Art. 447.

The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally, Article 448 applies only when BPS believes he has
or through another, plantings, constructions or work with the the right to build, plant or sow because he thinks
materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in he owns the land or believes himself to have a
bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages.
claim of title.
The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them
only in case he can do so without injury to the work constructed,
or without the planting, constructions or works being In Pecson, it was held that Article 448 applies
destroyed. However, if the land owner acted in bad faith, the only to a land whose ownership is claimed by two
owner of the materials may remove them in any event, with a or more parties, one of whom has built some
right to be indemnified for damages. works, one sown or planted something. This is to
avoid a state of forced co-ownership.
Applicability
This deals with the relationship with the land-owner and the In PNB v. De Jesus 557 SCRA 411, the SC held
materials owner. Landowner (LO) and materials owner (MO). that Article 448 refers to a piece of land whose
ownership is claimed by two or more parties, one
LANDOWNER
of whom has built some works (or sown or
Good Faith Bad Faith planted something) and, not to a case where the
1.Right to appropriate the 1. Liable to pay the value of owner of the land is BPS who ten later loses
materials but he must pay the
its materials plus damages; ownership by sale or otherwise.
value; or return the
materials 2. Owner of the materials Rules to Be Followed
provided they are not may If landowner is in GF and BPS is in GF, the
transformed at the expense remove them whether there landowner has the following rights. The
of isinjury or none, plus
landowner in good faith has two options:
the landowner damages.

2.The owner of the materials (a) To appropriate for himself the house upon
may remove them provided payment of the proper indemnity (RIGHT OF
that there is no injury to APPROPRIATION)
thework constructed.

Materials Owner in Bad Faith
There is no provision of law which applies to a situation when the
MO is in bad faith. It would seem that the LO would not only be
exempted from reimbursement but also be entitled to
consequential damages (when materials are of inferior quality).
Moreover, the owner of the materials would lose all rights to them,
such as the right of removal, regardless of whether substantial
injury would be caused.
This Article 447 applies if the LO himself makes the plantings,
construction or works on his land, but with the materials of another
person. In such a situation a new thing is produced, but does not
result in co-ownership. The owner therefore of the materials does
not become part owner of the new thing. He is only entitled to
recover their value.
In short, the LO who acted in GF, the law gives him the right to
appropriate the new thing provided that he indemnifies the
owner of the materials.
(b) Or to compel the BPS to buy the land upon
which the house has been built, unless the value
of the land is considerably more than the value
of the house (in this case, rent should be paid).
(RIGHT TO COMPULSORY SELLING)
Since the choice given the landowner is confined
to either an appropriation of those or to a
compulsory selling of the land, he has no right
of removal or demolition, UNLESS after having
selected a compulsory sale (if applicable), the
builder fails to pay for the land.
It the builder cannot pay for the land, he should
not be allowed to continue using it to the
detriment of the landowner. Hence this time the
builder must remove the construction. If the
landowner chooses to get the house, he becomes
indebted monetarily. Having exercised his option
his duty now becomes a monetary obligation.

ARTICLE 448
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or NOTE: During the period before indemnity neither
planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his the builder in good faith nor the owner in good faith
own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the
can oust each other, ownership over the accessory
indemnity provided for in Article 546 and 548 or to oblige the
one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and one passes only after a payment of the indemnity.
who sowed, the proper rent.
When Article 448 Does Not Apply
However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its
1. When the BPS does not claim ownership and
value is considerably more than the building or trees. In such case, he
possesses it as mere holder, agent, usufructuary
shall pay reasonable rent if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees after indemnity. The parties shall or tenant. Here he knows that the land is not his,
agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the he can also be a lessee.
court shall fix the terms thereof. 2. When BPS is a co-owner
Applicability 3. When BPS was owner of the land then sells the land but not the
building (in this case new owner can remove the building without
4. Belligerent occupants (Japanese occupants).
What if the Land is of Public Dominion?
Even if the land used be of public dominion, here it is the state that
can exercise the option. Note that the law makes no distinction, as
between use in this case of public or private land as ruled in
Insular Government v. Aldecoa and Co.
WHAT IF BUILDER, PLANTER OR SOWER IS IN BAD FAITH?
If the landowner is still in good faith, refer to A449, 450, 451.
1. He loses what is built, planted, or sown without right to
indemnity, except necessary expenses for the preservation of land
(A452);
2. He may be required to demolish or remove what is built,
planted, or sown;
3. The builder may be compelled to pay the price of the land,
whether or not the value of the land is considerably higher than the
value of the house, and the sower proper rent;
4. Liable for damages.
ARTICLE 449
He who builds, plants, or sows in bad faith on the land of
another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to
indemnity.
NOTE: Article 449 applies only to ungathered crops if the crops or
fruits are already gathered Article 443 applies.
ARTICLE 450
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted
or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or
that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace
things in their former condition at the expense of the person who
built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter
to pay the prince of the land, and the sower the proper rent.
ARTICLE 451
In cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to
damages from the builder, planter or sower.
Three Articles on Bad Faith
If builder builds a house in bad faith in the land of the landowner
being in good faith, the three alternative rights of the landowner
are:
1. Get the house without paying indemnity for its value or
expenses – but with the obligation to pay under Article 452 for
necessary expenses for preservation of the land) PLUS
damages.
2. Demand demolition of the house at the expense of the builder
PLUS damages.
3. Compel the builder to buy the land whether or not the value
of the land is considerably more than the value of the house PLUS
damages.
ARTICLE 452
The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to
reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of
the land.
A builder can lose the building, without indemnity for necessary or
useful expenses for the building, but he must be indemnified the
necessary expenses for the preservation of the land because the
true owner would have paid such anyway.
ARTICLE 453
If there was bad faith, not only on the part of
the person who built, planted or sowed on the
land of another, but also on the part of the
owner of such land, the rights of one and the
other shall be the same as though both had
acted in good faith.
It is understood that there is bad faith on the
part of the landowner whenever the act was
done with his knowledge and without
opposition on his part.
Definition of Bad Faith
The landowner is considered in bad faith
“whenever the act was done with his knowledge
and without opposition on his part. A person who
buys land knowing that a construction had been
made thereon by a person other than the owner
and who pays only for the land (and not for the
construction) is in the same category as a
landowner who has acted in bad faith.
ARTICLE 454
When the landowner acted in bad faith and the
builder, planter or sower proceeded in good
faith, the provisions of Article 447 shall apply.
NOTE:
Manresa, commenting on Art. 447 says that the
article uses the words “personally,’’ or “through
another.” The phrase “through another” may well
refer to the owner of materials who in good faith
uses them for BUILDING, PLANTING, or SOWING
on someone else’s land (the landowner who is in
BAD FAITH).
ARTICLE 455
If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a
third person who has not acted in bad faith, the
owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for
their value and only in the event that the one
who made use of them has no property with
which to pay.
This provision shall not apply if the owner
makes use of the right granted by Article 450. If
the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has
been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the
latter may demand from the landowner the
value of the materials and labor.
Rule When Three Parties Are Involved
In this article, three people are involved: the
landowner, the builder (or planter or sower), and
the owner of the materials. The rights of the first
two remain unaffected, their rights being
established by the preceding articles. The
important thing under this article is the
discussion of the rights of the owner of the
materials.
Right of the Materials Owner
a. If in bad faith – he loses all rights to
indemnified. He can even be liable for consequential damages if
materials are of inferior quality.
b. If in good faith – he is entitled to
reimbursement from the builder, principally since it was the builder
who first used materials. In case of the insolvency on the part of
builder, the landowner is subsidiarily liable if he makes use of the
materials (so he cannot be subsidiarily liable when the compels the
builder to buy the land or to demolish the construction.
ARTICLE 449
He who builds, plants, or sows in bad faith on
the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without
right to indemnity.
NOTE: Article 449 applies only to ungathered
crops if the crops or fruits are already gathered Article 443 applies.
Article 455
LO-BPS is governed by Article 448
BPS-MO is governed by Article 455
LO-MO is governed by Article 447; subsidiary
liability (cf. 455)
Article 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third
person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land
shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event
that the one who made use of them has no property with
which to pay.
This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right
granted by article 450.
If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has been paid by the
builder, planter or sower, the latter may demand from the
landowner the value of the materials and labor.
ARTICLE 456
In the cases regulated in the preceding articles, good faith does
not necessarily exclude negligence, which gives right to damages
under Article 2176.
Good Faith May Co-Exist with Negligence
It is possible that a person may be in good faith, and also
negligent. In fact, in negligence, there is no intent to do wrong. On
the other hand, bad faith presupposes an intent to cause damage
or prejudice. In case there be negligence, damages for his culpa will
arise under Art. 2176.
ACCESSION NATURAL
ARTICLE 457
To the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong the
accretion which they gradually receive from the effects of the
current of the waters.
Alluvium is the soil deposited or added to (accretion) the lands
adjoining the banks of rivers and gradually received as an effect of
the current of the waters. By law, the accretion is owned by the
owner of the estate fronting the river bank (riparian owner).
Points to remember:
• Ipso facto they automatically belong to you.
• There is no need to make an express act of
ownership or act of ownership.
• Ownership is one thing; registration is another.
• The soil deposit does not automatically become
a registered property, and therefore it can be lost
by prescription.
Difference of Alluvium and Accretion
Accretion Alluvium
Is the process The soil deposited on
whereby the soil is the estate fronting the
deposited. river bank; the owner
of such estate is the
riparian owner.
Broader term Applies only to the soil
deposited on river
banks.
Essential requisites of alluvium:
1. The deposit should be gradual and
imperceptible as a process (natural);
2. Current must be that of a river; does not apply
to accretion by man-made means (see: Republic
vs. CA, 132 SCRA 154);
3. Current must be that of a rive (if lake, the
deposit may not be called alluvium but the
principle is the same, see: Art. 84 Spanish Law on
Waters); The river must continue to exist
(otherwise, if the river disappears, Art. 58 PD
1067, in re: Art. 461 NCC, shall apply);
4. The increase must be comparatively little.
ARTICLE 458
The owners of estates adjoining ponds or lagoons do
not require the land left dry by the natural decrease
of the waters, or lose that inundated by them in
extraordinary
It applies when the estate adjoins a pond or a lagoon.
It does not apply when the estate adjoins a lake, a
river, a creek or other streams. In such a case, the
land left uncovered reverts to the adjoining estate
which owned it at the very beginning.
ARTICLE 459
Whenever the current of a river, creek, or
torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a
known portion of the land and transfers it to
another estate, the owner of the land to which
the segregated portion belonged retains the
ownership of it, provided that he removes the
same within two years.
Avulsion
This is the process whereby the current of a
river, creek of torrent segregates from an estate
on its bank a known portion of land and
transfers it to another estate. It implies a violent
tearing or breaking away.
It may also be referred to as delayed accession in the sense that if the
owner abandons the soil involved, or fails to remove (not merely claim)
the same within two years, the land to which it had been attached
acquires ownership thereof.
Alluvium Avulsion
The deposit of the soil There is sudden or
is gradual. abrupt process may be
seen.
Soil cannot be Identifiable or
identified. verifiable.
Belongs to the owner Belongs to owner from
of property to which it whose property it was
is attached detached.
In the absence of evidence that the change in the course of the river was
sudden or that it occurred through alluvium, the presumption is that the
change was gradual and was cause by alluvium and erosion.
ARTICLE 460
Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the waters belong to
the owner of the land upon which they may be cast, if the owners do
not claim them within six months. If such owners claim them, they shall
pay the expenses incurred in gathering them or putting them in a place.
For example, because of the force of the river current, some trees
on the estate of A were uprooted and cast on the estate of B. Who
owns the trees?
It is A should still be considered as the owner of the uprooted
trees, but if he does not claim them within 6 months B will become
the owner. If A makes the claim, he will have to shoulder the
expenses but failure to make the claim within six months will bar
any future action to recover the trees.
NOTE: If instead of being uprooted, the trees still remain attached to
land that has been carried away, it is Article 459 that must govern.
ARTICLE 461
River beds which are abandoned through the natural change in
the course of the owner of waters ipso facto belong to the owner
whose lands are occupied by the new course in proportion to the
area lost. However, the owners of the lands adjoining the old bed
shall have the right to acquire the same by paying the value
thereof, which value shall not exceed the value of the area
occupied by the new bed.
General Rule
The abandoned rivers ipso facto belong to the owners whose land
are occupied by the new course in proportion of the area lost. But
the owners of the land adjoining the old bed shall have the right to
acquire the same by paying the value thereof.
Requisites
1. The change must be sudden, gradual;
2. The changing of the course must be more or less permanent and
not temporary over flooding of another’s land.
3. The change of the river bed must be natural one and not by
artificial means;
4. There must be a definite abandonment by the government. No
effort has been made to bring back the river to its old bed;
5. The river must continue to exist.
Article 461 is repealed by Article 58, PD 1067
Article 58 of PD 1067
New bed belongs to the state but the abandoned
river bed as a mode of compensation to the
owner of the land affected by the change of the
court of river shall own the same, in proportion to
the area lost.
ARTICLE 58. When a river or stream suddenly
changes its course to traverse private lands, the
owners of the affected lands may not:
(1) Compel the government to restore the river to
its former bed; nor
(2) Restrain the government from taking steps to
revert the river or stream to its former course.
The owners of the land thus affected are not
entitled to compensation for any damage sustained
thereby. However, the former owners of the new
bed shall be the owners of the abandoned bed in
proportion to the area lost by each.
The owners of the affected lands may undertake to
return the river or stream to its old bed at their
expense; Provided, That a permit therefore is
secured from the Secretary of Public Works,
Transportation and Communication and work
pertaining thereto are commenced within two years
from the change in the course of the river or stream.
What if the river simply dries up? Would Article
58 apply?
Who owns the dried up riverbed? Is it the riparian
owner or the owner adjacent to the river bed – it
belongs to the STATE because there is no
affected land.
ARTICLE 462
Whenever a river, changing its course by
natural causes, opens a new bed through a
private estate, this bed shall become of public
dominion.
Even if the new bed is on private property, the
bed becomes the property of public dominion,
jus as the old bed had been of public dominion
before the abandonment.
ARTICLE 463
Whenever the current of a river divides itself into
branches, leaving a piece of land or part thereof
isolated, the owner of the land retains his
ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is
separated from the estate by the current.
Illustration
A’s estate adjoins 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 –
isolation.
(b) May be separated from the rest –
separation.
This is the formation of island by the branching off of a river as
distinguished from the formation of islands by successive
accumulation of alluvial deposits.

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.

This provision requires that the alluvial accumulation is unidentifiable

otherwise 459 applies.

Note that the provision requires that the alluvial accumulation is

unidentifiable otherwise 459 applies.

Adjunction
Owner of the Principal Owner of the Accessory
Good Faith Bad Faith
Liable to Good
Right Faith
to be Bad Faith the
Loses
Acquires indemnify indemnified for accessory
the value of the the value of the plus liable for
accessory accessory accessory damages

Be compelled Demand Indemnify

Demand to separate separation value of the
separatio objects even if without principal plus
n it results in causing injury liable for
injury damages
If value of
Liable for accessory is
damages greater than
the value of the
principal,
demand
separation
even if it
causes injury