Actions for claiming land ownership and possession

In a recently decided case, the Supreme Court explained the different actions for claiming land ownership and possession.

Lea Victa-Espinosa bought a parcel of land. When she had it surveyed, she discovered that parts of the land were occupied by the spouses Noel and Leny Agullo. Espinosa demanded that the Agullos vacate the portion belonging to her, but they refused.

Espinosa filed a complaint for recovery of possession (but not ownership) with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), asking the court to order the Agullos to vacate the portion of land. The RTC dismissed the complaint, declaring that Espinosa should have filed an action for forcible entry considering that the action was still within the one-year period from her discovery of dispossession.

The RTC denied Espinosa’s motion for reconsideration, notwithstanding her argument that her complaint was not merely to determine who between her and the Agullos had the better right of possession over the property, but one for accion reivindicatoria, since she sought not only to recover ownership but also possession.

The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision and agreed that Espinosa’s action was one for accion reivindicatoria, as her claim sought to recover full possession of the property, which is an element of ownership, allowing the case to proceed.

All the way to the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, however, denied the appeal of the Agullos and allowed the RTC to proceed with the case on different grounds, declaring that the action was not accion reivindicatoria but one of accion publiciana.

The High Court explained that in accion publiciana, the issue is who has the better right to possess the land without necessarily claiming ownership, whereas in accion reivindicatoria, the determination of ownership of the land is essential, with possession granted to the rightful owner.

In the case, Espinosa did not seek a determination of ownership, nor did the Agullos dispute her title of ownership over the land. More importantly, the Supreme Court clarified that accion publiciana could be filed even within the one-year period from dispossession if no force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth was used by the possessor—which, in this case, was not alleged. (Sps. Agullo v. Victa-Espinosa, G.R. No. 269921, April 22, 2025)

Understandably, the legal terms ejectment, unlawful detainer and forcible entry, accion publiciana, and accion reivindicatoria may be confusing to non-lawyers.

The following may help clarify any confusion. 

Accion interdictal or summary ejectment proceeding

This type of action may either be an action for Forcible Entry or Unlawful Detainer where both have the objective of recovery of physical or material possession. The action is based on Rule 70 of the Rules of Court and proceedings are summary (expedited) in nature. 

A complaint for Forcible Entry is one where the entry of the party being ejected is illegal from the start whereas, in Unlawful Detainer, the possession was initially lawful but becomes unlawful upon the expiration or termination of the right to possess — such as when a lease agreement has ended. 

Cases for Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer are filed with the lower courts (Municipal and Metropolitan Trial Courts) within one year from the unlawful deprivation or entry in the case of Forcible Entry or one year from the last demand in cases for Unlawful Detainer. 

Accion publiciana 

This is an action for recovery of the right to possess.  It is based on Articles 523 to 560 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and it is an ordinary civil proceeding to determine the better right of possession of real property independently of title.

While this type of action is usually filed against third persons, it may also be filed against any co-owner who takes exclusive possession and asserts exclusive ownership of the property.  

In an action by one co-owner against another co-owner, the only purpose of the action is to obtain recognition of the co-ownership. The complaining co-owner cannot seek exclusion of the other from the property because as co-owner he has a right of possession.  (De Vera, et al. v. Manzanero, et al., GR 232437, June 30, 2021)

In the words of the Supreme Court, when possession can no longer be wrested via summary action for ejectment when dispossession has lasted for more than a year, the dispossessed party may still file a complaint for accion publiciana or accion reivindicatoria.

The general rule is accion publiciana is filed when the dispossession has lasted for more than a year. However, when the dispossession does not involve force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, the case may be filed even if the dispossession has lasted for less than one year.

This type of case is filed with the lower courts or the Regional Trial Court, depending on the value of the property) and the action prescribed within 10 years from the time of the dispossession. 

Accion reivindicatoria 

Accion reivindicatoria is an action to recover ownership of a parcel of land and, as an element of this ownership, possession over the land. The party claimant must allege ownership over the parcel of land and seek recovery of its possession. (De Vera, et al. v. Manzanero, et al., GR 232437, June 30, 2021)

This action is based on Articles 428 and 434 of the Civil Code of the Philippines and, like Accion Publiciana, is considered an ordinary civil proceeding. 

The action may be filed with the lower court or the Regional Trial Court, depending on the value of the property and, generally, there is no time limit within which to bring the action except that the adverse party may acquire ownership over the land by virtue of prescription which will then defeat the claimant’s action in accion reivindicatoria. 

Source: Inquirer

Liability of Consumers for Unregistered Electricity Consumption

In a world powered by electricity, the relationship between power providers and consumers hinges on accurate metering. But what happens when electricity consumption goes unregistered—whether due to defective meters or other causes? Can utility companies charge consumers for electricity that was not recorded by the meter? More importantly, are consumers legally liable for such unregistered usage?

In the Philippines, this issue was addressed head-on in the landmark Supreme Court case Ridjo Tape & Chemical Corp. v. Manila Electric Co. (G.R. No. 126074, February 24, 1998). This case set important guidelines on the rights and obligations of both utility providers and consumers when it comes to electricity billing.

Understanding Unregistered Electricity Consumption

Unregistered electricity consumption typically occurs when:

• The electric meter is defective, and fails to record usage accurately.

• There is meter tampering or bypassing (an illegal act).

• There are technical malfunctions in the provider’s system that affect reading accuracy.

This often leads to disputes, especially when consumers receive back-billed charges for months—or even years—of previously unregistered usage.

The Ridjo Case: Setting the Legal Framework

In Ridjo Tape & Chemical Corp. v. MERALCO, the petitioners were industrial consumers who received a massive bill from Manila Electric Co. (MERALCO) for “unregistered consumption” after the utility discovered their meters were not accurately recording electricity use. The consumers challenged the charges, claiming they should not be made to pay for electricity not recorded by the meter.

Supreme Court Ruling: Key Takeaways

• Consumers are liable for electricity actually consumed, even if the meter failed to register it, as long as consumption can be proven or reasonably estimated.

• MERALCO was found negligent for failing to detect the defective meters in a timely manner, despite regular inspections.

• The Court ruled that both parties share responsibility: the consumer for using the electricity, and MERALCO for poor equipment oversight.

• Billing must be based on a fair estimate, not arbitrary amounts. The Court allowed MERALCO to collect payments based on a three-month average consumption prior to the period of defective metering.

  
  

What the Law Says

Consumer Act of the Philippines (R.A. 7394)

This law protects consumers from unfair and deceptive practices. However, it also requires consumers to pay for the goods and services they use—including utilities like electricity.

Energy Regulatory Commission (ERC) Guidelines

The ERC allows utility companies to conduct “billing adjustments” in cases of defective meters, subject to rules:

• Back-billing is generally limited to a maximum of 6 months unless fraud is involved.

• The consumer must be notified and given a chance to contest the charges.

• The adjustment should be based on historical consumption data.

  
  

Practical Guidelines for Consumers

1. Monitor Your Monthly Consumption

   • Unusual dips or spikes may signal meter issues.

2. Report Suspected Meter Defects Immediately

   • Notify your utility provider in writing and request an inspection.

3. Never Tamper With Electric Meters

   • Meter tampering is illegal and can result in disconnection, fines, or even criminal charges.

4. Keep Billing Records

   • Past billing statements are essential for estimating usage in case of disputes.

5. Know Your Rights

   • You are entitled to due process. The utility company must present proof of under-registration and apply a fair billing adjustment.

     
     

Conclusion

In the Philippines, consumers can be held liable for unregistered electricity use if it is proven they actually consumed the power, even if the utility meter failed. However, utility companies also bear the responsibility of maintaining accurate and functioning metering systems. The law aims to strike a balance: consumers must pay for what they use, but utility companies must act with competence, diligence, and fairness.

The Ridjo Doctrine, as established by the Supreme Court, affirms that while no one should get electricity for free, back-billing must be reasonable, based on actual data, and never the result of the provider’s own negligence.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Should Airbnbs Be Banned In Tourist Destinations

The temptation to ban short-term rentals is strong. But cities would do better to step up regulation.

The Predicament

Talk to any resident of a world city popular with visitors, and two complaints inevitably come up: Rents are too high, and there are too many tourists.

It’s tempting (and, data suggest, not unjustified) to place some of the blame for these woes on Airbnb Inc., Vrbo and other websites that facilitate short-term rentals. Critics accuse them of reducing the supply of available homes and saturating popular neighborhoods with wild partygoers. Shops catering to these visitors end up elbowing out other smaller businesses, making daily life even harder for locals.

In response, many cities have already introduced restrictions on short-term rentals, with some moving toward total bans. Barcelona requires property owners to apply for a tourist license for rentals of fewer than 31 days. Earlier this year, authorities there announced they would stop issuing licenses and not renew existing ones until after November 2028. Others are following suit: In September, residents in Budapest’s sixth district narrowly voted in favor of a total ban that would take effect in 2026.

But bans also penalize city residents and visitors, including short-stay hosts conscientiously trying to follow rules and be good neighbors and guests who mind their manners. Is there a compromise that enshrines the ben­efits of short-term stays without driving up costs and frustrations for year-round residents?

The Case For

Because renting out homes by the day is often more profitable than by the month, Airbnb and its ilk are an irresistible draw for landlords. Critics say the proliferation of short-stay listings leaves prospective tenants chasing a dwindling number of long-term rentals, jacking up prices and pushing out those who can no longer afford them.

A 2018 study by New York City’s comptroller found that whenever the number of short-stay listings in a given area increased 1%, average rents in that neighborhood rose 1.6%. The spread of Airbnb and competitors, the study said, was responsible for 9.2% of all annual NYC rent increases from 2009 to 2016.

The Booming Short-Stay Market

To limit this impact, cities ­including New York have placed restrictions on short-term stays. But enforcement is a challenge. A 2017 study of publicly available agreements found that Airbnb and other platforms rarely provided exact addresses for dwellings to cities seeking to monitor locations. Even in cases where rule-­breaking can be proven, hosts often go unpunished. According to a 2022 study, the city of Los Angeles fined or sent warning letters to only a third of the illegal listings detectable within the city that year.

City governments might be more tolerant of short-term rentals if there were a clear economic case. But studies cited by the Economic Policy Institute found they jeopardize revenue flowing into municipal coffers because the recording and implementing of tax obligations from short-stay hosts are less comprehensive than for hotels, partly because some local agreements cede responsibility in this area to the short-stay platforms themselves.

There are also concerns that short-term rentals leave travelers more exposed to scams and other types of harm, compared with hotel stays. Then there’s the nuisance factor: Barcelona’s Airbnb ban comes after widespread public protest in the city against antisocial behavior from tourists, notably late-night noise from tenants of short-stay lettings. Add it all up, and it’s no surprise that many city leaders are contemplating wholesale bans, rather than more stringent regulations.

The Case Against

Airbnb and its competitors may be unfairly taking heat for housing crises that are largely not of their own making. When a country such as the UK would need to build another city the size of London to satisfy its current housing needs, it’s clearly insufficient home-building, rather than tourism trends, that’s to blame. There are also tentative signs that curbs on short-term stays may not be having the desired effect on easing long-term rental costs—and not just because of a lack of enforcement. In September 2023, New York City banned the renting of entire units for fewer than 30 days. (Spare rooms within homes permanently occupied by hosts were exempted from the rule.) One year on, many apartments previously offered for short stays have simply shifted to medium-length stays of more than 30 days, a market that’s even less regulated, while the modest rent decreases observed since then have been attributed to other factors.

“As we have seen in New York City, short-term rental bans do not alleviate housing challenges,” Theo Yedinsky, Airbnb’s vice president for public policy, said in a statement, “only benefitting large hotel chains that rapidly increase their rates. Airbnb has always welcomed reasonable regulations that balance the needs of communities with the ability of residents to earn additional income.”

It’s also important to note that not all Airbnb listings are suitable, or even viable, for full-time rental. Beach or winter sports resorts, for example, commonly have apartment buildings that were always intended as seasonal housing. Additionally, even if most vacation apartments are run by hosts with multiple listings, comprehensive bans penalize ­single-listing hosts who rely on the platforms to supplement their income.

The Common Ground

Although no city appears to have cracked the code on controlling short-term stays, most could do a better job of regulating them. Making sure hosts register their dwellings through a licensing system can make for a safer service, where tax rev­enue is also easier to collect.

Some city authorities say that for full enforcement of existing rules, they would need access to a more robust database that allows cities to click on a short-stay listing, trace it to a specific address and owner, then see how much it has been occupied across all platforms.

Airbnb has been working more closely with cities to address these concerns, moving in the direction of greater transparency. For instance, the company introduced the Airbnb City Portal in 2020, which makes it easier to check listings against licenses.

Airbnb is also involved in projects such as the Airbnb Housing Council that promote affordable housing in urban communities. “We have successfully worked with governments around the world to enforce proportionate local STR regulations,” Yedinsky said in his statement, “and believe cities should address the needs of their individual neighborhoods prescriptively as a more effective way to regulate.”

There are city leaders who say that Airbnb has been a benefit and that current restrictions are working. Rui Moreira, mayor of Porto, Portugal’s second-­biggest city and a popular tourist destination, says recent constraints placed on the number of Airbnbs permitted in its most popular neighborhoods have proved effective, encouraging hosted apartments to spread out from the city core. That’s helped spur the economic revival of run-down areas that might otherwise struggle to find funding, he says.

Source: Bloomberg