III.

ACCESSION

- ACCESSION ≠ ACCESSORY

KINDS OF ACCESSION:

1. Accession Discreta – by internal forces
(fruits)

2. Accession Continua - by external forces
(building, alluvium, etc.)

2.a) With respect to real property –

(i) Accession industrial – by the work of man.
Ex.: building, planting, sowing.

(ii) Accession natural - by the forces of nature.

Ex. Alluvium, avulsion.

GOV’T. OF P.I. VS. CABAÑGIS, 53 Phil. 112

2.b) With respect to personal property
(i) Conjunction or adjunction
(ii) Conmixtion
(iii) Specification.

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 1

 III. ACCESSION KINDS OF ACCESSION

Article 440, CC (1) ACCESSION DISCRETA – by internal forces (fruits)

CHAPTER 2
Right of Accession
Article 441, CC
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to Article 441. To the owner belongs:
everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or
attached thereto, either naturally or artificially. (353) (1) The natural fruits;

(2) The industrial fruits;

ACCESSION ≠ ACCESSORY
(3) The civil fruits. (354)
ACCESSION ACCESSORY
Not a mode of acquiring ownership Ornaments to add beauty and may Article 442, CC
be removed without causing injury Article 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil,
(Book 3, NCC enumerates the and the young and other products of animals.
modes of acquiring ownership, - Easily removed; ornaments
accession not included) Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through
Simply an extension of ownership Example: cultivation or labor.
over a thing to whatever is Ladies à those attached from
incorporated thereto naturally/ head to foot are accessories Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and
artificially (with/ without human à “Lahat ng pwedeng other property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other
labor) mapagsabitan/ matusukan” similar income. (355a)
- Presupposes ownership of the
principal thing
- Hence, extension of ownership To whom will the fruits belong? (Who are entitled to fruits?)
- Anything that is produced, General Rule
attached/ incorporated 1. If you are the owner of the property, you are entitled to
Can happen both in real and Reason: the fruits of the property
personal property Before you sleep, you can simply
2. Possessor in good faith, entitled to the fruits
remove them
3. Others who are entitled to the fruits:
Fruits of/ additions to Things joined to, or included with
a. usufructuary
improvements upon the principal the principal for the latter’s
Right to possess
embellishment, better use/
Right to use
completion
Right to enjoy
Remember (API)
b. antichresis creditor
Attached
Antichresis à kind of security where in what
Produced
is used in the security is fruits of the property
Incorporated
to answer for the interest in the loan of a thing
Note: Accession exists if the Note: While accessions are not
- If no interest agreed upon, the fruits will be
incorporation is such that necessary to the principal thing,
used to answer for the principal obligation
separation would seriously the accessory and the principal
c. lessee (lease)
damage either thing/ diminish MUST go together
If there is no express prohibition against
its value.
sublease, is entitled to the fruits
Attached & Incorporation
4. Owner of the adjacent property where the fruit
à Once put together, the
naturally fell
detachment/ removal will cause
injury = ACCESSION Fruits – in civil law, accession discreta
Incorporation Discreta à Accession discreta is an accession
à Put naturally Fruits regarding the fruits of the property
Accession
Attachment
à Put artificially 1. Natural Spontaneous product of the soil/ young of an animal
- artificial insemination? (there is human intervention)
- Yes, NATURAL.
Obligation of the obligor to deliver the fruits, accessions, accessory CC clearly defines that young of an animal is
Ex: bought a piece of land (barren) in installments considered as natural
à Contract to sell – no ownership yet; payment of full contract price; non-
2. Industrial Product of the soil with human intervention
payment, not tantamount to breach of contract, simply non-fulfillment of
- ex. Palay
condition
- will not just easily grow
- if you fulfilled the payment, there are already fruit-bearing trees.
- papaya – if you throw the seed, there will be new
Additional payment?
plant without human intervention
à No. Accession. Perfected contract, such is incidental to the ownership of
the land. 3. Civil Rrentals
- Contract of sale - what if under usufruct? Can own fruits?
- uso fruto à use of the fruits
- only enjoying the fruits of property if lease is under
contract of usufructuary

- what if under lease? Can enjoy fruits?
- depends.
- if no written contract, lessee has no right
- if non-residential, for as long as the CoL does not
prohibit the subleasing, you can enjoy civil fruits

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 2

 (2) ACCESSION CONTINUA – by external forces (building, alluvium, etc)
WITH RESPECT TO REAL PROPERTY
- By the work of man (building, planting, sowing)
(2.1) - Involves a person who through building, planting/ sowing, introduces an improvement on the property
Accession - Refers to the BPS (by the work of man)
Industrial - Art 445-456
- Caused by external forces
(BY THE - Reason: to compensate for the danger of loss because of the location of his land
WORK OF - Art 457: natural, not manmade (change in the course of the riverbeds)
MAN) - Exclusive work of nature

Note: Not just rivers, but also creeks (with regular and continuous current), streams and lakes
3 categories of builder/ planter/ sower (3 situations contemplated):
a) Landowner is the B/P/S, who is different from the owner of the material (2 personalities)
- Land owner B/P/S
- OM (owner of the material)
- BPS, using material owned by other persons; renovating your house & owner of property is doing some constructions; thought
fertilizer is yours

b) Landowner is different from the B/P/S who is the owner of the material (2 personalities)
- Land owner
- B/P/S OM
- Owner of material, not owner of the land; thought that the property is still part of his property; connected to LTD
- Case: encroachment of the property (inidoro lol); removal will also affect the part of the house

c) Landowner is different from B/P/S, different from owner of the material (3 personalities)
- Landowner
- B/P/S
- OM
- BPS, owner of material and owner of land are all different persons
- Metes and bounds must be properly identified
Guidelines in Accession Industrial
1. Is there really accession?
Identify under what situation it will fall Remember the definition of Accession, whatever is Attached, Produced/ Incorporated (A-P-I)

GR: Owner of the real property with good faith/ bad faith has the right to own whatever he planted,
2. Accessory follows the
built/ sowed in the property
principal
How will you apply?
Reason: Because of the principle that accessory follows the principal
What does this mean if the
Example:
accessory is easily removed?
(a) Between land vs. building/ planted/ sowed land = principal (land obviously) (owner = owns)
If what is BPS is more valuable = BPS
If land is more valuable = contract of lease
Situation:
Justice Vitug is the lessee of
Whatever is built; planted/ sown = accessory
the land and constructed a
building thereon. What is the
Reason: Because the land can exist by itself without any building/ plant building/ plant cannot exist
right of the lessor of the land
without being attached to the land
as to the building?
(b) Hanging plant (on air)?
* does not apply

GR: In BPS, whatever is planted on the soil should be attached to the land
*Tignan ang definition!!! Wag tamad

In CC, accessory is not just ornaments. It is ambiguous. It is ornaments per se. But if you talk about
it in accession, we refer to another property that is of
(1) less importance
(2) less value
(3) less volume, or
(4) less merits

3. Whoever is the owner of the

principal is the owner of the
accessory

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 3

 4. Application of the principle - Whatever has been acquired, it is the obligation of the owner of the real property to pay the proper
of unjust enrichment indemnity
Owner of the land, cannot just acquire from BPS without giving payment proper indemnification
Owner of the land acquires - It is the right of the owner of the land to:
BPS, apply rule on unjust - Acquire whatever is planted
enrichment - Acquire whatever is built

Ex: Juan B,P,S in good faith. He planted/ constructed his house on a RP he thought was his
Good Faith (1) B,P,S believes that RP belongs to him
(2) Believes that title over the property does not have any defect/ flaw
*XPN to the principle
*depending on the owner of the property, B,P,S has the right to acquire the land
*PROVIDED, that the value of the land is not higher than the value of improvement of what has
been built, planted/ sowed

Reason:
(a) If owner does not like the property he can sell to b,p,s provided that the value of the RP is not
higher than the improvements
(b) If the value of the land is higher than the improvements, the agreement would be a contract of
lease

- Landowner; b,p,s; owner of materials whoever it is always liable for damages

- knows the property does not belong to him, still continues
- whoever is in bad faith will be liable for damages
- owner of land in BP: pay materials + damages
5. Bad Faith - owner of material in BF: pay damages + lose rights over the material
Identify in UP 3, who is in bad (a) Owner of RP in bad faith à he will acquire whatever is built/ sown applying principle that
faith? accessory follows the principal BUT he has to pay the proper indemnity for the value of what has
been built, planted/ sown but in addition to that being in Bad Faith, he is liable for damages
(b) B,P,S (bad faith) à liable for damages

In relation to necessary expenses - For the preservation of the property

- Since who is benefited is the owner
- Only 1 XPN à antichresis (antichretic creditor will shoulder the expenses)

Mam: inconsistent with CC; Art 1235

Takes a position of a tax (indirect)
Charged to the fruits of the property

Good faith: right of retention

Legal pledge for your security of your property

- The B,P,S (whether in good faith/ bad faith), has the right to demand for
reimbursement of whatever necessary expenses he incurred from the owner of the real
property
- B,P,S is given the right of retention in relation to accession industrial

Right of security/ right of retention - Given to the B,P,S for purposes of serving as a guarantee that he can retain the
property as long as the owner of that property (real) has not given the amount that he
(b,p,s) has incurred for the necessary and useful expense

Reason: So that B,P,S can get an assurance that the owner will reimburse him for
whatever necessary expenses he has incurred.

In relation to useful expenses The higher your amenities, the higher the expense
Who will bear?

Good faith à can demand reimbursement from owner of property

(entitled for the useful + necessary)

Bad faith à not demandable

(No recovery of useful expenses [only necessary])

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 4

(2.2)
Accession - by nature
Natural Involves:
• Alluvium – A
(BY THE • Avulsion – A
FORCES OF
• Uprooted trees – U
NATURE)
• Abandoned river beds - A
Because without human intervention something is added/ attached to the property.

How come they are called Example:

accession natural? Beach – seashore
- Watch the movement of water, the sediments upon the movement of H2O, it will either
be washed away/ it will stick to the sand.
How did the alluvium/ avulsion Those sediments that accumulated on the seashore due to the force of the water
take place?

Who now owns the sediment? Owner of the property where the sediments accumulated.
Under the provisions of property, specifically alluvium:

Alluvium
à Small particles of soil are being washed away by the movement of H2O without the
owner of the real property knowing it
à Real property must be located near the river
à There is an increase in the area of owner’s property, that increase is due to alluvium
– not identifiable with that of real property

In relation to Land Registration Act

- Even if the civil code says that the owner of the RP, where all those particles
are gradually deposited and attached can make owners ship through it, LR Act
says that a resurvey must be done to include it in the technical description.
* Intention of the law
à Not only 1 grain of sediment, those accumulated sediments

*It is different if what is attached to the RP is an identifiable portion of a RP that is detached from a neighboring property

*It will only apply if you were near a river/ body of water
à Applies in the province, if you want to increase your land, buy a land near a body of water (this is what the law says)

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 5

 PROVISION
Not identifiable

- Refers to small particles of soil accumulated into a greater mass

Article 459. Whenever the current of a river,
creek or torrent segregates from an estate on - Not painful on the part of the original owner who lost a part of land
ALLUVIUM its bank a known portion of land and transfers
Gradual deposits
it to another estate, the owner of the land to
which the segregated portion belonged Automatically owned from the moment the soil deposit can be seen
retains the ownership of it, provided that he Soil deposited
Accretion = process whereby the soil is deposited
removes the same within two years. (368a)

With force
- Refers to an identifiable portion of a real property that was detached from?
Neighboring property by the force of H2O, is now moved to your real property
- Delayed accession

Reason: the owner of the real property where that identifiable portion has
been separated has the right to claim it within 2 years. Once 2 years has
lapsed, the owner of the neighboring property where the identifiable portion is
now attached, can fully claim ownership, it can now be a notice to the world
subject to resurvey to include it in the technical description in your title.

Identifiable portion that because of the movement of the water, it was

detached from the property and attached to your real property
AVULSION à delayed accession: 2 years (after to claim the property)
- within 2 years, the owner of the land where the portion was detached can
claim ownership
à connect with LTD
à how can you identify that the big portion belongs to your property?

GR: It is abrupt
XPN: Proven othersie

ALLUVIUM AVULSION
deposit of soil is gradual sudden/ abrupt process
unidentifiable identifiable
belongs to owner of property to belongs to owner from whose
which it is attached property it was detached
“malumanay” = gradual “maragsa” = with force

Article 460. Trees uprooted and carried away

- Owner of RP where the uprooted tree can now be found cannot claim
by the current of the waters belong to the
ownership
owner of the land upon which they may be
- Original owner of the uprooted tree is given 6 months from the time it is
cast, if the owners do not claim them within
six months. If such owners claim them, they uprooted
- In the province, they convert it into furniture
UPROOTED TREES shall pay the expenses incurred in gathering
- Delayed accession because of 6 month period given to owner to redeem the
them or putting them in a safe place. (369a)
tree

Owner has 6 months to recover

Owner retains ownership within 6 months; if failed to recover, belongs now to
owner of the land
- But how can you identify your tree?

Article 461. River beds which are abandoned - Applies in the province
through the natural change in the course of - Not applicable in Manila (canal is not a river bed)
the waters ipso facto belong to the owners - Natural change in course “biglang liko” due to it, the abandoned river bed is
whose lands are occupied by the new course not the subtitle of the area affected by the natural change in course
in proportion to the area lost. However, the “EXCHANGE DEAL”
RIVER BEDS
owners of the lands adjoining the old bed
ABANDONED
shall have the right to acquire the same by Reason: For being fair, even if it is very far, abandoned part will be an
THROUGH
paying the value thereof, which value shall exchange of the area affected. PRINCIPLE OF UNJUST ENRICHMENT!
NATURAL
not exceed the value of the area occupied by
CHANGE IN
the new bed. (370a) Abandoned riverbeds belong to the owners whose lands are occupied by the
COURSE OF THE
new course, IN PROPORTION to the area lost
WATER
No accession yet
à Merely compensated
à No additional part to property

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 6

 Article 464. Islands which may be formed on Q: Juan has property near a body of water, 2 years after an island was
the seas within the jurisdiction of the formed near property of Juan.
Philippines, on lakes, and on navigable or Can Juan claim ownership over the island?
floatable rivers belong to the State. (371a)
A: It depends if the water is:
Article 465. Islands which through - Navigable à absolutely NO! Remember the “regalia doctrine”?!?!?
successive accumulation of alluvial deposits Right of way of boats and ferries
are formed in non-navigable and non- - Non-navigable à depends again if:
floatable rivers, belong to the owners of the a) Nearer to Juan’s property, he is the SOLE OWNER
margins or banks nearest to each of them, or b) If equidistant/ the island is located at the center – by operation of
to the owners of both margins if the island is law, CO-OWNERSHIP will apply
in the middle of the river, in which case it shall
be divided longitudinally in halves. If a single 1. Formed by the sea
island thus formed be more distant from one a) Within territorial waters – STATE
margin than from the other, the owner of the b) Outside territorial waters – FIRST OCCUPANT
nearer margin shall be the sole owner thereof.
FORMATION OF 2. Formed in lakes/ navigable/ floatable rivers - STATE
(373a)
ISLANDS
3. Formed in non-navigable/ non-floatable rivers
a) Equidistant from both banks (measured from the islands’ margins) –
to the riparian owners by half (co-ownership)
b) Nearer one margin/ bank – to the nearer riparian owner

Riparian owner – owner of land located on the bank of a river/ stream (or
occasionally another body of water, such as lake)

Littoral – relating to the coast/ shore of an ocean, sea/ lake

If island is asked and the body of water is not clear, answer: IT DEPENDS
If non-navigable: owner = nearest; in the middle of river = owners of both
margins
If navigable: state

Mam: refers to all bodies of water

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 7

 Case Doctrine
WITH RESPECT TO REAL PROPERTY
ACCESSION INDUSTRIAL
(1) Ballatan “The right to choose between appropriating the improvement or selling the land on which the improvement of the builder, planter or
vs. CA sower stands, is given to the owner of the land.”

“In the event that the owner elects to sell to the builder, planter or sower the land which the improvement stands, the price must be
fixed at the prevailing market value at the time of payment This case is not for expropriation. This is a case of an owner who has
been paying real estate taxes on his land but has been deprived of the use of a portion of this land for years. It is but fair and just to
fix compensation at the time of payment.”
(2) Sulo Sa “This article [Article 448] is manifestly intended to apply only to a case where one builds, plants, or sows on land in which he
Nayon Inc. believes himself to have a claim of title, and not to lands where the only interest of the builder, planter or sower is that of a
holder, such as a tenant.
vs. Nayong
Pilipino In the case at bar, petitioners have no adverse claim or title to the land. In fact, as lessees, they recognize that the respondent is the
Foundation owner of the land. What petitioners insist is that because of the improvements, which are of substantial value, that they have
introduced on the leased premises with the permission of respondent, they should be considered builders in good faith who have the
right to retain possession of the property until reimbursement by respondent.

We affirm the ruling of the CA that introduction of valuable improvements on the leased premises does not give the petitioners
the right of retention and reimbursement which rightfully belongs to a builder in good faith. Otherwise, such a situation would
allow the lessee to easily "improve" the lessor out of its property. We reiterate the doctrine that a lessee is neither a builder in good
faith nor in bad faith that would call for the application of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code.

Under Article 1678, the lessor has the option of paying one-half of the value of the improvements which the lessee made in
good faith, which are suitable for the use for which the lease is intended, and which have not altered the form and
substance of the land. On the other hand, the lessee may remove the improvements should the lessor refuse to
reimburse.”
(3) Arangote “Petitioner cannot be entitled to the rights under Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, because the rights mentioned therein are
vs. Sps. applicable only to builders in good faith and not to possessors in good faith.
Maglunob
Moreover, the petitioner cannot be considered a builder in good faith of the house on the subject property. In the context that such
term is used in particular reference to Article 448 of the Civil Code, a builder in good faith is one who, not being the owner of the
land, builds on that land, believing himself to be its owner and unaware of any defect in his title or mode of acquisition.

...the builder in good faith can compel the landowner to make a choice between appropriating the building by paying the proper
indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land. The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule that accords with the
principle of accession, i.e., that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around. Even as the option lies with the
landowner, the grant to him, nevertheless, is preclusive. He must choose one. He cannot, for instance, compel the owner of the
building to instead remove it from the land. In order, however, that the builder can invoke that accruing benefit and enjoy his
corresponding right to demand that a choice be made by the landowner, he should be able to prove good faith on his part.”
WITH RESPECT TO REAL PROPERTY
ACCESSION NATURAL
(4) “As the lots in question (near Manila Bay) disappeared by natural erosion due to the ebb and flow of the tide, and as they remained
Government in that condition until reclaimed from the sea by the filling in done by the Government, they belong to the public domain for public
use.”
of P.I. vs.
Cabangis
(5) Siain “The DENR Secretary found that the disputed area is a “natural foreshore,” hence, it concluded that SIAIN, being a littoral owner
Enterprises (owner of land bordering the sea or lake or other tidal waters), has preferential right to lease it as provided in paragraph 32 of Lands
Administrative Order No. 7-1 dated April 30, 1936 which reads:
Inc v. F.F.
Cruz and 32. Preference of Riparian Owner. – The owner of the property adjoining foreshore lands or lands covered with water bordering upon
Co. shores or banks of navigable lakes or rivers, shall be given preference to apply for such lands adjoining his property as may not be
needed for the public service, subject to the laws and regulations governing lands of this nature, provided that he applies therefore
within sixty (60) days from the date he receives a communication from the Director of Lands advising him of his preferential right

That rule in paragraph 32 is in consonance with article 4 of the Spanish Law of Waters of 1866 which provides that, while lands
added to the shores by accretions and alluvial deposits caused by the action of the sea form part of the public domain, such lands,
when they are no longer washed by the waters of the sea are not necessary for purposes of public utility, or for the establishment of
special industries, or for the coast guard service,” shall be declared by the Government “to be the property of the owners of the
estates adjacent thereto and as increment thereof.”
In other words, article 4 recognizes the preferential right of the littoral (riparian according to paragraph 32) to the foreshore land
formed by accretions or alluvial deposits due to the action of the sea.

That the foreshore area had been reclaimed does not remove it from its classification of foreshore area subject to the preferential
right to lease of the littoral owner.

It bears noting that it was not the reclamation that brought the disputed foreshore area into existence. Such foreshore area existed
even before F.F. Cruz undertook its reclamation. It was “formed by accretions or alluvial deposits due to the action of the sea.”
Following Santulan, the littoral owner has preferential right to lease the same.”
PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 8

 (2) ACCESSION CONTINUA – by external forces (building, alluvium, etc)
WITH RESPECT TO PERSONAL PROPERTY
There is Accession if it will cause injury to property, if no injury it is only accessory

Example:
Pair of glasses – it is composed of several properties merged together
Frame, glass/ lens, nose pad, rubber

If one is removed from the other, what will happen?

à In accession, personal properties are put together, once there is an attempt to remove another, it will cause injury/ destruction to
the thing. In the example, if the glass/ lens are removed from the frame, it will cause injury to the frame/ glasses then there is
accession.

Kinds of Accession in Personal Property:

1. Conjunction/ Adjunction
2. Conmixtion
3. Specification

ACCESSION TO MOVABLE PROPERTY

SHOES:
1. Sole
2. Leather
3. Shoelace

SOLE vs. LEATHER

1. Greater importance à take into consideration the purpose of the property
- Adjunction – identity is retained

TSHIRT:
1. Cotton
2. Human Labor

COTTON v. HUMAN LABOR

- SPECIFICATION
- Principal: Human labor

Specification
1. Human labor
2. Materials of another

COFFEE
1. Coffee
2. Water
3. Sugar
4. Creamer
- Identity is not retained
- Creamer of classmate = co-ownership
CONJUNCTION/ - The union of materials belonging to different owners making up a new thing
ADJUNCTION - Separation being impossible without injury

Elements of Adjunction/ Conjunction:

1. Two personal properties put together
2. Removal of which will cause injury/ destruction
3. Retains the identity of the separate personal properties

In the example given, the identity of the frame remains separate and distinct from the identity of the lens

If the owner of the frame is different from the owner of the lens, who owns the eyeglasses?
à To answer this question, you have to be very intelligent…
à Determine always what is the principal and what is the accessory, remember our principleà ACCESSORY FOLLOWS THE
PRINCIPAL
à If you cannot determine which is the principal and which is the accessory to apply:

4 Rules (apply chronologically)

1. Rule of greater importance
2. Rule of greater value
3. Rule of greater volume
4. Rule of greater merit/ sentimental value

REMEMBER: NO INJURY = NO ACCESSION

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 9

 RULE OF GREATER IMPORTANCE
- Importance refers to what is necessary, without which it cannot be performed.
- Importance should be connected to PURPOSE of the property.
- General Rule: The owner of the more important personal property is the owner of the whole thing
- XPN:
1. Both in good faith à in the example, if the value of the frame is higher than the lens, the owner of the frame has the right to
demand separation (if slight injury, no problem)
2. Owner of Principal in bad faith à always liable for damages; owner of accessory in good faith can demand separation even if it
will cause destruction, not just simple injury
3. Owner of Accessory in bad faith à liable for damages; losses property and will go to owner of principal as adjunction
4. Good faith/ Bad faith not mentioned à qualify

Other examples in adjunction (importance);

1. Jewelry
2. Watch
3. Button in polos
4. Zipper
5. Car engine and car key

RULE OF GREATER VALUE

- If both properties are important
Examples:
1. Wristwatch – watch is more valuable than leather band
2. Diamond ring – diamond more valuable than gold band
3. Pearl v. silver (in earrings)

RULE OF GREATER VOLUME

- Apply if the 2 properties have the same value

RULE OF MERIT/ SENTIMENTAL VALUE

- That of greater merits, taking into consideration all the pertinent legal provisions

ADJUNCTION à PROPER TERM (but only same as conjunction)

1. Engraftment
2. Attachment
3. Weaving
4. Painting
5. Writing

NOTA BENE:

Article 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without injury, their respective owners may demand their separation.

Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, embellishment or perfection of the other, is much more precious than the
principal thing, the owner of the former may demand its separation, even though the thing to which it has been incorporated may
suffer some injury. (378)

GR: ACCESSORY FOLLOWS THE PRINCIPAL (GOOD FAITH ON BOTH OWNERS)

XPN: When accessory is much more precious than the principal, in which case the owner of the accessory may demand the
separation even if the principal suffers some injury NOT destruction.

OWNER OF PRINCIPAL IN BAD FAITH:

- Owner of the accessory has the option:
a) To recover damages, OR
b) To demand separation even to the extent of destroying the principal + damages

Article 470 (2)

If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the principal thing, the owner of the accessory thing shall have a right to
choose between the former paying him its value or that the thing belonging to him be separated, even though for this purpose it be
necessary to destroy the principal thing; and in both cases, furthermore, there shall be indemnity for damages.

OWNER OF ACCESSORY IN BAD FAITH

- Losses accessory and liable for damages

Article 470 (1)

Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made the incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose the thing incorporated and shall
have the obligation to indemnify the owner of the principal thing for the damages he may have suffered.

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 10

 - Union of materials were the components lose their identity
- Results to co-ownership
- Separation of property is NOT possible, no principal/ accessory

1. Conmixtion (solid and solid)

à Mixture of 2 solids
à Example: Cement + Sand

2. Confusion (liquid and liquid)

à Mixture of 2 liquids
à Example: water + chlorine; vinegar + soy sauce
MIXTURE - Solid + Liquid = water + coffee
(CONMIXTION/ à Adjunction – the identity of the 2 properties is separate & distinct
CONFUSION) à Mixture – the identity of the 2 properties will disappear

Who will own the water mixed with the coffee?

à IT DEPENDS!!
- If by accident (good faith) co-ownership will apply
- If intentional (bad faith), owner in bad faith will lose right to his own material + liable for damages

Both commixtion and confusion = CO-OWNERSHIP, if mixing was caused by:

1. Will of both owners
2. Will of one in good faith
3. Chance/ fortuitous event
- It is the transformation of another’s material by the application of labor
- The material becomes a thing of a different kind
- HUMAN LABOR is deemed to be the principal
- Identity of the personal property is transferred to another due to human intervention
SPECIFICATION
Example: pants and jacket
- Cannot be immediately produced
- These were transformed originally from a piece of cloth, the cloth originally from cotton, cotton originally from a tree
- Pants/ Jacket = accessory
- Labor (man) = principal, without it such property cannot change into another

Article 474, CC
Article 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another in whole or in part in order to make a thing of a different kind, shall appropriate the thing thus
transformed as his own, indemnifying the owner of the material for its value.

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

If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the material shall have the right to appropriate the work to himself without paying anything to the
maker, or to demand of the latter that he indemnify him for the value of the material and the damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the material
cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is considerably more than that of the material. (383a)

RULES
1. Owner of Principal in Good Faith

GR: Maker acquires the new thing and indemnify owner of

material (unjust enrichment)

XPN: If the value of the material is greater than value of

labor; owner of material has option:

a) To acquire the property + indemnify for labor, or

b) Demand indemnity for material

2. Owner of Principal in Bad Faith

Owner of material has option:

a) Acquire the result without indemnity (due to
impossibility of separation) OR
b) Indemnity for the material + damages

3. Owner of Material in Bad Faith

Loses material and must pay damages

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 11

 (NUPL DIGEST) RATIO:
G.R. No. L-28379 March 27, 1929
Article 339, subsection 1, of the Civil Code, reads:
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, applicant-
appellant, vs. CONSORCIA CABANGIS, ET AL., claimants-appellees. Article 339. Property of public ownership is —

VILLA-REAL, J.: 1. That devoted to public use, such as roads, canals, rivers, torrents, ports
and bridges constructed by the State, riverbanks, shorts, roadsteads, and
FACTS: that of a similar character.
Lots 36, 39 and 40, block 3035 of cadastral proceeding No. 71 of the City Article 1, case 3, of the Law of Waters of August 3, 1866, provides as
of Manila, G. L. R. O. Record No. 373, were formerly a part of a large follows:
parcel of land belonging to the predecessor of the Cabangis family. From
the year 1896 said land began to wear away, due to the action of the ARTICLE 1. The following are part of the national domain open to public
waves of Manila Bay, until the year 1901 when the said lots became use:
completely submerged in water in ordinary tides, and remained in such a 3. The Shores. By the shore is understood that space covered and
state until 1912 when the Government undertook the dredging of Vitas uncovered by the movement of the tide. Its interior or terrestrial limit is the
Estuary in order to facilitate navigation, depositing all the sand and line reached by the highest equinoctial tides. Where the tides are not
silt taken from the bed of the estuary on the low lands which were appreciable, the shore begins on the land side at the line reached by the
completely covered with water, surrounding that belonging to the sea during ordinary storms or tempests.
Philippine Manufacturing Company, thereby slowly and gradually
forming the lots, the subject matter of this proceeding. Aragon vs. Insular Government: (with reference to article 339 of the Civil
Code)
Up to the month of February, 1927 nobody had declared lot 39 for the
purposes of taxation, and it was only in the year 1926 that Dr. Pedro Gil, in We should not be understood, by this decision, to hold that in a case of
behalf of the Cabangis family, declared lot No. 40 for such purpose. gradual encroachment or erosion by the ebb and flow of the tide, private
property may not become 'property of public ownership,' as defined in
Cabingas’ contentions: that inasmuch as the said lots once formed a part article 339 of the code, where it appears that the owner has to all intents
of a large parcel of land belonging to their predecessors, whom they and purposes abandoned it and permitted it to be totally destroyed, so as
succeeded, and their immediate predecessor in interest, Tomas Cabangis, to become a part of the 'playa' (shore of the seas), 'rada' (roadstead), or
having taken possession thereof as soon as they were reclaimed, giving the like. . . .
his permission to some fishermen to dry their fishing nets and deposit their
bancas thereon, said lots belong to them. In the Enciclopedia Juridica Espanola, volume XII, page 558, we read the
following:
CFI of Manila: adjudicating the title and decreeing the registration of
lots Nos. 36, 39 and 40, block 3055 of the cadastral survey of the City With relative frequency the opposite phenomenon occurs; that is, the sea
of Manila in favor of Consuelo, Consorcia, Elvira and Tomas, advances and private properties are permanently invaded by the
surnamed Cabangis, in equal parts, and dismissing the claims presented waves, and in this case they become part of the shore or beach. They
by the Government of the Philippine Islands and the City of Manila. then pass to the public domain, but the owner thus dispossessed
does not retain any right to the natural products resulting from their
Gov’t Contentions: new nature; it is a de facto case of eminent domain, and not subject
1. The lower court erred in not holding that the lots in question are of the to indemnity.
public domain, the same having been gained from the Manila Bay by As we have seen, the land belonging to the predecessors of the herein
accession, by fillings made by the Bureau of Public Works and by the claimants-appellees began to wear way in 1896, owing to the gradual
construction of the break-water (built by the Bureau of Navigation) near the erosion caused by the ebb and flow of the tide, until the year 1901, when
mouth of Vitas Estero. the waters of Manila Bay completely submerged a portion of it, included
2. The lower court erred in holding that the lots in question formed part of within lots 36, 39 and 40 here in question, remaining thus under water until
the big parcel of land belonging to the spouses Maximo Cabangis and Tita reclaimed as a result of certain work done by the Government in 1912.
Andres, and in holding that these spouses and their successors in interest According to the above-cited authorities said portion of land, that is, the
have been in continuous, public, peaceful and uninterrupted possession of lots, which was private property, became a part of the public domain. The
said lots up to the time this case came up. predecessors of the herein claimants-appellees could have protected their
land by building a retaining wall, with the consent of competent authority, in
3. The lower court erred in holding that said lots existed before, but that 1896 when the waters of the sea began to wear it away, in accordance with
due to the current of the Pasig River and to the action of the big waves in the provisions of Article 29 of the aforecited Law of Waters of August 3,
Manila Bay during the south-west monsoons, the same disappeared. 1866, and their failure to do so until 1901, when a portion of the same
became completely covered by said waters, remaining thus submerged
4. The lower court erred in adjudicating the registration of the lands in until 1912, constitutes abandonment.
question in the name of the appellees, and in denying the appellant's
motion for a new trial. The lots under discussion having been reclaimed from the seas as a result
of certain work done by the Government, to whom do they belong?
ISSUE:
The answer to this question is found in article 5 of the aforementioned Law
1. Who owns lots 36, 39 and 40? of Waters, which is as follows:
2. W/N when said land was reclaimed, did the claimants-appellees ART. 5. Lands reclaimed from the sea in consequence of works
or their predecessors recover it as their original property? constructed by the State, or by the provinces, pueblos or private persons,
RULING: with proper permission, shall become the property of the party
constructing such works, unless otherwise provided by the terms of
1. Lots Nos. 36, 39 and 40 are held to be public land belonging to the grant of authority.
the Government of the United States under the administration
and control of the Government of the Philippine Islands. The fact that from 1912 some fishermen had been drying their fishing nets
and depositing their bancas on lots 36, 39 and 40, by permission of Tomas
2. NO. Cabangis, does not confer on the latter or his successors the ownership of
said lots, because, as they were converted into public land, no private
person could acquire title thereto except in the form and manner
established by the law.
Buzon vs. Insular Government and City of Manila, cited by the claimants-
appellees, this court said the following:

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 12

 The fact that certain land, not the bed of a river or of the sea, is
covered by sea water during the period of ordinary high tide, is not
a reason established by any law to cause the loss thereof,
especially when, as in the present case, it becomes covered by
water owing to circumstances entirely independent of the will of
the owner.
Director of Lands vs. Aguilar, also cited by the claimants-appellees,
wherein the Government adduced no evidence in support of its contention,
the lower court said in part:
The contention of the claimants Cabangis is to the effect that said
lots are a part of the adjoining land adjudicated to their deceased
father, Don Tomas Cabangis, which, for over fifty years had
belonged to their deceased grandmother, Tita Andres, and that,
due to certain improvements made in Manila Bay, the waters of the
sea covered a large part of the lots herein claimed.
The Government of the Philippine Islands also claims the
ownership of said lots, because, at ordinary high tide, they are
covered by the sea.
Upon petition of the parties, the lower court made an ocular
inspection of said lots on September 12, 1923, and on said
inspection found some light material houses built thereon, and that
on that occasion the waters of the sea did not reach the aforesaid
lots.
From the evidence adduced at the trial of this cause, it may be
inferred that Tita Andres, during her lifetime was the owner of a
rather large parcel of land which was adjudicated by a decree to
her son Tomas Cabangis; the lots now in question are contiguous
to that land and are covered by the waters of the sea at
extraordinary high tide; some 50 years before the sea did not reach
said strip of land, and on it were constructed, for the most part, light
material houses, occupied by the tenants of Tita Andres, to whom
they paid rent. Upon her death, her son Tomas Cabangis
succeeded to the possession, and his children succeeded him, they
being the present claimants.
The Government of the Philippine Islands did not adduce any
evidence in support of its contention, with the exception of registry
record No. 8147, to show that the lots here in question were not
excluded from the application presented in said proceeding.
In the case of Buzon vs. Insular Government and City of Manila, the rise of
the waters of the sea that covered the lands there in dispute, was due not
to the action of the tide but to the fact that a large quantity of sand was
taken from the sea at the side of said land in order to fill in Cervantes
Street, and this court properly held that because of this act, entirely
independent of the will of the owner of said land, the latter could not lose
the ownership thereof, and the mere fact that the waters of the sea covered
it as a result of said act, is not sufficient to convert it into public land,
especially, as the land was high and appropriate for building purposes.
In the case of the Director of Lands vs. Aguilar,, the Insular Government
did not present any evidence in support of its contention, thus leaving
uncontradicted the evidence adduced by the claimants Aguilar et al., as to
the ownership, possession and occupation of said lots.
In the instant case the evidence shows that from 1896, the waves of
Manila Bay had been gradually and constantly washing away the
sand that formed the lots here in question, until 1901, when the sea
water completely covered them, and thus they remained until the year
1912. In the latter year they were reclaimed from the sea by filling in
with sand and silt extracted from the bed of Vitas Estuary when the
Government dredged said estuary in order to facilitate navigation.
Neither the herein claimants-appellees nor their predecessors did
anything to prevent their destruction.
In conclusion, then, we hold that the lots in question having
disappeared on account of the gradual erosion due to the ebb and
flow of the tide, and having remained in such a state until they were
reclaimed from the sea by the filling in done by the Government, they
are public land.

PROPERTY (ATTY. LOPEZ-ROSARIO 2019) | LAGMAN 13