RIGHT OF ACCESSION

AUTOMATED REALTY v. DELA CRUZ

G.R. No. 192026, 1 October 2014

The Court ruled that the elements of agricultural tenancy have not been proved. In the
alternative, if the facts can show that the proper case involves the Civil Code provisions on
builder, planters, sowers, respondent spouses may be considered as builders, planters or
sowers in good faith, provided such is proven before the proper court. The Court of Appeals'
recitation of facts also state that respondent caretakers "cultivated the area, improved the same
and shared the palay produced therein to the corporation, through its authorized agent".
Petitioner corporation allege in their memorandum before this court that at the time it
purchased the property, these "were not irrigated and they were not planted to rice or any
other agricultural crop." No further allegations were made on whether the property was
planted with trees or crops after its purchase in 1990, until respondent caretakers were asked
to vacate in 2000. This cause of action if supported, may be pursued in the proper case either
under builder, planter or sower provisions.

NHA v. BAELLO
G.R. No. 200858, 7 August 2013

The NHA was a builder in bad faith, is evident that NHA acted in gross bad faith
when it took possession of the property, introduced improvements thereon and disposed of
said property despite knowledge that the ownership thereof pertained to the heirs. The Court
cannot disregard the fact that despite persistent urging by the heirs for a negotiated settlement
of the properties taken by NHA before the present action was filed, NHA failed to give even
the remaining UNAWARDED lots for the benefit of the heirs who are still the registered
owners. Instead, NHA opted to expropriate them after having taken possession of said
properties for almost fourteen (14) years. Furthermore, NHA has no right to be reimbursed for
the expenses incurred in the development of the land since it was a builder in bad faith.
.

PNB v. DE JESUS
G.R. No. 149295, 23 September 2003

Good Faith implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of

circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an
honest belief in the validity of one's right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of
intention to overreach another. Applied to possession, 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.
Evidently, petitioner bank was quite aware, and indeed advised, prior to its acquisition of the
land and building from Ignacio that a part of the building sold to it stood on the land not
covered by the land conveyed to it. Equally significant is the fact that the building,
constructed on the land by Ignacio, has in actuality been part of the property transferred to
petitioner.
 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION v. CASIBANG
G.R. No. 192268, 27 January 2016

The property is covered by an OCT registered in the name of the heirs’ predecessor.
As registered owners, the respondents have an imprescriptible right to eject any person
illegally occupying their property. Considering that the occupation of the subject lot is by
mere tolerance or permission of the heirs, the DepEd, without any contract between them, is
bound by an implied promise that it will vacate the same upon demand. Hence, until such
demand to vacate was communicated by the heirs to the DepEd, the heirs are not required to
do any act to recover the subject land, precisely because they knew of the nature of the
DepEd's possession which is by mere tolerance. Moreover, the trial court ruled that the DepEd
is a builder in good faith. To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a person
asserts title to the land on which he builds, i.e., that he be a possessor in the concept of owner,
and that he be unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any law which
invalidates it. However, there are cases where Article 448 of the Civil Code was applied
beyond the recognized and limited definition of good faith, e.g., cases wherein the builder has
constructed improvements on the land of another with the consent of the owner. The Court
ruled therein that the structures were built in good faith in those cases that the owners knew
and approved of the construction of improvements on the property. Despite being a possessor
by mere tolerance, the DepEd is considered a builder in good faith, since it was permitted to
construct a building and improvements to conduct classes on the property. Thus, the two
options available to the heirs as landowners are: (a) they may appropriate the improvements,
after payment of indemnity representing the value of the improvements introduced and the
necessary and useful expenses defrayed on the subject lots; or (b) they may oblige the DepEd
to pay the price of the land. However, it is also provided under Article 448 that the builder
cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the
improvements and buildings. If that is the case, the DepEd is not duty-bound to pay the price
of the land should the value of the same be considerably higher than the value of the
improvement introduced by the DepEd on the subject property. In which case, the law
provides that the parties shall agree on the terms of the lease and, in case of disagreement, the
court shall fix the terms thereof.

MAYOR OF PARANAQUE v. EBIO

G.R. No. 178411, 23 June 2010

It is uncontested that the subject land was formed from the alluvial deposits that have
gradually settled along the banks of the Cut-cut creek…. 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. The only restriction provided for by
law is that the owner of the adjoining property must register the same under the Torrens
system; otherwise, the alluvial property may be subject to acquisition through prescription by
third persons. In contrast, properties of public dominion cannot be acquired by prescription.
No matter how long the possession of the properties has been, there can be no prescription
against the State regarding property of public domain. Even a city or municipality cannot
acquire them by prescription as against the State. Hence, while it is true that a creek is a
property of public dominion, the land which is formed by the gradual and imperceptible
accumulation of sediments along its banks does not form part of the public domain by clear
provision of law.

VILLASI v. GARCIA
G.R. No. 190106, 15 January 2014

Our perusal of the record shows that, as the party asserting their title, the Spouses
Garcia failed to prove that they have a bonafide title to the building in question. Aside from
their postulation that as title holders of the land, the law presumes them to be owners of the
improvements built thereon, the Spouses Garcia were unable to adduce credible evidence to
prove their ownership of the property. In contrast, Villasi was able to satisfactorily establish
the ownership of FGCI thru the pieces of evidence she appended to her opposition. Worthy to
note is the fact that the building in litigation was declared for taxation purposes in the name of
FGCI and not in the Spouses Garcias'. While it is true that tax receipts and tax declarations are
not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute credible proof of claim of title
over the property. While it is a hornbook doctrine that the accessory follows the principal, that
is, the ownership of the property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced
thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially, such rule
is not without exception. In cases where there is a clear and convincing evidence to prove that
the principal and the accessory are not owned by one and the same person or entity, the
presumption shall not be applied and the actual ownership shall be upheld. The rule on
accession is not an iron-clad dictum. On instances where this Court was confronted with cases
requiring judicial determination of the ownership of the building separate from the lot, it
never hesitated to disregard such rule. The case at bar is of similar import. When there are
factual and evidentiary evidence to prove that the building and the lot on which it stands are
owned by different persons, they shall be treated separately. As such, the building or the lot,
as the case may be, can be made liable to answer for the obligation of its respective owner.

SULO v. NAYONG PILIPINO

G.R. No. 170923, 20 January 2009

In the case at bar, lessee have no adverse claim or title to the land. In fact, as lessees,
they recognize that the lessor is the owner of the land. What lessee insist is that because of the
improvements, which are of substantial value, that they have introduced on the leased
premises with the permission of the lessor, they should be considered builders in good faith
who have the right to retain possession of the property until reimbursement by the lessor. We
affirm the ruling of the CA that introduction of valuable improvements on the leased premises
does not give the petitioners the right of retention and reimbursement which rightfully belongs
to a builder in good faith. Otherwise, such a situation would allow the lessee to easily
"improve" the lessor out of its property. We reiterate the doctrine that a lessee is neither a
builder in good faith nor in bad faith that would call for the application of Articles 448 and
546 of the Civil Code. His rights are governed by Article 1678 of the Civil Code, the lessor
has the option of paying one-half of the value of the improvements which the lessee made in
good faith, which are suitable for the use for which the lease is intended, and which have not
altered the form and substance of the land. On the other hand, the lessee may remove the
improvements should the lessor refuse to reimburse.