03 property reviewer

8/3/2019 03 Property Reviewer

1/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

Part 3RIGHT OF ACCESSION

A. Concept

Art. 440.The ownership of propertygives the right by accession toeverything which is produced thereby,or which is incorporated or attachedthereto, either naturally or artificially.

Art. 441.To the owner belongs:(1) The natural fruits;(2) The industrial fruits;(3) The civil fruits.

Art. 442. Natural fruits are thespontaneous products of the soil, andthe young and other products ofanimals.Industrial fruits are those produced bylands of any kinds through cultivation orlabor.Civil fruits are rents of buildings, theprice of leases or land and otherproperty and the amount of perpetuallife annuities or other similar income.

(1) Definition of Accession

The right by virtue of which theowner of a thing becomes the ownerof everything that it may produce orwhich may be inseparably united orincorporated thereto, either naturallyor artificially.

The right which ownership ofproperty gives over everything whichthe same produces or which isattached or incorporated thereto

either naturally or artificially Merely a consequence of the right of

ownership

(2) Accession not a mode of acquiringownership

It is a mere consequence orincidence of ownership

Accession presupposes a pre-existing right of ownership

Accession is an exercise of the right

of ownership, an extension ofdominion over a principal thing to anaccessory

(3) Basis of Accession

Accession discreta is based onprinciples of justice. It is only justthat the owner of a thing should alsoown whatever it produces, unlessthere is some special reason for acontrary solution.

Accession continua is generallybased on necessity and utility, itbeing more practical that the ownerof the principal thing should own thenew things instead of a co-ownershipbeing established.

B. General Principles ofAccession

(1) Accessory follows the principal(accesio cedit principal)

Arts. 445 and 446 give the general

rule that the accessory follows theprincipal (See art. 437). The land isthe principal and what is built, theaccessory.

Basis: Principle of justice: It is onlyjust that a thing should also ownwhatever it produces, unless there issome special reason for a contrarysolution.

(2) No unjust enrichment (Art. 443)

This principle is generally applicable.The right of the LO to acquire what isbuilt, planted or sown with thematerials of another is subject to theobligation to pay their value (Art.447); and if the materials belong to a3rd person, the owner shall answersubsidiarily for their value unless he

BLOCKD2008al.beth.kalin.may.miles.py

special thanks to: anna.bodee.cha.etol.hardy.len.mia

28


2/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

exercises his right of removal (Art.455).

(3) All works, sowing, and planting arepresumed made by the owner and athis expense, unless the contrary isproved (Art. 446)

(4) Accessory incorporated to principalsuch that it cannot be separatedwithout injury to work constructed ordestruction to plantings orconstruction of works.

The incorporation or union must beintimate, i.e., it must be such thatremoval or separation cannot beeffected without substantial injury toeither or both.

(5) Bad faith involves liability fordamages and other direconsequences

(6) Bad faith of one party neutralizesbad faith of the other (Art. 453).Where the parties are equally in badfaith, they shall both be consideredas being in good faith.Where the LO and the BPS are bothin good faith or bad faith, neitherparty may demand as a matter ofright the removal of improvementsagainst the will of the other for suchright is available only to a party ingood faith where the other is in badfaith (See Arts. 447, 449, 450, 453and 455).

(7) Ownership of fruits belong to theprincipal thing; Exceptions:(i) possession in good faith

possessor is entitled to fruits

(ii) in usufruct usufructury is

entitled to fruits(iii) in lease lessee is entitled to

fruits(iv) in antichresis antichretic

creditor is entitled to fruits

C. Obligations ofReceiver of Fruits

Art. 443. He who receives the fruits has

the obligation to pay the expensesmade by a third person in theirproduction, gathering, and preservation.

(1) Concept of fruits

Juridically, fruits include all theproducts of or income from a thing,in accordance with its economicpurpose, so long as they do not bringabout any essential alterationthereof.

(2) Application Art. 443 applies where:

(a) The owner of the propertyrecovers the same from apossessor and the possessor hasnot yet received the fruitsalthough they may have alreadygathered or harvested; or

(b) The possessor has alreadyreceived the fruits but is orderedto return the same to the owner.

The owner is obliged to reimbursethe previous possessor for theexpenses incurred by the latter fortheir production, gathering, andpreservation.

(3) Reason for the rule

The expenses incurred by anotherhave inured to the benefit of theowner who receives the fruitswithout such expenses there wouldhave been no fruits.

The rule is in keeping with theprinciple that no one may unjustly

enrich himself at the expense ofanother.

(4) What expenses covered

The expenses, to be reimbursableunder this article, must have 2characteristics: (a) They must bededicated to the annual production,



29


3/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

and not for the improvement of theproperty, and (b) They must not beunnecessary, excessive, or for pureluxury, but must be of such anamount naturally required by thecondition of the work or thecultivation made.

(5) Where expenses exceed fruits

Only expenses incurred by thepossessor for the production,gathering and preservation of thefruits are reimbursable.

The owner must pay theexpenses just the same becausethe law makes no distinction.

(6) Effect of bad faith

If the fruits have not yet beengathered at the time the ownerrecovers possession from apossessor in bad faith, he doesnot have to pay for productionexpenses, because Art. 449clearly says that the possessor inbad faith loses that which hadbeen planted or sown, withoutright to any indemnitywhatsoever. The fruits, still partof the immovable, pass to the

owner by accession. HOWEVER, if the fruits are

already gathered or severed, andare ordered turned over to theowner of the land by thepossessor on bad faith, the latteris entitled to be reimbursed andmay deduct his expenses ofcultivation, gathering, andpreservation. (Art. 443 will applybecause the fruits have beenseparated from the immovable,hence accession continua no

longer apply)

The owner cannot excuse himselffrom his obligation by allegingbad faith on the part of thepossessor because Art. 443makes no distinction andbecause the expenses made

were necessary without whichthe owner would not havereceived the fruits.

A possessor in bad faith orderedto return the fruits he hadgathered has a right to deductthe expenses of planting andharvesting.

*Art. 443 establishes a generalrule, while Art. 449 is theexception.

Art. 444. Only such as are manifestor born are considered as natural orindustrial fruits.With respect to animals, it issufficient that they are in the womb

of the mother, although unborn.

(1) When natural fruits and industrialfruits deemed to exist.(a) With respect to plants which

produce only one crop and thenperish from the time theseedlings appear from theground

(b) As to plants and trees which livefor years and give periodic fruits from the time the fruits actually

appear on the plants or trees(c) As regards animals at thebeginning of the maximumordinary period of gestation(when there can be no doubt thatthey are already in the womb ofthe mother), this being the surestcriterion of their existence in themothers womb

(d) With respect to fowls byanalogy, at the beginning ofincubation

(e) In cases of young animals If

existing in the womb of themother, though unborn

D. Kinds of Accession



30


4/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

(1) Accession discreta the rightpertaining to the owner of a thingover everything produced thereby:

(a)Natural fruits, or spontaneousproducts of the soil, and theyoung and other products ofanimals (Art. 442)

Products of the soil in whosegeneration human labor does notintervene

Trees adhering to the soil are notfruits in the juridical sense; theyare themselves immovableswhich may produce fruits. Butunder certain circumstances theymay be considered fruits, aswhen they are exploited for an

industry, in which case they areindustrial fruits.

The young and other products ofanimals are, without distinction,classified as natural fruits. TheCode does not expressly providefor the ownership of younganimals when the male andfemale parents belong todifferent owners. But followingthe rule in the Partidas, theyoung may properly belong to

the owner of the female becauseit would merely be continuing theownership which the owner of thefemale had while the young wasin the womb of the mother.

(b)Industrial fruits, or thoseproduced by lands of any kindsthrough cultivation or labor (Art.442)

(c)Civil fruits, or rents of buildings,the price of leases of and otherproperty and the amount ofperpetual or life annuities orother similar income (Art. 442)

Cases

Bachrach vs. Seifert

FactsE.M. Bachrach died leaving his widow

(Mary) with all the fruits and theusufruct of the remainder of his estate,including 54,000 shares of stockdividends. Mary petitioned the lowercourt to authorize the administrator ofthe estate to transfer to her said sharesof stock dividend, claiming that thedividend, although paid out in the formof stock, is fruit or income and thusbelonged to her as usufructuary or lifetenant.

HeldA dividend, whether in the form of

cash or stock, is income or fruit and

consequently should go to theusufructuary, Mary Bachrach, ratherthan the owner of the shares of stock inusufruct. Dividend is declared only outof the profits of a corporation and notout of its capital.

Bachrach vs. Talisay-Silay

FactsSugar planters of Talisay-Silay (TS)

mortgaged their lands in order to securethe debts of TS against PNB. Ascompensation for the risk the planterstook, TS undertook to give them a bonusequal to 2% of the debt secured.

Bachrach filed a case against TS,asking for Ledesmas credit bonus aspayment for the latters debt againstBachrach. TS answered that Ledesmascredit bonus had been purchased byanother.PNB alleged that it had preferential rightto the bonus because such bonus wouldbe civil fruits of the land that Ledesma

mortgaged to PNB.

HeldA bonus paid by the mortagage-

debtor to another who had mortgagedhis land to secure the payment of thedebtors obligation to a bank is not a



31


5/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

civil fruit of the mortgaged property.Such bonus bears no immediate, butonly a remote and accidental relation tothe land. It is not income delivered fromthe property but a compensationgranted for the risk assumed by theowner of the property.

(2) Accession Continua the rightpertaining to the owner of a thingover everything that is incorporatedor attached thereto, either naturallyor artificially.

(a) With regard to immovableproperty(a.1) Accession industrial, or

that which takes place in case

of:(i) building,(ii) planting, or(iii) sowing (Arts. 445-455)

(a.2) Accession natural, whichmay be in the form of either:(i) Alluvium(ii) Avulsion(iii) Change in the course of

river(iv)Formation of islands

(b) With regard to movable property(b.1) Adjunction or conjunction,

which may be:(i) inclusio or engraftment(ii) soldadura or attachment

(a)ferruminatio objectsare of the same metal

(b)plumbatura objectsare diff. metals

(iii) tejido or weaving(iv)pintura or painting(v) escritura or writing

(b.2) Commixtion or confusion(b.3) Specification

*Lets discuss Accession industrialfirst:

(1) Accession industrial

Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted orsown on the land of another and theimprovements or repairs made thereon,belong to the owner of the land, subject

to the provisions of the followingarticles.

(1) Scope of building

The term building is a generic termfor all architectural work with roof,built for the purpose of being usedas mans dwelling, or for offices,clubs, theaters, etc.

A warehouse is not a building

(2) Scope of planting

It is not necessary that the trees orplants should have taken root; it isenough that they are planted inorder to belong to the owner of theland.

Art. 446. All works, sowing, andplanting are presumed made by theowner and at his expense, unless thecontrary is proved.

(1) Scope of article All works includes the

construction, improvement or repairof building and all analogous works.

(2) Presumption as to improvements

Art. 446 establishes 2 disputablepresumptions:(a) The works etc. were made by the

owner

this presumption is based onpositive law (the provisions of Art.437 and 445). A land naturallyhas an owner and the lawaccordingly presumes that hemade the works, sowing, andplanting.

(b) They were made at the ownersexpense

When a construction exists on apiece of land, it is presumed that



32


6/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

it was made by the owner of theland at his expense

In case a third person does so, itis supposed that it was with theconsent of the owner

(3) He who alleges the contrary of thepresumptions in this article has theburden of proof.

(4) Exception: Art. 120 FC (a case ofreverse accession)

Family Code: Art. 120. The ownership ofimprovements, whether for utility oradornment, made on the separateproperty of the spouses at the expenseof the partnership or through acts or

efforts of either or both spouses shallpertain to the conjugal partnership, or tothe original owner-spouses, subject tothe following rules:When the cost of the improvementmade by the conjugal partnership andany resulting increase in value are morethan the value of the property at thetime of the improvement, the entireproperty of one of the spouses shallbelong to the conjugal partnership,subject to reimbursement of the value of

the property of the owner-spouse at thetime of the improvement, otherwise,said property shall be retained inownership by the owner-spouse likewisesubject to reimbursement of the cost ofthe improvement.In either case, the ownership of theentire property shall be vested upon thereimbursement, which shall be made atthe time of the liquidation of theconjugal partnership.

(5) Application

For Art. 445 to be applicable, theowner of the land must be known.Otherwise, no decision can berendered on the ownership of thethings planted, built or sown until ahearing shall have been accorded towhomsoever is entitled thereto.

Art. 447.The owner of the land whomakes thereon personally or throughanother plantings, constructions orworks with the materials of another,

shall pay their value; and, if he acted inbad faith, he shall also be obliged to thereparation of damages. The owner of thematerials shall have the right to removethem only in case he can do so withoutinjury to the work constructed, orwithout the plantings, constructions orworks being destroyed. However, if thelandowner acted in bad faith, the ownerof the materials may remove them inany event, with a right to be indemnifiedfor damages.

(1) Right of owner of materials (OM)

The owner of materials used byanother does NOT become a partowner of the thing constructed withhis materials, but is only entitled torecover their value

The owner of the land does NOThave the option to offer to return thematerials instead of paying theirvalue.

In case of demolition the right of the

OM is not revived because the lawdefinitely attributes the ownership tothe landowner

If the owner alienates the land andthe improvements thereon, theaction of the owner of the materialsshall be against him and not againstthe vendee. The OM acquires theaccessions together with the land.

(2) What is bad faith?

BPS is in bad faith with respect tothe materials if he knew that he hadno right to make use of the suchmaterials.

The owner of the materials would bein bad faith if such materials wereused by another in his presence,with his knowledge and forbearance,and without opposition on his part.



33


7/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

1st Case:LO is BPS using material of another

Good Faith

OMlies in ignorance of BPS acts

BPS/LObelief that the materialsbelong to him and who is notaware that there exists in his titleor mode of acquisition any flawwhich invalidates it

Note: his negligence may subjecthim to liability for damages

Bad Faith

OMallowing the use of thematerials without protest

BPS/LOknowledge of lack of titleand the absence of permission ofthe owner of the material to paytheir value

Landowner andBPS

Owner ofMaterial

Good faith1. Right to acquirethe improvementsafter paying thevalue of materials

Bad faith

1. Acquire BPSafter paying itsvalue and payingindemnity fordamages (Art.447) but subjectto OMs right to

Good faith1. Limited right ofremoval if therewould be no injuryto workconstructed, orwithout plantingsor constructionsbeing destroyed(Art. 447)2. Right to receivepayment for valueof materials

Good faith1. Right to receivepayment for valueof materials2. Absolute right ofremoval of the

remove

Good faith1. Right to acquirethe improvementswithout payingindemnity2. Right to acquireindemnity fordamages if thereare hidden defectsknown to OM

Bad faith(Same as thoughacted in good faith

under Art. 453)

work constructedin any eventRight to beindemnified fordamages

Bad faith1. Lose materialswithout right toindemnity

Bad faith(Same as thoughacted in good faith

under Art. 453)

Art. 448. The owner of the land onwhich anything has been built, sown, orplanted in good faith, shall have theright to appropriate as his own theworks, sowing or planting, afterpayment of the indemnity provided forin Arts. 546 and 548, or to oblige theone who built or planted to pay the priceof the land, and the one who sowed, the

proper rent. However, the builder orplanter cannot be obliged to buy theland if its value is considerably morethan that of the building or trees. Insuch case, he shall pay reasonable rent,if the owner of the land does not chooseto appropriate the building or trees afterproper indemnity. The parties shallagree upon the terms of the lease and incase of disagreement, the court shall fixthe terms thereof.

(1) Reason for the provision Where the BPS has acted in good

faith, a conflict of rights arisesbetween the owners, and it becomesnecessary to protect the owner ofthe improvements without causinginjustice to the owner of the land.



34


8/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

The law has provided a solution bygiving the owner of the land (LO) theoption to (1) acquire theimprovements after payment of theproper indemnity OR (2) oblige thebuilder or planter to pay for the landand the sower to pay the properrent.

LO cannot refuse to exercise eitheroption

It is the LO who is authorized toexercise the option because his rightis older, and because, by theprinciple of accession, he is entitledto the ownership of the accessorything.

(2) What construction included

To fall within the provisions of thisarticle, the construction must be of apermanent character, attached tothe soil with an idea of perpetuity.

If it is of a transitory character or istransferable, there is no accession,and the builder must remove theconstruction. The proper remedy ofthe LO is an action to eject thebuilder from the land.

(3) Good faith in building

This article applies only to a casewhere the BPS believes that he has aclaim of title to the land, i.e., thatthe land is his and he has a right tobuild, plant, or sow thereon.

A possessor in good faith is one whohas no knowledge of any flaw ordefect in his title or mode ofacquisition

Good faith is presumed under Art.527 and he who alleges bad faithhas the burden of proving the same.

Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sowsin bad faith on the land of another, loseswhat is built, planted or sown withoutright to indemnity.

Art. 450.The owner of the land onwhich anything had been built, plantedor sown in bad faith may demand thedemolition of the work or that theplanting or sowing be removed, in order

to replace things in their formercondition at the expense of the personwho built planted or sowed; or he maycompel the builder or planter to pay theprice of the land, and the sower theproper rent.

Art. 451. In cases of the two precedingarticles, the landowner is entitled toreimbursement for the necessaryexpenses or preservation of the land.

Art. 452.The builder, planter or sowerin bad faith is entitled to reimbursementfor the necessary expenses ofpreservation of the land.

Art. 453. If there was bad faith, notonly on the person who built, planted orsowed on the land of another, but alsoon the part of the owner of such land,the rights of one and the other shall be

the same as though both acted in goodfaith.It is understood that there is bad faithon the part of the landowner wheneverthe act was done with his knowledgeand without opposition on his part.

Art. 454. When the landowner acted inbad faith and the builder, planter orsower proceeded in good faith, theprovision of Art. 447 shall apply.

2ND Case:BPS builds, plants, or sows onanothers land using his ownmaterials

Good faith



35


9/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

OM/BPSlies in belief that the landbelongs to him, and his ignorance ofany defect or flaw in his title.

LOignorance of the BPS acts, orbelief that the BPS has the right toconstruct, plant or sow

Bad faith

OM/BPSlies in his knowledge of hislack of title and absence ofpermission of the LO

LOknowledge of BPS lack of rightto construct, plant or sow

(1) Option given to LO Choice of LO shall produce effect

from the time it has beencommunicated to the other party.Once properly made, it cannot bechanged by the former without theconsent of the latter.

(2) Reason for the option

Conflict arises between the ownersof improvements and LO and itbecomes necessary to protect the

owner of the improvements w/ocausing injustice to the LO. The lawhas provided a just and equitablesolution by giving the LO the option.It is the LO who is allowed toexercise because his right is olderand because, by principle ofaccession, he is entitled to theownership of the accessory thing.

The improvements must be of apermanent nature; otherwise, thereis no accession and, therefore, theLO has every right to have the same

removed from his property.

(3) Right of LO to remove or demolishimprovement

LO cannot refuse to exercise hisright of choice and compel the BPSto remove or demolish the

improvement. He is entitled to suchremoval only when after havingchosen to sell his land, the otherparty fails to pay for the same.

(4) Right of LO to require payment forvalue of the land

The purpose of the exception (if thevalue of land is considerably morethan that of the building or trees) isto prevent injustice. It is consideredinequitable in such case to compelthe BP to pay for the price of theland.

A forced lease is created b/w theparties if the LO does not choose toappropriate the improvement afterthe proper indemnity.

As to when the lands value isconsiderably more than that of theimprovement will have to bedetermined by the court taking intoconsideration the circumstances ofeach particular case.

(5) Cases not covered

Art. 448 does not apply which aregoverned by other provisions of law:(a) co-ownership(b) usufruct

(c) agency(d) lease

Where there is a contractual relationexisting between the LO and theBPS, their stipulations, primarily, andthe pertinent provisions of the CC onObliCon including those on specialcontracts, suppletorily, wouldgovern.

Landowner BPS and Ownerof Material

Good faith

LO has option to:a) Acqui

re theimprovement

Good faith

BPS has right toretain the landuntil the paymentof indemnity (right



36


10/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

after payingindemnity whichmay be the:

- original costofimprovement or

- increase invalue of thewholebroughtabout bytheimprovement

b) Sellthe land to theBP pr collect rent

from sowerunless:

- value ofland is morethan thething built,planted orsown

- BP shall payrent fixedby partiesor by the

court incase ofdisagreement

Note: LO can beforced to chooseunder pain ofdirect contempt orcourt can choosefor him

Good faith

1. LO has right tocollect damages inany case andoption to:a) Acquireimprovementswithout paying

of retention)

Note: During thisperiod BPS is notrequired to payrent

Bad faith

1. Pay damages toLO2. BPS losematerials withoutright to indemnity3. No right torefuse to buy theland

indemnity if theimprovements arestill standing onthe landb) Sell the land toBP or collect rentfrom the sowerunless the value ofthe improvementsin which case therewill be a forcedleasec) Order demolitionof improvementsor restoration ofland to its formercondition at theBPS expense.

2. LO must pay fornecessaryexpenses forpreservation.

Bad faith

1. LO mustindemnify BPS forthe improvementsand pay damagesas if he himself didthe BPS2. LO has no optionto sell the land andcaanot compel BPSto buy the landunless BPS agreesto

Bad faith

(Same as thoughacted in good faithunder Art. 453)

4. Recovernecessaryexpenses forpreservation ofland.

Good faith

BPS has right to:a) be indemnifiedfor damagesb) remove allimprovements inany event

Bad faith

(Same as thoughacted in good faithunder Art. 453)

Art. 455. If the materials, plants orseeds belong to a third person who hasnot acted in bad faith, the owner of theland shall answer subsidiarily for their



37


11/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

value and only in the event that the onewho made use of them has no propertywith which to pay.

This provision shall apply if the ownermakes use of the right granted by Art.

450. If the owner of the materials,plants, or seeds has been paid by thebuilder, planter, sower, the latter maydemand from the landowner the valueof the materials and labor.

Art. 456. In the cases regulated in thepreceding articles, good faith does notnecessarily exclude negligence, whichgives right to damages under Art. 2176.

Good faith does not excludenegligence

3rd Case:BPS builds. Plants, or sows onanothers land with materialsowned by third person

(1) Liability of LO

He shall be subsidiarily liable for thevalue of the materials if the followingrequisites are present:

(a) The OM has not acted in bad faith(b) The BPS has no property withwhich to pay; and

(c) LO appropriates the accession tohimself

(2) Right of BPS who pays OM

If BPS pays the OM, the former mayseek reimbursement from the LO forthe value of the materials and laborto prevent unjust enrichment of theLO at the expense of the BPS. This istrue if:

(a) The BPS acted in good faith; and(b) The LO appropriates the

improvement

Landowner

BPS OM

Good faith Good faith Good faith

1. Right toacquireimprovements and payindemnityto BPS;subsidiarilyliable to OM2. Hasoption to:a) Sell landto BPexcept ifthe value ofthe land isconsiderably moreb) Rent to

sower

Good faith1. Right toacquireimprovements and payindemnityto BPS2. Hasoption to:a) Sell landto BPexcept ifthe value ofthe land isconsiderably moreb) Rent tosower3. Withoutsubsidiaryliability forcost ofmaterials

Good faith1. LO hasright tocollectdamages inany case

1. Right ofretentionuntilnecessaryand usefulexpensesare paid2. Pay valueof materialsto OM

Good faith1. Right ofretentionuntilnecessaryand usefulexpensesare paid2. Keep BPSwithoutindemnityto OM andcollectdamagesfrom him.

Bad faith1. Recovernecessaryexpenses

1. Collectvalue ofmaterialsprimarilyfrom BPSandsubsidiarilyliable for LOif BPSinsolvent2. Limitedright ofremoval

Bad faith1. Lose thematerialswithoutright toindemnity2. Must payfor damagesto BPS

Bad faith1. Recovervalue fromBPS (as if



38


12/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

and optionto:a) Acquireimprovements w/opaying forindemnity;orb)Demolitionorrestoration;orc) Sell toBP, or torent tosower2. Pay

necessaryexpense toBPS

Bad faith(Same aswhen allacted ingood faithunder Art.453)

Bad faith1. Acquireimprovement afterpayingindemnityanddamages toBPS unlesslatterdecides toremoveimproveme

nts2.Subsidiarilyliable to OMfor value ofmaterials

forpreservation of landfrom LOunless LOsells land

Bad faith(Same aswhen allacted ingood faithunder Art.453)

Good faith1. Mayremoveimprovements2. Beindemnifiedfordamages inany event

Bad faith1. Right ofretentionuntilnecessaryexpenses

both are ingood faith)2. If BPSacquiresimprovement, removematerials iffeasible w/oinjury3. No actionagainst LObut liable toLO fordamages

Bad faith(Same aswhen allacted ingood faithunder Art453)

Good faith1. Removematerials ifpossible w/oinjury2. Collectvalue ofmaterialsfrom BPS;subsidiarilyfrom LO

Good faith

1. Collectvalue ofmaterialsprimarilyfrom BPSandsubsidiarily

Bad faith1. Acquireimprovements afterindemnity;subsidirailyliable to OMfor value ofmaterials2. Hasoption to:a) Sell theland to BPexcept ifthe value ofthe land isconsiderably more

b) Rent tosower

Good faith1. Acquireimprovement afterpayingindemnity;subsidiarilyliable to OM2. LO hasoption to:a) Sell landto BPexcept ifvalue ofland isconsiderably moreb) Rent tosower

Bad faith1. Acquire

improvements and payindemnityanddamages toBPS unlesslatter

are paid2. Pay valueof materialsto OM andpay himdamages

Bad faith1. Right ofretention

untilnecessaryexpensesare paid2. Pay valueof materialsto OM3. Paydamages toOM

Good faith1. Receiveindemnityfordamages2. Absoluteright ofremoval ofimproveme

nts in anyevent

from LO2. Collectdamagesfrom BPS3. If BPSacquiresimprovements, removematerials inany event

Good faith1. Collectvalue ofmaterialsprimarily

from BPSandsubsidiarilyfrom LO2. Collectdamagesfrom BPS3. If BPSacquiresimprovements,absoluteright ofremoval inany eventBad faith1. No righttoindemnity2. Losesright tomaterial



39


13/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

decides toremovematerials

Cases

Bernardo vs. Baticlan

FactsBernardo bought a parcel of land

only to discover that Baticlan ispossessing the same property. Thelower court held Baticlan to be apossessor in good faith and thus entitledto reimbursement with right of retentionsubject to Bernardos 2 options whetherto sell the land to Baticlan, but Baticlanwas unable to pay and so the land was

sold at public auction, which was won byToribio Teodoro. The court removedBaticlans right of retention and granted

Teodoros motion to be placed inpossession of the land purchased byhim. Baticlan appeals from thesedecisions.

HeldWhen Bernardo opted to sell the land

to Baticlan, he lost his right of retentionover the said property.

When, in the face of a conflictbetween the rights of an owner and abuilder, sower, planter in good faith, theowner opts to sell the land to the BPSwho is subsequently unable to pay, theBPS loses his right of retention.

A forced co-ownership occurs whenthe BPS has acted in good faith. Aconflict of rights arises between theowners and it becomes necessary toprotect the owner of the improvementswithout causing injustice to the ownerafter payment of the proper indemnity

or to oblige the builder or planter to payfor the land and the sower to pay theproper rent (Art. 361). It is the owner ofthe land who is allowed to exercise theoption because his right is older andbecause, by the principle of accession,he is entitled to the ownership of the

accessory thing. When the BPS failed topay for the land, he lost his right ofretention.

Ignacio vs HilarioFacts

Lower court rendered judgmentholding Hilario as the legal owner of aproperty, but ceded to Ignacio theownership of the improvements he builton the same land. Hilario was given theoption to reimburse Ignacio for theimprovements or to sell the land toIgnacaio. Hilario exercised neitheroption.

HeldSince the option to remove or

demolish improvement is given to theLO and it is limited to paying for theimprovement or selling his land to theBPS, he cannot refuse to exercise hisright of choice and compel the builder toremove or demolish the improvement.He is entitled to such removal only whenafter choosing to sell his land, the otherparty fails to pay for the same.

Sarmiento vs Agana

FactsSpouses Valentino were told by the

mother of the female Valentino toconstruct a residential house. They didconstruct a house, only to later discoverthat the land did not belong to themother but to the Spouses Santos whosole the same to Sarmiento. Sarmientoasked the Valentinos to vacate and filedan ejectment suit.

HeldSpouses Valentino may not be

ejected from the land. They werebuilders in good faith. The owner of abuilding erected in good faith on a landowned by another is entitled to retainpossession of the land until he is paidthe value of the building. Under Art.448, Sarmiento may either pay for the



40


14/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

building or sell his land to the owner ofthe building. Sarmiento cannot refuseboth and then compel the owner of thebuilding to remove it from the landwhere it is erected. He is entitled tosuch only when the other party fails topay for the same.An order by a court compelling a builderin good faith to remove is building fromland belonging to another who choosesneither to pay for such building nor sellthe land is null and void for beingoffensive to Art. 448.

Depra vs Dumlao

FactsThe kitchen of Dumlaos house

encroached on an area of 34 sq.m. ofDepras property. Depra filed unlawfuldetainer case with the Municipal court.Said court found Dumlao to be a builderin good faith and applying Art. 448, itordered a forced lease between theparties. Depra, instead of acceptingpayment for rentals, filed for Quieting oftitle with the CFI. Dumlao contendedthat res judicata applies. CFI awardedtitle to Depra, implying that he mayhave the kitchen removed. (Note thatDepra did not exercise his option underArt. 448 to either pay for theimprovements or to sell the land).Dumlao appealed.

HeldThe Municipal court overstepped its

bounds when it ordered a forced leasewhich is an interest in real property, the

jurisdiction of which belongs to the CFI.Even if the decision is valid, res judicatacannot apply because the issue in thatcase is only possession while in the CFI,

its ownership.Depra cannot refuse to pay for theencroaching part of Dumlaos houseandat the same time sell the encroachedpart of his lot. He is entitled to suchremoval only when after having chosento sell the encroached lot, Dumalo failed

to pay. In this case, Dumlao hadexpressed willingness to pay for theland, but Depra refused to sell.

The judgment was set aside, casewas remanded, and the SC set thefollowing guidelines for enforcement ofrights under Art. 448 and 546 (This iswhat sir emphasized!):1. TC must determine the fair price of

the land, expenses for improvementand increase in value of land due toimprovements.

2. TC must grant period where:a) landowner must exercise optionb) parties must pay in accord with theoption chosenc) builder can refuse to offer to sell ifvalue of land is greater than the value of

improvementsd) if the situation is that of (c), theparties can agree upon the terms of thelease. If there are no agreements, the

TC must fix the terms.

Ortiz vs Kayanan

All the fruits that the possessor mayreceive from the time that he issummoned or when he answers thecomplaint must be delivered or paid byhim to the owner or lawful possessor.Such is the time when his good faith hasceased.While he may retain the property untilhe is reimbursed for necessary anduseful expenses, all the fruits hereceives from the moment his good faithceases must be deferred or paid by himto the LO. He may, however, secure thereimbursement of his expenses by usingthe fruits to pay it off (deduct the valueof the fruits he receives from the timehis good faith ceases from the

reimbursement due him).

Tecnogas Phil. Manufacturing Corp.vs CA

Facts



41


15/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

Tecnogas discovered that portions ofits buildings and wall were occupyingUys land. Tecnogas offered to buy theland but Uy refused. Uy then causedcanal to be dug along Tecongas wall,causing the wall to collapse.

HeldTecnogas did not lose its rights

under Art. 448 merely because of thefact that some years after acquiring theproperty in good faith, it learned aboutand aptly recognized the right of Uy to aportion of the land occupied by thebuilding. The supervening awarenessdoes not prejudice its right to claim thestatus of a builder in good faith.

Uys insistence on the removal of the

encroaching structures as the properremedy is legally flawed. This is not oneof the remedies bestowed upon by law.He will only be able to avail of it if andwhen he chooses to compel thepetitioner to buy the land at areasonable price but the latter fails topay such price. His options are limited to(1) appropriating the encroachingportion of Tenogas building afterpayment of proper indemnity, (2)obliging the latter to buy the lotoccupied by the structure.

Pecson v CA

FactsPecson is an owner of an apartment

building in a commercial lot. He failedto pay the realty taxes thus the lot wassold at a public auction to Nepomuceno.

The latter then sold the lot to the Nuguidspouses. Pecson challenged the validityof the auction sale. One of hiscontentions is that the auction sale of

the commercial lot did not include thesale of the apartment building. This wasbased on the fact that the Certificate ofSale of Delinquent Property did notmention the building. The TC and theCA upheld this contention. The spousesthen filed a motion for delivery of the

possession of the lot and the apartmentbuilding, citing Art 546. TC ordered thespouses to reimburse Pecson theconstruction cost of the building forthem to be entitled to the possession ofthe lot and the improvements on it andfor Pecson to pay rentals to the spouses.CA affirmed.

HeldArts. 448 and 546 are applicable in

this case. Art 448 refers to a landwhose ownership is claimed by at least2 parties, one of whom has built, orsown,or planted something, which mayhave been done in GF or BF. The rule ongood faith in Art 526 shall be applied indetermining whether a BPS had acted in

GF. As held in Coleongco, Art 448 doesnot apply where the true owner himselfis the BPS since the issue of BF or GF inthis case is immaterial. The rule onindemnity in Art 546 may be applied byanalogy to the improvements since theprimary intent of Art 448 is to avoid astate of co-ownership.

But Pecson should not pay rentals tothe spouses. The spouses, having optedto appropriate the improvement on thelot, have to reimburse Pecson of thecost of construction of the building (inaccordance with Art 546). Pecson hasthe right to retain the improvementsuntil he is reimbursed. An impliedtenancy or possession in fact is createdpending the payment of thecorresponding indemnity.

Pleasantville Devt Corp v CA

FactsEdith Robillo purchased from

Pleasantville a land (Lot 9) in its

subdivision in Bacolod. The rights overthe lot were then bought by Jardinico.Lot 9 was vacant at that time. Uponcompletion of payments and securing a

TCT in his name, Jardinico discoveredthat improvements had been introduced



42


16/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

on Lot 9 by Wilson Kee, who had takenpossession thereof.

It appears that Kee bought oninstallment Lot 8 from CTTEI, the realestate agent of Pleasantville. Keepossessed the lot even before thecompletion of payments. When Kee andhis wife inspected Lot 8, the lot pointedto them was Lot 9 instead of Lot 8.

Jardinico confronted Kee afterdiscovering that he was occupying Lot 9.Kee refused to vacate hence Jardinicofiled an ejectment suit. CA ruled thatKee was a builder in GF, as he wasunaware of the mix-up when he beganthe construction of the improvements.

The erroneous delivery was due to thefault of the CTTEI and thus imputable to

Pleasantville, the principal.

HeldThe SC agrees with the CA that Kee

is a builder in GF. The roots of thecontroversy can be traced in the errorscommitted by CTTEI when it pointed thewrong lot to Kee.

Good faith consists in the belief ofthe builder that the land he is buildingon is his and he is ignorant of any defector flaw in his title. And as good faith ispresumed, Pleasantville has the burdenof proving bad faith on the part of Kee.At the time he built the improvementson Lot 8, Kee belived that the said lotwas the one he bought. He was notaware that the lot delivered to him wasnot Lot 8. Pleasantville failed to proveotherwise.

Coleongco v Regalado

Facts

Regalado is an owner of a lot ofwhich Lot 157 was a portion of. Erectedin this lot was a building (house) beingoccupied by the Japanese Army.Regalado then sold Lot 157 toColeongco who thus became the ownerof that particular lot. Coleongco is

contending that the sale of Lot 157included the house, such that when thecity was liberated, he collected rentalsfrom the American forces (whichsucceeded the Japs) for the occupationof the house. It so happened howeverthat after the American forces vacatedthe house, Regalado occupied it.Coleongco then filed a civil complaintagainst Regalado. TC ordered Regaladoto pay rentals to Coleongco and toremove the house from the said portionof the lot. CA said that the house wasformerly the property of Regalado, andthat this was constructed in GF, andconsequently, that the enjoyment andpossession thereof must be consideredto have always been in GF, as provided

in Arts. 358, 361, 453, 454 of the Old CC(now: Arts. 445, 448, 546,548,respectively). In view of theseprovisions, the right of the owner of thelot to have the lot cleared ofimprovements from a builder in GFshould be subordinated to the rights ofthe builder in GF. Rule: Regalado hasthe right to either pay for the acquisitionof Lot 157 or pay for the value of thehouse, at the option of Coleongco.

HeldThe said rule (now found in Art 448

of the NCC) is not applicable in thiscase. Regalado constructed the saidhouse on his own land even before hesold the land to Coleongco. Art 448applies only in cases where a personconstructs a building on the land ofanotherin good or bad faith, as the casemay be. It does not apply to a casewhere a person constructs a building onhis own land (like in this case), for thenthere can be no question as to good or

bad faith of the builder.

Additional Cases

Where there is bad faith

Felices v. Iriola



43


17/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

FactsFelices was the grantee of a

homestead of over 8 hectares. Felicesconveyed in conditional sale to Iriola aportion of his homestead of more than 4hectares. The conveyance expresslystipulates that after the lapse of 5 yearsor as soon as may be allowed by law,the vendor or his successors wouldexecute in vendee's favor a deed ofabsolute sale over the land in question.

Two years after the sale, Felices triedto recover the land in question fromIriola, but the latter refused to allow itunless he was paid the alleged value ofimprovements he had introduced on theproperty.

HeldThe rule of Art. 453 of the Civil Code

invoked by Iriola can not be applied tothe instant case for the reason that theimprovements in question were madeon the premises only afterFelices hadtried to recover the land in questionfrom him, and even during thependency of this action in the courtbelow. After Iriola had refused to restorethe land to Felices, to the extent thatthe latter even had to resort to thepresent action to recover his property,Felices could no longer be regarded ashaving impliedly assented or conformedto the improvements thereafter madeby appellant on the premises. Upon theother hand, Iriola, recognizing as hedoes Felices' right to get back hisproperty, continued to act in bad faithwhen he made improvements on theland in question after he had alreadybeen asked extra-judicially and

judicially, to surrender and return itspossession to appellee; and as a penalty

for such bad faith, he must forfeit hisimprovements without any right toreimbursement therefor.

J. M. Tuason & Co., inc., v. Jurilla

Facts

J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc's ownershipof the land object of this litigation isadmitted by Vicente and Ester Jurilla andsupported by Transfer Certificate of

Title. Jurilla took possession of a portionof said property and constructed thereina house and other improvementswithout plaintiff's consent or knowledge.Hence, J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc claimsrents for the area occupied by the

Jurillas.The Jurillas claim that said portion of

the property occupied by them wasacquired by them by virtue of an allegeddeed of sale executed by FlorencioDeudor in their favor. They also claimthat they have improvementsintroduced and that they are builders in

good faith.

HeldThe records disclosed that JM Tuason

has Transfer Certificate of Title, whilethe Jurillas based their rights on thealleged Testimonial Title, it is observedthat JM Tuasons title is indefeasible andagainst the whole world, while that ofthe Jurillas is not and could not even beconsidered an imperfect title, as wellknown in Land Registration Act No. 496.

The fact that the Jurillas admit not onlyin their pleading but also in open courtthat JM Tuason corporation is the ownerof the property in question and that itstitle is an incontrovertible one, the rightof JM Tuason to recover possession ofthe lot in question cannot be seriouslyquestioned by the Jurillas and its rightthereto is imprescriptible.

At the time they bought the propertyfrom the Deudor, they did not inquire

whether the said Deudor was aregistered owner of the property.Besides, they never registered the deedof sale in the Office of the Registry ofDeed of Quezon City. In order thatdefendants may be called buyers ingood faith, it must be shown by clear



44


18/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

and convincing evidence that uponbuying the property, they were notaware of any flaw in their title or madeof acquisition. The fact Jurilla tenderedto the Bulacan Subdivision the balanceof the consideration of P4,500 andrefused to accept the tender, is a clearindication that notice to Vicente Jurilla,who is a lawyer, that the party fromwhom he was supposed to have boughtthe property was not the owner thereofand could not, therefore, transmit titleto him.

*Now lets move on to AccessionNatural:(Continuation underAccessionContinua; Immovable property)

(2) Accession natural may be in

the form of either:(i) Alluvium the accretion which

lands adjoining the banks orrivers, lakes, creeks or torrentsgradually receive from the effectsof the current of the water (Art.457)

Art. 457.To the owner of landsadjoining the banks of rivers belong the

accretion which they gradually receivefrom the effects of the current of thewaters.

(1) Distinguished from accretion

Alluvuim Accretion

1. Applied to thedeposit of soil or tothe soil itself

2. Brought aboutby accretion

1. Denotes the actor process bywhich a riparianland gradually andimperceptively

receives additionmade by the waterto which the land iscontiguous

2. The addition orincrease received

by the land.

(2) Requisites of alluvium:

(a) The accretion must be gradual

The increase or accretion whichin a latent, incessant andspontaneous manner is receivedby the land from the effects ofthe current depositing, in thecourse of time, sediment andalluvial matter long the shore, istherefore, the work of nature.

(b) The cause of the accretion mustbe the current of the water

The word current indicates theparticipation of the body of water

in the ebb and flow of waters dueto high and low tide.

(c) The land where the accretiontakes place must be adjacent tothe banks of the rivers

Art. 457 deals with theaccessions of lands situated onbanks of rivers but not on theseashore.

*riparian owner owner of the land

fronting such riverbanks

(d) Alluvium must be natural

Alluvium must be the exclusivework of nature and not madeartificially by the riparian owner.

(3) Elements of the river and theirownership

A river is a compound consisting of 3elements:(a) running waters

(b) the bed, and(c) the banksAll these parts constitute the wholeriver. It cannot exist without ALL itsparts.

(4) River bed



45


19/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

Art. 70 of the Spanish Law of Waterswhich defines beds of rivers andcreeks provides: The natural bed orchannel pf a creek or river is theground covered by its waters duringthe highest ordinary floods.

(5) River banks

Art. 73 of the of the Spanish Law ofWaters defines the phrase banks ofa river as referring to those lateralstrips or zones of its bed which arewashed by the stream only duringsuch high floods as do not causeinundations.

(6) Reason for alluvium

A riparian owner is granted the right

to any land or alluvion deposited bya river:

(a) To compensate him for the dangerof loss that he suffers because ofthe location if his land (becauseestates bordering on rivers areexposed to floods and other evilsproduced by the destructive forceof the waters).

(b) To compensate him for theencumbrances and various kinds ofeasements to which his property is

subject.(c) To promote the interests ofagriculture for the riparian owner isin the best position to utilizeaccretion.

(d) Besides, aside from the above, it isimpossible to prove from whoselands the gradual additions camefrom.

Cases

Republic vs CA

FactsThe Republic opposed the

registration of lots adjacent to theproperty of R on the ground that theymerely transferred their dikes furtherdown the river bed of the Meycauayan

River, such that if there is any accretionto speak of, it was man-made andartificial and not the result of gradualand imperceptible sedimentation by thewaters of the river.

HeldWhat R claims as accretion is really

an encroachment a portion of theMeycauayan River by reclamationcaused by their having transferred theirdikes towards the river bed. Being aportion of the bed of the said river, thelots are of the public dominion and notregisterable under the Land RegistrationAct.

Navarro vs IAC

FactsPascual claimed ownership to a

parcel of land claiming that it was anaccretion to his property. Navarroopposed saying that such property hasalways been part of public property.Subject property is situated between 2rivers and isfronted by the Manila Bay. If the land indispute was formed by the action of the2 rivers, then it is an accretion, henceowned by Pascual. If it was formed bythe action of Manila Bay, then it isforeshore land, hence part of publicdomain.

HeldThe property is foreshore land,

hence part of public domain. Theproperty is an accretion of on a seabank, Manila Bay being an inlet or armof the sea; as such, the disputedproperty is, under Art. 4 of the 1886Spanish Law of Waters, public domain.

SC also said: Riparian owners are,strictly speaking, distinct from littoralowners, the latter being owners of thelands bordering the shore of the sea orlake or other tidal waters.

The alluvium, by mandate of Art.457, is automatically owned by the



46


20/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

riparian owner from the moment the soildeposit can be seen but is notautomatically registered property,hence, subject to acquisition throughprescription by 3rd persons. (Grande vsCA)*prescription period: 30 years

(ii) Avulsion the accretionwhich takes place whenever thecurrent of a river, lake, creek ortorrent segregates from an estateon its bank a known portion ofland and transfers it to anotherestate (Art. 459)

Art. 459. Whenever the current of ariver, creek or torrent segregates froman estate on its bank a known portion ofland and transfers it to another estate,the owner of the land to which thesegregated portion belonged retains theownership of it, provided that heremoves the same within two years.

(1) Distinguished from Alluvium

Alluvium Avulsion

1. Deposit of soil isgradual2. Deposit of thesoil belongs to theowner of theproperty where thesame wasdeposited

3. The soil cannotbe identified

1. Deposit of soil issudden or abrupt2. The owner of theproperty fromwhich a part wasdetached retainsthe ownershipthereof (2 yrs)3. The detachedportion can beidentified

(2) Requisites of Avulsion

(a) The segregation and transfermust be caused by the current ofa river, creek or torrent.

Current the continuousmovement of a body of water,often horizontal, in a certaindirection

River a natural surfacestream of water ofconsiderable volume andpermanent or seasonal flow

Creek a small islet

extending further into theland; a natural stream ofwater normally smaller thanand often tributary to a river

Torrent a violet stream ofwater as a flooded river orone suddenly raised by aheavy rain and descending asteep incline; a raging floodor rushing stream of water

(b) The segregation and transfermust be sudden or abrupt

* In the absence of evidence as towhether the change in the course of ariver was caused by accretion anderosion (alluvion) or whether it hadoccurred through avulsion, thepresumption is that the change wasgradual and was caused by alluvion

(c) The portion of land transportedmust be known and identifiable

(3) Removal within 2 years

The former owner preserves hisownership of the segregated portionprovided he removes (not merelyclaims) the same within the period of2 yrs. Although Art. 459 does notexpressly say, it would seem that hisfailure to do so would have the effectof automatically transferringownership over it to the owner of theother estate.

The period of 2 yrs. is consideredsufficient for the original owner toeffect the removal of the transferredportion which may be a considerablearea. Among the reasons given forthe clause on removal within 2 yrs.are the following:

(a) The segregated portion isusually very small and it isthus useless to the original



47


21/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

owner of the land from whichit originated and which isgenerally far from the otherland

(b) The principle involved issimilar to that underlying Art.460 whereby the owner ofuprooted trees must claimthem within 6 mos.

(c) If the owner of the separatedportion retains his ownershipwithout any qualification, hewould have a right to enterthe other estate at any time,and this easement, asidefrom preventing the latterestate from enjoying hisproperty, may create ill-

feeling between them; and(d) After a time the transferred

portion may becomepermanently attached,physically speaking to theother land; the original ownershould, therefore, remove itas soon as possible andwithin 2 yrs.

Art. 460.Trees uprooted and carriedaway by the current of the waters

belong to the owner of the land whichthey may cast, if the owners do notclaim them within 6 months. If suchowners claim them, they shall pay theexpenses incurred in gathering them orputting them in a safe place.

(1) Application

Art. 460 applies only to uprootedtrees. If a known portion of land withtrees standing thereon is carriedaway by the current to another land,

Art. 459 governs.

(2) Liability of claimant

The original owner claiming the treesis liable: to pay the expensesincurred by the owner of the landupon which they have been cast in

gathering them, or putting them in asafe place

(3) Period for making claim

Period is for 6 mos. The period is acondition and not a period ofprescription. After a claim is broughtwithin 6 mos. an action may bebrought within the period involvedby law for prescription of movables.

(iii)Change of river beds thatwhich takes place when a riverbed is abandoned through thenatural change in the course ofthe waters (Art. 461)

Art. 461. River beds which areabandoned through the natural changein the course of the waters ipso factobelong to the owners whose lands areoccupied by the new course inproportion to the area lost. However, theowners of the lands adjoining the oldbed shall have the right to acquire thesame by paying the value thereof, whichvalue shall not exceed the value of thearea occupied by the new bed.

(1) Requisites for the application of Art.461:

(a) There must be a change inthe natural course of the watersof the river.

(b) The change must beabrupt or sudden.

(2) When river beds deemed abandoned

Abandonment implies the givingup or relinquishment of something.

The change in the course of a riverdoes not ipso facto result in the

abandonment of the river but mustbe the reason for its abandonment,i.e., the river is abandoned becauseof or through the natural change inthe course of the water.



48


22/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

Art. 462. Whenever a river, changingits course by natural causes, opens anew bed through a private estate, thisbed shall become of public dominion.

(1) New bed through private estatebecomes public dominion

The bed of a public river or stream isof public ownership. If the riverchanges its course and opens a newbed, this bed becomes publicdominion even if it is on privateproperty.

Art. 463. Whenever the current of ariver divides itself into branches, leavinga piece of land or part thereof isolated,the owner of the land retains hisownership. He also retains it if a portionof land is separated from the estate bythe current.

(1) River divides itself into branches

Art. 463 refers to the formation of anisland causing a river dividing itselfinto branches resulting in:(a) the isolation of a piece of land or

part thereof; or

(b) the separation of a portion ofland from an estate by thecurrent

(2) Application

Art. 463 applies whether the river benavigable or floatable or not, for inboth cases the owner should not losehis ownership simply because achange of river course converted hisland into an island.

Case

Baes vs CA

FactsThe government dug a canal on a

portion of land owned by Baes tostreamline the Tripa de Callina creek. In

exchange for such portion, Baes wasgiven a lot with an equal area. WhenBaes had his lots resurveyed andsubdivided, the area of the old creekbed was included such that hislandholdings increased. Upon petition bythe govt., TC ordered status quo priorto the resurvey. However, Baescontends that under Art. 461, the areaof the old creek should belong to himbecause it says that once the river bedhas been abandoned, the owners of theland invaded by the rivers new courseautomatically become the owner of theabandoned bed.

HeldBaes contention is impressed with

merit. The law speaks of the naturalchange in the course of the stream, andof the riparian owner is entitled tocompensation for damage to or loss ofproperty due to natural causes, theresall the more reason to compensate himwhen the change in the course of theriver, as in this case, is effected throughartificial means. BUT, since he has beengiven an equivalent lot, he is no longerentitled under the principle of unjustenrichment.

(iv)Formation of islands either on theseas within the jurisdiction of thePhils. On lakes, and on navigableor floatable rivers (Art. 464) ornon-navigable and non-floatablerivers (Art. 465).

(See PD 1067 Water Code)

Art. 464. Islands which may be formedon the seas within the jurisdiction of thePhils., on lakes, and on navigable orfloatable rivers belong to the State.

Art. 465. Islands which throughsuccessive accumulation of alluvialdeposits are formed in non-navigableand non-floatable rivers, belong to the



49


23/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

owners of the margins or banks nearestto each of them, or to the owners ofboth margins if the island is in themiddle of the river, in which case it shallbe divided longitudinally in halves. If a

single island thus formed be moredistant from one margin than from theother, the owner of a nearer marginshall be sole owner thereof.

(1) Ownership of islands formed throughalluvion

(a) If formed:(a.1) on the seas within Phil.

jurisdiction(a.2) on lakes, and(a.3) on navigable or floatable

waters, the island belongs tothe State

(b) If formed in non-navigable andnon-floatable rivers:(b.1) it belongs to the nearest

riparian owner or owner ofthe margin or bank nearest toit as he is considered in thebest position to cultivate anddevelop the island

(b.2) it is divided longitudinally inhalves, if it is in the middle ofthe river

(c) Concept of navigable river

A navigable river is one whichforms in its ordinary condition byitself or by uniting with otherwaters a continuous highwayover with other waters acontinuous highway over whichcommerce is or may be carriedon.

Test: A river is navigable if it is used orsusceptible of being used, in its ordinary

condition, as a highway of commerce,that is, for trade and travel in the usualand ordinary modes.

*Moving on toAccession Continua;Movable property:

(b) With regard to movableproperty

(1) Adjunction or Conjunction that which takes place whenevermovable things belonging todifferent owners are united in such away that they cannot be separatedwithout injury, thereby forming asingle object (Art. 466)

Art. 466. Whenever two movablethings belonging to different owners are,without bad faith, united in such a waythat they form a single object, the ownerof the principal thing acquires theaccessory, indemnifying the formerowner thereof for its values.

(1) Characteristics of adjunction(a) There are two movables

belonging to different owners(b) They are united in such a way

that they form a single object(c) They are so inseparable that

their separation would impairtheir nature or result insubstantial injury to eithercomponent.

(2) Kinds of adjunction:(a) inclusio or engraftment(b) soldadura or attachment

ferruminatio objects are of thesame metal

plumbatura objects are diff.metals

(c) tejido or weaving(d)pintura or painting(e) escritura or writing

(3) Ownership of new object formed byadjunction

(a) If the union took place withoutbad faith, the owner of theprincipal thing acquires theaccessory, with the obligation toindemnify the former owner ofthe accessory for its value in itsuncontroverted state.



50


24/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

(b) If the union took place in badfaith, Art. 470 applies.

Art. 467.The principal thing, asbetween two things incorporated, is

deemed to be that to which the otherhas been united as an ornament, or forits use or perfection.Art. 468. If it cannot be determined bythe rule given in the preceding articlewhich of the two things incorporated isthe principal one, the thing of thegreater value shall be so considered,and as between two things of equalvalue, that of the greater volume.

(1) TEST to determine principal in

adjunction: In order of application, the principal

is that:(a) To which the other (accessory)

has seen united as an ornamentor for its use or perfection (Art.467);

(b) Of greater value, if they areunequal values

(c) Of greater volume, if they are ofan equal value (Art. 468); and

(d) That of greater merits taking intoconsideration all the pertinentlegal provision applicable as wellas the comparative, merits, utilityand volume of their respectivethings.

(2) Where adjunction involves 3 or morethings

Art. 466 should be applied in anequitable manner. The principalshould be determined anddistinguished from the others whichwould be considered the accessories.

Art. 469. Whenever the things unitedcan be separated without injury, theirrespective owners may demand theirseparation.

Nevertheless, in case the things unitedfor the use, embellishment or perfectionof the other, is much more precious thanthe principal thing, the owner of theformer may demand its separation, even

though the thing to which it has beenincorporated may suffer some injury.

(1) When separation of things united isallowed.(a) Separation without injury

Whenever the separation can bedone without injury, theirrespective owners may demandseparation

(b) Accessory much moreprecious

Where the thing united for theuse, embellishment or perfectionof the other, is much moreprecious than the principal thing,the owner of the former maydemand its separation eventhough the principal thing maysuffer some injury.

The owner who made or causedthe union or incorporation shallbear the expenses for separationbecause he is the one considered

at fault although he also acted inbad faith.(c) Owner of principal acted in bad

faith

The owner of the accessory thingmay separate it even if theprincipal thing be destroyed.

Art. 470. Whenever the owner of theaccessory thing has made theincorporation in bad faith, he shall losethe thing incorporated and shall have

the obligation to indemnify the owner ofthe principal thing for the damages hemay have suffered.

(1) Adjunction in bad faith



51


25/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

Bad faith on the owner of theaccessory

(a) he shall lose the thingincorporated; and

(b) he shall be liable for damage tothe owner of the principal thing

Bad faith on the part of theowner of the principal

(a) the owner of the accessory thingis given the option either:(i) to require the owner of the

principal thing to pay thevalue of the accessory thing;or

(ii) to have the accessory thingseparated even if for thepurpose it be necessary to

destroy the principal thing(b) he shall be entitled to damages in

either case

Bad faith on the part of both(a) Their respective rights shall be

determined as though both hadacted in good faith. Art. 453applies.

Art. 471. Whenever the owner of thematerial employed without his consent

has a right to an indemnity, he maydemand that this consist in the deliveryof a thing equal in kind and value, and inall other respects, to that employed, orelse in the price thereof, according toexpert appraisal.

(1) Form of indemnity

The innocent owner has the option todemand:(a) the delivery of a thing equal in

kind and value and in all other

respects (quantity, quality,appearance); or

(b) the payment of its price,including its sentimental value(Art. 475) as appraised byexperts.

(2)Commixtion or confusion thatwhich takes place whenever there isa mixture of things solid or liquidbelonging to different owners, themixture of solids being calledcommixtion, while that of liquids,confusion (Art. 472).

Cases

Siari Valley Estates vs Lucasan

FactsSVE sought to recover 200 heads of

cattle that were driven or wanderedfrom its pasture lands into the adjoininglands of Lucasan. Lucasan himselfadmitted such commixtion although he

says that SVE had already retrieved itsanimals. Which cattle belong to theowner can no longer be determined.Lower court found for SVE.

HeldLucasan willfully caused the

commixtion such that under Art. 383(now 473) he will be held to forfeit hisown cattle. No actual evidence existsthat the 823 missing cattle were takenby Lucasan, but in view of the proof thathis men, on 2 occasions, drove awaymore than 30 heads, it may bepresumed that the others must havealso been driven away on subsequent orprior occasions. One who stole a part ofthe money must have also taken thelarger sum lost by the offended party.Evidence:1) An average increase of 30% per yearshould give Lucasan around 417 headsin 1951, yet in the same year, afterselling 230 heads, he still had 400.2) Lucasans original stock was entirely

native, yet when 322 heads wererounded up for inspection, only 29 werefound to be native.

Santos vs Bernabe

Facts



52


26/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

Jose Bernabe owns a rice warehousewhere Urbano Santos deposited 778cavans and 38 kilos of palay, and Pablo

Tiongson 1,026 cavans and 9 kilos. Thesacks of palay did not bear any marks orsigns, nor were they separated one fromthe other. Pablo Tiongson filed action torecover the palay he deposited in thewarehouse but there were only 924cavans and 31 and a half kilos of palayin the warehouse at the time ofattachment. Urbano Santos sought torecover his palay mixed with thosewhich Tiongson attached. The CFIordered Pablo Tiongson to pay UrbanoSantos the value of 778 cavans and 38kilos of palay at the rate of P3 percavan. The provincial sheriff and Pablo

Tiongson appeals this decision to theSC.

HeldTiongson must pay Santos the value

of 396.49 cavans of palay in proportionto the 924 cavans of palay which wereattached and sold, the 778 cavans and38 kilos of palay belonging to theplaintiff Urbano Santos, having beenmixed with the 1,026 cavans and 9 kilosof palay belonging to the defendantPablo Tiongson in Jose Bernabeswarehouse, the sheriff having found only924 cavans and 31 and a half kilos ofpalay in said warehouse at the time ofthe attachment thereof; and there beingno means of separating from said 924cavans and 31 and a half kilos of palaybelonging to Urbano Santos and thosebelonging to Pablo Tiongson.Art. 381 CC states, If, by the will oftheir owners, two things of identical ordissimilar nature are mixed, or if themixture occurs accidentally, if in the

latter case the things cannot beseparated without injury, each ownershall acquire a right in the mixtureproportionate to the part belonging tohim according to the value of the thingsmixed or commingled.

Art. 472. If by the will of their ownerstwo things of the same or different kindsare mixed, or if the mixture occurs bychance, and in the latter case the thingsare mixed, or if the mixture occurs by

chance, and in the latter case the thingsare not separable without injury, eachowner shall acquire a right proportionalto the part belonging to him, bearing inmind the value of the things mixed orconfused.

Art. 473. If by the will of only oneowner, but in good faith, two things ofthe same or different kinds are mixed orconfused, the rights of the owners shallbe determined by the provisions of thepreceding article.

If the one who caused the mixture orconfusion acted in bad faith, he shalllose the thing belonging to him thusmixed or confused, besides beingobliged to pay indemnity for thedamages caused to the owner of theother thing with which his own wasmixed.

(1) Rules governing mixture(a) Mixture by the will of the owners

Their rights shall first begoverned by their stipulations. Inthe absence of any stipulation,each owner acquires a right orinterest in the mixture inproportion to the value of hismaterial as in co-ownership (SeeArt. 485).

(b) Mixture caused by an owner ingood faith or by chance

The share of each owner shallalso be proportional to the

value of the part whichbelonged to him

If the things mixed can beseparated without injury, theirrespective owners maydemand separation. Theexpenses incident to



53


27/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

separation shall be borne byall the owners in proportion totheir respective interests inthe mixture.

(c) Mixture caused by an owner inbad faith

The actor forfeits the thingbelonging to him and is liable topay indemnity for the damagescaused to the other owner (Art.473, par. 2)

(d) Mixture made with theknowledge and without theobjection of the other owner

Applying the provisions of Art.470, par. 3, by analogy, theirrespective rights shall bedetermined as though both acted

in good faith.

(3)Specification that which takesplace whenever a person imparts anew form to materials belonging toanother person (Art. 474).

Art. 474. One who in good faithemploys the material of another inwhole or in part in order to make a thingof a different kind, shall appropriate thething thus transformed as his own,

indemnifying the owner of the materialfor its value.

If the material is more precious thanthe transformed thing or is of morevalue, its owner may, at his option,appropriate the new thing to himself,after first paying indemnity for the valueof the work, or demand indemnity forthe material.

If in the making of the thing bad faithintervened, the owner of the materialshall have the right to appropriate the

work to himself without paying anythingto the maker, or to demand of the latterthat he indemnify him for the value ofthe material and the damages he mayhave suffered.

However, the owner of the materialcannot appropriate the work in case the

value of the latter, for artistic orscientific reasons, is considerably morethan that of the material.

(1) Rules governing specification(a) Person made use of material

of another in good faith

The worker becomes theowner of the new thing but hemust indemnify the owner(also in good faith) of thematerial for its value.

Exception : If the material ismore precious or of morevalue than the new thing, theowner of the materials maychoose:

(i) to appropriate the newthing to himself but mistpay for the value of thework or labor; or

(ii) to demand indemnity forthe material

(b) Person made use of materialof another in bad faith

The owner of the materialhas the option either:(i) to appropriate the work to

himself without paying the

maker; or(ii) to demand the value ofthe material plusdamages.

EXCEPTION: The first option is notavailable if the value of thework, for artistic or scientificreasons, is considerably morethan that of the value of thematerial (Art. 474).

(c) Person made use of materialof another with the consentand without the objection ofthe latter

Applying the provisions ofArt. 470, par. 3 by analogy,the rights shall be determinedas though both acted in goodfaith.



54


28/28

PROPERTY REVIEWER

(2) Distinguished from adjunctionand mixture

Adjunction Mixture Specification

1. Involves2 things

2.Componentparts retainor preservetheir nature

3. Principle

thataccessoryfollows theprincipalapples

1. Involves2 things

2. Thingsmixed mayor may notretain theirrespectiveoriginalnature

3. Co-ownershipresults

1. Involvesonly a thingwhose formhaschanged

2.Componentparts retainor preservetheir nature

3. Principlethataccessoryfollows theprincipalapplies

Art. 475. In the preceding articles,sentimental value shall be dulyappreciated.

(1) Appraisal of the sentimental value Sentimental value shall be duly

appreciated in the payment of theproper indemnity in accessions withrespect to movable property in thecases provided in the precedingarticles.

(2) Application

Art. 475 applies particularly to Art.468, par. 1 and Art. 469, par. 2.

BLOCKD2008

55

03 property reviewer

Documents