Short answer. If both started possessing at the same time and neither has a title, the item is placed in judicial deposit by the court while the case is resolved. The Civil Code gives no further tiebreaker — when all conditions are equal, a judge must determine who the rightful possessor or owner is.
What the law says
if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings
Civil Code, Article 538 — Preference of Possessors. Read the full provision →
How the Civil Code ranks competing possessors
Article 538 of the Civil Code sets out a clear pecking order for possession disputes. The first preference is for the present possessor — the person currently holding the thing. If both are present possessors, the longer in possession wins. If they began at the same time, the one who presents a title prevails. At the very end of the hierarchy — when both started at the same time and neither presents a title — the statute provides that the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings.
What judicial deposit means
Judicial deposit does not mean either party wins. It means the disputed item is taken out of both parties' hands and placed under the control of the court or a court-appointed depositary while the case is heard. Neither claimant can use, sell, or deal with the item during this period. The purpose is to preserve the thing and prevent one party from gaining an unfair advantage by physically holding it while the dispute is pending. The court then adjudicates the underlying question — who is the real possessor, and ultimately, who is the owner.
Why the title matters at the tie-breaking stage
Before reaching the judicial deposit step, the law looks for a title. A title here is any documentary basis for the possession — a deed of sale, a contract to sell, a receipt showing payment, a lease, or a similar written instrument. It does not have to be a registered title to land; any credible document establishing a legal right to possess can serve this function. The party who can produce such a document has priority over the one who cannot. This is why documentation matters: the same-start-date scenario is where it actually decides the outcome.
What to do if you are in this situation
If you are one of the claimants and the other is also currently in possession without a clear title advantage, the practical path is to file the appropriate action in court and ask that the property be placed in judicial deposit in the meantime. Search your records for any document — receipts, contracts, correspondence, photos showing your possession — that might constitute a title or at least evidence of a stronger claim. In cases like this, the outcome depends heavily on the evidence each party presents. Getting proper advice promptly is important, since the right to possess and the right to own may need to be established through two separate sets of proceedings.
Cases citing this provision
These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.
- Fernanda Cequeña, et al. vs. Honorata Bolante, G.R. No. 137944, April 6, 2000 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Arsenio F. Olegario, et al. vs. Pedro C. Mari, represented by Lilia C. Mari-Camba, G.R. No. 147951, December 14, 2009 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Spouses Romulo H. Espiritu and Evelyn Espiritu vs. Spouses Nicanor Sazon and Annaliza Sazon, G.R. No. 204965, March 2, 2016 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals and Jovita Matias, G.R. No. 159230, October 18, 2010 — read the decision on LawPhil →