In discussing "surface right" of a land owner (Art. 437, New Civil Code) Paras has this to say:
"If ownership does not extend ad coelom — indefinitely upwards to the sky, it should not also extend usque ad internos — indefinitely downwards."
De Leon, on the other hand says this:
"If ownership does not extend ad coelom — indefinitely upwards to the sky, it should not also extend usque ad internos — indefinitely downwards."
De Leon, on the other hand says this:
"If the ownership does not extend ad column, neither should it go down usque ad inferos."
Who is correct?
Who is correct?
At first glance I thought that Paras had it right because from the little Spanish I learned from my Grandpa (who was "de habla Española") I know that coelom is related to cielo which is Spanish for sky. But then inferos, as mentioned by De Leon, sounds like infierno (Spanish for hell).
Turned out that both are partially right. Or should it be "half wrong"?
Wikipedia says that the complete phrase is "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos". It means "whoever owns [the] soil, [it] is theirs all the way [up] to Heaven and [down] to Hell".
Wikipedia says that the complete phrase is "Cuius est solum, eius est usque ad coelum et ad inferos". It means "whoever owns [the] soil, [it] is theirs all the way [up] to Heaven and [down] to Hell".
BTW, the book of De Leon on Property (2011 Ed.) was pulled out when I went back to Rex on the second week of class to buy one. They said there were errors in the book. I've seen a lot of typos and confusing references to objects or persons in Paras' and De Leon's books which you can sort out by reading the context. This one must be big enough to warrant a complete pull out.
