Where things discovered do not qualify as a hidden
treasure, the rules on occupation, as a mode of
acquiring ownership, would be applicable.
Effect of Concealment
If the finder of the treasure conceal: it from the
owner of the land on which it is found,
he does not hereby lose his share, but he becomes
liable civilly .tnd criminally for taking something not
belonging to him, which is the share of the
landowner. He will also be responsible tor all the
consequence of possession In bad faith with respect
to the loss or deterioration of the thing (TOLENTINO,
p. 95).
Accession
The right by virtue of which the owner of a thing
becomes the owner of everything that is produced
Accession v. Accessories
Accession
The fruits of, or additions to, or improvements upon, a
thing (principal)
Not necessary to the principal thing
Classifications:
1. Accession Discrata - the right pertaining to the
owner of a thing over everything produced thereby
Reasons: Justice pure and simple for one who owns
the thing should justly enjoy the fruits.
Requisited: (ORI)
a. Increase or additiona to the Original thing:
b. At Repe<ueu Intervals,
c. By Inherent forces.
Fruits
All periodical additions to a principal thing produced
by forces inherent to the thing itself.
thereby or which is incorporated or attached
thereto, either naturally or artificially (Arts. 440-475,
CC).
In general, the right of accession is automatic,
requiring no prior act on the part of the owner of the
principal (Villanueva v. Claustro)
Art. 440 do not apply to property of public domain
(Sps. Gulla v. Heirs of Labrador).
Accession is not a mode of acquiring ownership. It is
merely an incidence or consequence of ownership.
Basis: It presupposes a previously existing ownership
by the owner over the principal which is not
necessary in mode of acquiring ownership (DE LEON,
p.134).
Accessories
Things joined to or included with the principal thing for
the latter's embellishment better use or completion.
it must go together with the principal.
Kindsof Fruits
1. Natural of Fruits
a.spontaneous products of the soil; and
b. the youngand other products of animals
(Art. 442 [1], CC).
Rule of Partus Sequitur Ventrem (the offspring
follows the dam/mother):
To the owner of the female animals would also
belong the young of such animals although this right
is lost when the owner mixes his cattle with those of
another.
Reason: First, It is known who the male is, Second,
during the pregnancy of the female, its owner is
greatly burdened by the consequential expenses and
virtual uselessness of the animal, and it is only fair
that when the young is born, the owner should gain,
or at lease recover his loss.
Scanned with CamScanner
 2. Industrial Fruits - those produced by lands of any
k nds through cultivation or labor (Art. 442 (2), CC)
Perennial crops growing per season without the
need of replanting are natural fruits.
Annual crops planted each year are industrial fruit.
3. Civil Fruits
a. Rents of buildings;
b. Price ot leases or lands; and
c. The amount of perpetual or life annualities or
other similar income (Art 442[3J, CC).
Bonus to planters for the risk undergone in
mortgaging property is not a civil fruit of the
mortgaged property having no immediate relation to
the property but only a remote and accidental
relation, not derived from the land nor based on the
value thereof (Bachrach Motor Co. v. Talisay-Silay
Milling Co.)
Right to the Owner to the Fruits
General Rule: To the owner of the principal belongs
the natural industrial, and civil fruit (Art 441, CC)
Exceptions: Instances when the owner of the land
does not own the fruits: (PULPA)
1. Possession in good faith;
2. Usufructuary;
3. l essee of rural lands.
4. Pledgees or
5. In possession of an Antichrctic creditor (PARAS, p.
208).
Obligation of recipient of FRUITS to Reimburse
Necessary Expenses of Third Persons General Rule
Necessary (not luxurious) expenses of production,
gathering and preservation (whether more or less
than the value of fruits)must be burned by the
receiver of the fruits (Art. 443, CC).
Applies where:
1. The owner of the property recovers the same
from a possessor and the latter has not yet already
been gathered or harvested;or;
2. The possessor had already received the fruits but
is ordered to return the same to the owner (DE
LEON, p. 141).
Note: The above provision is not applicable when
the planter is in good faith because in this case, he is
entitled to the fruits already received; hence there is
no necessity of reimbursing him (Art 544, CC).
Exception: The rule does not a'ways apply to
pending fruits under Art. 449.
When Natural Fruits and Industrial Fruits Deemed
to Exist (Art 444, CC),
Natural and Industrial fruits, while still ungathered
are real property. The following rules apply in
determining the time when they are deemed to have
existed:
1. Plants producing one crop only then perish - They
are deemed to have existed from the time their
seedlings appear from the ground
2. Plants and trees living for years, and producing
periodic fruits - They are deemed to have existed
from the time they actually appeared on the plants
or trees.
3. Animals - They are deemed to have existed at the
beginning of the maximum period of gestation
4. Fowls - the fact of appearance retroaci to the
beginning of incubation (DE LEON, p. 142).
Rule for Civil Fruit as Distinguished from Natural
and Industrial Fruits
Civil Fruits are easily prorated for under Art 544,
they are deemed to accrue daily. They are
considered in the category of personal property and
belong to the possession in good faith in that
proportion while natural and industrial fruits
ordinarily cannot be prorated and are considered
real property while still growing (PARAS, p. 216).
Scanned with CamScanner
2. Accession Contlnua - The right pertaining to the
owner of a thing over cv 'rything that is incorporated
or attached thereto either naturally or artificially; by
external forces (PARAS, p. 204).
Reasons: Economic convenience is better attained in
a state of single ownership than in a co-ownership,
and natural justice demands that the owner of the
principal should also own the accessory (PARAS, p.
207).
a. With respect to real property
i. Accession Industrial -- building, planting,
sowing
ii. Accession natural --alluvium, avulsion,
change of course of rivers, formation of islands.
b With respect to personal warranty
i. Adjunction or conjuction
11. Commixtion or confusion
iii. Specification
Basic Principles: (GONE-BAD)
1. He who is in Good faith may be held.responsible
but will not be penalized.
2. To the Owner of a thing belongs the extension or
increase of such thing.
3. Bad faith of one party Neutralizes the bad faith of
the other.
4. There should be no unjust Enrichment at the
expense of others.
Table of Rights and Obligations
landowner (LO)
Good Faith
1. Acquire improvements and pay to 1. Right of retention for necessary
B,P,S indemnity; and useful expense;
OR
5. Bad faith involves liability.
6. Accessory follows the principal.
7. Accession exist only if the incorporation is such
that separation would either seriously Damage the
thing or Diminish its value (PARAS, p. 217).
Right of Accession With Respect to Real Property
General Rule: Whatevcr's 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 Articles, 447-456 and the
Family Code.
Scope of Building
The term "building" is a generic term for all
architectural work with roof, built for the purpose of
being used as man's dwelling, or for offices, clubs,
theaters, A warehouse is not a building.
Scope of Planting
It is not necessary that the trees or plants should
have taken root; it is enough that they are planted in
order to belong to the owner of the land
(TOLENTINO, p. 107)
Presumption: Ail works, sowing, and planting are
presumed made by the owner and at his expense,
unless the contrary is proved (Art, 446, CC).
Note: Art. 445 is only if the owner of the land is
known.
Accession Industrial
Builder, Planter, Sower Owner of the Materials (OM)
(B,P, S) Good Faith
Good Faith
1. Collect value of materials
primarily from B, P, S;
.. Subsidiarity from land owner if B, P,
Scanned with CamScanner

2. Sell land to B or P except if the
value of the land is considerably
more;
3. Rent to S (Arts. 448, 546, 455,
CC);
4. Subsdiarily liable to owner of
materials.
Good Faith
>. Acquire improvements and pay
indemnity to B, P, S; OR
2. Sell to B, P, except if the value of
land Is considerably more, forced
lease;
3. Without subsidiary liability for
cost of material.
Good Faith
1. Acquire improvement w/o paying
indemnify and collect damages, or
2. Demolition or restoration, and
collect damages, or
Landowner (LO)
3. Sell to B, P, or rent to S, and
collect damages;
4. Pay necessary expenses to B, P, S
(Arts. 449, 450, 451, CC).
Bad Faith
1. Acquire improvements after
paying indemnify and damages to
B,P,S;
2. Subsdiarily liable to owner of
materials (Arts, 454, 447, 455, CC)
Bad Faith
1. Acquire improvements after
indemnity to B, P, S; OR
| 2. Sell to B, P except; if the value is
2. Pay value of materials to owner
of materials.
Good Faith
1. Right of retention for necessary
and useful expenses;
2. Keep building, planting or sowing
w/o Indemnity to owner of
materials and collect damages (Arts.
54G & 449, CC).
Bad Faith
1. Recover necessary expenses for
preservation;
2. Lose improvements w/o right to
indemnity from LO
Builder, Planter, Sower
(B, P, S)
(Arts. 452, CC) unless the LO sells
land.
BAD FAITH
Same as though all acted in good
faith (Art. 453, CC).
Good Faith
1. Remove improvements in any
event;
2. Be indemnified for damages;
Bad Faith
1. Right of retention for necessary
expenses;
2. Pay value of materials to owner
S insolvement.
2. Remove only if without injury
(Arts. 455, 447, CC).
Bad Faith
1. Lose them without right to
Indemnify (Art. 449, CC).
Bad Faith
1. Recover value
Owner of the Materials (OM)
Materials if w/o injury (Arts. 447,
CC);
No action against LO.
Good Faith
1. Remove materials if w/o injury;
2. Collect value of materials,
primarily from B, P, S;
3. Subsidiarily from LO (Arts. 447,
455, CC).
Bad Faith
1. Collect value of materials
primarily from B, P, S;
Subsidiarily from L;
Scanned with CamScanner
considerably more; of materials and pay him damages 2. Collect damages,
(Arts. 546 & 477, CC)
3. Rent to S (Arts. 453, 448, 546, 3. If B, P, S acquires improvements
548, 455, CC); remove materials in any event (Arts.
447 & 455, CC)
4. Subsidiarily liable to owner of
materials.
Good Faith Bad Faith Good Faith
1. Acquire w/o paying 1. Recover necessary 1. Collect value of materials

Landowner Builder, Planter, Sower Owner of the Materials

(to) (B, ?, S) (OM)
Indemnity and collect damages; Expenses (Art. 452 & 443, CC); /ma damages from B, P, S and
QB subsidiarily from LO:
2. Lose Improvements w/o right of
2 Sell to B, P and rent to S and retention from LO (Art. 452, CC) 2. Remove materials in any event if
collect damages; unless LO sells the land. B. P, S acquires improvement.
QB

3. Demolish or testore and collect •

damages;

4. Pay necessary expenses to B, P, S;

5. Subsidiarily liable to owner of

materials(Arts. 449,450 & 451, CC).
Bad Faith Good Faith Bad Faith
1. Acquit e imptovements & pay 1. indemnify of damages 1. No indemnity;
indemnify to B, P, S, (Arts. 454 8.
447, CC) 2. Remove improvements in any 2. Lose materials
event (Arts. 454 & 447, CC) (Art. 449, CC)

Application: Art 448: applies only when the builder,

planter, sower believes he has the right to build, Art 448. Does not apply where one's interest in the
plant, sow because he thinks he owns the land or land is merely that of a holder such as a mere lessee
believes himself to have a claim of title under a rental contract (Balucanag v. Francisco) an
(Communities Cagayan Inc v.Sps. Arsenio) agent, or a usufructuary (Macasaet v. Macasaet).

Applying Article 447 by analogy, the Supreme Court,
in the case of Pacific Farms v. Esguerra considered
buildings as the principal and lumber and
construction materials are the accessory.
When the co-ownership is terminated by partition
and it appears that the house of an erstwhile co-
ownership upon a portion pertaining to another co
owner which was however made in good faith, then
the provisions of Art. 448 should apply to determine
the respective rights of the parties. (Igr.ao v. IAC)
Lessees came into possession of the lot by virtue of a
contract cv lease.They are then estopped to deny
their landlord's title or to assert a better title not
only in themselves, but also in some third person
while they remain in possession of the land until
they surrender such possession to the landlord
(Munar v. CA).
The estoppel applies even though the lessor had no
title at the time. The relation of lessor and lessee

Scanned with CamScanner

may also be asserted by the successors of the
original lessor to the latter's title (Feliciano v. Sps.
Zaldivar)
The provision on imdenuty in Art. 448
may be applied by analogy considering that the
primary intent of the law is to avoid a state of forced
co ownership especially where the parties agree
Art. 448 and 546 are applicable and indemnify for
the improvements may be paid although they differ
as to the basis of the indemnify. It is the current
made the basis of i eimbursement to the builder in
made the basis of the indemnity. It is the current
market value of the improvements which should be
made the basis if reimbursement to the builder in
good faith. (Pecson v. CA)
Art 448 refers to a land whose ownership is claimed
by two or more parties, one of whom has built some
works, sown or planted something. It does not apply
to a case where the owner of the land is the builder,
sower, or planter who then inter loses ownership of
the land b sale or donation. Where the true owner
himself is the builder of the works, the issue of good
faith laid down in Art. 526 of the Civil Code shall be
applied to determine the good faith of the builder in
Art. 448 (Pecson v. CA)
After the government sold the property of a person
due to non-payment of taxes, the buyer moved for
delivery not only of the lot, but even the
improvement. Only the lot was sold. The motion was
granted subject to the condition of reimbursement
of the value of the improvement.
Reason: He is a builder in good faith. He was stiil the
owner of the lot when he constructed the
improvement (Nuguid v. CA)
Cases NOT Covered:
1. Other provisions of law (e.g usufruct lease,
agency, co-ownership):
Exception: In case of termination of co-
ownership,rights provided in Art. 448 may apply
(Ignao v. IAC)
2. Improvement constructed on one's own land
subsequently sold;
3. Builder,a belligerent occupan t;
4. Constructions not in the nature of buildings and
5. Property of public do minion
Options of the Landowner:
The landowner can choose between appropriating
the building by paying the proper indemnity or
obliging the builder to pay the price of the land,
unless its value is considerably more than that of the
structures, in which case the builder in good faith
shall pay reasonable rent. If the parties cannot come
to terms over the conditions of the iease, the court
must fix the terms thereof (Rosales v. Castelltort)
The landowner may not refuse both to pay the
building and to sell the land, and, instead seek to
compel to the owner of the building to remove the
building from the land. He is entitled to such
removal only when after having chosen to sell the
land, the other party fails to pay for the said land
(Ignacio y. Hi'ario)
Should no other arrangement to be agreed upon,
the owner of the land does not automatically
become the owner of the improvement;
Remedies of the Parties
1. The parties may decide to leave things as they are
and assume the retention of lessor and lessee, and
should they disagree as to the amount of rental,
then they can go to court to fix that amount;
2. Should the parties not agree to ■'ssume the
relation of lessor and lessee, the owner of the land is
entitles to have the improvement removed; and
3. The land and the improvement may be sold at the
auction, applying the proceeds thereof first to the
payment of the value of the land and the excess, if
any to be delivered to the owner of the
Scanned with CamScanner
improvement in payment thereof (Filipinas Colleges,
Inc. v. Timbang)
Right to Choose: The option to appropriate the
building or sell the land belongs the landowner. The
only right of the builder In good faith is the right to
reimbursement, not to compel the owner of the land
to sell. The option is not to buy but to sell (Quemuel
v. Olaes)
Reasons Why the Option is Given To the
Landowners:
1. His right is older; and
2. By the principle of accession, he Is entitled to the
ownership of the accessory thing (Quemuet v. Olaes)
Not even a declaration of the builder's bad faith
shift the option to him as provided in Art. 450 of the
Civil Code (Sps. Benitez v. CA)
Once the choice is made by the landowner, it is
generally irrevocable (Tayag v. Yuseco)
The so-called "workable solution' suggested in the
case Grana v. CA where the court ordered the owner
of the land to sell the builder, etc. the part of the
land intruded upon thereby depriving him of his
right to choose because it would be impractical to
choose the first alternative for the whole
improvement might be rendered useless, is contrary
to the explicit provisions of Art. 448 to the effect
that "(t)he owner for the land... shall have the right
to appropriate...or to oblige the one who built... to
pay the price of the land..." The law is clear and
unambiguous when it confers the right to choice
upon the landowner and not upon the builder and
the courts (Ignao v. IAC)
Reason: The raison d'etre for the law is that, where
the builder, planter or sower has acted in good faith,
a conflict of rights arises between the owners, and it
becomes necessary to protect the owner of the
improvements without causing injustice to the
owner of the land. In view of the impracticability of
creating a state of record co-ownership, the law has
provided a just solution (Oepra v. Dumlao)
Note: Art 448 is not mandatory. There is nothing,
however, in the law to prevent the oartied from
agreeing to adjust their rights in some other way.
Who is a builder in good faith?
To be considered a builder in good faith, it is
essential that a person asserts title to the land in
which he builds, ie., that he be a possessor in the
concept of an owner and that he be unaware that
there eyist in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw
which invalidates it (PARAS, p. 460)
Good Faith May Co-exist with Negligence
Good faith does not necessarily preclude negligence
there is no Intention to do wrong or cause damage
unlike in bad faith which presupposes such intention
(DE LEON, p. 174).
Rights of the Builder in Good Faith:
1. He has the right to be reimbursed the value of the
improvement. He has the right of retention until
fuliy reimbursed.
2. The builder in good faith cannot be compelled to
pay rentals during the period of retention. He pay
rentals during the period of retention. He cannot be
ordered to vacate.
3. The owner of the land cannot offset the necessary
and useful expenses with the fruits received by the
builder in good faith. Otherwise, the security would
be impaired (Rosales v. Castell fort)
Accession Natural
1. Alluvion or Alluvium (Art, 457-458, CC) -
Increment which lands abutting rivers gradually
receive as a result of the current of the waters.
Accretion- The process by which a riparian land
gradually and imperceptibly receives addition made
by the water to which the land is contiguous.
Riparian owner - the owner of the land adjacent to
the river bank.
Scanned with CamScanner

Littoral Owner - the owner of lands bordering the
shore of the sea or lake or other tidal waters.
Alluvion v. Accretion
Alluvion
Soil deposited on the estate fronting the river bank.
Applies only to the soil deposited on river banks.
Requisites of Alluvion of Accretion:
a. The deposit or accumulation of soil or sediment
must be gradual and imperceptible (increase must
be comparatively little);
b. The accretion must result from the effects or
action of the current of the water;
c. That the land where accretion takes place is
adjacent to the bank of the river;
d. The river must continue to exist; and
e. The increase, must be comparatively little (PARAS,
р. 262).
Reasons for the Rule:
a. To compensate the owner for losses which they
may suffer by erosion;
b. To compensate them for the burden of legal
easements, wnich are imposed upon them;
с. Because It is the owner of the contiguous land
who can't utilize the increment to the best
advantage;
d. Because this is the only feasible solution, since the
previous owners can no longer be identified (PARAS,
pp. 263-264).
An alluvion is automatically owned by the riparian
owner from the moment the soil deposit can be seen
but the additional area does not automatically
If the Increment Is formed by the action of the sea,
the same is not called alluvium/accretion but
foreshore land. As such, It is part of the public
domain ( Heirs of E. Navarro v. IAC)
Accretion
Process by which the soil is deposited.
Broader term
become registered land just because the lot which
receives such accretion is covered by a Torrens title.
The riparian owner must register the additional area
within fifty (50) years (Heirs of E. Navarro v. IAC)
Lands acquired by accretions on the bank of a lake
belong to the owners of the estate to which they
have been added (Gov't of the Philippine Islands v.
Coiegio de San Jose)
Registration under Torrens System does not protect
the riparian owners against the diminution of
Appeals)
Failure to register the acquired alluvial deposit by
accretion subject said accretion to acquisition thru
prescription by third persons (Reynante v. CA)
A riparian owner does not acquire the addition to his
land caused by special works (e.g. dikes) expressly
intended by him to bring about accretion (i.e., for
reclamation purposes) and not protect his prope<ty
from the destructive force of the waters of the river
(Republic v. CA)
Art. 457 excludes all deposits caused by human
intervention. Alluvion must be the exclusive work of
nature (Vda. De Nazarene, et al. v. CA)
In the absence of evidence that the change in the
course of the river was sudden, the presumption is
that the change was gradual and was caused by
alluvium and erosion (Payatas-Estate Improvement
Co. v. Tuason)
Scanned with CamScanner
 Also called "force of the river" since it implies a
Effect of Public Service Constructions or Easement violent tearing or breaking away.
on River Banks
It may also be referred as "delayed accession" in the
a. if a public service construction, like a railroad or a
sence that if the owner abandons the soil involved,
road, is made on a river banks, it is the government
or fails to remove the same within two years, the
or the railroad company which will own the
land to which it has been attached acquires
accretion.
ownership thereof (PARAS, Cevil Cede,supra at 271).

b. If instead of a public service construction, there is

Requisites:
only an easement for the benefit of navigation,
a. The segregation and transfer must be caused by
floatage, fishing and salvage the right of the riparian
the current of a river, creek or torrent;
owner subsists, because in easements, the owner of
the servient estate does not lose his ownership over
b. The segregation and transfer must be sudden or
the portion covered (PARAS p. 265).
abrupt; and

Estates Adjoining Ponds or Lagoons

c. The portion of land transported must be known or
Owners of such do not acquire the land left dry by
identified (DE LEON, p. 186).
the natural decrease of the waters, or lose that
inundated by them in extraordinary floods (Art. 458.
Current- the continuous movement of a bony at
CC).
water, often horizontal, in a certain direction (DE
LEON, p.186).
Pond - a body of stagnant water without an outlet

River- a natural stream of water, of greater volume

Lagoon - a small lake, ordinarily of fresh water and
than a creek or rivulet flowing, in a more or less
not verv deep, fed by floods, the hollow bed of
permanent bed or channel, between well-defined
which is bounded by the elevation of the land.
banks or walls, with a current which may either be
continuous in one direction or affected by the ebb
Lake - a body of water formed in depressions of the
earth, ordinarily fresh water, coming from rivers, and flow of the tide.

brooks or springs and connected by the sea by them.

Creek- a small stream less than a river, a recess or
Note: This provision refers to ponds and lagoons and inlet in the shore of a river, and not a separate or
therefore has no application to lakes (TOLENTINO, p. independent stream though it is something used in
129). the latter meaning.

2. Avulsion Torrent - a violent, rushing, turbulent stream

The transfer of a known portion land from one

''•moval Within Two (2) Years: The owner must
tenement »o another by the force of the current.The
remove (not merely claim) the transported portion
portion of the land must be such that it can be
within two years to retain ownership
identified as coming from a oefinite tenement (Art.
459, CC).

Scanned with CamScanner

 Alluvium v. Avulsion
Alluvium Avulsion
Gradual and imperceptible Sudden or abrupt process
Soil cannot be identified Identifiable and verifiable
Belongs to the owner of the property to which it Is Belongs to the owner from whose property it was
attached detached

Scanned with CamScanner

 Reasons for Removal
1. The segregated portion is usually very small
2. If the are is large there is a need to claim for its value
within two (?) years.
3. If there Is no need for claim, III feeling may arise
between the neighbors
4. To prevent legal absurditi es
5. To prevent permanent attachment
6. The principle Is similar to that underlying Art. 460
(PARAS, pp. 272-273)
In the absence of evidence, the presumption is that the
change was gradual and was caused by by alluvium and
erosion (C.N. Hodges v. Garcia)
Rule on Unrooted Trees
Trees uprooted and carried away by the current of the
waters belong to the owner of the land upon which they
may be cast, if the owners do not claim them within six (6)
months (Arts. n60, CC).
If such owners claim them, they shall pay the expenses
incui red !n gathering them or putting them in a safe place
(Art. 460, CC).
The 6-month period is a condition precedent and not a
prescription. After a claim is made within six (6) months, an
action may be brought within the period by law for
prescription of movables (Ari. 1140, CC).
In case of uprooted trees, the owner retains ownership if
he makes a claim within six (6) months. This does not
include trees which remain planted on a known portion of
land carried by the force of the waters. In the latter case,
the trees are regarded as accessions of the land through
gradual changes in the course of adjoining stream
(Payatas-Estate Improvement Co. v. Tuason)
If the owner of the land upon which the trees have been
cast, transplanted them on his own land, the former owner
may still recover the same within the period of six (6)
months.
Indemnification of Owner of the Land Upon which
Uprooted Trees may have been Cast
If he has incurred expenses for preserving them, as when
he gathered them In a safe place for eventual return, or
when he transplants them, only for preservation purposes,
he is entitled to indemnification.
If he has done lOthlng, he cannot demand indemnification
unless he has suffered in any way and the real owner
benefited (PARAS, p. 276-277).
3. Change of Course of Rivers
Rules:
a. River beds which are abandoned through the natural
change in the course of the waters IPSO FACTO belong to
the owners whose lands are occupied by the new course in
proportion to the area lost.
"Ipso facto" the prejudiced owner automatically becomes
the owner of the abandoned river bed
The owners of the land adjoining the old bed shall have
the right to acquire the same by paying the value of the are
occupied by the new bed (Art. 461, CC).
c. Whenever a river, changing its course by natural
changes, opens a new bed through a private estate, this
bed shall become of public dominion (Art. 462, CC).
Requisites: (CA2 PE)
a. There must be a natural Change in the course of the
waters of the river; otherwise, the bed may be the subject
of a State grant (REYES-PUNO, Philippine Civil Law, p.54);
b. The change must be Abrupt or sudden;
c. There must be Abandonment by the owner of the bed i.e
a decision not to bring back the river to the old bed (REYES
PUNO, Philippine Civil Law, supra at S3);
d. The change must be Permanent; the rule does r..‘. pply
to temporary overflowing;and
e. The river continues to E xist (PARAS, p. 280).
"River beds which are abandoned" means where there is
abandonment by the government if its rights over the old
bed, the owner of the invaded land automatically acquires
ownership odf the same without the necessity of any
Scanned with CamScanner
formal act on his part. No positive act is needed on their
part, as it is subject thereto ipso Jure from the moment the
mode of acquisition becomes evident (TOLENTINO, p. 137).
"In proportion to the are lost" contemplates two o: tiore
owners whose lands are occupied by the new bed. If only
one owner has lost;he p.ets the entire abandoned river bed
(Paras, p. 277).
It doos not apply to cases where the river simply dries up
because there are no persons whose lands are occupied by
the waters of the river. The new river bed thus formed
become of public dominion (Art 462, CC).
4. Formation of Island by the Branching Off of River (Art
463, CC).
Whenever the current of a river divides itself into
branches, the isolated of separated piece of land or any
part thereof, the owner of such land retains ownership.
There is :soiat.on where the portion has not physically
moved.
There is separation when such portion has physically
moved.
Note: The above piece of land formed by isolation or
separation, belongs to the owner of property since no
accession takes place (PARAS, p. 285).
5. Formation of islands by successive accumulation of
alluvial deposits.
a. If formed on the sea:
i. Within territorial waters - the island/s belong/s to the
state; said island/s is/ai e considered patrimonial property
(Art 464, CC).
ii. Outside territorial waters - to the first occupant (This is
In accordance with the principles of Public International
Law for discovery and occupation considered as a definite
mode of acquiring territory).
b. If formed in lakes, or navigable or floatable rivers -
State; also a patrimonial property (CIVIL CODE, Art 464).
Navigable or floatable river - if useful for floatage and
commerce, whether the tides affect the water or not;
should benefit trade and commerce
C. If formed cn non-navigable or non-flo^table rivers
(CIViL CODE, Art. 465).
I. If nearer to one margin or bank - to the nearer riparian
owner.
Reason: The nearer margin nas the better chance of
developing the island in the interest agriculture.
RIGHT OF ACCESSION WiTH RESPECT TO PERSONAL
PROPERTY
Basic Principle: Accession exists only if separation is not
feasible. Otherwise, separation may be demanded (PARAS,
р. 290).
Kinds:
1. Adjunctlon/Conjunctiori (Arts 466-477, CC): The union
of two movable things belonging to different owners, in
such a manner that they cannot be separated without
injury, thereby forming a single object (DE LEON, p. 197).
Requisites:
a. There are two movables belonging to different owners;
b. They are united in such a way that they form a single
object; and
с. They are so inseparable that their separation would
impair their nature or result in substantial injury to either
component (DE LEON, p. 198).
Note: The application of the rule of accessorium sequitur
principal® must give way to any express or implied
agreement of the owners as to the ownership of the new
object (TOLENTINO, p. 142).
Kinds: (SEPT)
a. Inclusion or engraftment (e g. when a diamond is set on
a gold ring);
b. Soldadura or soldering (e.g when lead is united or fused
to an object made of lead);
i. Ferruminadon - if both the accessory and principal
object are of the same metal.
Scanned with CamScanner
ii. Ptumbatura - if the accessory and principal objects are
of different materials.
c. Escritura or writing (eg. when a person writes on a
paper belonging to another);
d. Pintura or painting (eg when a person paints on a
canvas belonging to another!; and
e. Tejido or weaving (e g when threads belonging to
different owners arc used in making belonging to different
owners are used ir. making textile)
(DE LEON, p. 198).
Tests to Determine Principal in Adjunction:
a. Test of Intention - to which the other (accessory) has
been united as an ornament or for its use or perfection
(Art. 467, CC).
b. That of greater value - if they are unequal values (Art
468, CC).
c. That of greater volume - if they are equal values (Art
468, CC).
Art. 468 applies when the rule in Art. 467 is not applicable.
d. That of greater merits - take into consideration all
pertinent provisions applicable as wel' as the comparative
merits, utility and volume (Art 475, CC).
With reference to a motor vehicle, the engine may be
considered as the principal, all the other parts of the
vehicle being regarded as mere accessories (PARAS, p.
289).
Special Rule: In painting and sculpture, writings, printed
matter, engraving and lithograph the board, metal, stone,
canvas, paper or parchment shall deemed the accessory
- (Art. 468, CC).
Note: Since the special rule specifies the special cases,
analogous cases which are not enumerated should not be
solved analogously, but in accordance with the general
tests provided for in Arts. 476 and 468 [1], "When certain
things are enumerated, those not included are deemed
excluded. (PARAS, p. 290).
Rules on who is Entitled:
a. Adjunction in good faith by either owner:
General Rule: Accessory follows the principal
Exceptions:
i. If the accessory can be separated without injury, their
respective owner may demand the separation (Art. 469,
CC)
li. If the accessory is much more precious than the
principal, the owner of the even if the principal suffers
some injury (Art. 469, CC).
iii. If the owner of thing has acted in bad faith (Art. 470,
CC).
b. Adjunction in bad faith by the owner of the principal:
Options of the owner of the accessory:
I. To recover the value plus damages; or
ii. To demand separation, even though it may be necessary
to destroy the principal thing, plus damages.
c. Adjunction in bad faith by the owner of t he accessory
i. He loses the accessoiy
ii. He is liable for damages
d. Adjunction in bad faith b y both owners - their respective
rights shall be determined as though both are in good
faith.
Form of Imdemnity to Owner of Material
1. Delivery of a thing equal in kind and value;or
2. Payment of price as appraised by experts (Art. 471, CC).
2.Mixture: It takes place when two (2) or more things
belonging to different owners are mixed or combined with
the respective identifies of the component parts destroyed
or lost (Arts. 472-473, CC).
Note: As distinguished from adjunction, tnere is in mixture
greater inter-penetration or decomposition of the objects
that have been mixed (DE LEON, p. 203).
Kinds:
a. Commixtion - mixture of solids
b. Confusion - mixture of liquids
Scanned with CamScanner

Rules:
a. Mixture by will of the OWNERS:
i. Primarily, their rights should be governed by their
stipulants:
ii. In the absence of any stipulation, each owner
acquires a right or interest in the mixture in proportion
to the value of his material mixed or confused as in co
ownership.
b. Mixture caused oy an owner in good faith or by chance:
i.Each owner acquires a right or interest in the mixture
in proportion to the value of his material mixed or
confused.
c. By one owner in bad faith:
i. He loses all his rights to his own material;
and
ii. He is liable for damages
d. With the knowledge and without the objection of owner:
i. As though both acted in good faith
e. By the negligence of one of the parties:
i.The negligent owner is liable for damages
(DE LEON, p. 203-204).
3. Specification (Art 474, CC): The transformation of
another's material by the application of labor. The material
becomes a thing of different kind. Labor is principal.
Example: Using the paint of another to make a painting on
your canvas (PARAS, p. 296).
Note: If you use your own paint on the canvas of another,
this is adjunction.
Reason: the canvas is contldt'ad the accessory in Article
468 on adjunction (PARAS, p. 296).
General Rule:
a.owner of the principal (worker) in good faith;
i. Maker acquiies the new thing; and
ii. He must indemnify the owner of the material
Exception:
If the material is more valuable than the resulting thing,
the owner of the material has the option
1. To acquire the work, indemnifying for the labor,or
2. To demand indemnity for the material.
b. Owner of the principal (worker) in bad faith, the owner
of the material has the option:
i. To acquire the result without indemnity;or
ii. To demand indemnity for the material plus
damages (DE LEON, p. 207).
Exception to the Exception:
Owner of the material cannot appropriate the work if the
value of the latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is
considerably more than the material (DE LEON, p. 207).
Effect of Owner of the Material in Bad Faith:
a. He loses the material;and
b. He is liaDie for damages; (Art. 274, CC).
Note: In determining the value, sentimental value must be
taken into account (Art. 275, CC).
CASES:
1. Sps. Decaler.g v, Philippine Episcopal Chruch
(Remedies)
SUMMARY: This case is about the accion reinvidicatoria
filed by the Philippine Episcopal Church to recover the
lands they own from the possession and alleged ownership
of the Spouses Decaler.g. RTC ruled in favor of the Spouses,
while the CA reversed. The Court ruled that PEC was able
to prove their ownership as they met the two requisites for
an accion reinvidicatoria. Since they were able to prove
they own the lands, they were also able to prove their
possession anent the fact that they do not actually possess
or occupy the lands.
DOCTRINE: An accion reinvidicatoria is an action to
recover ownership over real property. To successfully
maintain this action, the person who claims a better right
to it must prove two things: first, the identity of the land
claimed by describing the location, area, and boundaries
thereof, and second, his title thereto.
asfor possession, actual possession of an owner did not
need to be the actual and occupation of every inch or
Scanned with CamScanner
 prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may
affo rd a deg ua tc_r ellef._________________________
Art. 492. For administration and better enjoyment of
the thine owned in common, the resolutions of the
majority of the co-owners shall be binding.
There shall be no majority unless the resolution is
approved by the co-owners who represent the
controlling interest in the object of the co-ownership.
Should there be r.o majority, or should the resolution of
the majority be seriously prejudicial to those interested
in the properly owned in common, the court, at the
instance of an interested party, shall order such
measures as it may deem proper. Including the
appointment of an administrator.
Whenever a part of the thing belongs exclusively to one
of the co-owners, and the remainder is owned in
common, the preceding provisions shall apply only to
part owned In common.
Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership
of his pait and of the fruits and benefits pertaining
thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or
mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its
enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved
But the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with
respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion
which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
termination of the co-ownership.
Article 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in
the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any
time the partition of the thing owned in common,
insofar as his share is concerned.
Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided
for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years,
shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new
agreement.
A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period
which shall not exceed twenty years. Neither shall there
be any partition when it is prohibited by law.
I
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co­
heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co ownership.
Article 1088. Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary
rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the
co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the
purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale,
provided they do sn within the period of one month
from the time they were notified in writing of the sale
by the vendor.
Article 1620. A co-owner of a thing may exercise the
right of redemption in case the shares of all the other
cc-owners or of any of them, are sold to a third person.
If the price of the alienation is grossly excessive, the
redemptioner shall pay only a reasonable one.
Should two or more co-owners desire to exercise the
right of redemption, they may only do so in proportion
to the share they may respectively have in the thing
owned in common.
_________________________________________ I
Article 1623. The right or legal pre-emption or
redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty
days from the notice in writing by the prospective
vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed
of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property,
unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that i
he has given written notice thereof to all possible
redemptioners.
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of
adjoining owners.
Special Rights of Co-owners (7)
1. Right to own (493)
Inc: of his part, and the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto -> may alienate, assign or
mortgage, even substitute another
EXC: personal rights
Qualification: effect limited to the portion
which may allotted in division upon
termination of the co-ownership
2. Right to use property (486)
Limitations:
(a) In accordance with the purpose for which
it is intended
(b) In such a way as to not injure the interest
of the co-ownership or
Scanned with CamScanner
 (c) NOT prevent others co-owners from
using It according to their rights
3. Right to compel contribution and reimbursement
(488)
To contribute to (1) expenses of preservation
an< (2) taxes
Ma / exempt from obligation by renouncing
so much of his undivided interest as may bp
equivalent to his share of the expenses and
taxes
o (this waiver is not allowed if
prejudicial to co ownership)
4. Right to administration/ participate Ir. decision -
making
(3) Partition will make thing unserviceable for use for
which it is intended (495)
But co-ownership may be terminated in the
following manner, either
(1) Thing be allotted to one who shall
indemnify the others,
(2) If co-owners cannot agree, thing shall be
sold and proceeds distributed
(4) Thing is essentially indivisible. (498)
But co-ownership may be terminated in the
following manner, either
(3) Thing be allotted to one v-ho shall
indemnify the others,
(4) If co-owncrs cannot agree, thing shall be
sold and proceeds distributed

- ’Matter • • Whose" liecisidn - - -'Remedy for

*-— • -1 .withholding, No prescription in favor of one co-owner against the other
* 'co'nsent of . for as long as the latter recognizes co-ownership, expressly
♦• prejudicial.* • or Impliedly.
4
. decision
Administration Majority Court 3. Special Rules (marriage and cohabitation)
and better
ei./jyment of Definition: co-owners
the thing (Art. representing the Art. 147, FC When a man and a woman who are
492) controlling interest in the capacitated to marry each other, live exclusively with
object of co-ownership. each other as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or under a void marriage, their wages and
Alterations ALL (unanimous consent) Court salaries shall be owned by them in equal shares and the
(Art. 491) property acquired by both of them through their work
or industry shall be governed by the rules on co-
ownership.
5. Right to sue for possession (437)
Anyone may sue In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties
BUT all should be included in action as acquired while they lived together shall be presumed to
indispensable parties (Arcelona case) have been obtained by their joint efforts, work or
6. Right to redeem (1620) industry, and shall be owned by them in equal shares.
Pay purchase price; pay reasonable price, if For purposes of this Article, a party who did not
PP is deemed excessive participate in the acquisition by the other party of ar.y
When' 30 days from notice of vendor (1623) property shall be deemed to have contributed jointly in
7. Right to partition the acquisition thereof if che former's efforts consisted
May demand partition any time (494); no in the care and maintenance of the family and of the
obligation to stay in co-ownership household.
4 Exceptions (when partition cannot be demanded):
Neither party can encumber or dispose by acts inter
(1) Agreement (subject to time limitations in AriK.it! vivos of his or her share in the property acquired during
494) cohabitation and owned in common, without the
Partition [vohibited by • Time Limitatidn' consent of the other, until after the termination of their
Agreement Not exceeding 10 years cohabitation.
(may be extended by new
agreement When only one of the parties to a void marriage is in
Donor or testator Not exceeding 20 years good faith, the share of the party in bad faith in the co-
ownership shall be forfeited in favor of their common
children. In case of default of or waiver by any or all of
(2) Partition is prohibited by law the common children or their descendants, each vacant

Scanned with CamScanner

share shall belong to the respective surviving
descendants. In the absence of descendants, such share
shall belong to the innocent party. In all cases, the
forfeiture shall take place upon termination of the
cohabitation.
Art. 148, FC In cases of cohabitation not falling under
the preceding Article, only the properties acquired by
both of the parties through their actual joint
contribution of money, prooerty, or industry shall be
owned by them in common in proportion to their
respective contributions. In the absence of proof to the
contrary, their contributions and corresponding shares
are presumed to be equal. The same rule and
presumption shall apply to joint deposits of money and
evidences of credit.
If one of the parties is validly married to another, his or
her share in the co-ownership shall accrue to the
absolute community or conjugal partnership existing in
such valid marriage. If the party who acted in bad faith is
not validly married to another, his or her shall be
forfeited in the manner provided in the last paragraph
of the preceding Article.
The foregoing rules on forfeiture shall likewise apply
even if both parties are in bad faith.
Effects of Partition
Article 499. The partition of a thing owned in common
shall not prejudice third persons, who shall retain the
rights of mortgage, servitude or any other real rights
belonging to them before the division was made.
Personal rights pertaining to third persons against the
co-ownership shall also remain in force, notwithstanding
the partition.
Article 500. Upon partition, there shall be a mutual
accounting for benefits received and reimbursements
for expenses made. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay
for damages caused by reason of his negligence or
fraud.
Article 501. Every co-owner shall, after partition, be
liable for defects of title and quality of the portion
assigned to each of the other co-owners.
Article 543. Each one of the participants of a thing
possessed in common shall be deemed to have
exclusively possessed the part which may be allotted to
him upon the division thereof, for the entire period
during which the co possession lasted. Interruption In
the possession of the whole or a part of a thing
possessed in common shall be to the prejudice of all the
possessors. However, in case of civil interruption, the
Rules of Court shall apply.
Article 1091. A partition iegally made confers upon each
heir the exclusive ownershio of the property adjudicated
to him.
Effects of partition:
(1) Mutual accounting for benefits received and
reimbursements for expenses made (500);
damages in case of fraud, negligence
(2) No prejudice to 3rd persons who acquired real and
personal rights prior to partition (499)
3,d person creditors may participate in the
division IF they have real rights over the
property
BUT they cannot impugn partition already
carried out unless there is fraud.
(3) Warranty (501)
(4) Each participant shall be deemed to have
exclusively possessed part allotted to him for the
entire period of co-ownership.
How co-ownership is formed /acquired
1. affinity
2. transaction/by will
3. by law
a. hidden treasure
b. chance
c. easement of party wall
Termination of Co-ownership
1. Partition
2. Consolidation of ownership in one owner
3. Destruction or loss of property
4. Prescription in favor of 3rd person
Cases:
Pardell v. Bartolome
F: 2 sisters are co-owners of an inherited house along Calle
Escolta. One of the sisters, Matilde lived with her husband
in the subject property. The other sister, Vicente, was
living in Spain. The latter is now demanding rent from
Matilde and her husband for occupying the property.

Scanned with CamScanner

H: As co-owner. Matilde does NOT have an obligation to
pay rent In using the property. >
Doctrine: Enjoyment of property—A co-owner is entitled
to use the prorerty owned in common
(1) In accordance with purpose for which it Is intended,
so long as it is not prejudicial to the interests of the
co-owners; and
(2) Without injuring other co-owners and without
preventing them from enjoying their own rights
Matilde Ortiz and her husband occupied the upper story,
designed for use as a dwelling, in the house of joint
ownership; but the record shows no proof that, by so
doing, Matilde occasioned any detriment to the interests
of the community property. There was even no showing
that prevented her sister Vicenta from utilizing the said
upper story accoi ding to her rights.Matilde, therefore, in
occupying with her husband the upper floor of the said
house, did not injure the interests of her coowner, her
sister Vicenta, nor did she prevent the latter from living
therein, but merely exercised a legitimate right pertaining
to her as a I of the property.
HOWEVER, Gaspar should pay rent for occupying a portion
of the lower story as an office for his profession—as justice
of the peace. Gaspar, being a stranger to the co-ownership,
is required to pay to Vicenta K of the rent (total rent- 'A
Vicenta + 'A Matilde)
Melenclo v. DvTiao Lav
F: Validity of a contract of lease because of alleged lack of
consent, concurrence and ratification by the owners of the
property. 4 of 6 heirs of Melencio leased property for 60
years.
H: Contract of lease Is NOT valid.
Only a small majority of the co-owners executed the
lease here in question. Consent of the majority is
insufficient since the lease in question is not merely an
act of administration.
NOTE: lease exceeding 6 years amounts to an act of
ownership and will require a majority.
Tecson v, Fausto
F: 2 partitions involved. First partition was 507 sq.m.:
508sq.m. While the second partition facilitated by the
lawyer Tccson indicated the property is to be subdivided
into 964 sq.m, and 51 sq.m. Issue here is whether siblings
Waldetrudes and Fausto are co-owners of the subject lot
and whether the second partition is valid.
H: V\ aldetrudes and Fausto are co-owners. They are
entitled to equal shares. Second partition is invalid.
The conspicuous silence of the OCT give rise to the
presumption that they are in equal measure
Co-ownership exists
Pertinent legal provision is Art. 485, Civil Code: "the
portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-
ownership shall be presumed equal unless the
contrary is proved
Second partition is invalid since it was a result of the
absolute simulation and fraud perpetrated by Tecson.
leoveras v, Valdez
Leoveras and Valdez were originally co-owners when
they jointly bought them from the same vendor.
However, the co-ownership terminated when they
executed the Partition Agreement
Definition of PARTITION: division between 2 or more
person: of real or personal property, owned in
common, by setting apart their respective interests so
that they may enjoy and possess in severalty,
resulting in the partial or total extinguishment of co-
ownership.
The fact that the agreement lacks technical
description of parties' respective portions or that
property still embraced by a single title could not
legally prevent partition where different portions
allotted to each were determined and became
separately identifiable.
Heirs of Amoll v. Manahan, 2012
Art. 487, CC: anyone of the co-owners may bling an
action in ejectment without enjoining the others.
All co-owners ai e equal parties in interest. Only one is
an indispensable party thereto. The other co-owners
are dispensable.
NOTE: During integration class, Sir Jbats said that in some
other rulings of SC regarding the matter, the SC held that
all co-owners must be made parties to the case. All are
indispensable parties. (Arcelona v. CA, 1997)
Scanned with CamScanner
Arcdorta v. CA, 1997:
"Petitioners are co owners of a fishpond. Private
respondent does not deny this fact, and the Court of
Appeals did not make any contrary flndin'v The fishpond is
undivided; It Is impossible to pinpoint which specific
portion of the property is owned by Olanday, et al. and
which portion belongs to petitioners. Thus, it is not
possible to show ovei which portion the tenancy relation
of private respondent has been established and ruled upon
in Civil Case D-7240. Indeed, petitioners should have been
properly impleaded as indispensable parties.Serv/cewide
Specialists, Incorporated vs. Court of Appeals held that no
final determination of a case could be made if an
indispensable party is not impleaded"
"Formerly, Article 487 of the old Civil Code provided that
any one of the co-owners may bring an action in
ejectment. It was subsequently held that a co-owner could
not maintain an action in ejectment without joining all the
other co-owners."
Arambulov, Nolasco
F: There were 2 parcels of lands located in Tondo, Manila.
Sizes of the parcels are 122 sq.m, and 111 sq.m. There are
9 co-owners and 8 of them wanted to sell the property.
Nolascos did not want to sell because of sentimental value
of the land. 8 aggrieved co-owners filed a petition for relief
under Art. 491, CC.
H: Nolasco cannot be compelled to give consent to the
sale.
Wrong law applied by the lower court. Art.
491 is not applicable. What should be applied
is Art. 493.
Article 491. None of the co-owners shall, without the
consent of the others, make alterations in the thing
owned in common, even though benefits for all would
result therefrom. However, if the withholding of the
consent by one or more of the co-owners is clearly
prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may
afford adequate relief.
: Article 493, Each co-owner shall have the full
i ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits
pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate,
I assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another
| person in its enjoyment except when personal rights
are involved. Cut the effect of the alienation or the
mortgage, with respect to the co owners, shall be
limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in f
the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
Sir Jbats: Court here emphasize d that "each nartv Is the
sole ludae of what Is good for nlm". The Court cannot
substitute its own judgment to that of the owner (Nolasco
in the present case).
REMEDY: Court gave an advise to the 8 other co-owners.
Petitioners who project themselves as prejudiced co-
owners may bring a suit for partition,
Heirs of dela Rosa v. Batonpbacal
F: Reynaldo Dela Rosa is one of 4 co-ownei or a 15,00sq.m.
lot In Marilao, Bulacan. Reynaldo sold 3,750sq.m of the
15,000 to Guillermo and Mario Batongbacal. One of the
conditions in the sale is that a special power of attorney
(SPA) executed by the 3 co-owners in favor of Dela Rosa
should be delivered to Batongbacals. No SPA was
delivered.
H: Contract is valid. There is no need for SPA. It is a mere
surplusage since Reynaldo has the right to alienate his
ideal share under Art. 493 of the Civil Code
Sps. Manos v. Heirs of Bane!
F: 3 siblings partitioned an inherited property from their
father. There was no written memorandum supporting the
same. Esusebio then sold his share to respondents Bangi.
Years later, the children of Eusebio (petitioners) claim that
the sale was invalid.
Hi Sale was valid. The 3 siblings had already effected a
partition of the estate prior to the saie to Bangi.
The evidence presented by the parties indubitably show
that, after the death of Alipio, his children — Eusebio,
Espedita, and Jo^e— had orally partitioned his estate,
including the subject property, which was assigned to
Eusebio
That there was no written memorandum of the partition
among Alipio heirs cannot detract from appellee's cause.
It has been ruled that ORAL PARTITION is effective when
the parties have consummated it by the taking of
Scanned with CamScanner

Here, it is obvious that Eusebio took
possession of his share and exercised
possession In severalty and the exercise of owne.ship of
ownership over it. Thus, the preponderant
the respective portions set off to each.
evidence points to the validity of the sale
executed.
IV. USUFRUCT
A. In General
Definition
Art. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of
another with the obligation of preserving Its form and
substance, unless the title ennstitutinp. it or the law
otherwise provides._________________________________

Right to enjoy the property of another temporarily,

including both the jus utendi (right to possess and
enjoy) and the jusfruendi (fruits), with the owner
(naked) retaining the jus disponendi (alienate or
dispose)
Absolute limitation: Title (so long as title is not
transferred - Jbats)

The 3 Components (Beda)

Usufructuary
o Jus utendi - right to use
o Jus fruendi - right to fruits
Naked ownership
o Jus dispodendi-right to dispose

Formula

Full Ownership = Naked Ownership + Usufruct

Naked Ownership = Full Ownership - Usufruct
Usufruct = Full Ownership - Naked Ownership

Characteristics (Beda)

Real right . .
Of temporary duration
Purpose is to enjoy the benefits and derive all
advantages from the thing due tc normal exploitation
May be constituted on real or personal property,
consumable or non-consumable, tangible or
intangible, ownership of which is vested on another
Transmissible

Requisites of Usufruct (Beda)

1. Essential - real temporary right to enjoy another's

property
2. Natural - obligation to preserve its form or substance
a. Ordinarily present, but a contrary stipulation can
eliminate it because it is not essential.

Classifications of Usufruct (Beda)

1. As to Origin
a. Legal - law (Usufruct of the parents over the
property of their unemancipated children)
b. Voluntary-will
c. Mixed

Scanned with CamScanner