Chapter 2

RIGHT OF ACCESSION
Art. 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.

ACCESSION defined.
It is the right of a property owner to everything which is a. Produced thereby (accession discrete) b. Or which is incorporated and attached thereto either naturally or artificially (accession continua or accession non-interrumpida) which in turn is divided into: 1. Natural accession (accession natural); 2. Artificial accession (accession artificial or accession industrial).

CLASSIFICATION OF ACCESSION
a. Accession discrete (to the fruits) 1. Natural fruits 2. Industrial fruits 3. Civil fruits b. Accession Continua (Attachment or Incorporation) 1. With reference to real property i. Accession industrial 1. Building 2. Planting 3. Sowing ii. Accession Natural 1. Alluvium 2. Avulsion 3. Change of course of rivers 4. Formation of islands 2. With respect to personal property i. Adjunction or conjunction 1. Inclusion (engraftment) 2. Soldadora (attachment) 3. Tejido (weaving) 4. Pintura (painting) 5. Escritura (writing) ii. Mixture (confusion liquids/ commixture solids) iii. Specification IS ACCESSION A MODE OF ACQUIRING OWNERSHIP? It will be noted that accession in not one of those listed in Book II re: Modes of Acquiring Ownership. It is therefore safe to conclude that accession is not a mode of acquiring ownership. The reason is simple: Accession presupposes a previously existing ownership by the owner over a principal.

REASON BEHIND ACCESSION 1. For Accession Discreta justice, pure and simple, for one who owns a thing should justly enjoy its fruits. 2. For Accession Continua economic convenience is better achieved by a state of single ownership that a co-ownership. Moreover, natural justice demands that the owner of the principal or more important thing should also own the accessory. RIGHT TO ACCESSION GENERALLY AUTOMATIC In general, the right to accession is automatic (ipso jure) requiring no prior act on the part of the owner of the principal. A good example is in the case of a landowner over whose land a river now flows. He is ipso facto the owner of the abandoned river bed in proportion to the area he has lost.

SECTION 1. - Right of Accession with Respect to What is Produced by Property

Art. 441. To the owner belongs: (1) The natural fruits; (2) The industrial fruits; (3) The civil fruits.

This article refers to accession discrete which is defined as the right to the ownership of fruits produced by our property.

SOME DECIDED CASES AND DOCTRINES:

1. In an action to recover the paraphernal property of the wife, the intervention of the husband is not needed, and therefore the husband is not a necessary party. But if aside from the paraphernal property, fruits therefrom are sought to be recovered, the husband must join the action because: a. He is a co-owner of the said fruits (since they belong to the conjugal partnership) b. He is the administrator of the conjugal partnership. 2. In an action to recover a persons property unlawfully in the possession of another, damages may in part consist of the value of the fruits produced. 3. A tenant who continues on the land after the expiration of the lease contract and upon demand to vacate can be considered a possessor in bad faith and is responsible for the fruits actually produced as well as those that could have been produced by due diligence. It will be observed that liability for the fruits is a consequence of the usurpation and not because of a provision in the contract violated.

INSTANCES WHEN OWNER OF THE LAND DOES NOT OWN THE FRUITS
Under Art. 441, the owner of the land owns the fruits. In the following cases, it is not the owner of the land that owns the fruit but somebody else: 1. Possessor in good faith of the land (he owns the fruits already received) 2. Usufructuary 3. Lessee gets the fruits of the land and 4. In the contract of Antichresis, the antichretic creditor gets the fruits, although of course, the fruits should be applied first, to the interest, if any is owing and then to the principal amount of the loan.

Art. 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.

TECHNICAL MEANING OF FRUITS It only speaks of natural and civil fruits. It is understood that INDUSTRIAL FRUITS are not included. KINDS OF NATURAL FRUITS 1. The spontaneous products of the soil a. Herbs, common grass 2. The young and other products of animals a. Chicks and chicken eggs ARE CULTIVATED TREES IN THEMSELVES TO BE CONSIDERED FRUITS? It is submitted that strictly, they are not fruits in the juridical sense for they are really immovables as long as they are attached to the land, which themselves produce fruits. However, there is no doubt, we may consider said trees as fruits when they are expressly cultivated and exploited to carry on an industry.

INDUSTRIAL FRUITS ACCORDING TO THE AMERICAN LAW 1. Perennial Crops those growing each season without need of replanting, like apples and oranges 2. Annual Crops those which have to be planted each year like cereals and grains.

YOUNG OF ANIMALS Whether brought about by scientific means or not, it would seem that the young of animals should be considered as natural fruits since the law makes no distinction. OTHER PRODUCTS OF ANIMALS The phrase no doubt refers to such things as chicken eggs or horse manure or milk or wool.

TO WHOM DOES AN OFFSPRING OF AN ANIMAL BELONG WHEN THE MALE AND FEMALE BELONG TO DIFFERENT OWNERS? The offspring belongs to the mother because: 1. The paternity is uncertain and 2. During the pregnancy, the female is useless and the owner bears the expenses. But if the female is leased, the leasee owns the offspring, because the lease is onerous but if it were commodatum(gratuitous borrowing), the offspring would belong to the owner of the female.

CIVIL FRUITS 1. Rent of buildings 2. Prices of leases - rentals of lands and other property (even personal property) 3. The amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income NOTE: BONUS received as compensation for the risk taken by a mortgagor who received no value from the loan is not considered as a civil fruit. (Bachrach Motor Co. vs Talisay-Silay Milling Co)

BACHRACH MOTOR CO VS TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. FACTS: 1. Talisay obtained a loan from PNB with a REM provided by one of its planters, Ledesma 2. To compensate Ledesma for the accommodation, Talisay granted him a bonus whose value was computed on a percentage of the balance of the loan 3. Barach, as creditor of Ledesma, laid a claim to the bonus received by the latter. 4. On the other hand, PNB claims that he owns the fruits, because under Art. 2127, the mortgage extends to the civil fruits of the property. ISSUE: WON the bonus is a civil fruit, thereby giving PNB the preferential right over it? RULING: 1. The bonus is not a civil fruit. Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, leases of lands, and income from annual annuities or other similar sources of income. 2. Though it is possible to consider the bonus as an income, it is not similar in the items in the preceding enumeration. The common denominator which is present in the bonus id the derivation of the income from the land itself. 3. In this case, the bonus is not based on the value of the land rather on the amount of the outstanding obligation of Talisay. It is clearly meant to be compensation for the risk assumed by the owner, Ledesma.

WAIT vs WILLIAMS 5 PHILS 571

FACTS: From the 1st of a certain month to the 20th, Regidor is entitled to the fruits of a certain property; and from the 21st to the 30th of that same month, the Obras Pias was entitled. The property was being rented. Who should own the rentals? HELD: The rentals for the first 20 days should belong to Regidor; the last 10 days should go to Obias Pias. This is because the civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily.

VELAYO vs REPUBLIC Unpaid charges for the use of government airports and air navigation facilities are civil fruits that belong to the government, as owner and not to the Civil Aeronautics Administration, which is only an instrumentality authorized to collect the same.

THE OVERSEAS BANK OF MANILA vs COURT OF APPEALS Banks are not required to pay for interest on deposits for the period during which they are not allowed to operate by the Central Bank. This is demanded by fairness. However, interest that had accrued prior to the suspension should be paid by the bank, for after all, it has made use then of the money deposited.

Art. 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a third person in their production, gathering, and preservation.

TO WHOM DOES THIS PROVISION APPLY? Art. 443 applies only to a planter/ possessor in bad faith. The rule is that, if the planter is in good faith, he is entitled to the fruits already received.

IF THE FRUITS HAVE NOT YET BEEN GATHERED? Art. 448 applies if the planter or the sower is in good faith. Art. 449, if he is in bad faith.

WHAT ARE THE KINDS OF EXPENSES SUBJECT TO REIMBURSEMENT IN ART 443? 1. They must be for production, gathering or preservation. Improvements of the property are not included. 2. They must be necessary and not luxurious or excessive. They must be those normally required by the crop.

WHAT IF THE EXPENSES EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE PRODUCT, IS THE PLANTER IN BAD FAITH STILL ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT? Only if the owner still requires delivery of the fruits.

DUTY OF RECIPIENT OF FRUITS TO REIMBURSE NECESSARY EXPENSES Example: A is the owner of a piece of land upon which the fruits were grown, raised, harvested and gathered by B in bad faith. Who should be considered the owner of the fruits? ANSWER: A should be considered to be the owner of the fruits, since he is the owner of the land and B is the planter in bad faith but he must reimburse B for the expenses for production, gathering and preservation The reason for reimbursing B even though he is in bad faith is that: 1. Were it not for the said necessary cultivation expenses, there would not be any fruits grown at all or left or preserved; 2. This article is merely in consonance with the principle that no one may enrich himself unjustly at the expense of another.
Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity.

HOW CAN ART. 449 BE RECONCILED WITH THE ANSWER GIVEN ABOVE? Art 449 applies only if the crops have not yet been gathered (hence, the landowner gets the fruit without indemnity by the principle of Accession Continua) Art 443 applies when the crops had already been gathered (Accession Continua cannot apply) It should be observed that in the example given, the crops were already gathered.

NON APPLICABILITY OF ART 443 WHEN THE PLANTER IS IN GOOD FAITH Art. 443 does not apply when the planter is in good faith because he is entitled to the fruits already received, hence there is no necessity for reimbursing him.

SUPPOSE THE EXPENSES EXCEED THE VALUE OF THE FRUITS (AS FOR EXAMPLE WHEN TYPHOONS HAVE DAMAGED THE CROPS), MUST THERE BE STILL REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE EXPENSES? Answer: YES, if the owner insist on being entitled to the fruits. This is because: 1. The law makes no distinction or exception; 2. The same thing would happen, had the owner been also the planter; 3. He who gets expected advantages must be prepared to shoulder losses. It is understood, of course, that if the fruits had not yet been gathered, no indemnity is required.

Art. 444. 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.

TWO KINDS OF CROPS 1. Annual Crops are deemed manifest (existing) the moment their seedlings appear from the ground, although the grains have not actually appeared. They must be planted every year/ must re-plant after harvest. Examples: cereals, grains, rice, corn, sugar. 2. Perennial Crops are deemed to exist only when they actually appear on trees. They are only planted once and bear fruits for several seasons. Examples: mangoes, coconuts, apples.

WHEN ARE ANIMAL YOUNG CONSIDERED AS EXISTING? They are considered existing even if still in the maternal womb. They should be considered existing only at the commencement of the maximum ordinary period for gestation.

RULES FOR CIVIL FRUITS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM NATURAL AND INDUSTRIAL FRUITS 1. Civil fruits accrue daily (Art. 544) and are therefore considered in the category of real property; natural and industrial fruits, while still growing are real property; 2. Civil fruits can be pro-rated; natural and industrial fruits ordinarily cannot
Art. 544. A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received before the possession is legally interrupted. Natural and industrial fruits are considered received from the time they are gathered or severed. Civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily and belong to the possessor in good faith in that proportion.

SECTION 2. - Right of Accession with Respect to Immovable Property

Art. 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.

ACCESSION INDUSTRIAL (Building, Planting, Sowing) Art. 445 deals with Accession Continua, more specifically with Accession Industrial. Sowing each deposit of seed gives rise merely to a single crop or harvest Planting more or less permanent trucks and trees are produced, which in turn produce fruits themselves NOTE: Art. 445 can only be applied if the owner of the land is known. If he is unknown, no decision on the ownership of the things planted, built or sown can be made.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF ACCESSION CONTINUA (ACCESSION INDUSTRIAL) 1. Accessory follows the principal. 2. With certain exceptions, it should be impossible to separate the principal and accessory without causing substantial damage. 3. He who is in good faith may be held responsible but not penalized. 4. He who is in bad faith may be penalized. 5. No one shall unjustly enrich himself at the expense of another. 6. Bad faith of one party neutralizes bad faith of the other so both should be considered in good faith.

CRUDO vs MANCILLA If a landowner upon whose land grows a tree with branches extending to the neighbors tenement, decide to cut down the tree, and thus deprive his neighbor of whatever advantage the branches afforded the neighbor (shade purposes), he is not required to pay his neighbor any indemnity occasioned by the loss of the branches for he merely cuts down what is his, by the principle of accession. NOTE: The only right which the neighbor has, in accordance with the law on easement, is to have the branches cut off insofar as they extend over his property.

EXCEPTION to the general rule enunciated in Art. 445 whereby the owner of the land is also the owner of whatever is built, planted, sown thereon. ART. 120 OF THE FAMILY CODE. Art. 120. 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: When the cost of improvement made by the conjugal partnership and any resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property at the time of the improvement, the entire property of one of the spouses shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the value of the property of the owner-spouse at the time of the improvement; otherwise, said property shall be retained in ownership by the owner-spouse, likewise subject to reimbursement of the cost of the improvement. In either case, the ownership of the entire property shall be vested upon the reimbursement, which shall be made at the time of the liquidation of the conjugal partnership. Explanation: Improvements, whether for utility or adornment, through the efforts of the partners or at their expense shall pertain to the conjugal partnership. If the resulting increase in value are more than the value of the property, the entire property plus the improvements shall belong to the conjugal partnership, subject to reimbursement of the cost of improvement.

It is important to note which is bigger or greater a. The value of the property just before the improvement was made or b. The value after the improvement including the cost. Rule: If (a) is greater, the whole thing belongs to the owner-spouse, without prejudice to the reimbursement of the conjugal partnership. If (b) is greater, the whole thing belongs to the conjugal partnership but the owner-spouse must reimburse. If on the lot of the husband worth P900,000.00, a 6million worth house is constructed, the house and lot will belong to the conjugal partnership, but will reimburse the husband, P900,000.00. The ownership will be vested in the conjugal partnership at the time of reimbursement and this reimbursement will be made when the conjugal partnership is liquidated. If the house cost less than P900,000.00, the husband will be the owner of the house and lot, but he must reimburse the conjugal partnership the cost of the house. CALTEX (PHILS.) INC vs FELIAS FACTS: A husband and his wife, with conjugal funds, constructed a building on a lot owned by the wifes parents. Subsequently, the parents donated the lot to his wife. ISSUE: Who now owns the land? RULING: The lot is the separate property of the wife, NOT conjugal, because the building was constructed when the land still belonged to the parents of the wife. What is applicable is the rule that, the accessory follows the principal. When the building was constructed, the same became the property of the wifes parents by accession, and when later on the land was donated to the wife, the lot became her separate property and the donation transmitted to her the rights of a landowner over a building constructed in it. It would have been different had the building been constructed at the time the lot was already owned by the wife. Art. 158 of the Civil Code (now Art. 120 of the Family Code) would apply.

MEANING OF BUILDING IN ART 445 Whatever is built refers to all kinds of constructions with a roof, and used as residence, for office, or social meetings, etc.

LATIN MAXIMS IN CONNECTION WITH ACCESSION INDUSTRIAL

1. Accessorium non ducit sed sequitor suum principali. the accessory does not lead but follows the principal if the principal is given, the accessory is also given; but if the accessory is given, this does not necessarily mean that the principal is also given 2. Accessorium sequitor naturam rei cui accedit The accessory follows the nature of that to which it relates. 3. Aedificatum solo, solo cedit. What is built upon the land goes with it; or the land is the principal, and whatever built on it becomes the accessory.

Art. 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.
RULES WHEN THE LANDOWNER CONTRUCTS OR PLANTS ON HIS LAND WITH THE MATERIALS OF ANOTHER This article treats of the rights and obligations of: a. The owner of the land who uses the materials of another; b. The owner of the materials

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNER OF THE LAND WHO USES THE MATERIALS OF ANOTHER. A. If the landowner acted in good faith He becomes the owner of the materials but must pay for the value. The only exception is when they can be removed without destruction to the work made or to the plants. In such case, the owner of the materials can remove them. B. If the landowner is in bad faith He becomes the owner of the materials but he must pay for: a. Their value b. And damages. The exception is when the owner of the materials decides to remove them whether or not destruction would be caused. (In this case, the materials would still belong to the owner of the said materials, who in addition will still be entitled to damages)

RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE OWNER OF THE MATERIALS A. If the landowner acted in good faith a. The owner of the materials is entitled to reimbursement (provided he does not remove them) b. He is entitled to removal (provided no substantial injury is caused) B. If the landowner acted in bad faith a. The owner of the materials is entitled to the ABSOLUTE right of removal and damages (whether or not substantial injury is caused) b. He is entitles to reimbursement and damages (in case he chooses not to remove)

EXAMPLES: Q: A on his land constructed a house with the materials of B. A is in good faith. Can B remove said materials? A: No, B cannot remove the said materials because to do would necessarily injure the house (Art 447)

Q: A rented Bs land and built on it a house, with materials belonging to C. A was in good faith. Are A and C co-owners of the house? A: No, they are not co-owners of the house because by the principle of accession, just because a persons materials were used, it does not follow that the owner of the materials becomes owner of any part of the building. At most, C is entitled to reimbursement for their value.

Q: A, on his land, constructed a house with the materials of B. A is in bad faith. Can B remove the materials even if in doing so, the whole structure will be destroyed? Can B also ask for damages? A: Yes, B is allowed the right of ABSOLUTE removal as well as indemnification for damages (This is to penalize As bad faith) (Art. 447)

Q. What is the measure of damages? A: Indemnification for damages shall comprehend not only the value of the loss suffered but also that of the profits which the oblige failed to realized. Q. The law says pay their value (reimbursement). Suppose the landowner wants to return the materials instead of reimbursing the value, may this be done even without the consent of the former owner of the materials? A. It depends: 1. If no damage has been made on the materials, or they have not been transformed as a result of the construction they may be returned (of course, at the landowners expense) 2. If damage has been made or there was a transformation, they cannot be returned anymore. (NOTE: that the law does not grant this option to the landowner) Q. The law says: the owner of the materials shall have the right to remove Suppose the landowner has already demolished or removed the plantings, constructions or works, is the owner of the materials still entitled to claim them? A: Although there are differences of opinion on this matter, the best rule seems to be that the owner of the materials is still entitled to get them since the law makes no distinction. Moreover, the landowner may insist on returning the materials for evidently there is no accession.

Q. A builds a house on his land using the materials of B. Later, A sells the house and land to C. Against whom will B have the right of action, A, as the builder or C, the buyer? A. The law is silent on this point, but it would seem that the right of action should be directed against C, since it was he who benefited from the accession.
When is the builder/landowner in good faith/ bad faith? When he believed the materials were his own/knew the materials belonged to another. When is the owner of the materials in good faith/bad faith? When he does not know that his materials were being used/when he knows and does not object.

MEANING OF BAD FAITH AND GOOD FAITH IN CONNECTION WITH ART 447
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith. It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part.

Art. 526. He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.

Although Art. 447 does not define good faith or bad faith, we may, by analogy, apply the definitions provided for in Art. 453 and 526, hence: a. The builder, planter or sower is in BAD FAITH if he makes use of the land or materials which he knows belong to another thus one who buys land without verifying whether or not the land belongs to another with a Torrens Title and who subsequently builds on it, is a builder in BAD FAITH, if indeed the land is already registered under the Land Registration Law in the name of another. A purchaser is not a builder in Good Faith where he has presumptive knowledge of an existing Torrens title in favor of another. Likewise, one who is aware of a notice of lis pendens is a purchaser in Bad Faith. b. He is in Good faith if he did not know that he had no right to such land or materials. (If a landowner with a Torrens Title builds beyond the boundaries of his property as stated in the certificate of title (and thus constructs partly on his neighbors land) is he necessarily in Bad Faith? NO, for he may still be in good faith. No one, not even a surveyor can determine the precise location of his land by simply examining his title. c. The owner of the materials is in Bad Faith is he allows another to use the materials without informing him of the ownership thereof. d. The owner of the materials is in Good faith if he did not know that another was using his materials; or granting that he did know, if he informed the user of the ownership thereof and made the necessary prohibitions.

RULE WHEN BOTH PARTIES ARE IN BAD FAITH. Regarding Art. 447, what rule should apply if the landowner and the owner of the materials are both in bad faith? ANSWER: Consider them in good faith.

RULE WHEN THE LANDOWNER IS IN GOOD FAITH BUT THE OWNER OF THE MATERIALS IS IN BAD FAITH. Answer : There is no provision of the law on this point, but it would seem that the landowner would not only be exempted from reimbursement, but he would also be entitled to consequential damages (as when for instance, the materials are of inferior quality). Moreover, the owner of the materials would lose all rights to them, such as the right to removal, regardless of whether or not substantial injury would be caused. PRESUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH Good faith is always presumed and upon him who alleges bad faith rest the burden of proof.
Art. 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.