ACCESSION INDUSTRIAL

Q: Upon verification by surveyors, Martinez was informed that the fence of Las Brisas
overlaps its property, it sent multiple requests and letters notifying Las Brisas of the said
encroachment and demanded that the latter cease and desist from unlawfully holding
portions of its land. Las Brisas maintained that it was a buyer in good faith and continued
to develop the disputed portion of land, despite the demands sent by Martinez. Having
claimed that it was a buyer in good faith; may it also claim to be a builder in good faith?

A: NO. Las Brisas’ sole defense that they purchased their property in good faith and for
value; does not squarely address the issue of encroachment or overlapping since it did
not present evidence contradicting such claim. To repeat, while petitioners may have
been innocent purchasers for value with respect to their land, this does not prove that
they are equally innocent of the claim of encroachment upon respondent’s lands.

Q: Felix cultivated a parcel of land and planted sugar cane, believing it to be his own.
When the crop was eight months old, and harvestable after two more months, a resurvey
of the land showed that it really belonged to Fred. What are the options available to
Fred?

A: As to pending crops, planted by Felix in good faith, Fred has the option of allowing
Felix to continue cultivation and to harvest the crops himself. In the latter option, however,
Felix shall have the right to a part of the net harvest, both in proportion to the time of
possession. (Article 545)

Q: Because of confusion as to the boundaries of the adjoining lots that they bought from
the same subdivision company, X constructed a house on the adjoining lot of Y in the
honest belief that it is the land that he bought from the subdivision company.

1. What are the respective rights of X and Y with respect to X’s house?
The rights of Y, as owner of the lot, and of X, as builder of a house thereon, are
governed by Article 448 which grants to Y the right to choose between two
remedies: (a) appropriate the house by indemnifying X for its value plus whatever
necessary expenses the latter may have incurred for the preservation of the land,
or (b) compel X to buy the land if the price of the land is not considerably more
than the value of the house. If it is, then X cannot be obliged to buy the land but
he shall pay reasonable rent, and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the
terms of the lease.
 2. Suppose X was in good faith but Y knew that X was constructing on his (Y’s) land
but simply kept quiet about it, thinking perhaps that he could get X’s house later.
What are the respective rights of the parties over X’s house in this case?

Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad faith (Art. 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 454). Y continues to be the owner of the lot
and becomes, under the second option, the owner of the house as well, after he
pays the sums demanded.

Q: Believing that a piece of land belonged to him, A erected thereon a building, using
materials belonging to C. The owner of the land, B was aware of the construction being
made by A but did not do anything to stop it. What are the rights of A, B, and C, with
respect to the building and as against each other?

A: B, regardless of his good or bad faith, becomes the owner of the building (Articles 445
and 448). However, A, a builder in good faith will be entitled to reimbursement of his
necessary and useful expenses, with right to retain the same until paid. He may also
remove the construction since B acted in bad faith in not stopping the construction (Arts.
454 and 447). C shall have the right to reimbursement and may also remove them but
only if he can do so without injury to the work. (Art. 447)