RIGHTS OF ACCESSION

Prepared by:
Maria Yoradyl D. Adrales
 CONCEPT
Art 440

The 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.
TOLENTINO:
JBL REYES:
Right by virtue of which the owner of a thing
Extension of ownership over a thing to whatever is
becomes the owner of everything that the thing may
incorporated thereto naturally or artificially (without
produce or which may be inseparably united or
or with labor of man)
incorporated thereto, either naturally or principally.

Incorporation means a stable union or

adherence, not mere juxtaposition
Accession
DEFINITION
Accession is the right of a property owner to everything which is: Accession is one of the bundle of rights of
a) Produced thereby (accession discreta); ownership and is not a mode of acquiring
b) Or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally property
or artificially ( accession continua or accession non-
interrumpida), which in turn is divided into: It does not depend upon a new title
1. Natural accession (accession natural)
2. Artificial accession (accession artificial or accession
industrial) Right to accession generally automatic
 KINDS
(1) Accession discreta (Art. 441)
(2) Accession continua
a. With respect to real property
1. Accession industrial (building, planting or sowing); or
2. Accession natural( alluvion, avulsion, change in river course, and
of islands); and
b. With respect to personal property. – It may be:
1. Conjunction or adjunction (which may take place by inclusion or
engraftment, soldadura or attachment, tejido or weaving, pintura or
painting, and escritura or writing);
2. Commixtion or confusion; or
3. Specification.
 General Principles
1. Applicable to both accession discreta and accession continua
a. Accessory follows the principal (accesio cedit principal)
• Owner of the principal acquires or extends his ownership over the accessory

ACCESSION DISTINGUISHED FROM ACCESSORY:

(1) Accession are the fruits of, or additions to, or improvements upon, a thing (the principal).The concept includes:
a. Accession industrial (Art. 445)
b. Accession natural
1. Alluvion (Art. 457)
2. Avulsion (Art. 459)
3. Change of course of rivers (Arts. 461-462)
4. Formation of lands (Art. 464-465)
On the other hand, accessories are things joined to, or included with, the principal thing for the latter’s
embellishment, better use, or completion (e.g., key of a house; frame of a picture; bracelet of a watch; machinery in a
factory; bow of a violin).

(2) While accessions are not necessary to the principal thing, the accessory and the principal thing must go together.

• Art 437 Owner of a parcel of land is the owner of its surface and of everything under it
a. No one shall be unjustly enriched at the expense of another
 General Principles
2. Applicable to accession continua alone

A. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvement or repairs made thereon,
belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles (Art 445)
B. All works, sowing, planting are presumed made by owner and at his expense, unless contrary is proved
C. Accessory incorporated to principal such that it cannot be separated without injury to work constructed or
destruction to plantings, construction or works (Art 447)
D. Bad faith involves liability for damages and other dire consequences. Bad faith of one party neutralizes bad
faith of the other

•Art 453 If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed, but also on the
part of owner, rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith.
 General Principles
3. Applicable to accession discreta alone

a. Ownership of fruits – to owner of principal thing belongs the natural, industrial and
civil fruits (Art 441)

EXCEPTIONS:
i. Possession in good faith (to the possessor)
ii. In usufruct (to the usufructuary)
iii. In lease (to the lessee)
iv. In antichresis (to the creditor)
Obligations of receiver of fruits to pay expenses by
3rd persons in production, gathering and preservation

Art 443 He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made
by a third person in their production, gathering and preservation.
 Accession Discreta
(RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS PRODUCED BY PROPERTY)

Art 441.

To the owner belongs:

(1) The natural fruits;
(2) The industrial fruits;
(3) The civil fruits. (354)

Art. 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil, and the young and
other products of animals.

Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or
labor.

Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other
property and the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income. (355a)
 Extension of the right of ownership to the products of a thing
Based on principles of justice : It is only just that the owner of a thing should
also own whatever it produces, unless there is some special reason for a
contrary solution

GENERAL RULE
Fruits go to the owner of the principal, unless otherwise provided by law or
contract
EXCEPTIONS

(a) possession in good faith (Art. 544 par. 1)

(b) usufruct (Art. 566)
(c) lease of rural lands (Art. 1680, 1654)
(d) pledge (Art. 2102, par. 7)
(e) antichresis (Art. 2132)
 TECHNICAL MEANING OF FRUITS
The term natural, civil and industrial fruits as defined by the Code
are highly technical, therefore, when they are found in a final
judgment, there can be no doubt as to their meaning
NATURAL FRUITS
There are two (2) kinds of fruits:
(a) The spontaneous products of the soil
Examples – herbs, common grass, not through human
cultivation or labor
(b) The young and other products of animals (Art. 442, par. 1)
Examples – chicks, chicken eggs, wool, milk
INDUSTRIAL FRUITS
Those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor
Fruits that implies some kind of cultivation or labor
Examples:
(a) Lanzones and bananas
(b) Palay and corn
(c) Zacate grass fed to horses
(d) All kinds of cultivated vegetables
Are the cultivated trees in themselves to be considered fruits?
ANS: They are not fruits in the juridical sense for they are really considered immovable as long as they are attached to
the land. We may consider said trees as fruits when they are expressly cultivated or exploited to carry on an industry.
QUIZON V. SALUD, 12 PHIL. 109

In an action to recover paraphernal property of the wife, the intervention of the

husband is not needed, and therefore the husband is not a necessary party. But if
aside from the paraphernal property, fruits therefrom are sought to be recovered,
the husband must join in the action first because he is a co-owner of said fruits
(since they belong to the conjugal partnership) and secondly because he is the
administrator of the conjugal partnership.

GUIDO V. BORJA, 12 PHIL. 718

A tenant who continues on the land after expiration of the
lease contract and upon demand to vacate can be considered
a possessor in bad faith and is responsible for the fruits
actually produced as well as those that could have been
produced by due diligence. It will be observed that liability
for the fruits is the consequence of the usurpation and not
because of the provision in the contract violated.
YOUNG OF ANIMALS
BAR Question (Re: Offpring of Animals) To whom does the offspring of animals belong when the male and female belong to different owners?
The offspring of animals belong to the owner of the mother—applicable when the
male and female belong to different owners
This follows the maxim of “pratus sequitor ventrem”—the offspring follows the dam or
mother
(a) A leased a female animal from B. During the period of the lease,
the animal produced a sibling. Who owns the young sibling?
ANS: A owns the young, for after all a contract of lease is onerous.
(b) Suppose in the preceding problem, A was merely given the animal
by the way of commodatum. Who owns the young sibling?
ANS: This time the owner of the female retains ownership in view
of the gratuitous contract.
CIVIL FRUITS
As defined in Art 442, civil fruits consists of:
(a) rents of buildings
(b) the price of leases of lands and other property
(c) the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other
similar income
• Periodical (reiterable) increase of incorporeal property due to
operation of law (rents,annuities)
• Rents of land, buildings, and certain kinds of incomes obtained
from the land or building itself
BACHRACH v TALISAY SILAY
Facts:
•22 Dec 1923, Talisay-Silay was indebted to PNB. To secure the loan, Talisay induced its planters one of whom was Mariano Lacson Ledesma to
mortgage their land. The central, to compensate the planters for mortgaging their property, undertook to credit the owners of the plantation every year
with a sum equal to 2% of the debt secured according to the yearly balance. The payment to be made as soon as the central was freed of its debts.
•Mariano sold his land to Cesar Ledesma for P7,500
•Bachrach on the other hand was a creditor of Mariano Ledesma. When Mariano could no longer pay Bachrach, it went after Talisay (original
complaint), praying for the delivery of P13,850 Talisay owed to Mariano as bonus stated in the first paragraph, or any instrument of credit. It also
prayed for accounting of whatever the central owed to Mariano by way of bonus, dividend, etc., as well as the nullification of the sale made to Cesar
Ledesma.
•PNB filed third party claim alleging a preferential right over Mariano’s credit owed by Talisay as part of the civil fruits of the land mortgaged to the
bank. Bachrach contested this.
•Talisay prayed for the absolution of 7,500 of the credit as it belonged to Cesar Ledesma as buyer in good faith. All parties later agreed to
respect Cesar’s credit and absolved him from the complaint and ordered delivery tohim of P7,500.
•Trial court ruled in favor of Bachrach, awarding it P11,076.02 of Mariano’s bonus from Talisay. Hence, this appeal.

Issue: WON the bonus was a civil fruit which formed part of the mortgaged land?
Held and Ratio:
NO. Art 442 of the Civil Code considers three things as civil fruits: rents of buildings, proceeds from leases
of lands, and income from perpetual of life annuities or other similar sources of revenue. The bonus in question
was neither rent of a building nor land. For it to come under the coverage of income, it must be obtained from
the land. In this case however, the bonus bears no immediate but only a remote and accidental
relation to the land. The central granted it as compensation for the risk that the landowners entered in
mortgaging their lands. If the bonus was an income of any kind, it comes from the assumption of risk, and not
from the land itself. Thus, it is distinct and independent from the property referred to in the mortgage to
the bank.
Disposition:
Judgment affirmed.
BACHRACH v. SEIFERT
Facts:
In his will, the deceased Emil Maurice Bachrach named his wife (Mary McDonald Bachrach) as usufructuary of the remainder of his estate.
The will further provided that upon the death of Mary McDonald Bachrach, one-half of all his estate shall be divided among his legal heirs, to
the exclusion of his brothers.
○ The estate of E. M. Bachrach, as owner of 108,000 shares of stock of the Atok-Big Wedge Mining Co., Inc., received from the latter 54,000
shares representing 50% stock dividend on the said 108,000 shares.
○ June 10, 1948, Mary (the widow), as usufructuary or life tenant of the estate, petitioned the lower court to authorize the Peoples Bank and
Trust Company (the administrator of the estate of E. M. Bachrach) to transfer to her the said 54,000 shares of stock dividend. She claimed
that said dividend, although paid out in the form of stock, is fruit or income and therefore belonged to her as usufructuary or life tenant.
○ Sophie Seifert and Elisa Elianoff, legal heirs of the deceased, opposed said petition on the ground that the stock dividend in question was not
income but formed part of the capital and therefore belonged not to the usufructuary but to the remainder man.
○ The lower court granted Mary’s petition and overruled S&E’s objection. Seifer and Elianoff appealed.

Issue: Whether the stock dividend can be considered as a fruit/income (which belongs to the
usufructuary) or part of the capital (part of the corpus of the estate which will be delivered together
with the rest of the future estate to the remainder man)?
Held:
The stock dividend is a form of income.
The SC cited Hite vs. Hite wherein the Court of Appeals of Kentucky, held that "where a dividend,
although declared in stock, is based upon the earnings of the company, it is in reality, whether called by
one name or another, the income of the capital invested in it. In the present case; the 108,000 shares of
stock are part of the property in usufruct. The 54,000 shares of stock dividend are civilfruits of
the original investment. According to my legal dictionary, a remainder is a future estate and a remainder
man is the inchoate possessor of that future estate.
 Art. 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a
third person in their production, gathering, and preservation.

Application. – This article applies where:

a. the owner of property recovers the same from a possessor and the
possessor has not yet received the fruits although they may have already
been gathered or harvested; or
b. the possessor has already received the fruits but is ordered to return the
same to the owner.

The owner is obliged to reimburse the previous possessor for the expenses
incurred by the latter for their production, gathering and preservation.

Characteristic of the expenses referred to in article 443

a. They must have been used for production, gathering, or
preservation, not for the improvement of the property
b. They must have been necessary and not luxurious or excessive
Effect of bad faith – The owner cannot excuse himself from his obligation by alleging bad faith on the part of
the possessor because Art. 443 makes no distinction and because the expenses made were necessary without
which the owner would not have received the fruits.
A is the owner of a piece of land upon which fruits were grown, raised, harvested and gathered by B in bad
faith. Who should be considered the owner of the fruits?

ANS: A should be considered the owner of the fruits, since he is the owner of the land, and B is a planter in
bad faith but he must reimburse B for the expenses for production, gathering and preservation.

Under Art. 449, “He who builds, plants, or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted
or sown without the right to indemnity.” How can this Art. 449 be reconciled with the answer to the example given
above?

ANS: Art. 449 applies only if the crops have not yet been gathered (here the landowner gets the fruits
without indemnity by the principle of accession continua.)
 Applicability of Art. 443

Art. 443 applies only when the fruits are already harvested and gathered since the article
refers to person “who received the fruits.”

Article 443 does not apply to pending fruits

In any case, Article 443 should be read in connection with Article 544 to 551 which provide
for the effects of possession in good faith and bad faith. Under Article 544, a possessor in
good faith has no right to reimbursement of his expenses since he is entitled to fruits
already received.

Suppose the expenses exceed the value of the fruits (as when, for example, typhoons
have damaged the crops) must there still be a reimbursement for the expenses?

ANS: YES, if the owner insists on being entitled to the fruits.

This is because:
(a) The law makes no exception or distinction;
(b) The same thing would have happened had the owner been also the planter;
(c) He who gets expected advantages must be prepared to shoulder losses.

Art. 444 Only such as are manifest or born are considered as natural or industrial fruits.
TACAS V. TOBON
Facts:
On February 1, 1918 Tacas, et. al. filed an action to recover from defendant Tobon the ownership and possession of three
parcels of land, together with the fruits collected by him during the time he was in possession of said land since January 1912.
He alleged that Tobon unlawfully took said parcels upon the death of Francisco Dumadag, predecessor in interest of the
plaintiffs; and that he remained in possession, enjoying the fruits to the value of P700 annually. In his answer docketed on
April 11, 1918, Tobon alleged that he is the owner of said lands, having purchased them from Exequiel or Gil Tacas. The trial
court declared the plaintiffs to be the absolute owners of the three parcels of land in litigation, and ordered Tobon to deliver
said parcels of land to them, together with the fruits collected each year since 1912 until the complete termination of the case,
and in default thereof, to pay themP11,040, which is the total value of the rice and tobacco from 1912 to 1927. Tobon appealed.

Issue: WON the trial court erred in ordering Tobon to deliver to the plaintiffs the fruits of
the land from 1912 to 1927?
Ruling:
Yes, the trial court erred insofar that it ordered Tobon to deliver to the plaintiffs the fruits of the
land from 1912 to 1927. Evidence being lacking to show that when he entered upon the possession
of the lands in question, he was aware of any flaw in his title or mode of acquiring it, he is deemed
a possessor in good faith (Art. 433, Civil Code), and in accordance with Art. 451 of the Civil Code,
the fruits of said lands were his, until he was summoned upon the complaint, or until he has filed
his answer thereto. The possessor in bad faith was ordered to return the fruits he had gathered
“with the right to deduct the expenses of planting and harvesting.”
 With respect to animals, it is sufficient that they are in the womb
of the mother, although unborn.

(1) Two kinds of crops

a) Annual crops – deemed manifest (existing) the moment their
seedlings appear from the ground, although the grains have not
yet actually appeared.
Examples
Cereals, grains, rice, corn, sugar
a) Perennial crops – deemed exist only when they actually appear on
the trees.
Examples
Oranges, apples, mangoes, and coconuts
(2) Animals
The young of animals are already considered existing even if
still in the maternal womb. (Art. 444, par. 2)
RULES FOR CIVIL FRUITS AS DISTINGUISHED FROM NATURAL AND INDUSTRIAL FRUITS

1. Civil fruits accrue daily (Art. 544) and are therefore considered in the
category of personal property; natural and industrial fruits, while still
growing, are real property
2. Civil fruits can be prorated while natural and industrial fruits cannot
ordinarily. (Art. 544)
 Guide
1. With respect to annual crops, they should be deemed manifest or existing from the
time the seedlings appear from the ground;
2. As to perennial crops, the fruits are not deemed existing until they actually appear
on the plants or trees;
3. As regards animals, they are deemed existing at the beginning of the maximum
ordinary period of gestation, this being the surest criterion of their existence in the
mother’s womb; and
4. With respect to fowls, the fact of appearance of the chicks should retroact to the
beginning of incubation.
END
Thank you!