Notes on Property
Art 414 – all things may be considered as
Rules of Acquisitive Prescription:
-4 years in good faith uninterrupted possession otherwise 8 years
-10 years in good faith otherwise 30 years
Art 415 – Immovable Property ( does not define but enumerates)
A. By Nature – which by their essence and nature are immovable
1.Land, buildings, roads and constructions of all kinds adhered to the soil
8. Mines, quarries and slug dumps, while the matter thereof forms part of the bed, and waters either running or stagnant
B. By Incorporation – those which are treated as immovable by reason of their attachment to an immovable.
2. Trees, plants, and growing fruits, while they are attached to the land of form an integral part of an immovable.
3. Everything attached to an immovable in a fixed manner, in such a way that it cannot be separated therefrom without breaking the material or deterioration of the object.
7. Fertilizer actually used on a piece of land
C. By Destination – which are essentially movable, but by the purpose for which they have been placed, partake of the nature of the immovable.
4. Statutes, reliefs, paintings or other objects for use or ornamentation, placed in buildings or on lands by the owner of the immovable in such a manner that it reveals the intention to attach them permanently to the tenements.
5. Machinery, receptacles, instruments or implements intended by the owner of the tenement for an industry or works which may be carried o in a building or on a piece of land, and which tend directly to meet the needs of the said industry or works.
6. Animal houses, pigeon-houses, beehives, fish ponds or breeding places of similar nature, in case their owner has placed them or preserves them with the intention to have them permanently attached to the land, and forming a permanent part of it; the animals in these places are included
9. Docks and structures which, though floating, are intended by their nature and object to remain at a fixed place on a river, lake, or coast
D. By Analogy – par 10 Art 415.
10. Contracts for public works, and servitudes and other real rights over immovable property.
Rule if the building is erected on a land by another person – law makes no distinction whether the building is owned by the owner of the land, building is an immovable property regardless of whether or not said structure and the land on which it is adhered to belong to the same owner or erected by the owner of the land or by usufructuary or lessee.
What are the crimes against public order?
1. Rebellion or insurrection. (Art. 134)
2. Coup d'etat. (Art. 134-A)
3. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. (Art. 136)
4. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. (Art. 137)
5. Inciting to rebellion. (Art. 138)
6. Sedition. (Art. 139)
7. Conspiracy to commit sedition. (Art. 141)
8. Inciting to sedition. (Art. 142)
9. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress and similar bodies. (Art. 143)
10. Disturbance of proceedings of Congress or similar bodies. (Art. 144)
11. Violation of parliamentary immunity. (Art. 145)
12. Illegal assemblies. (Art. 146)
13. Illegal associations. (Art. 147)
14. Direct assaults. (Art. 148)
15. Indirect assaults. (Art. 149)
16. Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its committees, etc., by the constitutional commissions, its committees, etc. (Art.150)
17. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. (Art. 151)
18. Tumults and other disturbances of public order. (Art. 153)
19. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances. (Art. 154)
20. Alarms and scandals. (Art. 155)
21. Delivering prisoners from jails. (Art. 156)
22. Evasion of service of sentence. (Art. 157)
23. Evasion on occasion of disorders. (Art. 158)
24. Violation of conditional pardon. (Art. 159)
25. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another previous offense.
People vs. Divinagracia GR 240230
November 28, 2019
Through a confidential informant, police was informed that a certain alias Ensol (later identified to be Divinagracia) was selling marijuana and decided to conduct a buy-bust operation to arrestthe culprit.On the operation, the police undercover, along with the informant who identified and introduce the police to the suspects that they want to buy drugs, would buy a sachet of marijuana with the marked money. After the completion of the transaction, the undercover police would identify himself as one and arrest Divinagracia and one of his companions at that time who was identified as Sy.Kagawad Villar was the Barangay Kagawad at the time of the incident and was requested to witness the inventory of the evidences such as the drugs and marked money against the accused.The suspects were accused of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5, Article IIof R.A. No. 9165. They defended themselves with denial and claim it was a frame-up.RTC deemed Divinagracia and Sy to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale ofdangerous drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165. RTC brushed of theviolation of procedure found in Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 in that no representative of theDepartment of Justice (DOJ) and the media were present after the seizure as it held that the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs has been duly preserved by the unbroken chain of custody of the
.Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
Whether or not the accused are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of illegal sale of dangerous drugs in violation of Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165.
No.The legality of entrapment operations involving illegal drugs begins and ends with Section 21,Article II of R.A. No. 9165. It provides the chain of custody rule; outlining the procedure police officers must follow in handling the seized drugs, in order to preserve their integrity and evidentiary value.The implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No. 9165, (IRR) on the other hand, filled in the void of the law by providing the details as to the place where the physical inventory and photographing of seized items should be accomplished and added a proviso on permissible deviation from the strict compliance with what the law requires on justifiable grounds.Simply stated, the law commands that the seized drugs must be inventoried and photographed immediately after seizure and the same must be conducted in the presence of the accused or his representative or counsel, and three other witnesses, namely: (a) a representative from the media;(b) a representative of the DOJ; and (c) an elected public official. Compliance with the requirements forecloses any opportunities for planting, contaminating, or tampering of evidence in any manner. Non-compliance without justifiable grounds is tantamount to failure in establishing the identity of the corpus delicti, and essential element of the offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs, thus, engendering the acquittal of the accused.In the present case, it is undisputed that the police officers failed to comply with the three-witness rule under Section 21 mention above. The prosecution never hid this fact nor made any attempt to deny that only Kagawad Villar witnessed the inventory of the confiscated items. No justifiable ground was given for the breached in mandatory procedure. Because of this, the evidence become inadmissible in court as the can no longer be sure if the evidence are tampered or not. Hence, the accused are acquitted of their crimes.