RIGHT OF ACCESSION

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section 1. – Right of Accession with Respect to

What is Produced by Property

Accession defined (440)

 The right of accession is the right of the owner of a thing, real or
personal, to become the owner of everything which is produced
thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally
or artificially
 N/A: property of public domain
 NOT a mode of acquiring ownership
 Only an incidence thereof
 An exercise of the right of ownership, extension of right over a
principal to an accessory

Accession Accessory
- fruits of, additions to, and - joined to, or included with, the
improvements upon a thing principal thing for the latter’s
(principal) embellishment, better use, or
completion

- includes: - includes:
1. accession discrete  key of a house
> natural fruits  frame of a picture
> industrial fruits  bracelet of a watch
> civil fruits  machinery in a factory
2. accession continua  bow of a violin
> 3 forms of building, planting,
and sowing (445-456)
> Accession natural
o alluvion (457)
o avulsion (459)
o change of course of rivers - accessory and principal must go
(461-462) together
o formation of islands (464-465)

- not necessary to the principal

thing

Kinds of accession
1. accession discreta
 the extension of a person’s right of ownership to the products of
a thing belonging to him
 owner of a thing is owner of its fruits
  natural, industrial, civil (441)

2. accession continua (discussed further in Section 2)

 the extension of the right of a person’s ownership to that which
is incorporated or attached to a thing belonging to him
o instances:
 real property
a. accession industrial – building, planting,
sowing
b. accession natural – alluvion, avulsion, change
of river course, and formation of islands
 personal property
a. conjunction or adjunction – take place by
engraftment, attachment, weaving, painting,
writing
b. commixtion or confusion
c. specification

Right of owner to the fruits

GR: all fruits belong to the owner of a thing (accession follows the principal)
XPN:
 possession in good faith – PGF is entitled to fruits BEFORE
possession is legally interrupted (546)
 usufruct – usufructuary is entitled (566)
 lease of rural lands – lessee is entitled to fruits of land; owner entitled
to civil fruits in the form of rent
 pledge – pledgee is entitled to fruits, income, dividends, interests
 antichresis – creditor acquires right to receive fruits of an immovable
of his debtor

Kinds of fruits defined (Art. 442) – accession discreta

(1) natural fruits (2 types):
a. The spontaneous products of the soil
 NOT through cultivation or labor
 NOT trees
b. The young and other products of animals
 Chicks, wool, egg, milk
 Owner of female cow is presumed to be owner of her
offspring

(2) Industrial fruits

 Corresponds to industry of man
 Grass cultivated as food for horses
 Cultivated mushrooms
 Standing trees are generally not fruits, but if cultivated to
carry on an industry, the fruits

(3) Civil fruits

 a. Rent of buildings
b. Prices of leases (rents) of lands and other property, including
movables
o Right of accession accompanies right of recovery – lessee
who becomes a usurper or possessor in bad faith may be
liable not only for rent but also for the natural fruits
c. Amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income

Obligation of recipient of fruits to reimburse necessary expenses of

third person

APPLICATION:
 Owner recovers possession of fruits from a possessor and
o possessor has not yet received the fruits
o possessor has received the fruits but is ordered to return them
to owner

PRINCIPLE: unjust enrichment

 no one should be unjustly enriched at the expense of another

NOTE: Defense of bad faith cannot be used by the owner.

REIMBURSIBLE EXPENSES: only those incurred for production,

gathering, preservation; not improvements

When natural fruits and industrial fruits deemed to exist.

GR: fruits deemed to exist when manifest or visible
XPN: existing in the womb/unborn (animals)

1. plants which produce only one crop and then perish (e.g. rice, corn,
sugar)
 when seedlings appear from the ground
2. plants and trees which live for years and give periodic fruits (e.g.,
mangoes, coconuts, oranges)
 when fruits actually appear on the plants and trees
3. animals
 at the beginning of the maximum ordinary period of gestation
(when there can be no doubt that they are already in the
womb of the mother), this being the surest criterion of their
existence in the mother’s womb; and
4. fowls
 beginning of incubation

Section 2. – Right of Accession with Respect to

Immovable Property
Accession continua (immovables)

Rules:
1. accession follows the principal
- the owner of the principal acquires the ownership of the accession
- immovables: land is the principal
2. incorporation or union must be intimate
- must be such that removal or separation cannot be done without
substantial injury to either or both
3. effect of good faith or bad faith
a. good faith
- exonerates a person from punitive liability
b. bad faith
- may give rise to dire consequences
- GR: person acting in bad faith  NO RIGHTS +
damages
NOTE: good faith OR bad faith  entitled to reimbursement for (1)
necessary expenses of preservation [452]; and (2) expenses for
cultivation, gathering, and preservation [443].
4. Effect if both parties in bad faith
- bad faith of one sets off the bad faith of the other
- as if both acted in good faith (453)
5. Principle against unjust enrichment
- no one should unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another
 Ownership rights to acquire what is built, planted, and sown
with the materials of another is subject to the obligation to
pay their value (447)
 if materials belong to a third person, owner shall answer
subsidiarily for their value
o XPN: unless he exercises his right of removal (455)
 BPS, although in bad faith, is entitled to reimbursement for
the necessary expenses of preservation of the land (452)

General rule on accession industrial (445, 446)

GR1: 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
(445). All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by the owner
and at his own expense (446)
NOTE: owner must be known

 “building”
o all architectural work with roof built for the purpose of being
used as a man’s dwelling, or for offices, clubs, theaters, etc.
1
XPN: The ownership of improvements, whether for utility or adornment, made on the separate property
of the spouses at the expense of the partnership or through the acts or efforts of either or both spouses
shall pertain to the conjugal partnership, or to the original owner-spouse, subject to the following rules. x x
x. (Art. 120, Family Code)
  “repairs”
o implies the putting of something back into the condition in which
it was originally and not an improvement in the condition thereof
by adding something new thereto.

NOTE: if builder & owner of land and material, same person, all accessions
shall belong to the owner.

Presumption as to improvements (446)

2 disputable assumptions:
(1) The works, sowing, and planting were made by the owner
(2) They were made at the owner’s expense

Rights where land and materials belong to different owners

Landowner/Builder/Planter/Sower
Good faith Bad faith
LO-BPS: acquire materials but LO-BPS: acquire materials but
shall pay for their value pay for their value + damages
Good faith

OM: entitled to full payment for OM: entitled to full payment for
their value OR may remove their value + damages OR
Owner of materials

materials if can be done w/o remove materials even if done

injury to plantings, etc.
LO-BPS: acquire materials w/o
payment for their value + entitled
to damages due to defects or
Bad faith
with injury + damages
(as if both in good faith)
LO-BPS: acquire materials but

inferior quality of materials shall pay for their value

OM: loses materials w/o OM: entitled to full payment for

indemnity + liable for damages their value OR may remove
due to defects or inferior quality materials if can be done w/o
of materials injury to plantings, etc.

Builder, planter, or sower in good faith

 “good faith” under Art. 448

o the honest belief of the builder, sower, or 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
o implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which ought to put the builder, etc. upon inquiry
 honestly believed himself to have a claim of title
  he proceeded with the knowledge, tolerance, consent, or
permission of the owner
o APP: generally, building, etc. in the concept of ownership
 applies only where one builds, etc. on land in the belief
that he is the owner of the land (good faith)
o SC expanded coverage of good faith to:
 Cases wherein a builder had constructed improvements
with the consent of the owner
 Builders in good faith who relied on the consent of
another whom they have mistakenly believed to be the
owner of the land
 Children who built improvement on a land belonging to
their parents with their parents’ consent (Macasaet case)

Rights where LO and BPS are different persons

Option given to LO
- REASON: Owner, by settled rule, owns the fruits (accessions) of his
property (principal). Accessory follows the principal.

Landowner (LO) Builder/planter/sower (BPS)

Good faith
Option 1
To appropriate the improvement
upon payment of the required
indemnity
 Necessary, useful expenses
 Luxurious expenses (optional)
Good faith
Receive indemnity for necessary,
useful and luxurious expenses
(optional) with right of retention
over the land w/o obligation to pay
rent until full payment of indemnity

NOTE: Remove useful improvement

LO must exercise right of choice. provided it does not cause any
injury (part of right of retention)
LO must identify BPS first
If LO does not appropriate luxurious
If owner does not choose to improvements, BPS can remove
appropriate, he cannot compel the the same provided there is no injury
builder to pay the price of the land. to the principal thing (land or
He can only collect reasonable rent. building)

Right to retain premises until full

payment of indemnity:
Right of retention only applies when
LO chooses to appropriate
 N/A: if property of public
dominion
 N/A: if BPS acted in bad faith
Option 2
To oblige the BP to buy the land or To purchase land at fair market
the S to pay the proper rent value at time of payment when
UNLESS: valueland is considerably valueland is not considerably more
more valuebuilding or trees than valuebuilding or trees

Legal implication of planter v sower: To pay rent until the purchase has
Owner can’t compel sower to buy, been made (Technogas case). If
only rent. BP cannot pay purchase price of
the land, LO can require BP to
NOTE: remove whatever has been built,
Price must be fixed at the time of planted, or sown.
payment, not at the time of taking.
(Ballatan v. CA) If the value of the land is
considerably more than that of the
Remedy if BPS refuses or fails to building or trees, BP cannot be
pay. compelled to buy the land. In such
 LO leases the land to BPS case, BP will pay reasonable rent if
 Sell property at public auction LO does not choose option 1.
& apply proceeds first to the
value of land and then to the If BPS cannot pay the rent, LO can
improvements eject BPS from the land.
 Action for recovery of the
price of the land or to have Note: Rental period of sower is only
the improvements removed at until he gathers what he sowed. He
the builder’s expense doesn’t have the remedy of
removal. (Sarmiento)

Cases:
De Ynchausti v. Manila Electric Co. & Manila Railroad Co. v. Paredes

FACTS: Manila Railroad Co., a public service corporation, built its track on
a land w/o any opposition or protest from the owner who merely stood by.

HELD: Owner acted in bad faith and was deemed to have waived his right
to recover possession of his property and the construction thereon.

REMEDY: Recover damages for the value of property taken considering

that the corporation merely exercised its power of eminent domain as
authorized by law.

Calapan Lumber Co. v. Community Sawmill Co.

FACTS: Provincial board, w/o authority of law, granted a 20-year exclusive

use of an unfinished provincial road to a lumber company in exchange for
the company finishing the construction of said road.

HELD: The Board may elect between:

(a) paying the company which acted in good faith the total cost of
construction with interest; OR
 (b) upon securing the authorization of the proper authorities, designate
such road a toll road to raise the necessary funds to reimburse the
company.

Gongon v. Tianco

FACTS: A chapel was built on the land of another. Landowner sold the land
to a buyer who paid only for the value of the land but not for the chapel
which he knew was constructed by another.

ISSUE: Who should pay for the value of the building?

HELD: The buyer-owner should pay. Although generally the owner is

entitled to all improvements existing on his land, he is bound to pay for the
chapel. A purchaser who buys land with improvements belonging to
another, knowing such fact, places himself in the position of an owner of
land who has acted in bad faith.

Article 448 NOT APPLICABLE

o There is contractual relationship between LO and BPS
 Contract stipulations govern
 ObliCon rules apply

 Right to reimbursement and retention in the premises

ONLY APPLIES where both LO AND BPS acted in
GOOD FAITH

Contract of Lease (See: 1678, rights of lessee)

De Laureano v. Adil
FACTS: Lessee constructed a building on the leased land.
HELD: He cannot be considered to have acted in good faith
within the meaning of Art. 448, because he knows that his
occupancy is only during the life of the lease.

o Co-ownership
 Laws on co-ownership govern
 XPN: However, where the co-ownership is
terminated by partition and “it appears that the
house of the defendant (a former co-owner)
overlaps or occupies a portion of the land pertaining
to the plaintiff (another former co-owner) which the
defendant built in good faith, then Article 448 should
apply even when there was a co-ownership. Sps.
Del Ocampo v. Obesia

o Improvement constructed on one’s own land subsequently sold.

  there can be no question as to good or bad faith on the
part of the builder (owner is builder, duh)

o builder is a belligerent occupant

 the rules of the Civil Code concerning industrial accession
were not designed to regulate relations between private
persons and a sovereign belligerent, nor intended to
apply to constructions made exclusively for prosecuting a
war, when military necessity is temporarily paramount
 Republic v. Lara
The Japanese occupant is not regarded as a possessor in
bad faith of the lands taken from the defendants and
converted into an airfield and campsite; its use thereof
was merely temporary, demanded by war necessities and
exigencies. Republic succeeded to the ownership and
possession of the constructions made thereon by the
enemy occupant for war purposes, unless the treaty of
peace should otherwise provide; and it is under no
obligation to pay indemnity for such constructions and
improvements.

o Property of public domain

 e.g. roads on grounds of public interest, for the people
have the right to the use of them

When good faith ceases

 From the moment defects in the title are made known to the
possessor by extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery of the
property by the true owner

 Effects:
o LO can acquire improvements built PRIOR to the notice to BPS
(when good faith ceased), and indemnify BPS of current market
value at time of payment
o LO entitled to rent from the time BPS good faith ceased

Builder, planter, or sower in bad faith

Landowner (LO) Builder/planter/sower (BPS)

Good faith
Option 1:
To acquire whatever has been built,
planted or sown without paying
indemnity except necessary
expenses for preservation of land
and luxurious expenses (should LO
want to acquire luxurious
Bad faith
Loses whatever has been built,
planted, or sown w/o indemnity and
liable to pay damages
Entitled to reimbursement for
necessary expenses for
improvement) plus damages
Option 2:
To compel BP to buy land or S to
pay proper rent plus damages,
regardless of valuation
Option 3:
To ask the removal or demolition of
what has been built, etc. at the
builder’s expense + damages
 *Expenses incurred in production, distinguished
Products gathered and ordered
delivered to the LO
 B should be reimbursed for
the expenses incurred for
the production, gathering,
and preservation of the
fruits (443)
LO in bad faith, BPS in good faith (447)
- with knowledge and w/o opposition
Bad faith
Acquire whatever has been built,
planted or sown by paying
indemnity plus damages
preservation of land BUT no right to
retention (and also 443)
NOT entitled to reimbursement for
useful expenses* and CANNOT
remove useful improvements even
if removal will not cause injury
(MWSS case)
NOT entitled to luxurious expenses
except when LO wants to acquire
(value of which will be the one at
the time LO enters into possession)
Entitled to remove luxurious
improvements if it will not cause
injury and LO does not want to
acquire them. If it will cause injury
and LO doesn’t want to acquire, he
gets it for free (Dean Del)
S to pay proper rent plus damages,
regardless of valuation
Obliged to pay for land or proper
rent and pay damages
Obliged to remove or demolish
work done at his expense and pay
damages
Products standing/growing when
LO recovers them
 P in bad faith loses them
w/o right to indemnity (449,
XPN to 443)
Good faith
Ball is in the court of the BPS
BPS can remove whatever has
 been built, planted or sown
As if LO built on his property in bad regardless of whether or not it will
faith with materials owned by cause injury and will be entitled to
another damages

If LO acquires whatever has been

built, planted or sown, BPS must be
indemnified the value thereof plus
damages

If LO does not acquire, BPS cannot

insist on purchasing land

Both LO and BPS in bad faith

Bad faith Bad faith

As if both in good faith As if both in good faith

1. Felices v. Iriola

FACTS: In violation of the 5-year prohibition period under the Public

Land Law, F sold to I his homestead. F tried to recover the land two
(2) years after the sale but I refused unless he was paid the value of
the improvements made after recovery was sought.

ISSUE: Is I entitled to the value of the improvements?

HELD: No. Since F never lost title over the homestead there is no
need for him to repurchase the same from I or for I to execute a deed
of reconveyance in his favor. The case is actually for mutual
restitution. While both acted in bad faith because they know the sale
to be void and consequently, under Article 453, considered both
acted in good faith, I, however, cannot recover the value of his
improvements because they were made only after F had made some
acts to recover land. By so doing, I acted in bad faith and as penalty
therefor, he must forfeit his improvements without right to indemnity
under Article 449.

2. Floresca v. Evangelista

FACTS: Respondents E & S, are owners of a resident lot. They owed

F P100. With respondents’ consent, F occupied the residential lot and
built thereon a house of light materials w/o any agreement as to
payment for the use of said residential lot.

Again, respondents obtained loans from F, now amounting to P740. F

demolished his house of light materials and built one of strong
materials. He paid no rentals as before. Consequently, respondents,
for and in consideration of P1,000 (P740 + P260) in cash, sold their
 residential lot to F, with a right to repurchase within a period of 6
months.

Respondents paid in full the purchase price of P1,000 but F refused

to vacate unless he was first reimbursed the value of his house.

CA concluded that Art. 448 does not apply and that F was not entitled
to reimbursement for his house but that he could remove the same at
his expense.

ISSUE: Is Art. 448 applicable?

HELD: No.
(1) F is a builder in bad faith. Provision only applies when the
BPS is in good faith. In this case, F makes no pretense of
ownership whatsoever. He admits that he was a builder in
bad faith but asserts that respondents were also in bad faith,
thus, Art. 453 should apply. However, in this case, Art. 453 is
also not applicable. Respondents did not act in bad faith.
(2) F is not entitled to reimbursement. F is not a builder in
good faith, nor is he a vendee a retro who made useful
improvements during the lifetime of the pacto de retro.
(3) F’s rights are akin to those of usufructuary. (Art. 579). A
usufructuary may make on the property useful improvements
but with no right to be indemnified therefor. He may remove
such improvements should it be possible to do so without
damage to the property.

LO, B, and MO, different persons

Landowner Builder/Planter/Sowe Owner of the

(LO) r Materials (MO)
(BPS)
Good faith Good Faith Good faith
Option 1: To acquire To receive indemnityEntitled to
whatever has been from LO with right of
reimbursement for
built, planted or sown retention over land value of materials from
provided there is until full payment BPS who is primarily
payment of indemnity liable for materials; if
(which includes value BPS is insolvent, to
of what has been built, proceed against LO
planted or sown plus who is subsidiarily
value of materials liable with no right of
used) retention
Option 2: To oblige BP To buy land or to pay To receive indemnity
to buy land or S to pay proper rent from BPS only (LO is
rent unless value of not subsidiarily liable)
land is considerably with right of retention
more than that of until full payment; or
building or trees
To remove materials if
there will be no injury
on building or trees
and will have material
lien against BPS for
payment of materials
Good faith Good faith Bad faith
Same  Same  Whatever is the choice
of LO, the MO:
1. loses the materials
in favor of the BPS and
2. will have no right to
receive indemnity from
BPS nor LO
Good faith Bad faith Bad faith
Option 1: To acquire BPS loses what has (Since both BPS and
whatever has been been built, planted or MO are in bad faith,
built, planted or sown sown plus liable for treat them both as if
without paying damages but is entitled they are in good faith.)
indemnity except for to be indemnified for
necessary expenses necessary expenses
Whatever is the choice
for preservation of land and luxurious
of the LO, MO has
and luxurious expenses (should LO right to receive
expenses (should LO want to acquire
indemnity for value of
want to acquire luxurious materials from BPS
luxurious improvements) and
only (LO has no
improvements) plus has no right of removal
subsidiary liability for
damages even if removal will not
value of materials
cause damage because MO is
considered in good
faith only insofar as
BPS is concerned).
MO has no right to
remove materials even
if there will be no injury
or damage.
Option 2: To oblige BP To buy the land or pay Get indemnification for
to buy the land or S to proper rent and liable the materials from the
pay proper rent plus to pay damages to LO BPS
damages.
Option 3: To oblige BP To demolish or remove Liable to pay damages
to demolish or remove what has been built, due to defects or
what has been built, planted or sown and inferior quality of
planted or sown plus liable for damages materials
damages
Bad faith Good faith Good faith
To acquire what has To receive indemnity To receive indemnity of
been built, planted or from LO plus damages material principally
sown by paying from BPS and in case
indemnity plus liable to BPS is insolvent,
pay damages subsidiarily from LO
Bad faith Good faith Bad faith
Same  Same  No right to receive
indemnity for value of
materials from BPS nor
LO (who ends up
owning buildings or
trees)
NOTE: Good faith may co-exist with negligence (456).

Alluvion, defined.
 the accretion which the banks of rivers gradually receive from the
effects of the current of the waters and which belong to the owners of
lands adjoining the said banks (457)
o riparian owners – owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers
and lakes
o littoral owners – owners of lands bordering the shore of the sea
or lake or other tidal waters.
 the increment which lands abutting rivers gradually receive as a result
of the current of the waters, or the gradual and imperceptible addition
to the banks of rivers

Alluvion Accretion
applied to the deposit of soil or to denotes the act or process by
the soil itself which a riparian land gradually and
imperceptibly receives addition
made by the water to which the
land is contiguous
brought about by accretion the addition or increase received by
the land
NOTE: one claiming accretion has burden of proof

Requisites of alluvion or accretion the addition or increase received

by the land
(1)The deposit or accumulation of soil or sediment must be gradual and
imperceptible
(2)The accretion results from the effects or action of the current of the
waters of the river
 “current” – participation of the body of water in the ebb and flow
of waters due to high and low tide.
 Natural, not artificial/man-made
 (3)The land where accretion takes place must be adjacent to the bank of
a river
 NOT on the seashore
o In such case, the alluvion forms part of the public domain
 Includes accretions on the bank of a lake
o portions of land formed by accretion not forming part of
the bed of a lake
 island formed in a river, and grant obtained from State,
accretion added thereto in the course of time belongs to the
owner of that portion of the island to which it is added.

Elements of river and their ownership

(1)running waters
(2)the bed
 the ground covered by its waters during the highest (ordinary)
floods
(3)the banks
 those lateral strips or zones of its bed which are washed by the
stream only during such high floods as do not cause
inundations
NOTE: a river is either totally public or completely private. Since rivers are
of public dominion, it implies that all three elements be of the same nature.

Reasons for (owner’s rights to) alluvion

1. to compensate him for the danger of loss that he suffers because of
the location of his land
2. to compensate him for the encumbrances and various kinds of
easements to which his property is subject
3. to promote the interests of agriculture for the riparian owner is in the
best position to utilize the accretion

Accretions affecting lands registered under the Torrens system

1. diminution of area
 registration does not protect the riparian owner against
diminution of the area of his land through gradual changes in
the course of the adjoining stream
2. increase of area
 alluvion, although automatically owned by the riparian owner
from the moment the soil deposit can be seen, does not
automatically become registered land

Estates adjoining ponds or lagoons (458)

 N/A: creeks, streams, river, lake
  “pond” – a body of stagnant water without an outlet, larger than a
puddle and smaller than a lake, or a like body of water with a small
outlet
 “lagoon” – a small lake, ordinarily of fresh water, and not very deep,
fed by floods, the hollow bed of which is bounded by elevations of
land
 “lake” – a body of water formed in depressions of the earth, ordinarily
fresh water, coming from rivers, brooks or springs, and connected
with the sea by them

Avulsion, defined. (459) a.k.a. force of

river
 the accretion which takes place when the current of a river, creek or
torrent segregates from an estate on its bank a known portion and
transfers it to another estate, in which case, the owner of the estate to
which the segregated portion belonged, retains the ownership
thereof.
 the accretion taking place in the estate on the bank of a river caused
not by the slow and constant action of the waters but by the violent
and sudden action of a torrent
 the segregation or transfer itself of a known portion of land to another
by the force of the current

Avulsion Alluvion
- the deposit of soil is sudden - the deposit of soil is gradual

- the owner of the property from - the deposit of the soil belongs to
which a part was detached retains the owner of the property where the
the ownership thereof same is deposited

- the detached portion can be - the soil cannot be identified

identified

NOTE: 459 cannot be applied by analogy (e.g. transfer of estate due to

earthquake)

Requisites of avulsion
1. The segregation and transfer must be caused by the current of a
river, creek, or torrent
 “current”
o the continuous movement of a body of water, often
horizontal, in a certain direction
 “river”
o a natural surface stream of water of considerable volume
and permanent or seasonal flow, emptying into an ocean,
lake or other body of water
 “creek”
 o a small islet extending further into the land;
o a natural stream of water normally smaller than and often
tributary to a river
o a recess or arm extending from a river and participating in
the ebb and flow of the sea
 property of the public domain – not susceptible to
private acquisition and acquisitive prescription
 public water – cannot be registered under the
Torrens system
 “torrent”
o A violent stream of water as a flooded river or one
suddenly raised by a heavy rain and descending a steep
incline
o A raging flood or rushing stream of water
2. The segregation and transfer must be sudden or abrupt.
 NOTE: In the absence of proof that transfer was caused by
avulsion, the presumption is that it was caused by alluvion.
3. The portion of land transported must be known or identifiable.
 Even if detached portion is put on top of or adjoined to the
property of another, 459 will apply as long said portion is
identifiable.

NOTE: detached portion of land must be removed by owner within 2 years

Trees uprooted and carried away by the current (460)

 Only applies to uprooted trees
o If portion of land with trees standing is carried away, 459
governs
 Owner1 is liable to pay expenses incurred by Owner 2 in gathering
them, putting them in a safe place
 Must be claimed within 6 months from transfer
o If claimed w/in 6 months, action may be brought w/in the
prescriptive period of 8 years (for movables, Art. 1140)

River beds abandoned through natural change in the course of the

waters (461)
 Belong to owners of lands occupied by new course
o Remedy for losers – compensation for the loss of land in
proportion to the area lost
 Ownership acquired ipso facto
o rule applies by the mere fact of the occurrence of a natural
change in the course of the waters.
o “abandoned”
 Where there is abandonment by the government of its
right over the old bed, the owner of the invaded land
automatically acquires ownership of the same without the
necessity of any formal act on his part.
  In proportion to the area lost
o If new course occupied 2 parcels of land with 2 different
owners, only a part of the bed belongs to each shall be owned
by the owners of invaded land
 Preferential right of owners of old bed to acquire by paying value
thereof
o Indemnification shall not exceed value of area occupied by new
bed

Requisites for application of Art. 461

1. There must be a natural change in the course of the waters of the
river.
 N/A: Man-made or artificial accretions
 Dried-up river: belongs to public dominion (502[1])
2. The change must be abrupt or sudden.

When river beds deemed abandoned

Panlilio v. Mercado
FACTS: A river opened a new course through the land owned by
defendants. The government made efforts to bring the river to its
former course. The riparian owners argued that the old river bed
became absolutely abandoned upon the river changing its course.

ISSUE: Does a river simply need to change course to consider the

old bed abandoned or should there also be abandonment by the
government?

HELD: Abandonment by government is necessary. “While the

abandonment of the bed may be the consequence of the river
changing its course, it is not necessarily the action of the river itself
which is the only and final determining factor in such abandonment.

In the case of a public stream, the bed is of public ownership and the
public cannot be considered absolutely divested of this ownership
until there is some indication of an intention on the part of the
Government to acquiesce in the change in the course of the stream.
As soon as practicable after the river changed its course, steps were
taken under the direction of the Government functionaries to bring it
back into its old course and work was continued until interrupted by
the present action. This certainly does not indicate abandonment on
the part of the Government.

New bed through private estate becomes of public dominion (461)

 Bed of a public river or stream is of public ownership (502[1])
o Changes course: public dominion, even if new course is on
private property
River divides itself into branches (463)
 Refers to formation of island caused by a river dividing itself into
branches resulting in:
o the isolation (without being physically transferred to another
place) of a piece of land or part thereof; or
o the separation (or physical transfer) of a portion of land from an
estate by the current. (see Art. 459.)2
 owner does not lose ownership of isolated or separated portion of
land

Ownership of islands formed through alluvion (464, 465)

Rules:
 If formed:
(a) on the seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines
(b) on lakes
(c) on navigable or floatable rivers
island belongs to State as part of its patrimonial property

 If formed on non-navigable or non-floatable rivers:

(a) Belongs to nearest riparian owner (457)
- no specific act of possession over the accretion is required
- riparian owner’s failure to assert claim  property may be
possessed by other parties
 May set up defense of ignorance of the law (465)
 But he cannot support a claim of good faith under Art. 3
and 526); thus, he may acquire ownership thru
uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years (Jagualing
v. CA)
(b) If island is too long, it will be divided (465; Banatao v. Dabbay),
and the riparian owner will get only the portion which corresponds
to the length of that portion of his property along the margin of the
river.

Concept of navigable river

 one which forms in its ordinary condition by itself or by uniting with
other waters a continuous highway over which commerce is or may
be carried on
o test: navigable in fact
 if it is used or susceptible of being used, in its ordinary
condition, as a highway of commerce, that is, for trade
and travel in the usual and ordinary modes.
 the rule of civil law is that a navigable river is one that is
“floatable”

Section 3. – Right of Accession with Respect to

Movable Property

2
Distinguished from Art. 464 & 465.
Adjunction, defined a.k.a.
conjunction
 the union of two movable things belonging to different owners in such
a way that they form a single object, but each one of the component
things preserves its value (466)

Characteristics of adjunction
(1) There are two movables belonging to different owners;
(2) They are united in such a way that they form a single object; and
(3) They are so inseparable that their separation would impair their
nature or result in substantial injury to either component.
Note: if no substantial destruction can be had from separation,
original owners may demand separation (469)

Kinds of adjunction --- S P E W W

1. Inclusion or engraftment
 e.g. when diamond is set on a gold ring
2. Soldadura or soldering
 e.g. when lead is united or fused to an object made of lead
TYPES:
a. ferruminacion – both accessory and principal objects are of the
same metal
b. plumbatura – they are of different metals
3. Escritura or writing
 e.g. when a person writes on paper belonging to another
4. Pintura or painting
 e.g. when a person paints on canvas belonging to another
5. Tejido or weaving
 e.g. when threads belonging to different owners are used in
making textile

Ownership of new object formed by adjunction

union w/o bad faith (466 applies) union in bad faith (470 applies)
owner of principal acquires owner of accessory in bad faith
accessory, but is liable to indemnity lose accessory, and liable for
for former owner of accessory damages to owner of principal

value pegged at uncontroverted owner of principal in bad faith

state owner of accessory has right to
choose between:
a) owner of principal pay for
value of accessory +
damages to owner of
accessory
b) separation of both, even with
substantial destruction to
principal + damages to owner
of accessory
NOTE: if both in bad faith (w/ knowledge & w/o objection), as if both in
good faith

Tests to determine principal in adjunction

1. Rule of importance and purpose
 To which the other (accessory) has been united as an
ornament or for its use or perfection (467)
2. Of greater value, if they are of unequal values
 GR: things of greater value are more important than things of
smaller value
3. Of greater volume, if they are of an equal value (Art. 468.); and
4. That of greater merits taking into consideration all the pertinent legal
provisions (e.g. 475 on sentimental value)
 applicable as well as the comparative merits, utility and volume
of their respective things

XPN: paintings > board (468, par. 2)3

Separation is not possible  owner of accessory can only
choose payment for value of his property (board/canvas)

When separation of things united allowed (469)

1. separation w/o injury (469, par. 1)
2. accessory much more precious (e.g. diamond is more precious than
the gold ring) (469, par. 2)
3. owner of principal in bad faith (470)

Mixture, defined.
 takes place when two or more things belonging to different owners
are mixed or combined with the respective identities of the
component parts destroyed or lost.

Mixture Adjunction
respective identities of the each one of the component things
component parts destroyed or lost preserves its value

greater degree of inter-penetration

decomposition of the things which

have been mixed

Kinds of mixture
1. commixtion
 the mixture of solid things belonging to different owners
2. confusion
 the mixture of liquid things belonging to different owners

Rules:
3
In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas,
paper or parchment shall be deemed the accessory.
Cause of Mixture Effect
by will of owners 1. governed by stipulations
2. in the absence of (1), each owner acquires a right
or interest in the mixture in proportion to the value of
his material as in co-ownership (485)
by an owner in share of each owner shall also be proportional to the
good faith value of the part which belonged to him (413[1])

a. if things mixed are exactly of the same kind and

quality, divide the mixture equally or proportionately
between owners

b. if things mixed are of different kinds or quality, co-

ownership arises

Note: can be separated w/o injury  owners may

demand separation; damages borne by each owner
proportional to their interests in the mixture
by an owner in actor forfeits the thing belonging to him + damages
bad faith
w/ the knowledge by analogy, as though both acted in good faith (470)
and w/o the
objection of the
owner

Illustrative cases:
Santos v. Bernabe

FACTS: Plaintiff S deposited 778 cavans and 38 kilos of palay, while

defendant T deposited 1026 cavans and 9 kilos of the same grain, both in
B’s warehouse. Sacks had no marks, nor were they separated from one
another.

T filed a complaint against B to recover the deposited palay. At the same

time, T secured a writ of attachment, and the attachable property of B,
including 924 cavans and 31 1/2 kilos of palay found by the sheriff in his
warehouse, were attached, sold at public auction, and the proceeds thereof
delivered to T, who obtained judgment in said case.

Appeal was taken by T from the judgment of the lower court ordering him to
pay S the value of 778 cavans and 38 kilos of palay, at the rate of P3 per
cavan.

ISSUE: What is the extent of S’s right to said attached palay or the value
thereof?

HELD: There was mixture and Art. 472 shall apply. The share of each
owner shall be proportional to the value of the part which belonged to him.
The proportion only of the 924 cavans of palay which were attached and
sold, shall be taken, thereby giving S who deposited 778 cavans, 398.49
thereof, and T, who deposited 1,026 cavans, 525.51, or the value thereof at
the rate of P3.00 per cavan.

Siari Valley Estate Inc. v. Lucasan

FACTS: SVE Inc. brought an action to recover about 200 heads of cattle
that were driven or wandered from its pasture lands into the adjoining ranch
of L, defendant. L admitted such commixtion but said that SVE Inc. had
already retrieved the cattle. Which belonged to either owners could no
longer be determined. Lower court in favor of SVE, Inc.

ISSUE: Should L forfeit the cattle he originally had?

HELD: Yes. L is placed in the position of bad faith. In view of the proof that
his men on two occasions drove away more than 30 heads of cattle, it is
not erroneous to believe that the others must have also been driven away
on subsequent or prior occasions, applying, by analogy, the principle that
one who stole a part of the stolen money must have also taken the larger
sum lost by the offended party. The circumstances disclosed in the record
show that defendant acted in bad faith. Under Art. 473, if the commingling
of two things is made in bad faith the one responsible for it will lose his
share.

Specification, defined.
 Accession by specification takes place whenever the work of a
person is done on the material of another. Such material, in
consequence of the work itself, undergoes a transformation.
 the imparting of a new form to the material belonging to another
 the making of the material of another into a thing of a different kind
(474) e.g.r
o flour into bread
o grapes into wine
o clay into bricks

Rules:
Worker / User of material Owner of material
Good faith Good faith
GR:
Rights Entitled to indemnity of the material
worker becomes the owner of the for its value
new thing
XPN: material is more precious or
Liabilities of more value than the new thing
must indemnify the owner (also in
good faith) of the material for its > owner of material may choose:
value
Option 1
Receive payment for value of work to appropriate the new thing to
or labor himself but must pay for the value
of the work or labor
Option 2
Indemnify owner of material for its to demand indemnity for the
value material
Good faith Bad faith
470 shall apply by analogy:

owner of accessory in bad faith

lose accessory, and liable for
damages to owner of principal

owner of principal in bad faith

owner of accessory has right to
choose between:
a) owner of principal pay for
value of accessory +
damages to owner of
accessory
b) separation of both, even with
substantial destruction to
principal + damages to owner
of accessory
Bad faith Good faith
Option 1
Lose the new thing w/o to appropriate the work to himself
compensation without paying the maker

XPN: (OPTION N/A) if the value of

the work, for artistic or scientific
reasons, iss considerably more
than that of the material
Option 2
Pay value of materials used + to demand the value of the material
damages + damages
Bad faith No objection
As if in good faith As if in good faith

Illustrative case
Aguirre v. Pheng

Steel oil tank

AL  AG P900 AG failed to take possession; claimed by Bureau of

Public Highways
 AL  G P900

G  L P2,500 L made alterations

L  N P14,500

AG formally notified N that the tank was owned by the former.

AG filed an action against L and AL for delivery to him of the tank +

damages.

CA decided in favor of AG. The court ordered to:

a. return to AG the sum of P900 in case delivery is impossible
because this was the only amount he parted with upon his
purchase of the tank; OR
b. deliver the tank to AG, but AG has to pay L P11,299, which was
spent for the improvement of the tank

AG contends that under Article 440 he became the owner of the tank as
improved.

ISSUE: Is AG entitled to the sum of P14,500, the fair and reasonable value
of the tank at the time of its delivery to N?

HELD: No. This is a case of accession by specification. L, as purchaser

acting in good faith, spending P11,299.00 for the reconditioning of the tank
which is later adjudged to belong to petitioner AG. There is no showing that
without the works made by L the tank in its original condition when AG paid
P900.00 therefor, would command the price of P14,500 which Nassco [N]
was willing to pay. Although ordinarily, Aguirre [AG] as owner of the
tank, would be entitled to any accession thereto, the rule is different
where the works or improvements or the accession was made on the
property by one who acted in good faith. And, it is not contended that
the making of the improvements and incurring of expenses amounting to
P11,299.00 by L was done in bad faith. Furthermore, to uphold petitioner’s
contention that he is entitled to the sum of P14,500.00, the price of the tank
in its present condition, would be to allow him to enrich himself at the
expense of another. The lower court, therefore, acted correctly in ordering
the reimbursement to L of the expense it made on the tank.

Adjunction Mixture Specification

At least 2 things At least 2 things At least 1 thing whose
form is changed
Component parts the things mixed may Component parts
retain or preserve their or may not retain their retain or preserve their
nature respective original nature
nature
principle that co-ownership results principle that
accessory follows the accessory follows the
principal applies principal applies

Appraisal of sentimental value (475)

Applies to: Art. 468(1), Art. 469

Sentimental value attached to a thing (e.g., paintings, wedding rings,

precious stones, and other jewels) is not always easy to estimate because
it depends upon a person’s subjective evaluation. In the adjudication of
moral damages, the sentimental value of property, real or personal, may be
considered by the court. (Art. 2218.)