Article 461.

River beds which are abandoned through the natural  The affected landowners may themselves undertake the
change in the course of the waters ipso facto belong to the return of the river to its old bed subject to the following
owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in conditions:
proportion to the area lost. However, the owners of the lands 1) They shall secure a permit from the Department of
adjoining the old bed shall have the right to acquire the same by Public Works and Highways;
paying the value thereof, which value shall not exceed the value 2) The undertaking shall be at their expenses; and
of the area occupied by the new bed. 3) The work pertaining thereto must be commenced
within two years from the change in the course of the
 Requisites for Art. 461:
river or stream.
a) The change must be sudden in order that the old
 “Ipso Facto” (automatically) should mean as used in Art.
river bed may be identified;
461 is that the prejudiced landowner automatically
b) The changing of the course must be more or less
becomes the owner of the abandoned river bed, once the
permanent, and not temporary overflooding of
conditions stated in the article are fulfilled or manifest,
another’s land;
without the necessity of any action or exercise of
c) The change of the river bed must be a natural one,
possession on their part.
i.e., caused by natural forces – and not by artificial
 When river dries up, provisions of Art. 461 will not apply.
means such as those used by private individuals
The dry bed will continue to remain property of public
authorized by the government – in which case the
dominion.
State may give the old river bed to the persons
responsible for the change;
d) There must be a definite abandonment by the
 Example: Jose’s and Maria’s estate face each other and
government; and
adjoin a river. Later, the river naturally changes its course
e) The river must continue to exist, that is, it must not
and the river bed is abandoned. The new river bed happens
completely drying up or disappear.
to be in the land of Maximo. Who owns the abandoned
river bed?
 Answer: Maximo owns the ENTIRE abandoned river bed to
compensate him for the loss of the land now occupied by
the new river bed.
Note: “In proportion to the area lost” has no application if
only one owner has lost; here, he gets the entire
abandoned river bed. The “proportion” applies when there
are two or more owners who have lost a portion of their
lots; in this case, the ENTIRE abandoned bed will go to them
proportionately, that is, in proportion to the area each has
lost.
 Bar Questions:
a) A and B each own a parcel of land on opposite sides
of a river. The river changed its course and passed
through D’s land not adjoining either A’s or B’s land.
As a result of this change of course, D lost ten
c) A owns a parcel of land adjoining the bank of the
hectares of land. Assuming that the area of the
abandoned river bed between the lands of A and B is
also 10 hectares, who is entitled to the accession, and
why?
Answer: D, in view of his loss. (Art. 461)
b) The Director of Lands sold to A 24 hectares of public
land at P200 per square meter. The land was
adjoining a river, which, after the sale changed its
course and left its bed dry, the area of which is two
hectares. The purchaser A claimed and occupied this
portion, alleging the right of accretion. The Director
of Lands claimed that the sale covered only 24
hectares, hence, A has no right to the two hectares.
Decide.
Answer: Under the old law, A would be correct but
under the new Civil Code a distinction has to be
made. If the river in its new course occupies private
land, then the owner of the private land becomes the
owner of the abandoned river bed without prejudice
to A’s right to buy it from him. If the new river bed is
on land of the public domain, the abandoned river
bed is of public domain, and is this, in a sense, owned
by the government.
Pampanga River. The land on the opposite bank is
owned by B. The river suddenly changed its natural
course, and the new river bed passed through more
than one-half of the land of B.
The ownership of the abandoned river bed is
claimed by:
1) A as owner of the adjacent land; owner, entitled to the same right of
2) B who lost more than one-half of his reimbursement.) While it may seem more
land to the new river bed; and just, under a liberal interpretation of the
3) The government on the ground that the law, to refuse A the right of reimbursement
abandoned river bed is part of the public since after all B, himself an adjacent owner,
domain. is in a position to cultivate the abandoned
river bed, and since he was the one who
Determine the rights, if any, of each of the
lost over half of his land; and while indeed
claimants. Explain fully, giving reasons.
the right od reimbursement under Art. 461
Answer: It is clear under Article 461 that B obviously contemplates himself an adjacent
ipso facto owns the abandoned river bed in owner; still it should not be forgotten that A
proportion to the area which B lost (unless himself has been deprived of the use of the
of course the government takes steps to river, and to partly indemnify him, he
bring back the river to its old course.) should be given the right to pay for the
Insofar as there is an excess, the excess still value of the HALF hereinabove referred
belongs to the property of public dominion. to. Equity cannot afford to be one-sided.
Under the law, the owners of the adjacent
or adjoining lands are given in the “interest
of agriculture” the right to reimburse the
“prejudiced owner” the value of the area
lost, hence, strictly speaking, A, as owner of
the adjacent land is given the right to so
reimburse B for HALF of the abandoned
river bed (HALF only, because it should be
remembered that B himself is an adjacent
Article 462. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural
causes, opens a new bed through a private estate, this bed shall
THREE KINDS OF ISLAND (Art. 463, 464, and 465)
become of public dominion.
Article 463. Whenever the current of a river divides itself into
 Even if the new bed is on private property the bed becomes
branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, the
property of public dominion, just as the old bed had been of
owner of the land retains his ownership. He also retains it if a
public dominion before the abandonment.
portion of land is separated from the estate by the current.
 The owner of the land flooded by the new change of course
would own the newly abandoned bed. Upon the other  The current of a river simply divides itself into branches,
hand, if the river goes back to its old course (thus, flooding leaving a piece of land or part thereof isolated, thereby
the original bed), the owner of the land originally flooded forming an island.
would get back the ownership of the land (bed) which he  The owner retains the ownership of the portion of his land
had lost. separated from the estate by the current.
 The new bed passing through a private estate shall become  This article applies whether the river is navigable of
property of public dominion. floatable (can carry goods from land) or not since the article
does not make any distinction.
 Example: A’s estate adjoin a river, but the river divides itself
into branches, thus affecting A’s property. A however
remains the owner of the portion (this time – an island)
which:
a) May be isolated from the rest (here, the portion has
not physically moved – but there is ISOLATION).
b) Or may be separated from the rest (here, the portion
has physically moved – hence, the SEPARATION).
c)
Article 464. Islands which may be formed on the seas within the
jurisdiction of the Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or
floatable rivers belong to the State.
 An island is formed on a sea, lake or navigable or floatable
river through whatever cause. Thus, this article clearly
speaks of an addition to the property of the State.
 Art. 464 forms part of the patrimonial property of the State
and, therefore, may be sold by the State.
Article 465. Islands which through successive accumulation of
alluvial deposits are formed in non-navigable and non-floatable
rivers, belong to the owners of the margins or banks nearest to
each of them, or to the owners of both margins if the island is in
the middle of the river, in which case it shall be divided
longitudinally in halves. If a single island thus formed be more
distant from one margin than from the other, the owner of the
nearer margin shall be the sole owner thereof.
 An island formed in non-navigable or non-floatable rivers
through successive accumulation of deposit – the same
manner as alluvion.
 An island formed through a sudden and abrupt process
RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO MOVABLE PROPERTY
(Art. 466-471)
Article 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to
different owners are, without bad faith, united in such a way
that they form a single object, the owner of the principal thing
acquires the accessory, indemnifying the former owner thereof
for its value.
Article 467. The principal things, as between two things
incorporated, is deemed to be that to which the other has
been united as an ornament, or for its use or perfection.
Article 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the
preceding article which of the two things incorporated is the
principal one, the thing of the greater value shall be so
considered, and as between two things of equal value, that of
the greater volume.
In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter,
engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas,
paper or parchment shall be deemed the accessory thing.
Article 469. Whenever the things united can be separated
without injury, their respective owners may demand their
separation.
Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use,
embellishment or perfection of the other, is much more
precious than the principal thing, the owner of the former may
demand its separation, even though the thing to which it has  Forms of Accesion Continua with respect to movables:
been incorporated may suffer some injury. 1) Adjunction or conjunction
Article 470. Whenever the owner of the accessory things has 2) Commixtion or confusion
made the incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose the thing 3) Specification
incorporated and shall have the obligation to indemnify the  Adjunction (or conjunction) – when two or more movables
owner of the principal thing for the damages he may have things belonging to different owners are so united that they
suffered. cannot be separated without causing injury to one or both
If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the them, thereby giving rise to a new thing.
principal thing, the owner of the accessory thing shall have a  Distinguishing features of adjunction:
right to choose between the former paying him its value or 1) Two or more movables form a distinctive new thing
that the thing belonging to him be separated, even though for 2) Each one of the things making up the new one
this purpose it may be necessary to destroy the principal thing; preserves its own nature
and in both cases, furthermore, there shall be indemnity for  Different Kinds of Adjunction:
damages. 1) Inclusion or engraftment
If either one of the owner has made the incorporation with 2) Soldadura or attachment
the knowledge and without the objection of the other, their 3) Tejido or weaving
respective rights shall be determined as though both acted in 4) Pintura or painting
good faith. 5) Escritura or writing
Article 471. Whenever the owner of the material employed  Adjunction may be done:
without his consent has a right to an indemnity, he may 1) In good faith
demand that this consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind 2) Or in bad faith
and value, and in all other respects, to that employed, or else
in the price thereof, according to expert appraisal.
 Effected in good faith: lose the thing incorporated (the accessory) and
- Owner of the principal acquires the accessory but shall be liable to pay damages to the owner of
must indemnify the owner of the accessory the principal
- If accessory is valuable than principal – its owner may  If both acted in bad faith – neutralized and
demand its separation even if principal will suffer both be considered acted in good faith
damage  Tests in determining the principal:
 Effected in bad faith: - 1st Test – Ornament or perfection
- If the union or attachment was effected in bad faith, - 2nd Test – Greater Value
the legal effects shall vary depending as to who was - 3rd Test – Greater Volume
responsible for it, as follows: - 4th Test – Greater Merits (from the combined
 If effected in bad faith by the owner of the consideration of utility and volume)
principal – the owner of the accessory may  Accessory thing – painting, sculpture, writings, printed
choose between the following options: matter, engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone,
1. To demand payment for the value of the canvas, paper or parchment
accessory, with a right to be indemnified
for damages (if it is not practicable to
separate the thing, 1st option is the only
option left); or
2. To demand for the separation of the
accessory, even though for this purpose
it be necessary to destroy the principal
thing, with a right to be indemnified for
damages
 If effected in bad faith by the owner of the
accessory – the owner of the accessory shall
Article 472. If by the will of their owners two things of the same or
different kinds are mixed, or if the mixture occurs by chance, and
in the latter case the things are not separable without injury, each
owner shall acquire a right proportional to the part belonging to
him, bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused.
Article 473. If by will of only one owner, but in good faith, two
things of the same or different kinds are mixed or confused, the
rights of the owners shall be determined by the provisions of the
preceding article.
If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in
bad faith, he shall lose the thing belonging to him thus mixed or
confused, besides being obliged to p ay indemnity for the
damages caused to the owner of the other thing with which his
own was mixed.
 Commixtion (things mixed are solid) or confusion (things
are liquid) – mixture of two or more things belonging to
different owners
 Legal effects of commixtion or confusion:
o Co-ownership – if both in good faith, both has a right
in proportion to the part which belongs to him
o If caused by only one owner acting in bad faith – he
loses the thing belongs to him plus damages
Article 474. One who in good faith employs the material of
another in whole or in part in order to make a things of a different
kind, shall appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own,
indemnifying the owner of the material for its value.
If the material is more precious than the transformed thing
or is or more value, its owner may, at his option, appropriate the
new thing to himself, after first paying indemnity for the value of
the work, or demand indemnity for the material.
If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the
owner of the material shall have the right to appropriate the work
to himself without paying anything to the maker, or to demand of
the latter that he indemnify him for the value of the material and
the damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the
material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the
latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than
that of the material.
Article 475. In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be
duly appreciated.
 Specification – whenever the work of a person is done on
the material of another, such material, in consequence of
the work itself, undergoing a transformation
 Specification involves:  If the value of the work, for artistic or scientific reasons, is
1. Labor of the worker considerably more than that of the material, the owner of
2. Materials of another the material cannot appropriate the work – the owner of
 Legal effects: the material can only demand from the worker the value of
1. Worker in good faith – if he honestly believe that the his materials and the damages he may have suffered.
material were his at the time that he made use of
them
 Shall appropriate the thing thus transformed as
his own, indemnifying the owner of the
material for its value
 Exception: when the material is more precious
than the transformed thing or more valuable,
its owner may, at his option:
1. Appropriate the new thing to himself
after paying indemnity for the value of
the work; or
2. Demand indemnity for the material
2. Worker in bad faith – the owner of the material has
two options:
1. To appropriate the work for himself without
paying anything to the maker; or
2. To demand of the latter (worker) that he
indemnify him for the value of the material and
the damages he may have suffered