Text of the provision
Art. 538. Possession as a fact cannot be recognized at the same time in two different personalities except in the cases of co-possession. Should a question arise regarding the fact of possession, the present possessor shall be preferred; if there are two possessors, the one longer in possession; if the dates of the possession are the same, the one who presents a title; and if all these conditions are equal, the thing shall be placed in judicial deposit pending determination of its possession or ownership through proper proceedings.
(445)
Civil Code of the Philippines, Republic Act No. 386, approved June 18, 1949, effective August 30, 1950. Reproduced in full; verified verbatim against the LawPhil and ChanRobles official-text renderings.
What this article means
Possession as a fact cannot be recognized in two personalities at once (except co-possession). In a dispute, preference goes: to the present possessor; then the one longer in possession; then the one with a title; and if still equal, the thing is placed in judicial deposit pending resolution.
Questions about this provision
Related provisions
- Article 537 — Acts That Do Not Affect Possession.
- Article 539 — Protection of Possession.
Cases citing this article
- 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 →
- Herminia Estrella vs. Gregorio Robles, Jr, G.R. No. 171029, November 22, 2007 — read the decision on LawPhil →
Compiled automatically from Supreme Court decisions published on LawPhil that expressly cite this article, most frequently cited first. A listing means the decision cites the provision — it is not a statement that the case is the leading authority, and it does not show whether a ruling has since been modified or abandoned. Always read the decision itself.