ACCESSION INDUSTRIAL

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since the lot owner Y is deemed to be in bad faith (Art. 453), X as the party in good faith may (a)
remove the house and demand indemnification for damages suffered by him, or (b) demand
payment of the value of the house plus reparation for damages (Art. 447, in relation to 454). Y
 continues to be the owner of the lot and becomes, under the second option, the owner of the
house as well, after he pays the sums demanded.

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

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