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

Registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession

Registered Land vs. Adverse Possession: Why Time Doesn’t Win for Titled Parcels

In Philippine property law, one of the fundamental guarantees of the Torrens registration system is the principle of indefeasibility — that is, once land is validly registered, the title granted is protected against most claims, even long-standing ones. As such, registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession — no matter how many years someone has occupied or “possessed” it without the owner’s consent.

This rule is more than doctrine: it is entrenched in statute, affirmed repeatedly by the Supreme Court, and essential to preserving the reliability of titles in a system premised on registration.

Here’s how the rule works, why it matters, and where the exceptions may lie.

What is Adverse Possession?

Before diving into the exception for registered lands, it helps to recall what adverse possession means in the Philippine context.

Adverse possession—also known in Philippine law as acquisitive prescription—is a means by which, under certain conditions, an occupant of property may become its owner through uninterrupted, public, exclusive, and hostile (or adverse) possession over a prescribed period. Under the Civil Code:

• Extraordinary prescription: 30 years, regardless of good faith or just title.

• Ordinary prescription: 10 years, when the possessor holds in good faith and with a “just title.”

These terms are subject to specific rules, interruptions, and qualifications.)

Thus, in untitled land, or rural land not yet brought under the Torrens system, an adverse possessor could—if all requisites are satisfied—potentially perfect ownership after the statutory period.

The Statutory Barrier: PD 1529 § 44 / Property Registration Decree

However, once a parcel is registered under the Torrens system, the game changes. Section 44 of PD 1529 (the Property Registration Decree) contains a clear prohibition:

“No title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.”

In effect, formal law declares that you cannot, by mere lapse of time and possession, divest or override a Torrens title. This statutory safeguard upholds the integrity of registration, preventing surprises and undermining confidence in titles.

Supreme Court Jurisprudence: Reinforcing the Rule

The Supreme Court has consistently reaffirmed the inviolability of Torrens titles against adverse possession claims. Some key points from jurisprudence:

• A registered owner’s title cannot be defeated by mere possession.

• Even decades of occupation outside one’s true boundary (so-called “excess land”) cannot ripen into ownership against a prior Torrens title.

• In “overlapping” or boundary adjustment cases, the remedy is not prescription but equitable or corrective action (e.g. reconveyance, annulment, boundary relocation) rather than extinguishment.

  
  

These holdings confirm that registration is not just a procedural convenience but a substantive shell protecting title from wear and tear of time.

The Exception: Untitled or “Excess” Land Outside the Torrens Domain

Where, then, can adverse possession still operate? Only where the land has not yet been registered or where the portion in question lies outside the metes-and-bounds of an existing Torrens title (e.g., excess or overhang land).

Some illustrative situations:

1. Public domain / Alienable & disposable (A&D) landIf a parcel remains part of the public domain and is classified as alienable and disposable, a possessor may employ adverse possession or judicial confirmation to claim title—provided the statutory requisites are satisfied.

2. Excess land (over-surveyed area)Suppose a Torrens title covers Plot A, but the occupant fences and cultivates a strip beyond the authorized boundary (Plot B). If Plot B is unregistered and part of public domain or alienable land, the occupier may seek to perfect claim over it by prescription (or other statutory route). But if that excess land already belongs (by prior registered title) to some third party, prescription cannot extinguish that prior title.

   
   

Thus, the key is: is the land within the registered title, or is it outside and untitled? If the former, adverse possession won’t cut it.

Practical Implications & Advice for Landowners and Occupants

For Registered Landowners

• You must monitor your boundaries. Mere inaction or non-use does not allow squatters to acquire your titled area.

• If someone encroaches beyond your fence, you cannot just rely on prescription—your remedy lies in ejectment, boundary correction, surveys, or legal action to quiet title or reconvey overlaps.

For Occupants Seeking to Claim Property

• First, determine whether the land is already covered by a Torrens title. If so, adverse possession is not available.

• If the land is untitled and qualifies (e.g. public land open for disposition), make sure your possession is public, continuous, peaceful, exclusive, and adverse (OCEA), and that you meet any good faith / just title requirements for shorter prescription periods.

• Always get survey work, DENR land status certification, and be prepared to file the proper petition (judicial confirmation, free patent, or original registration) rather than rely solely on prescription.

  
  

The maxim “registered land cannot be acquired by adverse possession” is more than a catchy aphorism; it is foundational to the Torrens system. It ensures stability and certainty of titles, shielding registered owners from the slow creep of prescriptive claims. While adverse possession remains a vital doctrine in untitled lands, once registration intervenes, time stops working in favor of the occupant.

If you ever wonder whether your land is protected, or whether someone’s long occupation might ripen into title, it pays to consult a property law expert and run a title and boundary check.

Source: Ziggurat Real Estate

Right-of-way law seen boosting PHL bid for upper middle-class status

The newly signed Republic Act No. 12289, or the Accelerated and Reformed Right-of-Way (ARROW) Act, can help the Philippines achieve its goal of becoming an upper middle-income country, analysts said.

“This supports the country’s push toward UMIC (upper middle-income country) status by improving connectivity, efficiency, and investor confidence,” Philippine Institute for Development Studies Senior Research Fellow John Paolo R. Rivera said via Viber.

“However, strong implementation, fair compensation, and coordination with LGUs remain essential for its success,” he noted.

He noted that the new measure is long overdue and will significantly improve the rollout of infrastructure projects.

“By streamlining land acquisition, it minimizes costly delays and accelerates project completion that is critical for boosting productivity and attracting investment,” he added.

President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr. signed the ARROW Act on Sept. 12, Palace Press Officer Clarissa A. Castro said.

Public Works Secretary Vivencio B. Dizon also confirmed the signing in a separate Viber message late Wednesday.

Malacañang has yet to release a full copy of the law, which amends Republic Act No. 10752, or the Right-of-Way Act, extending its coverage to all infrastructure projects carried out under public-private partnerships.

Nigel Paul C. Villarete, senior adviser on public-private partnerships at technical advisory group Libra Konsult, Inc., said that while private property rights are protected in a democracy, they must sometimes yield to the greater good.

He said via Viber that individual ownership cannot extend indefinitely, especially when it impedes community or national interests.

He said the law makes it easier for the government to pursue its infrastructure program.

The measure extends to private companies providing public services the power of eminent domain — including companies in electricity, petroleum, water pipelines, ports, telecommunications, and irrigation.

It also updates the law governing government access or expropriation of land for infrastructure by clarifying the rules on underground right-of-way.

The scope of the new law covers roads, bridges, power and water pipelines, telecommunications facilities, airports, seaports, and irrigation projects, among others.

Agencies will be required to prepare a Right-of-Way Action Plan before acquiring property, which must include a census of affected persons, an inventory of assets, compensation estimates, an implementation timeline, and records of consultations.

Property valuation will follow the market schedules set under the Real Property Valuation and Assessment Reform Act, ensuring fair compensation for land, structures, crops, and other affected assets.

Source: Business World