Short answer. Ownership is the bundle of rights to enjoy, use, take the fruits of, dispose of and recover a thing, and to exclude others from it. Article 427 makes the starting point wider than most people expect: ownership may be exercised not only over things but over rights.
What the law says
Ownership may be exercised over things or rights.
Civil Code, Article 427 — Ownership of Things or Rights. Read the full provision →
A short article with a wide reach
Article 427 says only this: Ownership may be exercised over things or rights. Six words, and they open the whole law of property. The point is that ownership is not confined to what you can touch. A parcel of land and a car are things; but a credit against a debtor, shares in a company, a lease interest, an intellectual property right and an inheritance share are rights — and they are owned in the same legal sense, capable of being sold, mortgaged, inherited and defended in court. If someone tells you that you cannot own something because you cannot physically hold it, this article is the answer.
What the bundle contains
Ownership is conventionally described as a set of powers that travel together. You may use the thing, enjoy its fruits — the harvest, the offspring, the rent it earns — consume it where its nature allows, dispose of it by sale, donation, mortgage or will, recover it from anyone holding it without right, and exclude others from it. These powers can be separated without destroying ownership: a landlord who leases out a building has parted with use and enjoyment for a period but remains the owner, and a naked owner whose property is under usufruct still owns the substance. Losing possession, likewise, does not lose ownership.
Ownership is not unlimited
The Code grants ownership and then qualifies it heavily, and the qualifications catch owners out constantly. Your enjoyment is bounded by the rights of neighbours and by the rules on nuisance and easements — a right of way, a drainage servitude or a light-and-view restriction burdens the land whoever owns it. It is bounded by zoning, building and environmental regulation, and by the State's power to expropriate for public use with just compensation. Constitutional restrictions limit who may own land at all. And the general duty to exercise rights in good faith applies here as everywhere: an act done on your own property mainly to injure a neighbour is not protected merely because the property is yours.
Proving it, and what this article does not decide
Article 427 tells you what ownership covers; it does not tell you how you acquired it, how to prove it, or how to get the thing back. Acquisition — by law, donation, succession, contract followed by delivery, or prescription — is governed by separate provisions, and the remedies for recovering property are separate again, each with its own requirements and time limits. Nor does a certificate of title settle everything: it is strong evidence of ownership of registered land, but disputes over inheritance, double sales, forged deeds and boundaries are argued on the documents behind it. Practically, keep the deeds, tax declarations and receipts, the settlement documents in an estate, and any proof of possession and improvements — and if someone is occupying or claiming what you own, take those papers to a lawyer early, because the remedies differ sharply and some of them expire.
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.
- Merlinda Plana vs. Lourdes Tan Chiua and Heirs of Ramon Chiang, G.R. No. 250636, January 10, 2023 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Republic of the Philippines, represented by the Regional Executive Director of the Department of, G.R. No. 218640, November 29, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- Ramon Jacinto vs. Atty. Benedict Litonjua and Atty. Jose Ma. Rosendo A. Solis, G.R. No. 207675, January 20, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
- The Heirs of Nicolas S. Cabigas, namely, Lolita Zabate Cabigas, et al. vs. Melba L. Limbaco, et al, G.R. No. 175291, July 27, 2011 — read the decision on LawPhil →