LESSON 4, 5, 6: ACCESSION

36

37
38

39
40

41
42
43

PNB v. Maraon,
700 SCRA 297
[ rent]
Gaboya v. Cui, 38
SCRA 85 [same
person]
Pacific Farms
v.Esguerra, 30
SCRA 684 [unpaid
materials]
PNB v. De Jesus,
411 SCRA 557
[honest belief]
Pecson v. CA, 244
SCRA 407 [2 or
more parties]
Depra v. Dumlao,
136 SCRA 415
[removal]
Vda. De Nazareno
v. CA, 257 SCRA
589 [accretion]
City Mayor v.
Ebio, 621 SCRA
555 [increase in
area]

44

Viajar v. CA, 168

SCRA 405
[reduced area]

45

Baes v. CA, 224

SCRA 562 [change
in course of river]
Aguirre v. Pheng,
18 SCRA 18
[unjust
enrichment]
PNB v. Maraon,
700 SCRA 297
[ rent]

46

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Gaboya v. Cui, 38
SCRA 85 [same
person]
Pacific Farms
v.Esguerra, 30
SCRA 684 [unpaid
materials]
PNB v. De Jesus,
411 SCRA 557
[honest belief]
Pecson v. CA, 244
SCRA 407 [2 or
more parties]
Depra v. Dumlao,
136 SCRA 415
[removal]
Vda. De Nazareno
v. CA, 257 SCRA
589 [accretion]
City Mayor v.
Ebio, 621 SCRA
555 [increase in
area]

Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property producing it by right of accession

Recourse to the rules of accession are totally unnecessary and inappropriate where the ownership of
land and of the materials used to build theren are concentrated one one and the same person.
On the premise that Pacific Farms is the owner, it has the obligation to pay CLC for the materials bought
by Insular Farms Inc. However, since Pacific Farm was ruled to be an owner in bad faith, the SC granted
it 30 days to exercise option of redeeming the six buildings upon payment to CLC of the sum due.
One is considered in good faith if he is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any
flaw which invalidates it.
Article 448 does not apply to a case where the owner of the land is the builder, sower, or planter who
then later loses ownership of the land by sale or donation, for then there can be no question as to good
or bad faith on the part of the builder. Nevertheless, the provision therein on indemnity may be applied
by analogy considering that the primary intent of Article 448 is to avoid a state of forced co-ownership.
Owner of the land in good faith on which improvement was built by another in good faith is entitled to
removal of improvement only after landowner has opted to sell the land and the builder refused to pay
for the same
Requisites of an alienable alluvion: (1) the increase in soil must be gradual and imperceptible; (2) the
increase must be caused by the current of the waters; and (3) the alluvion must be adjacent to the river
banks or rivers or sea coasts.
The owner of the land adjoining the banks of rivers also owns the accretion which they gradually receive
from the effects of the current of the waters (Art 457). Alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek do
not form part of the public domain as the alluvial property automatically belongs to the owner of the
estate to which it may have been added.
Moreover, respondents are deemed to have acquired ownership over the subject property through
prescription (acquisitive prescription).
1.) Presumption: change in the course of river was gradual and caused by accretion and erosion 2.) Any
accretions which the banks of the rivers may gradually receive from the effects of the current belong to
the owners of the estates bordering thereon. (Art. 457 NCC) 3.) Registration does not protect riparian
owner
If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural
causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is
effected through artificial means.
As a general rule, the absolute owner of the property is entitled to all accessions thereto. However,
where there is absence of bad faith or there is good faith on the one who made the improvements or
accessions, the absolute owner should reimburse the value of the improvements made by the one in
good faith.
Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property producing it by right of accession

Recourse to the rules of accession are totally unnecessary and inappropriate where the ownership of
land and of the materials used to build theren are concentrated one one and the same person.
On the premise that Pacific Farms is the owner, it has the obligation to pay CLC for the materials bought
by Insular Farms Inc. However, since Pacific Farm was ruled to be an owner in bad faith, the SC granted
it 30 days to exercise option of redeeming the six buildings upon payment to CLC of the sum due.
One is considered in good faith if he is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any
flaw which invalidates it.
Article 448 does not apply to a case where the owner of the land is the builder, sower, or planter who
then later loses ownership of the land by sale or donation, for then there can be no question as to good
or bad faith on the part of the builder. Nevertheless, the provision therein on indemnity may be applied
by analogy considering that the primary intent of Article 448 is to avoid a state of forced co-ownership.
Owner of the land in good faith on which improvement was built by another in good faith is entitled to
removal of improvement only after landowner has opted to sell the land and the builder refused to pay
for the same
Requisites of an alienable alluvion: (1) the increase in soil must be gradual and imperceptible; (2) the
increase must be caused by the current of the waters; and (3) the alluvion must be adjacent to the river
banks or rivers or sea coasts.
The owner of the land adjoining the banks of rivers also owns the accretion which they gradually receive
from the effects of the current of the waters (Art 457). Alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek do
not form part of the public domain as the alluvial property automatically belongs to the owner of the
estate to which it may have been added.
Moreover, respondents are deemed to have acquired ownership over the subject property through

prescription (acquisitive prescription).

44

Viajar v. CA, 168

SCRA 405
[reduced area]

45

Baes v. CA, 224

SCRA 562 [change
in course of river]
Aguirre v. Pheng,
18 SCRA 18
[unjust
enrichment]
PNB v. Maraon,
700 SCRA 297
[ rent]
Gaboya v. Cui, 38
SCRA 85 [same
person]
Pacific Farms
v.Esguerra, 30
SCRA 684 [unpaid
materials]
PNB v. De Jesus,
411 SCRA 557
[honest belief]
Pecson v. CA, 244
SCRA 407 [2 or
more parties]

46

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Depra v. Dumlao,
136 SCRA 415
[removal]
Vda. De Nazareno
v. CA, 257 SCRA
589 [accretion]
City Mayor v.
Ebio, 621 SCRA
555 [increase in
area]

44

Viajar v. CA, 168

SCRA 405
[reduced area]

45

Baes v. CA, 224

SCRA 562 [change
in course of river]
Aguirre v. Pheng,
18 SCRA 18
[unjust
enrichment]

46

1.) Presumption: change in the course of river was gradual and caused by accretion and erosion 2.) Any
accretions which the banks of the rivers may gradually receive from the effects of the current belong to
the owners of the estates bordering thereon. (Art. 457 NCC) 3.) Registration does not protect riparian
owner
If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural
causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is
effected through artificial means.
As a general rule, the absolute owner of the property is entitled to all accessions thereto. However,
where there is absence of bad faith or there is good faith on the one who made the improvements or
accessions, the absolute owner should reimburse the value of the improvements made by the one in
good faith.
Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of the property producing it by right of accession

Recourse to the rules of accession are totally unnecessary and inappropriate where the ownership of
land and of the materials used to build theren are concentrated one one and the same person.
On the premise that Pacific Farms is the owner, it has the obligation to pay CLC for the materials bought
by Insular Farms Inc. However, since Pacific Farm was ruled to be an owner in bad faith, the SC granted
it 30 days to exercise option of redeeming the six buildings upon payment to CLC of the sum due.
One is considered in good faith if he is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any
flaw which invalidates it.
Article 448 does not apply to a case where the owner of the land is the builder, sower, or planter who
then later loses ownership of the land by sale or donation, for then there can be no question as to good
or bad faith on the part of the builder. Nevertheless, the provision therein on indemnity may be applied
by analogy considering that the primary intent of Article 448 is to avoid a state of forced co-ownership.
Owner of the land in good faith on which improvement was built by another in good faith is entitled to
removal of improvement only after landowner has opted to sell the land and the builder refused to pay
for the same
Requisites of an alienable alluvion: (1) the increase in soil must be gradual and imperceptible; (2) the
increase must be caused by the current of the waters; and (3) the alluvion must be adjacent to the river
banks or rivers or sea coasts.
The owner of the land adjoining the banks of rivers also owns the accretion which they gradually receive
from the effects of the current of the waters (Art 457). Alluvial deposits along the banks of a creek do
not form part of the public domain as the alluvial property automatically belongs to the owner of the
estate to which it may have been added.
Moreover, respondents are deemed to have acquired ownership over the subject property through
prescription (acquisitive prescription).
1.) Presumption: change in the course of river was gradual and caused by accretion and erosion 2.) Any
accretions which the banks of the rivers may gradually receive from the effects of the current belong to
the owners of the estates bordering thereon. (Art. 457 NCC) 3.) Registration does not protect riparian
owner
If the riparian owner is entitled to compensation for the damage to or loss of his property due to natural
causes, there is all the more reason to compensate him when the change in the course of the river is
effected through artificial means.
As a general rule, the absolute owner of the property is entitled to all accessions thereto. However,
where there is absence of bad faith or there is good faith on the one who made the improvements or
accessions, the absolute owner should reimburse the value of the improvements made by the one in
good faith.