Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(BAR Q & A)
Accretion; Alluvion (2001)
For many years, the Rio Grande River deposited soil along its bank, beside the
titled land of Jose. In time, such deposit reached an area of one thousand
square meters. With the permission of Jose, Vicente cultivated the said area.
Ten years later, a big flood occurred in the river and transferred the 1000
square meters to the opposite bank, beside the land of Agustin. The land
transferred is now contested by Jose and Agustin as riparian owners and
by Vicente who claims ownership by prescription.
Who should prevail? Why?
ANSWER:
Jose should prevail. The disputed area, which is an alluvion, belongs by
right of accretion to Jose, the riparian owner (Art. 457 CC). When, as
given in the problem, the very same area" was "transferred" by flood
waters to the opposite bank, it became an avulsion and ownership thereof
is retained by Jose who has two years to remove it (Art. 459, CC). Vicente's
claim based on prescription is baseless since his possession was by mere
tolerance of Jose and, therefore, did not adversely affect Jose's possession
and ownership (Art. 537, CC). Inasmuch as his possession is merely that
of a holder, he cannot acquire the disputed area by prescription.
ANSWER:
Mario has a better right over the 200 square meters increase in area
by reason of accretion, applying Article 457 of the New Civil Code, which
provides that “to the owners of lands adjoining the banks of rivers belong
the accretion which they gradually received from the effects of the
current of the waters”. Andres cannot claim that the increase in Mario’s
land is his own, because such is an accretion and not result of the sudden
detachment of a known portion of his land and its attachment to Mario’s
land, a process called “avulsion”. He can no longer claim ownership
of the portion of his registered land which was gradually and naturally
eroded due to the current of the river, because he had lost it by operation
of law. That portion of the land has become part of the public domain.
2. May a third person acquire said 200-square meter land by prescription?
ANSWER:
Yes, a third party may acquire by prescription the 200 square meters,
increase in area, because it is not included in the Torrens Title of the
riparian owner. Hence, this does not involve the imprescriptibility
conferred by Section 47, P.D. No. 1529. The fact that the riparian land is
registered does not automatically make the accretion thereto a registered
land. (Grande v. CA, 115 521 (1962); Jagualing v. CA, 194 SCRA 607
(1991).
Answer all the following questions based on the premise that B is a builder in
good faith and A is a landowner in good faith.
ANSWER:
ANSWER:
A should pay B the sum of P50,000. Article 548 of the Civil Code provides
that useful expenses shall be refunded to the possessor in good faith with
the right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession
having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying
the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason
thereof. The increase in value amounts to P50,000.00.
3. Assuming that the cost of the house was P90,000.00 and not
P100,000.00, may A require B to buy the land?
ANSWER:
Yes, A may require B to buy the land. Article 448 of the Civil Code provides
that the owner of the land on which anything has been built in good
faith shall have the right to oblige the one who built to pay the price of the
land if its value is not considerably more than that of the building.
ANSWER:
If B agrees to buy land but fails to pay, A can have the house removed
(Depra vs. Dumlao, 136 SCRA 475).
5. In what situation may a "forced lease" arise between A and B and what
terms and conditions would govern the lease?
ANSWER:
Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that the builder cannot be obliged to
buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building. In
such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not
choose to appropriate the building after proper indemnity. The parties shall
agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the
court fix the terms thereof.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Article. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of
another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to
indemnity.
ANSWER:
What are the respective rights of the parties over X's house in this
case?
ANSWER:
Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad faith (Article 453), X as the
party in good faith may (a) remove the house and demand indemnification
for damages suffered by him, or (b) demand payment of the value of
the house plus reparation for damages (Art 447, in relation to Art 454). Y
continues as owner of the lot and becomes, under the second option, owner
of the house as well, after he pays the sums demanded.
ANSWER:
Pablo is correct. Under Article 448 of the New Civil Code in relation to Article
546, the builder in good faith is entitled to a refund of the necessary and
useful expenses incurred by him, or the increase in value which the
land may have acquired by reason of the improvement, at the option of
the landowner. The builder is entitled to a refund of the expenses he
incurred, and not to the market value of the improvement.
The case of Pecson v. CA, 244 SCRA 407, is not applicable to the problem.
In the Pecson case, the builder was the owner of the land who later lost the
property at a public sale due to non-payment of taxes. The Court ruled
that Article 448 does not apply to the case where the owner of the land is
the builder but who later lost the land; not being applicable, the indemnity
that should be paid to the buyer must be the fair market value of the
building and not just the cost of construction thereof. The Court opined
in that case that to do otherwise would unjustly enrich the new owner of
the land.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Pedro is correct. In Pecson vs. CA, it was held that Article 546 of the New
Civil Code does not specifically state how the value of useful improvements
should be determined in fixing the amount of indemnity that the owner of
the land should pay to the builder in good faith. Since the objective of the
law is to adjust the rights of the parties in such manner as "to
administer complete justice to both of them in such a way as neither
one nor the other may enrich himself of that which does not belong to
him", the Court ruled that the basis of reimbursement should be the
fair market value of the building.
2. In the meantime that Pedro is not yet paid, who is entitled to the
rentals of the building, Pedro or Pablo?
ANSWER:
Pablo is entitled to the rentals of the building. As the owner of the land,
Pablo is also the owner of the building being an accession thereto. However,
Pedro who is entitled to retain the building is also entitled to retain
the rentals. He, however, shall apply the rentals to the indemnity payable
to him after deducting reasonable cost of repair and maintenance.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Pablo is entitled to the rentals. Pedro became a possessor in bad faith from
the time he learned that the land belongs to Pablo. As such, he loses his
right to the building, including the fruits thereof, except the right of
retention.
Builder; Good Faith vs. Bad Faith; Accession (2000)
Demetrio knew that a piece of land bordering the beach belonged to Ernesto.
However, since the latter was studying in Europe and no one was taking care
of the land, Demetrio occupied the same and constructed thereon nipa sheds
with tables and benches which he rented out to people who want to have a
picnic by the beach. When Ernesto returned, he demanded the return of the
land. Demetrio agreed to do so after he has removed the nipa sheds. Ernesto
refused to let Demetrio remove the nipa sheds on the ground that these
already belonged to him by right of accession.
Who is correct?
ANSWER:
Mike built a house on his lot in Pasay City. Two years later, a survey disclosed
that a portion of the building actually stood on the neighboring land of Jose,
to the extent of 40 square meters. Jose claims that Mike is a builder in bad
faith because he should know the boundaries of his lot, and demands
that the portion of the house which encroached on his land should be
destroyed or removed. Mike replies that he is a builder in good faith and
offers to buy the land occupied by the building instead.
ANSWER:
Yes, Mike is a builder in good faith. There is no showing that when he built
his house, he knew that a portion thereof encroached on Jose's lot. Unless
one is well-versed in the science of surveying, he cannot determine the
precise boundaries or location of his property by merely examining his title.
In the absence of contrary proof, the law presumes that the encroachment
was done in good faith [Technogas Phils, v. CA, 268 SCRA 5, 15 (1997)].
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
ANSWER:
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER: