part shall have a right to build his own house in the residential lot Obendencio filed a complaint to recover the residential lot from Avelino Baluran claiming that he is the rightful owner of said residential lot having acquired the same from his mother, Natividad Paraiso Obedencio, and that he needed the property for purposes of constructing his house thereon inasmuch as he had taken residence in his native town, Sarrat. Obedencio accordingly prayed that he be declared owner of the residential lot and that defendant Baluran be ordered to vacate the same forfeiting his (Obedencio) favor the improvements defendant Baluran had built in bad faith. Baluran on the other hand alleged that (1) that the "barter agreement" transferred to him the ownership of the residential lot in exchange for the unirrigated riceland conveyed to plaintiff's Predecessor-in-interest, Natividad Obedencio, who in fact is still in on thereof. Issue: Can petitioner forfeit the improvement he introduced to the property? Ruling: Art 579, NCC is applicable thus petitioner will not forfeit the improvement he built on the lot but may remove the same without causing damage to the property. The use of the, term "barter" in describing the agreement is not controlling. The stipulations in said document are clear enough to indicate that there was no intention at all on the part of the signatories thereto to convey the ownership of their respective properties; all that was intended, and it was so provided in the agreement, was to transfer the material possession thereof. In fact,

under condition No. 3 of the agreement, the parties retained the right to alienate their respective properties which right is an element of ownership. With the material possession being the only one transferred, all that the parties acquired was the right of usufruct which in essence is the right to enjoy the Property of another. 6 Under the document in question, spouses Paraiso would harvest the crop of the unirrigated riceland while the other party, Avelino Baluran, could build a house on the residential lot, subject, however, to the condition, that when any of the children of Natividad Paraiso Obedencio, daughter of spouses Paraiso, shall choose to reside in the municipality and build his house on the residential lot, Avelino Baluran shall be obliged to return the lot to said children "With damages to be incurred." (Condition No. 2 of the Agreement) Thus, the mutual agreement each party enjoying "material possession" of the other's property was subject to a resolutory condition the happening of which would terminate the right of possession and use.