Contact: +63 (0) 34 7290631
PRC LICENSE NO. 030309 Mapa Street, San Julio Subd., San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Philippines.
The Philippines inched up three places to 97th out of 143 countries and jurisdictions in the 2025 edition of the World Justice Project’s (WJP) Rule of Law Index. It was the country’s best ranking in five years. However, it remained one of the laggards in the region.
Source: Business World
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.
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.
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.
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 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
Co-owners of properties can run into disputes between or among themselves. These can arise due to differences in personal interests, financial goals, or management preferences.
When they cannot agree on selling the property or no longer wish to remain joint owners, are they essentially stuck at an impasse until all the co-owners can agree?
In such situations, the law provides various remedies to ensure that one or more parties can exit the arrangement fairly or that the property can be sold, even if the co-owners are at an impasse.
If the disagreement between co-owners is about whether or not to make alterations to the property, the Civil Code provides that none of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, make alterations to the property. This holds true even if the alteration benefits all the co-owners. However, in the event that the refusal to give consent by a co-owner prejudices the common interest of the co-ownership, the other co-owners may go to court to seek an order to approve the act for the benefit of the co-ownership.
Notably, the word “alterations” in the law does not include the sale of the property by the co-owners.
In the event that a co-owner desires to convert their share in the property to cash, they can sell their share in the property to others. However, any sale by a co-owner, without the others, shall be limited to the portion which may be allocated to the co-owner in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Any buyer shall only acquire a share in the whole of the property, but not a definite portion of the property.
When the remaining co-owner does not want to be a co-owner of the property with the buyer, the Civil Code gives the remaining co-owner the right of redemption in case the shares of all the other co-owners, or any of them, are sold to a third person. If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable price.
If a co-owner does not wish to, or is unable to, sell their share in the co-owned property, the Civil Code also provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Accordingly, in the event that co-owners cannot agree, a co-owner may demand the partition of the property, at least insofar as their share is concerned.
There are instances where a co-owned property may have to be sold as a whole. This happens when a property that is co-owned is essentially indivisible, and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them, who shall indemnify the others. In such cases, the property shall be sold, and its proceeds distributed among the co-owners.
(Articles 493, 494, 498, 491, 1620 Civil Code of the Philippines)
The Supreme Court has resolved several cases on disputes between co-owners, applying the cited provisions of the Civil Code.
The case of Aguilar v. Aguilar involved two brothers, Virgilio and Senen, who purchased a property for their father to live in. Initially, the ownership sharing was 2/3 to Virgilio and 1/3 to Senen. When Senen agreed to live with their father and shoulder the payment of the remaining mortgage over the property, the brothers agreed that they would equally own the property.
When their father died, Virgilio asked Senen to vacate the property as he wanted to sell it. However, the brothers could not agree on the sale, leading Virgilio to file a case in court, where he asked that the Court order the sale of the property and that the proceeds be distributed 2/3 to him and 1/3 to Senen. This sharing was disputed by Senen.
The Court upheld Virgilio’s right to demand the partition of the property, but it also ordered the sale of the property to third parties, with Virgilio and Senen to equally receive the sale proceeds since the brothers could not agree on the share of ownership. (GR 76351, October 29, 1993)
Another case involved co-owners of a 96-hectare property in Cavite, which was covered by several certificates of title. The first group of co-owners had agreed to sell their share in the property to a buyer for Php 12.50 per square meter.
The second group of co-owners filed a case in court because they objected to the sale, claiming that not only was the property incapable of partition, but also that the selling price was grossly excessive.
Accordingly, the second group of co-owners asked to be allowed to exercise their right to purchase the shares of the first group for Php 9.50 per square meter, as provided under Article 1620 of the Civil Code.
The Court declared that Article 1620 of the Civil Code was not applicable because the first group of co-owners had not actually sold their shares but only agreed to sell them to another party.
What was applicable was Article 494 of the Civil Code, which provided for the partition of the property, as it was clear that the co-owners no longer wanted to remain as co-owners of the property.
In this case, the Court finally decided that the property should be sold to third parties at a public sale, with the opening bid starting at Php 12.50 per square meter for the following reasons:
During the proceedings, the first group admitted that partitioning the property was not economically feasible or advantageous; and
It became reasonably evident that the parties could not agree on who among them would be allotted the property.
(Zaballero and Francisco v. Luna, et al. GR 56550, October 1, 1990)
Source: Inquirer