MODULE 4A WHO IS A BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH?
BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH Traditional Definition:
Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything
has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall
have the right to appropriate as his own the works,
sowing or planting, after the payment of the
indemnity provided for in Articles 546, and 548, or to
oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price
of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent.
However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to
buy the land if its value is considerably more than
that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall
pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does
not choose to appropriate the building or trees after
proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the
court shall fix the terms thereof. (361a)
Rationale:
To prevent the creation of a forced co-ownership
Illustration:
On a parcel of land, there is a planting or building made
by another person who is not the owner of the parcel of
land. If we will leave things are they are, it will create a
situation of forced co-ownership. Our law frowns upon a
perpetual state of co-ownership. This rule of accession
on Article 448 in effect gives a solution to such a
situation.
Thus, It is always the right of a co-owner to ask for
partition because co-ownership is not favored.
Application:
• Good faith in building
• Applies to a case where one builds, plants or
sows on land in which he believes himself to
have a claim of title
• Does not apply where only the interest of the
builder, planter or sower is that of a holder,
such as a tenant
It will apply only when the builder, planter or sower is
in good faith.
Meaning, at the time of the building, planting or sowing,
he honestly believed that the land on which he built or
planted was still part of his property, as in the case as
he was mistaken in the correct boundaries of his land.
It won’t apply if the interest of the builder is that of a
tenant/usufructuary. In such cases, you already know
from the beginning that the land does not belong to you.
You cannot claim that you honestly believed that the
land belongs to you.
Mirallosa v. Carmel Development, Inc.,
A builder in good faith is “one who builds with the
belief that the land he is building on is his, or that by
some title one has the right to build thereon, and is
ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title.”
PRESUMPTION OF GOOD FAITH
Good faith is always presumed; Burden of Proof
Lies upon Him who alleges Bad Faith
Ballatan v. Court of Appeals
Respondent Li Ching Yao built his house on his lot
before any of the other parties did. He constructed
his house in 1982, respondents Go in 1983 and
petitioners in 1985. There is no evidence, much less,
any allegation that respondent Li Ching Yao was
aware that when he built his house he knew that a
portion thereof encroached on respondents Go’s
adjoining land. Good faith is always presumed, and
upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a
possessor rests the burden of proof. All the parties
are presumed to have acted in good faith. Their right
must, therefore, be determined in accordance with
the appropriate provisions of the Civil Code on
Property.
Good Faith includes Prudence in Examining
Documents
We earlier mentioned that a good faith builder is one
Heirs of Sarili v. Lagrosa
However, a higher degree of prudence is required
from one who buys from a person who is not the
registered owner, although the land object of the
transaction is registered. In such a case, the buyer is
expected to examine not only the certificate of title,
but also all factual circumstances necessary for him
to determine if there are any flaws in the title of the
transferor. The buyer also has the duty to ascertain
the identity of the person with whom he is dealing
with and the latter’s legal authority to convey the
property.
who believes that the land on which the improvement is
built is his property. But the meaning of this good faith
builder/planter has been expanded by jurisprudence.
If you failed to exercise or perform minimum standards
of inquiring into the circumstances pertaining to the title
of your transferor, you cannot qualify as a good faith
builder/planter. Therefore, the privileges given to a good
faith builder cannot be invoked by you.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio
 ARTICLE 448 DOES NOT APPLY TO A LESSEE
Balucanag vs. Judge Francisco
But even in the absence of said stipulation,
respondent Stohner cannot be considered a builder in
good faith. Article 448 of the Civil Code, relied upon
by respondent judge, applies only to a case where
one builds on land in the belief that he is the owner
thereof and it does not apply where one’s only
interest in the land is that of a lessee under a rental
contract.
Rationale:
In the case of a lessee, he knows from the very start
that the properly does not belong to him. He knows that
it belongs to the lessor. Thus, he is not one who believes
himself to be the owner of a property.
Floreza v. Evangelista
Said Codal provision applies only when the builder,
planter, or sower believes he had the right so to
build, plant or sow because the thinks he owns the
land or believes himself to have a claim of title.
Rights of Petitioner is Akin to that of
Usufructuary
Floreza v. Evangelista
Since petitioner cannot be classified as a builder in
good faith within the purview of Article 448 of the
Civil Code, nor as a vendee a retro, who made useful
improvements during the lifetime of the pacto de
retro, petitioner has no right to reimbursement of the
value of the house which he had erected on the
residential lot of the Evangelistas, much less to
retention of the premises until he is reimbursed. The
rights of petitioner are more akin to those of a
usufructuary under Article 578 of the Civil Code.
If you are a usufructuary, you know that there is a
person with a better right of the ownership, specifically
the one who is called the naked owner. A usufructuary is
only entitled to the right of possession of the property
and the right over the fruits. Thus, he cannot claim to be
an absolute owner of the property.
Where the true owner himself is the builder, the
issue of good/bad faith is irrelevant
PNB v. De Jesus
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.
Article 448 refers to a piece of land whose ownership
is claimed by 2 or more parties, one of whom has
built some works (or sown or planted) and not to a
case where the owner of the land is the
builder/sower/planter who then later loses ownership
of the land by sale.
Article 448 also does not apply when the builder is at the
same time the owner of the parcel of land in which he
loses ownership thereof by sale or etc.
Parilla et. al. v. Pilar
Jurisprudence is replete with cases which
categorically declare that Article 448 covers only
cases in which the builders, sowers or planters
believe themselves to be owners of the land, or, at
least, have a claim of title thereto, but not when the
interest is merely that of the a holder, such as a
mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. A tenant cannot
be said to be a builder in good faith as he has no
pretension to be owner.
POSSESSORS BY TOLERANCE
Possessors by sheer tolerance of owners, bound
by implied promise to vacate the same upon
demand
Kilario v. CA
Considering that petitioners were in possession of the
subject property by sheer tolerance of its owners,
they knew that the occupation of the premises may
be terminated at any time. Persons who occupy the
a land of another at the latter’s tolerance or
permission, without any contract between them, is
necessarily bound by an implied promise that they
will vacate the same upon demand, failing in which a
summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy
against them.
Possessor by mere tolerance refers to those who are not
owners of the land but whose possession is permitted by
the tolerance of the landowner.
No right to reimbursement
If you are a possessor by mere tolerance, when asked
by the owner to vacate the premises, you cannot ask for
the right to be reimbursed for the value of the
improvements because as a possessor by mere
tolerance, you know that the land does not belong to
you.
RELAXATION/LIBERALIZATION OF THE MEANING
OF A GOOD FAITH BUILDER
It is well settled that both Article 448 & 546 which allow full
reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of
the premises until reimbursement is made, apply only to a
possessor in good faith. Verily, persons whose occupation
by sheer tolerance of owners are not possessors in good
faith. Neither did the promise of Concordia, Esperanza and
Angelito Pada that they were going to donate the premises
to petitioners convert them into builders in good faith for at
the time the improvements were built, such promises was
not yet fulfilled. Even as that promise was fulfilled, the
donation was void for CEA were not owners of the lot. As
such, petitioners cannot be said to be entitled to the value
of the improvements built.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio
Traditional meaning of a GFB:
One who believes that the land on which he built the
improvement belongs to him but he was mistaken in
good faith.
Requirement of “Improvement must be built by
one who believes that he is the owner but he is
not” is relaxed/liberalized:
Spouses Del Campo v. Abesia
However, when, as in this case, the co-ownership is
terminated by the partition and it appears that the
house of defendants overlaps or occupies a portion of
5 sqm of the land pertaining to plaintiffs, wherein the
defendants obviously built in good faith, THEN the
provisions of Article 448 of the NCC should apply.
This is a case where a co-owner built a structure on a
co-owned property. If this is the case, he is technically
building on a property that he owns. If we strictly apply
448, the case of PNB v. De Jesus is applicable. In that
case, SC ruled that if the builder is at the same time the
owner, 448 does not apply.
However, in this case of Spouses Del Campo, SC ruled
that in cases where a co-owner built a structure on a co-
owned property but that portion on which there is a
structure is not adjudicated to him pursuant to their
partition agreement, there would be a situation of forced
ownership. Again, situations of forced co-ownership
would necessitate the applicability of Article 448. Thus,
in this case, we will apply by analogy Article 448.
ISMAEL MACASAET et. al. v. SPOUSES
MACASAET
However, in some special cases, this Court has used
Article 448 by recognizing good faith beyond this
limited definition.
Thus, in Del Campo v. Abesia, this provision was
applied to one whose house—despite having been
built at the time he was still co-owner—overlapped
with the land of another.
This article was also applied to cases wherein a
builder had constructed improvements with the
consent of the owner. The Court ruled that the law
deemed the builder to be in good faith. In Sarmiento
v. Agana, the builders were found to be in good faith
despite their reliance on the consent of another,
whom they had mistakenly believed to be the owner
of the land.
There was an invitation sent by the father to his son and
family to build on the land owned by the father. There
was a disagreement, which culminated the filing of an
ejectment case by the father against his son. The son
and family were ordered to vacate the premises. But the
son contended that he should be reimbursed of the
value of the improvements he introduced on the
premises, pertaining to the benefits accorded to one
who is in good faith pursuant to Article 448.
Strictly speaking, Article 448 shouldn’t have been applied
to this case because the son knew that the land does
not belong to him.
But the SC in this case of Macaset ruled that
Article 448 is applicable.
It adverted to previous rulings (Del Campo & Sarmiento)
wherein the meaning of a good faith builder is somehow
relaxed. Here, candidly admitted that Article 448 was
applied in cases where there is still good faith beyond
the traditional definition.
This circumstance was held to be an indication of good
faith on the part of the son and his family.
ISMAEL MACASAET et. al. v. SPOUSES
MACASAET
Based on the aforecited special cases, Article 448
applies to the present factual milieu. The established
facts of this case show that respondents (parents) fully
consented to the improvements introduced by
petitioners (son and family). In fact, because the
children occupied the lots upon their invitation, the
parents certainly knew and approved of the construction
of the improvements introduced thereon. Thus,
petitioners may be deemed to have been in good faith
when they built the structures on those lots.
QUALIFICATION OF THE RULE ON POSSESSION
BY TOLERANCE
DEPED V. CASIBANG
It was out of respect and courtesy to the then Mayor
who was a distant relative that Cepeda consented to
the building of the school. The occupancy of the
subject property by the DepEd to conduct classes
therein arose from what Professor Arturo Tolentino
refers to as the sense of “neighborliness or
familiarity” of Cepeda to the then Mayor that he
allowed the said occupation and use of his property.
The DECS was allowed to build a school building on the
property of Cepeda. They were deemed as a possessor
by mere tolerance. DECS knew that the land is not
owned by it. When asked to vacate, they invoked 448.
SC ruled that even if it is a possessor by mere tolerance,
it can still invoke Article 448.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio
 ART. 448 APPLIED IN POSSESSION BY MERE
TOLERANCE
DEPED V. CASIBANG
Despite being a possessor by mere tolerance, the
DEPED is considered a builder in good faith, since
Cepeda permitted the construction of building and
improvements to conduct classes on his property.
Hence, Article 448 may be applied ITCAB.
This based on the very simple rationale that Cepeda
permitted the construction of the building and
improvements.
At this point, the rule that a possessor by mere tolerance
is excluded in among those deemed GFB, is already
doubtful in light of this ruling.
Here, it would appear that even a possessor by mere
tolerance as a builder in good faith and as such could
validly invoke the privileges accorded to one under and
pursuant to Art. 448
CONSENT TO THE CONSTRUCTION
If there is consent to the construction of
improvements, Article 453 is applicable which
would ultimately make Article 448 Applicable
SPS. BELVIS v. SPS. EROLA
While respondents may have merely tolerated
petitioners' possession, respondents never denied
having knowledge of the fact that petitioners
possessed, cultivated and constructed various
permanent improvements on the subject lot for over
34 years. In fact, the records are bereft of any
evidence to show that respondents ever opposed or
objected, for over 34 years, to the improvements
introduced by petitioners, despite the fact that
petitioner Cecilia and respondent Conrado are
siblings and that both parties reside in Pontevedra,
Capiz. As such, the Court finds that respondents
likewise acted in bad faith under Article 453 of the
CivilCode.
Take note of this case.
Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part
of the person who built, planted or sowed on the
land of another, but also on the part of the owner of
such land, the rights of one and the other shall be
the same as though both had acted in good faith.
Article 453 states in substance that if the landowner is
likewise in bad faith, meaning he allowed the
construction without any opposition, even if the builder
is in bad faith, the bad faith of the builder is neutralized
by the bad faith of the landowner.
If both the landowner and builder are in bad faith, their
rights will be governed as if both of them are in good
faith. Thus, ultimately, Article 448 will apply.
Subdivision lot buyer considered as a Good Faith
Builder
Communities Cagayan, Inc. v. Sps. Arsenio
First, good faith is presumed on the part of the
respondent-spouses. Second, petitioner failed to
rebut this presumption. Third, no evidence was
presented to show that petitioner opposed or
objected to the improvements introduced by the
respondent-spouses. Consequently, we can validly
presume that petitioner consented to the
improvements being constructed. This presumption is
bolstered by the fact that as the subdivision
developer, petitioner must have given the
respondent-spouses permits to commence and
undertake the construction. Under Article 453 of the
Civil Code, “[i]t is understood that there is bad faith
on the part of the landowner whenever the act was
done with his knowledge and without opposition on
his part.”
This is still part of an expanded definition because at the
time of building, this subdivision lot buyer knew that he
does not yet own the lot. He cannot be deemed as a
builder in good faith if we strictly apply the traditional
meaning.
When this same buyer/builder failed to pay the
amortizations for the subdivision lot and was asked to
vacate, he invoked Article 448 pertaining to full
reimbursement. SC applied Article 448.
OPTIONS OF THE LANDOWNER
Owner of the land on which anything has been
built, planted or sown in good faith has options:
1. To acquire the improvements after payment of
the proper indemnity
2. To oblige builder or planter to pay for the land
and the sower the proper rent
TO ACQUIRE IMPROVEMENTS AFTER PAYMENT
OF PROPER INDEMNITY
Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to
every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith
may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed
therefor.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio

Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure
shall not be refunded to the possessor in good faith;
but he may remove the ornaments with which he has
embellished the principal thing if it suffers no injury
thereby, and if his successor in the possession does
not prefer to refund the amount expanded.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor
in good faith with the same right of retention, the
person who has defeated him in the possession having
option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of
paying the increase in value which the thing may have
acquired by reason there of. (453a)
TO OBLIGE BUILDER OR PLANTER TO PAY FOR
THE LAND AND THE SOWER THE PROPER RENT
OWNER OF THE LAND MUST EXERCISE THE
OPTION
Sarmiento v. Angana
Owner of land must exercise the option, he can only
ask for demolition of improvement, if, after having
chosen to compel builder or planter to buy land, the
latter fails to pay.
Right before payment:
1. Builder has right of retention. The right of
retention extends not only to the improvements,
but also to the land.
2. Neither of the parties may bring a
reinvindicatory action against the other.
Landowner has no right to ask for rents from the
builder.
3. After the owner of the land chooses to compel
the builder or planter to pay for the land or the
sower the proper rent, the latter will lose right of
retention if he fails to pay as required.
4. In the event of failure of the builder to pay after
landowner has opted to sell the land, the latter
is entitled to removal of improvements.
5. If, in the meantime, improvements are gutted
by fire, right of retention is extinguished.
Manotok Realty v. Tecson
Since the improvements have been gutted by fire and
therefore, the basis for private respondent’s right to
retain the premises has already been extinguished
without the fault of the petitioner, there is no other
recourse for the private respondent but to vacate the
premises and deliver the same to herein petitioner.
WHEN THE OWNER OF LAND ELECTS TO SELL OR
BUY THE IMPROVEMENT
When the owner of the land elects to sell the land
or buy the improvement, the purchase price must
be fixed at prevailing market value at the time of
payment
Ballatan v. CA
In the event that petitioners elect to sell to
respondents Go the subject portion of their lot, the
price must be fixed at the prevailing market value at
the time of payment. The Court of Appeals erred in
fixing the price at the time of taking, which is the
time the improvements were built on the land. The
time of taking is determinative of just compensation
in expropriation proceedings. The instant case is not
for expropriation. It is not a taking by the state of
private property for a public purpose upon payment
of just compensation. This is a case of an owner who
has been paying real estate taxes on his land but has
been deprived of the use of a portion of this land for
years. It is but fair and just to fix compensation at
the time of payment. Article 448 and the same
conditions abovestated also apply to respondents Go
as owners and possessors of their land and
respondent Li Ching Yao as builder of the
improvement that encroached on thirty-seven (37)
square meters of respondents Go's land.
Upon failure of builder to pay the value of land,
the landowner DOES NOT necessarily become
AUTOMATICALLY THE OWNER OF
IMPROVEMENTS under Article 445
Filipinas Colleges Inc. v. Timbang
There is nothing in the language of these two article,
448 and 546, which would justify the conclusion of
appellants that, upon the failure of the builder to pay
the value of the land, when such is demanded by the
land-owner, the latter becomes automatically the
owner of the improvement under Article 445.
REMEDIES OF THE PARTIES
1. [xxxxx] and then they decide to leave things as
they are and assume the relation of lessor and
lessee, and should they disagree as to the
amount of rental then they can go to the court
to fix that amount.
2. Court approved the sale of the land and the
improvement in a public 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 house in payment
thereof.
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio

WHEN PARTIES ARE IN BAD FAITH
ALTERNATIVES TO OWNER OF LAND WHEN
BUILDER IN BAD FAITH
1. Appropriate what has been built, planted, or sown in
bad faith, without any obligation to INDEMNIFY.
2. Ask the builder, planter, or sower to remove what he
has built, planted, or sown.
3. Compel builder or planter to pay the value of the
land or the sower the proper rent.
LIABILITIES OF BUILDER IN BAD FAITH
1. He loses what is built, planted, or sown without
right to indemnity except for necessary
expenses
2. He may be required to remove or demolish the
work, in order to replace things in their former
condition
3. He may be compelled to pay the price of the
land
4. He is liable for damages.
RIGHT OF A BUILDER IN BAD FAITH
• A builder, planter, or sower in bad faith is entitled to
reimbursement for the necessary expenses of
preservation of land.
WHAT ARE NECESSARY EXPENSES?
• Necessary expenses are those made for the
preservation of the property or thing upon which
they have been expended e.g. dike to preserve from
destruction caused by blood.
• Conversely, that those that merely “augment” the
thing like expenses for the leveling of the land are
not necessary expenses.
OWNER OF LAND AND BUILDER, ETC. BOTH IN
BAD FAITH
• Rights shall be determined as if both acted in good
faith
• Bad faith of one neutralizes the other
WHEN DOES BUILDER BECOME IN BAD FAITH?
• If he knows that the land does not belong to him,
and that he has no right, permission, or authority to
do so
WHEN DOES A LANDOWNER BECOME IN BAD
FAITH?
• The act is done with his knowledge and without
opposition on his part.
POINTS TO REMEMBER:
• If before possessor by tolerance built improvements,
he first asked permission and the permission was
given, he is considered a good faith builder
• If possessor built without the permission (permission
only pertains to the occupation of the land but not
building or introduction of improvements [“sige
pagbuhat ug balay pero ayaw lang nang concrete ha
ayaw nang permanent”]) then we will not apply 448.
• Take note of decs v. Casibang
• Take note of the jurisprudence on who a GFB is
MODULE 4A PART 2
RIPARIAN OWNER
Rule:
Art. 457. Owner of lands adjoining the banks of
rivers [river owner] belong the accretion which they
gradually receive from the effects of the current of
the waters (alluvion) [accession discreta]
This refers to when things added or incorporated to the
principal thing. They are considered attachments to the
property if the property is adjacent to the river.
Rationale:
Owners adjoining banks of rivers are exposed to floods
and other damages due to the destructive force of the
waters and if by virtue of law, they are subject of
encumbrances, it is only just that such risks and dangers
should in some way be compensated
ACCRETION
• Increment, which lands abutting rivers gradually
receive as a result of the current of the waters.
• Gradual and imperceptible addition to the banks of
rivers
REQUISITES FOR “ALLUVION”
1. The accretion (deposit) must be gradual and
imperceptible
2. It be made through the effects of the (natural)
current of the water (deposits by human
intervention not included)
3. The land where accretion takes place is adjacent
to the banks of rivers
GRADUAL AND IMPERCEPTIBLE
• Sudden and forceful action like that of flooding is
not the alluvial process contemplated under Art.
457. It is the slow and hardly perceptible
accumulation of soil deposits that the law grants to
the riparian owner (Binalay v. Manalay)
• Movement of dikes, not an accretion formed by
natural process (Rep of PH v. CA)
• The fact that the fish traps set up in the creek might
have slowed down to its current, and might have
been brought about or caused accretion, will not
affect his ownership, in the absence of evidence, to
show that the setting up or erection of fish was
expressly intended to cause or bring about accretion
(Zapata v. Director of Lands)
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio

MUST BE MADE THROUGH THE EFFECTS OF THE
CURRENT OF THE WATER
• Deposits by human intervention are not included
• Alluvion must be the exclusive work of nature and
not made artificially by the riparian owner
• Deposits consisting of boulders, soil, sawdust and
other filling materials, caused by human
intervention, are excluded from Art. 457 and, as
such would still be part of public domain.
• The riparian owner does not require the additions to
his land caused by special works expressly intended
or designed to bring about accretion (Rep v. CA)
It is not considered accretion if seawater. It must refer
to accretion in the river as ipso facto by operation of law
you will be the owner.
REPUBLIC v. CA
The requirement that the deposit should be due to
the effect of the current of the river is indispensable.
This excludes from Art 457 of the NCC all deposits
cause by human intervention. Alluvion must be the
exclusive work of nature.
In the instant case, there is no evidence whatsoever
to prove that the addition to the said property was
made gradually through the effects of the current of
the Meycauayan and Bocaue rivers. We agree with
the observation of the SOLGEN that it is preposterous
to believe that almost 4 hectares of land came into
being because of the effects of the Meycauayan and
Bocaue rivers.
Dried-up riverbed is not accretion
REPUBLIC v. SANTOS III
However, respondents did not discharge their burden
of proof. They did not show that the gradual and
imperceptible deposition of soil through the effects of
the current of the river had formed lot 4988-B.
Instead, their evidence revealed that the
property was the dried-up river bed of
Parañaque River, leading both RTC and the CA to
themselves hold that Lot 4998-B was “the land which
was previously part of the Parañaque River... (and)
became an orchard after it dried up.”
THE LAND WHERE ACCRETION TAKES PLACE IS
ADJACENT TO THE BANKS OF RIVERS
IGNACIO v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS & VALERIANO
Riparian accretion should be distinguished from the
accretion due to seawater. In the latter case, the
accretion is a public land
Accretion on the bank of a lake, like Laguna de Bay,
have been held to belong to the owners of the lands
to which they are added (legal basis: Spanish Law of
Waters)
Alluvial deposits formed by sea is public domain
property
DE BUYSER v. DIRECTOR OF LANDS
Land formed by accretion from the sea is part of the
public domain. It cannot be acquired by adverse
possession. It is outside the commerce of man unless
otherwise declared by the executive and legislative
branch of the government.
SPS GULLA v. HEIRS OF LABRADOR
The trial court, the RTC and the CA were one in
ruling that the 562-square-meter property, Lot A, is
part of the public domain, hence, beyond the
commerce of men and not capable of registration. In
fact, the land is within the salvage zone fronting the
China Sea as well as the property covered by OCT
No. P-13350 in the name of respondents.
The provision relied upon is Article 440 of the New
Civil Code, which states that "[t]he ownership of
property gives the right by accession to everything
which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated
or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially."
The provision, however, does not apply in this case,
considering that Lot A is a foreshore land adjacent to
the sea which is alternately covered and left dry by
the ordinary flow of the tides. Such property belongs
to the public domain and is not available for private
ownership until formally declared by the government
to be no longer needed for public use.
The law does not require an express act of
appropriation or possession to acquire ownership
of the alluvial accumulation. However, it is not
automatically registered
GRANDE v. HON. CA
An accretion to land covered by Torrens title does
not automatically becomes registered land. It must
be registered. If not registered, it is subject to
acquisition through prescription by third persons.
Alluvial deposit acquired by a riparian owner of
registered lands by accretion may be subjected to
acquisition through prescription by a third person, by
the failure of such owner to register said accretion
(Reynante vs CA) TAKE NOTE OF THIS CASE!
AVULSION
Art. 459. Whenever the current of a river, creek or
torrent segregate from an estate on its bank a known
portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the
owner of the land to which the segregated portion
belonged retains the ownership of it, provided that
he removes
Property the same
| Atty. within
Gravador 2 years.
| A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio
Alluvion v. Avulsion
Alluvion Avulsion CHANGE OF RIVER BED
Deposit of soil is gradual It is sudden or abrupt Rule:
Deposit of soil belongs to Owner of the property
River beds which are abandoned thru natural change
the owner of the property from which a part was
in the course of the waters ipo facto belong to the
where the same was detached retains the
owners whose lands are occupied by the new course
deposited ownership thereof
in portion the area lost. However, the owners of the
The soil cannot be Detached portion can be lands adjoining the old bed shall have the right to
identified identified acquire the same by paying the value thereof, which
value shall not exceed the value of the area occupied
RESUIQITES OF AVULSION by the new bed.
1. Segregation and transfer must be caused by the
current of a river, creek or torrent
2. The segregation and transfer must be sudden or PROVISION OF THE WATER CODE OF THE
abrupt PHILIPPINES [PD 1067]
3. Portion of land transported must be known and
identifiable ART. 58. When a river or stream suddenly changes
its course to traverse private lands, the owner of the
SEGREGATION AND TRANSFER MUST BE CAUSED affected lands may not compel the government to
BY THE CURRENT OF A RIVER, CREEK OR restore the river to its former bed; nor can they
TORRENT restrain the government from taking steps to revert
the river or stream to its former course. The owner of
Current: continuous movement of a body of water, the lands thus affected are not entitled to
often horizontal, in a certain direction compensation for any damage sustained thereby.
However, the former owners of the new bed shall be
River: a natural surface stream of water considerable the owners of the abandoned bed in proportion to
volume and permanent or seasonal flow emptying into the area lost by each.
an ocean, lake or body of water
The owners of the affected lands may undertake to
Creek: is a small islet extending further into the land; return the river or stream to its old bed at their own
natural stream of water normally smaller than and often expense; Provided, that a permit therefore is secured
tributary to a river from the Secretary of Public Works [ Transportation
and Communication] and works commenced within
Torrent: is a violent stream of water as a flooded river two years from the change in the course of the river
or one suddenly raised by a heavy rain and descending or stream.
in a steep incline; a raging flood or rushing stream of
water
DIONESIA BAGAIPO v. CA
THE SEGREGATION AND TRANSFER MUST BE
SUDDEN AND ABRUPT “The decrease in petitioner’s land area and the
corresponding expansion of respondent’s property
PAYATAS ESTATE IMPROVEMENT CO. v. were the combined effect of erosion and accretion
TUASON respectively. Art. 461 of the Civil Code is inapplicable.
In the absence of evidence as to whether the change Petitioner cannot claim ownership over the old
in the course of a river was caused by accretion and abandoned riverbed because the same is inexistent.
erosion (alluvion) or whether it had occurred through The riverbed’s former location cannot even be
avulsion, the presumption is that the change was pinpointed with particularity since the movement of
gradual and was caused by alluvion. the Davao River took place gradually over an
unspecified period of time, up to the present.

TRANSFER BY OTHER FORCES
A known portion of land may be transferred from one
tenement to another by other forces of nature than the
current of a river, e.g. land from a mountain slope rolls
down to another tenement. Present article may be
applied by analogy.
In the absence of evidence that the change in the
course of the river was sudden or that it occurred
through avulsion, the presumption is that the change
was gradual and was caused by alluvium and
erosion.”

Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio

Elements to prove ownership of old course and its
abandonment
SPS GALANG v. SPS REYES
If indeed a property was the former bed of a creek
that changed its course and passed through the
property of the claimant, then, pursuant to Article
461, the ownership of the old bed left to dry by the
change of course was automatically acquired by the
claimant. Before such a conclusion can be reached,
the fact of natural abandonment of the old course
must be shown, that is, it must be proven that the
creek indeed changed its course without artificial or
man-made intervention. Thus, the claimant, in this
case the Reyeses, must prove three key elements
by clear and convincing evidence.
1. The old course of the creek
2. The new course of the creek
3. The change of course of the creek from the
old location to the new location by natural
occurrence.
When is riverbed deemed abandoned?
Are riverbeds considered abandoned ipso facto
whenever there is a change in the course of the water?
Or, is it still necessary that there be abandonment of the
bed on the part of the government?
PANLILIO v. MERCADO
While the abandonment of the bed may be the
consequence of the river changing its course, it is not
necessarily the action of the river itself, which is the
only and final determining factor in such
abandonment.
Dean Capistrano: “ipso facto” makes it clear that the
rule applies by the mere fact of the occurrence of a
natural change in the course of the water.
ART. 462. When a river, changing its course by
natural causes, opens a new bed through private
estate, this bed shall become of public dominion.
ART. 463. Whenever the current of a river divides
itself into branches, leaving a piece of land or part
thereof isolated, the owner of the land retains his
ownership. He also retains it if a portion of land is
separated from the estate by the current.
Does not refer to the formation of islands through
accretion treated in Arts. 464 and 465 but to the
formation of an island caused by a river resulting in:
1. The isolation (without being physically
transferred to another place) of a piece of land
or part thereof; or
2. The separation (or physical transfer) or a portion
of land from an estate by the current.
Art. 463 applies whether the river is navigable or not, for
in both cases, the owner should not be deprived of his
dominion over segregated or isolated property.
ART. 464. Islands, which may be formed on the
seas within the jurisdiction of the Philippines, on
lakes, and on navigable or floatable rivers, belong to
the State.
Belong to the State if formed:
1. On the seas within jurisdiction of PH
2. On lakes
3. On navigable or floatable rivers
If formed in non-navigable and non-floatable
rivers (465):
• It belongs to the nearest riparian owner or owner of
the margin or bank nearest to it as he is considered
in the best position to cultivate and develop the
island
• The island is divided longitudinally in halves, if it is in
the middle of the river
Navigable River:
One, which forms in its ordinary condition by itself or by
uniting with other, waters a continuous highway over
which commerce is or may be carried on.
THREE TYPES OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO
MOVABLE PROPERTY
1. Adjunction
2. Mixture (commiction or confusion)
3. Specification
ADJUNCTION
Union of two movable things belonging to difference
owners in such a way that they form a single object, but
each one of the component things preserves its value.
Characteristics:
• Two movable belonging to different owners
• United in such a way that they form a single object
• They are inseperable that their separation would
impair their nature or result in substantial injury to
either component
Kinds of adjunction:
• Inclusion or engraftment
o Diamond is set on a gold ring
• Soldadura or soldering
o Lead united or fused to an object made of
lead
Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio
• Escritura or writing SPECIFICATION
o Person wrote on paper belonging to another
• Pintura or painting ART. 467. One who in good faith employs the
o Person paints on canvas belonging to material of another in whole or in part in order to
another; or make a thing different kind, shall appropriate the
• Tejido or weaving thing thus transformed as his own,
o Such as when threads belonging to different indemnifying the owner of the material for its
owners are used in making textile value.

ART. 467. The principal thing, as between two If the material is more precious than the transformed
things incorporated, is deemed to be that to which thing or is of more value, its owner may, at his
the other has been united as an ornament, or for its option appropriate the new thing to himself, after
use or perfection. first paying indemnity for the value of the work, or
Criteria to determine principal: demand indemnity for the material.
Order of preference in determining which is the principal
and which is the accessory: If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the
1. That of the importance or purpose of the things as owner of the material shall have the right to
stated in this article appropriate the work to himself without paying
2. That of their value anything to the maker, or to demand of the latter
3. That of their volume that he indemnify him for the value of the material
and the damages he may have suffered. However,
Rules on Adjunction: the owner of the material cannot appropriate the
1. Owner of accessory thing in bad faith, he shall lose work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or
the thing incorporated scientific reasons, is considerably more that of the
a. He shall have obligation to indemnify owner material.
of principal thing
2. Owner of the principal is the one in bad faith, owner
of accessory may choose: Adjunction Mixture Specification
a. Compelling principal to pay the value of Involves at least Involves at least May involve only
accessory thing 2 things 2 things 1 thing (maybe
b. Thing belonging to him be separated, even more) but form
if it be necessary to destroy the principal is changed
thing. Damages are available in both cases. Accessory Co-ownership Accessory
follows the results follows the
Rules when accessory is more valuable principal principal
ART. 469. Whenever the things united can be The things joined The things mixed The new object
separated without injury, their respective owners retain their or confused may retains or
may demand their separation. nature either retain or preserves the
lose their nature of the
Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the use, respective nature original object
embellishment or perfection of the other, is much
more precious than the principal thing, the owner of
the former may demand its separation, even though
the thing to which it has been incorporated may
suffer some injury.

MIXTURE
Rule on co-ownership

Art. 473. If by the will of only one owner, but in

good faith, two things of the same or different kinds
are mixed or confused, the rights of the owners shall
be determined by the provisions of the preceding
article.

If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted

in bad faith, he shall lose the thing belonging to him
thus mixed or confused, besides being obliged to pay
indemnity for the damages caused to the owner of Property | Atty. Gravador | A.Y. 2020-2021 | AGregorio
the other thing with which his own was mixed.