MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE

RIGHT OF ACCESSION attached or

It is the right of the owner of a thing, real or incorporated
personal, to become the owner of everything to the thing
which produced thereby, or which is incorporated
or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially. Basis Based on Based on
principle of justice convenience
MBL: Being an owner of a thing, you also have • Natural and
the right to own whatever is incorporated or fruits necessity
attached to that thing whether the attachment • Industrial
be done naturally or artificially. Fruits
• Civil
Article 440. The ownership of property gives Fruits
the right by accession to everything which is
produced thereby, or which is incorporated or Accion discreta – referring to the fruits of the
attached thereto, either naturally or artificially. thing. Could be: Natural, civil or industrial.
(353) • Natural fruits – spontaneous
products of a soil, young and other
ACCESSION VS. ACCESSORY products of animals.
• Industrial fruits – work is involved;
ACCESSION ACCESSORY may refer to young and animals but
Fruits of or additions Things joined to, or this time there is an industry involved.
to, or improvements included with, the Unlike, natural fruits.
upon, a thing principal thing for the • Civil fruits – refer to rents, interests,
(principal) latter’s income.
embellishment, better Accession Continua – refers to the building of
use, or completion. an improvement on a property.
- Building - Key of a
- Planting house CLASSIFICATIONS OF ACCESSION
- Sowing - Frame of a CONTINUA
- Accession picture
natural - Bracelet of a With • Accession industrial
(alluvion) watch respect to (building, planting, or
- Avulsion - Machinery in real sowing)
- Change of a factory property • Accession natural
course of - Bow of a (alluvion, avulsion,
rivers violin change of river course,
- Formation of and formation of
Islands islands)
These are the Only for With • Conjunction or
improvements upon embellishment or for respect to adjunction (which may
the thing. When you better use or personal take place by inclusion
make buildings upon completion. property or engraftment,
a parcel of land, then soldadura or
it makes the thing attachment, tejido or
more useful. weaving, pintura or
painting, and escritura
KINDS OF ACCESSION or writing)
1. Accession Discreta • Commixtion or
2. Accession Continua confusion
ACCESSION ACCESSION
• Specification
DISCRETA CONTINUA
Refers to Right of the Right of the RIGHT OF OWNER TO THE FRUITS
owner to also owner of a
own the fruits of thing to own
Article 441. To the owner belongs:
the thing the things
(1) The natural fruits;

Page 1 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE
(2) The industrial fruits;
(3) The civil fruits. (354)
Article 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous
products of the soil, and the young and other
products of animals.
Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of
any kind through cultivation or labor.
Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price
of leases of lands and other property and the
amount of perpetual or life annuities or other
similar income. (355a)
NATURAL FRUITS
• Spontaneous products of the soil, and
the young, and other products of animals
When are they considered or deemed born?
• Only such as are manifest or born are
considered as natural or industrial fruits.
With respect to animals, it is sufficient
that they are in the womb of the mother
although unborn.
o With respect to Young of
animals – deemed to exist at the
beginning of the maximum
ordinary period of gestation.
o With respect to plants which
produced only one crop then
they perished - they should be
deemed manifest or existing
from the time the seedlings
appear from the ground
o As to plants and trees which
lived for years and have
periodic fruits – the fruits are
not deemed existing until they
actually appear on the plants and
trees.
INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
• Those produced by lands of any kind
through cultivation or labor.
CIVIL FRUITS
• Rents of buildings, the price of leases of
lands and other property and the amount
of perpetual or life annuities or other
similar income.
TN: Thin line between natural and industrial is
that there is labor that is incorporated thereto.
Work is involved.
GENERAL RULE: All fruits belong to the
owner of the thing.
EXCEPTIONS:
• Possession in good faith by another
• Usufruct
• Lease or rural lands
• Pledge
• Antichresis
General rule - Again this is one of the rights of
an owner. To own accession. Right to own the
fruits.
Exceptions – means that you are the owner of
the thing but you are not entitled to the fruits.
OBLIGATION OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE
FRUITS
Article 443. He who receives the fruits has the
obligation to pay the expenses made by a third
person in their production, gathering, and
preservation. (356)
What does that mean? It means that you are
the owner of the property and you are enjoying
the fruits but somebody else produce,
gathered and preserve those fruits. In the
interest of justice, the law tells us that while you
may be the owner of the land, while you may
have the right to the fruits of that land but if you
are not the one who spent in the production,
gathering, and preservation, then the law says
you must pay the expenses that was incurred
by the 3rd person.
Will owner be excused to pay the expenses if
the person producing, gathering and
preserving the fruits did so in bad faith?
• The owner cannot excuse himself from
his obligation by alleging bad faith on the
part of the possessor because Art. 443
makes no distinction and because the
expenses made were necessary without
which the owner would not have received
the fruits.
In other words, you are the owner of the land
and here comes a 3rd person who planted on
the land but then he said the fruits must belong
to the owner of the land but he did so in bad
faith-will he be excused for not paying him
because he did so in bad faith. Look at Art. 443
– it does not make any distinction. And
because the expenses would have been spent
for by the owner anyway. By gathering them
Page 2 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE
and preserving them. Necessary expenses.
Whether or not the owner would have to spend
for it or not, he will still have to spend for it. So,
its just the same.
If expenses exceed the fruits, should owner
still pay for the excess?
• Yes. The law makes no distinction.
Is there a way where the owner will be
excused from paying the expenses?
• Yes. If owner allows the possessor to
complete the harvesting and gathering of
the fruits for himself.
• In other words, he will let the 3rd person
who gathered, harvested, keep the fruit
for himself. Need not pay for expenses.
RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO
IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Article 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown
on the land of another and the improvements
or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner
of the land, subject to the provisions of the
following articles. (358)
Article 446. All works, sowing, and planting
are presumed made by the owner and at his
expense, unless the contrary is proved. (359)
GENERAL RULE:
• Whatever is built, planted or sown on
the land of another and the
improvements or repairs made
thereon, belong to the owner of the
land, subject to the provisions of the
following articles
• All works, sowing, and planting are
presumed made by the owner and at
his expense, unless the contrary is
proved.
EXCEPTION
• The contrary is proved.
PRINCIPLE
• Accession follows the principal
Both Articles gives you the general rule as to
who owns anything that is build, planted, to
sown on the land of another.
So if you see a land and a building there
constructed – the general rule it will belong to
the owner of the land. And that, everything you
see in the land is presumed to be the owners
expense.
LANDOWNER USES MATERIALS OF
ANOTHER
Article 447. The owner of the land who makes
thereon, personally or through another,
plantings, constructions or works with the
materials of another, shall pay their value; and,
if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged
to the reparation of damages. 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 plantings,
constructions or works being destroyed.
However, if the landowner acted in bad faith,
the owner of the materials may remove them in
any event, with a right to be indemnified for
damages.
447 – gives you a situation where the
landowner uses the materials of another. You
have A who owns the land, and then makes
construction on the land using the materials of
B.
In other words, if you use the materials of
another whether good or bad faith -> you are
to pay the value of those materials to the owner
of the materials + damages.
• NO distinction.
The owner of the materials, however, shall
have the right to remove them, only in case
without injury to the work constructed..
• Remember, the owner of the materials
is given the right to remove the
materials. But subject to the condition
that his removal of the materials will
not do injury or will not cause damage
or injury to the work constructed or
without the plantings, construction or
works being destroyed. GRANTING
THAT OWNER DOES IT IN GOOD
FAITH.
• This is because of the principle:
accession follows the principal. Follow
the general rule – whatever he builds
in the property belong to him. But the
problem now here is, he did so, by
using the materials of another.
• IF BOTH ARE IN GOOD FAITH
(landowner believes the material was
his, and owner did not know that
somebody use his materials)
o The owner of the materials will
now have the right to remove.
Page 3 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE

o Because his rights is inferior to unjust

the owner of the land. Owner enrichment)
of materials can remove only
when it does not cause RULES WHERE BUILDER/SOWER/PLANTER
damage or injury. BUILDS/SOWS/PLANTS ON A LAND NOT
• IF THE LANDOWNER USE IN BAD BELONGING TO HIM
FAITH
o The owner of the materials 447 – You have land owner using materials of
may have the right to remove another building in his own property
them with a right to be 448 – Your BSP builds on a property that is not
indemnified for damages. his
See: Art. 448 discussion last page.
RULES ON OM AND LO IN GOOD AND BAD
FAITH
OPTION IS GIVEN TO THE LAND OWNER
OM IN GOOD FAITH BECAUSE HIS RIGHT IS PREFERRED.
LO IN GOOD FAITH LO IN BAD FAITH It is the owner of the land allowed to exercise the
• LO must pay • LO must pay option because his right is older and because, by
the value of the value of the principle of accession he is entitled to
the materials the materials ownership of the accessory thing because the
• OM may + damages accessory follows the principal and not the other
remove if he • OM may way around.
can do so remove his
without injury materials in CAN LANDOWNER REFUSE TO CHOOSE
to the work any event. ANY OF THE OPTIONS AND COMPEL
constructed, BUILDER TO REMOVE BUILDING?
or without the The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a
plantings, rule that accords with the principle of accession,
construction i.e., that the accessory follows the principal and
or works not the other way around. Even as the option lies
being with the landowner, the grant to him,
destroyed. nevertheless, is preclusive. The landowner
TN: Whether in good faith or bad faith, LO must cannot refuse to exercise either option and
pay the value of the material. compel instead the owner of the building to
remove it from the land. (Rosales v. Castelltort,
OM IN BAD FAITH Gr. No. 157044, October 5, 2005)
(knew that LO was using his materials but did
not complain) SARMIENTO V. AGANA (ONLY TIME HE
LO IN GOOD FAITH LO IN BAD FAITH CAN REMOVE)
• OM liable for • Same rule as But he cannot as respondents here did, refuse
any when both both to pay for the building and to sell the land
consequential are in good and compel the owner of the building to
damages faith. remove it from the land where it is erected. He
without right is enticed to such removal only when, after
of removal, having chosen to sell his land, the other
whether or party fails to pay for the same.
not injury *Please read all the cases assigned lol it may
would be come out in the quizzes or exam.
caused
• LO should still REMEMBER:
pay value of 2 OPTIONS - Buy the land or sell the land – If
the materials the land is not considerable bigger than the
(based on the value of the building he can force the builder to
principle of pay – and after such the builder does not pay -

Page 4 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE
then he can be entitled to the removal of the
building.
BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH
An honest belief of the builder, sower, planter,
that the land he is building, sowing, or planting on,
is his, or that by some title he has a right to build,
etc. thereon, and his ignorance of any defect or
flaw in his title.
QUEVADA V. CA (APPLICABILITY OF BPS
IN GOOD FAITH)
The above-cited article covers only cases in
which sowers, or planters believe themselves
to be owners of the land or, at least, to have a
claim of title thereto. It does not apply when
the interest is that of a mere tenant. However,
it is also applied to cases where a builder has
constructed improvements with the consent of
the owner.
MACASAET V. MACASAET (EXCEPTION
TO THE GENERAL RULE)
This Court has ruled that this provision covers
only cases in which the builders, sowers or
planters believe themselves to be owners of
the land or, at least, to have a claim of title
thereto.65 It does not apply when the interest
is merely that of a holder, such as a mere
tenant, agent or usufructuary.66 From these
pronouncements, good faith is identified by
the belief that the land is owned; or that -- by
some title -- one has the right to build, plant,
or sow thereon.67
However, in some special cases, this Court
has used Article 448 by recognizing good faith
beyond this limited definition. Thus, in Del
Campo v. Abesia,68 this provision was applied
to one whose house -- despite having been
built at the time he was still co-owner --
overlapped with the land of another.69 This
article was also applied to cases wherein a
builder had constructed improvements with
the consent of the owner. The Court ruled that
the law deemed the builder to be in good
faith.70 In Sarmiento v. Agana,71 the builders
were found to be in good faith despite their
reliance on the consent of another, whom they
had mistakenly believed to be the owner of the
land.72
Based on the aforecited special cases, Article
448 applies to the present factual milieu. The
established facts of this case show that
respondents fully consented to the
improvements introduced by petitioners.
In fact, because the children occupied the
lots upon their invitation, the parents
certainly knew and approved of the
construction of the improvements
introduced thereon.73 Thus, petitioners may
be deemed to have been in good faith when
they built the structures on those lots.
Why is it important to consider whether in good
faith or bad faith? BECAUSE, we have to
determine the rights. When both parties are in
bad faith, then they are in good faith. So, follow
Art. 448, parents will now get to chose the
options, in order to chose determine first the
value of the land and the building.
MORES VS. YU-GO
However, tenants like the spouses Mores
cannot be said to be builders in good faith as
they have no pretension to be owners of the
property. Indeed, full reimbursement of useful
improvements and retention of the premises
until reimbursement is made applies only to a
possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds
on land with the belief that he is the owner
thereof. It does not apply where one’s only
interest is that of a lessee under a rental
contract; otherwise, it would always be in the
power of the tenant to "improve" his landlord
out of his property.
The appellate court is correct in ruling that
Article 1678 of the Civil Code should apply in
the present case. Article 1678 reads:
If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful
improvements which are suitable to the use
for which the lease is intended, without
altering the form or substance of the property
leased, the lessor upon the termination of the
lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the
value of the improvements at that time.
Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said
amount, the lessee may remove the
improvements, even though the principal
thing may suffer damage thereby. He shall
not, however, cause any more impairment
upon the property leased than is
necessary.1avvphi1
Page 5 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE

With regard to the ornamental expenses, the the security provided by law would be
lessee shall not be entitled to any impaired. This is so because the right to the
reimbursement, but he may remove the expenses and the right to the fruits both
ornamental objects, provided no damage is pertain to the possessor, making
caused to the principal thing, and the lessor compensation juridically impossible; and one
does not choose to retain them by paying their cannot be used to reduce the other. (Naguid
value at the time the lease is extinguished. vs. Court of Appeals)

You cannot say that a tenant build a property
in good faith, because you are only a tenant,
you know the property does not belong to you.
DEL CAMPO VS. ABESIA (WILL ART. 448
APPLY TO A CO-OWNER OF A
PROPERTY?) (NO)
The court a quo correctly held that Article 448
of the Civil Code cannot apply where a co-
owner builds, plants or sows on the land
owned in common for then he did not build,
plant or sow upon land that exclusively
belongs to another but of which he is a co-
owner. The co-owner is not a third person
under the circumstances, and the situation is
governed by the rules of co-ownership.
However, when, as in this case, the co-
ownership is terminated by the partition and it
appears that the house of defendants
overlaps or occupies a portion of 5 square
meters of the land pertaining to plaintiffs
which the defendants obviously built in good
faith, then the provisions of Article 448 of the
new Civil Code should apply. Manresa and
Navarro Amandi agree that the said provision
of the Civil Code may apply even when there
was co-ownership if good faith has been
established.
So, for example your LO chooses to
appropriate the improvement and he’ll pay next
year in 12 months. LO can’t tell the builder to
pay rent and while using the improvement.
Because LO may say he’ll not pay because he
owes him rent. That would be very unfair. LO
cannot ask for rental during the period of
retention.
WHAT IF DURING THE PERIOD OF
RETENTION, THE IMPROVEMENTS HAVE
BEEN DESTROYED BY A FORTUITIOUS
EVENT, CAN THE BUILDER STILL COMPEL
THE OWNER TO PAY FOR THE
IMPROVEMENTS?
Since the improvements have been gutted by
fire, and therefore, the basis for private
respondent's right to retain the premises has
already been extinguished without the fault of
the petitioner, there is no other recourse for
the private respondent but to vacate the
premises and deliver the same to herein
petitioner. (Manotok Realty Inc. v. Tecson)

WHEN LANDOWNER CHOOSES TO

APPROPRIATE IMPROVEMENT

BUILDER has the right to retain the

improvement until he is paid by the land owner

A builder in good faith cannot be compelled to

pay rentals during the period of retention nor
be disturbed in his possession by ordering
him to vacate. In addition, as in this case, the
owner of the land is prohibited from offsetting
or compensating the necessary and useful
expenses with the fruits received by the
builder-possessor in good faith. Otherwise,

Page 6 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE

LO IN GOOD FAITH – BPS IN GOOD FAITH

Article 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own
the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay
the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the
court shall fix the terms thereof.

• LO IN GOOD FAITH – LO does not know somebody is building in his property

• BPS IN GOOD FAITH – Builds in a property he honestly believed belonged to him.
• BOTH in GOOD FAITH, BUT LO RIGHTS IS SUPERIOR - Why? Go back to the general rule-principle.

HOW DO YOU MEASURE INDEMNITY? (Art. 546&548)

RIGHTS OF THE LANDOWNER
1. Buy/Appropriate the
building by paying indemity
LO
Article 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the
possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same
right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having the
option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in value
which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof.
Article 548. Expense for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the
possessor in good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with which he has
embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his successors in
the possession do not prefer to refund the amount expended.

Land> Building FORCED LEASE

2. Oblige the builder to pay
Parties shall agree terms of CONDITIONS: If the value of the land
price of the land (if sower, pay
lease; in case of disagreement is greater than the building → You
the proper rent)
court decides
can’t force the builder to buy the
land. Because it will be very unfair for
builder. They will now be under a
forced lease.

Page 7 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE
Builder/Sower/Planter in Bad Faith
(Articles 449- 452)
- Determines the rights of your landowner as
well as the liabilities of the
builder/planter/sower in bad faith
Art. 449. He who builds, plants, or sows in bad
faith on the land of another, losses what is built,
planted or sown without right to indemnity.
- As a punishment to him for building on a
property which he knows does not belong to
him
- His punishment is that he will lose his
building and whatever he has planted or
sown. He will not be pain anything/indemnity
by the landowner.
Art. 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 price of the land, and the sower the
proper rent.
- This right is not available to the landowner
under Art. 448. What is available to the
landowner under Art 448, when both parties
are in good faith, is to appropriate the
improvement by paying the value of the
improvement, or to sell his land only when
the value of the land is not considerably
higher than the value of the improvement.
- There is no right to demolish under Art. 448
unless the landowner has already chosen to
sell his land to the builder/planter/sower but
the builder has still not paid.
- In Art. 450, this is one right available to the
landowner. He can ask for demolition without
any expense on his part.
- The last part of 450 is another right where
the landowner may compel the builder/
planter to pay the price and the sower the
proper rent. There is no condition unlike in
448.
- In Art. 450, there is no condition which
means that the landowner can compel the
builder (in bad faith) to buy the property. It
does not matter how much the property is in
comparison to the improvement.
Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding
articles, the landowner is entitled to damages
from the builder, planter or sower.
- What is the right of the landowner? He is
always entitled to damages may it be 449 or
450, there is an additional right available to
him.
Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith
is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary
expenses of preservation of the land.
- Right of the builder in bad faith: only with
respect to the necessary expenses of the
preservation of the land he may be entitled
to reimbursement.
L.O- GOOD FAITH
B/P/S- BAD FAITH
There are 3 remedies or rights available to the
L.O.
• To appropriate what has been built,
planted, or sown in bad faith without any
obligation to pay any indemnity
therefor except for necessary
expenses for the preservation of the
land, plus damages; or
• To ask the removal or demolition of
what has been built, etc. at the builder’s
expense, plus damages; L.O. will not
spend for it but the builder. (not available
under Art. 448)
• To compel the builder or planter to pay
the price or the value of the land,
whether or not the value of the land is
considerably more than the value of
the improvements, and the sower, to
pay the proper rent, plus damages.
BOTH ARE IN BAD FAITH
The L.O. knew someone was building on his
property but didn’t do anything about it. The
builder is also building on a property that does not
belong to him and he knows.
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the
part of the person who built, planted or sowed on
Page 8 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE

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.
- In other words, you go back to Art. 448.
Since both are in bad faith, you treat them as
if they are in good faith.
- What happens when the value of the land is
considerably higher than the value of the
improvement? They will be under a forced
lease where the builder will have to pay rent.
If they cannot agree, the courts will decide.
Art. 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 Art. 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.

L.O. is in BAD FAITH

B/P/S IN GOOD FAITH

Art. 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith

and the builder, planter or sower proceeded in
good faith, the provisions of Art. 447 shall apply.

- You refer back to the rights provided for in

Art. 447. It is as if now that the landowner is
building on his property using the material of
another.
- The scenario is the landowner is in bad faith.
He knows that someone is building on his
property but did not do anything about it. The
builder is in good faith. He honestly believed
that the property was his.

• Follow rules on Art. 447- As if L.O.

(bad faith) builds upon land using the
materials of B/P/S
➢ The landowner must pay the
value of the materials PLUS
damages;
➢ The owner of the materials
may remove his materials in
any event. (even if it will cause
damage to the landowner)
LANDOWNER, BUILDER AND OWNER OF
MATERIALS ARE DIFFERENT PERSONS
- There are 3 different people involved. The
one building on the property does not own
the materials. The one building on the
property is not the owner of the property.
For Example: X is the landowner. Y builds on the
property of X. Y, while building on the property of
X, is using the property of Z.
1st row of the chart
• LO in GF and B/P/S in GF – Follow Art.
448
• LO, B/P/S, and OM in GF- Follow Art.
447
• If BPS is insolvent, LO will be
subsidiarily liable. WHEN? When the
landowner will appropriate the
improvement. The LO has two options
either to appropriate or sell the land to
the builder. If he sells the land, his
subsidiary liability will not come in.
Subsidiary liability is only there when
the LO chooses to appropriate. If he
sells the land to the builder and gets
nothing from it, it would be unfair for the
LO to be subsidiarily liable.
2nd row of the chart

Page 9 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE
• The LO has no knowledge that there is
someone building on his property. B/P/S
has no idea that he is building on a
property that is not his. OM is in Bad Faith
and is not entitled to damages.
3rd row of the chart
• You look at the LO first because his right
is superior since he is the owner of the
land.
• LO in GF and B/P/S in BF- Art. 449
• B/P/S and OM in BF- since both are in
bad faith, they will be considered to be in
good faith.
4th row of the chart
• B/P/S and OM in GF- Follow Art. 447
5th row of the chart
• Even if LO and B/P/S are in bad faith, LO
has the right to appropriate the
improvement or sell the land to the
builder if the value of the land is not
considerably higher than the value of the
improvement.
• B/P/S in bad faith – OM in GF- B/P/S has
to pay the OM unless OM would remove
it. Since OM is in good faith, he now has
the right to remove them. If OM will not
remove it, B/P/S would have to pay for
the materials plus damages.
• Subsidiary Liability of the landowner
will only come in if the OM is in good
faith and the LO chooses to
appropriate the improvement.
6th row of the chart
• Why is the option given to the B/P/S?
Since B/P/S is in good faith and LO is in
bad faith
7th row of the chart
• go back to the 1st row
• treat them all as if they are all in good
faith
Part 3
Art. 457 - Alluvion
Alluvion and Accretion – not the same.
Alluvion is the result of the process of accretion.
Alluvion Accretion
is the deposit of soil is the process. It
or the soil itself denotes the acts/
process in which the
riparian land gradually
receives and
imperceptively receives
addition made by the
water to which the land
is contiguous.
REQUISITES OF ACCRETION
• The deposit or accumulation of soil or
sediment must be gradual and
imperceptible.
o Atty MBL: Since it is a process,
there must have been “time” that
pass. You do not see the soil
deposits right away, you can see
it after the passage of time.
• The accretion results from the effects or
action of the current of the waters of the
river.
o Atty MBL: if the riparian owner
(the owner of the land adjacent
to the river) makes any work or
constructs any work that
somehow accumulates the soil
deposit – there is NO alluvion, no
natural process of accretion.
These soil deposits cannot
belong to the riparian owner
because the requirement is for it
to be fom a natural process, not
an artificial process.
• The land where accretion takes place
must be adjacent to the bank of a river.
o Atty MBL: it cannot be from the
bay or the sea. It is clear that the
soil to be owned by the riparian
owner is only the result of an
accretion that forms part by a
river or adjacent to a bank or
river. The law is clear that
alluvion that is to be owned by
the riparian owner is the result of
the accretion that forms part by
Page 10 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE

the river or adjacent to a bank or Ownership of a piece of land is one thing, and
river. registration under the Torrens system of that
ownership is quite another. Ownership over the
An alluvion, although by mandate of Art 457 is accretion received by the land adjoining a river is
automatically owned by the riparian owner from governed by the Civil Code. Imprescriptibility of
the moment the soil deposit can be seen, it does registered land is provided in the registration law
not automatically become registered land, just (P.D 1529).
because the lot which receives such accretion is
covered by a Torrens title, thereby making the Art 458
alluvial property imprescriptible.
Atty MBL: The principle is not the same.
Atty MBL: ownership of the If you are an owner of an estate with
alluvion/accretion is one thing while the adjoining ponds and lagoons, even if it
registration is another. It is important to would be left fry, you do not acquire it – it
emphasize that these two are different is not accretion. Nor do you lose
because an alluvion is unregistered. ownership if it is inundated by
Thus, it can be acquired by third persons extraordinary floods – that property will
through acquisitive prescription if you do remain yours.
not register it. It is important that once
you notice that there is already alluvion, Art 459
you must already start the process of Atty MBL: Difference between Alluvion
registering it – file a petition for original and Avulsion
registration. Just because you are the
riparian owner does not mean you are ALLUVION AVULSION
already protected – precisely why you The deposit of soil is The deposit of soil is
have land registration to protect your gradual. sudden or abrupt.
rights. If someone will possess the Deposit of soil – The owner of the
property, that is the consequence of belongs to the riparian property form which a
natural accretion, that third person may owner (owner of part was detached
acquire it through acquisitive property where the retains the ownership
same was deposited) thereof. (original owner
prescription.
is still the owner of the
detached property.)
The soil cannot be The detached portion
Case: Office of the City Mayor vs. Ebio identified. – it is can be identified – your
gradual/imperceptible property suddenly,
It is therefore explicit from the foregoing – you just know if you abruptly transferred.
provisions that alluvial deposits along the banks ask a geodetic engr. to That is precisely why
of a creek do not form part of the public domain measure your since it is identifiable,
as the alluvial property automatically belongs to property. Through the the original owner is still
the owner of the estate to which it may have been years because of the the owner of the
added. The only restriction provided for by law current of the water, detached portion.
is that the owner of the adjoining property there is an addition to
must register the same under the Torrens your property.
system; otherwise, the alluvial property may
be subject to acquisition through prescription Art. 461
by third persons.
Atty MBL: Ex. you have a riverbed, there
Atty MBL: ownership of the alluvion is is a change in the course. When it
one thing while the registration is another changes, it affected the landowners. The
story. law says that those affected will now
Case: Grande vs. CA share in the riverbed that was now left dry
due to the change in the course of the

Page 11 of 12
MBL TRANSCRIPT 2020 | ANDRIN-CABASAG-ODCHIGUE

river in proportion to the area that was Navigable river is one which forms in its ordinary
lost. condition by itself or by uniting with other waters
a continuous highway over which commerce is or
Ex. 50 sq m each have now been may be carried on.
affected and the new river has
passed through their land. The
proportion is 50:50 of the one
that run dry that they should
share.

Art 461 says that the owner will be the

ones that will be affected by the new
course of the river. But those owners of
the lands adjacent to the dried up bed will
have an option to buy it from the new
owners. But the value must not exceed
the value of the area occupied by the new
bed.

Art 460

Atty MBL: Here, the rule is, the owner of

the trees will belong to the owner of the
land where the trees will be cast, where
they will end up. If the owners of those
trees do not claim them, it’s just claiming
– the claiming must be done within 6
months.
If they claim them, they would pay for the
expenses related.

Art. 464-465

Who has ownership over these island?

If islands are …non-negotiable and
formed on non-floatable rivers
navigable or
floatable rivers
The State (Art. 464) It belongs to the
nearest riparian owner
or owner of the margin
or bank nearest to it as
he is considered in the
best position to
cultivate and develop
the island.
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. ***

Page 12 of 12