RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO MOVABLE PROPERTY

Q. What are the Three types of Accession with respect to Movable Property?
1.) Adjunction
2.) Mixture (commixtion or confusion)
3.) Specification

Art. 466. Whenever two movable things belonging to different owners are, without bad faith, united in such a
way that they form a single object, the owner of the principal thing acquires the accessory, indemnifying the
former owner thereof for its value.

Q. What is adjunction or conjunction?

A. ADJUNCTION or CONJUNCTION is the process in which two movable things belonging to different owners are
united in such way that they form a single object.

Q. What are the different Kinds of Adjunction, or what ways may adjunction take place?
A.
a.) Inclusion or ingraftment (example: diamond set on a gold ring)
b.) Attachment or Soldering (joining legs made of lead to a body made of lead or iron)
c.) Writing (poems, novel or stories written by author)
d.) Painting (painting of landscape or portraits, etc. by artist)
e.) Weaving (organic or synthetic materials woven into clothing fabric, or baskets, containers)

Q. Who has the right to own the single object formed as a result of adjunction?
A. The owner of the principal thing acquires the accessory, indemnifying the former owner thereof for its value.

Art. 467. The principal thing as between two things incorporated, is deemed to be that to which the other has
been united as an ornament, or for its use or perfection.

Art. 468. If it cannot be determined by the rule given in the preceding article which of the two things
incorporated is the principal one, the thing of the greater value shall be so considered, and as between two
things of equal value, that of the greater volume.

In painting and sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas,
paper or parchment shall be deemed the accessory thing.

Q. What are the TESTS to determine which is the PRINCIPAL and which is the ACCESSORY?

The PRINCIPAL is :
a.) That to which the other has been united as an ornament (Test of Intention),
or for its use, or perfection (Art. 467).
b.) That of greater value (Art. 468)
c.) That of greater volume (Art. 468)
d.) That which has greater merits (from combined consideration of utility & volume)
Example: Motor vehicle principal is engine, other parts are accessories

Note: Special Rule in Art. 468, 2nd par.

In painting, sculpture, writings, printed matter, engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas, paper
or parchment are deemed as the accessories.

What has been painted, sculpted, written or printed, is deemed of greater importance and value.

Art. 469. Whenever the things united can be separated without injury, their respective owners may demand their
separation.

Nevertheless, in case the thing united for use, 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.

Q. In ADJUNCTION under Art. 469, can the respective owners demand the separation of things united?

o 1st par. of Art. 469, applies to adjunction such as soldering and inclusion. Owners may demand separation IF it
can be made without substantial injury to the things united.

o 2nd par. allows separation even if injury is caused to the thing to which it is attached/incorporated, in case the
accessory is more precious than the principal.

1
 Example: Diamond gem stone as ornament to a silver ring. Owner of the more precious diamond can ask for separation even if
injury will result to the ring. Expenses must be borne by the person who caused the union, considering that both parties are in
good faith.

Art. 470. Whenever the owner of the accessory thing has made the incorporation in bad faith, he shall lose
the thing incorporated and shall have the obligation to indemnify the owner of the principal thing for the
damages he may have suffered.

If the one who has acted in bad faith is the owner of the principal thing, the owner of the accessory thing
shall have a right to choose between the former paying him its value of that the thing belonging to him be
separated, even though, for this purpose it be necessary to destroy the principal thing; and in both cases,
furthermore, there shall be indemnity for damages.

If either one of the owners has made the incorporation with the knowledge and without the objection of the
other, their respective rights shall be determined as though both acted in good faith.

Q. What are the RULES in case of BAD FAITH in the ADJUNCTION?

a.) 1st paragraph: If it is the OWNER OF THE ACCESSORY thing in adjunction who made the incorporation in bad
faith, he will lose all rights to the thing incorporated plus indemnify the owner of the principal thing for the damages
he may have suffered.

b.) 2nd par: If it is the OWNER OF THE PRINCIPAL thing who is IN BAD FAITH:

i. He is liable to pay value of the accessory plus damages; or,

ii. The owner of the accessory in good faith may elect to have the thing removed even if it destroys the
principal thing.

c.) 3rd par: EFFECT of BAD FAITH of BOTH PARTIES both are deemed in Good Faith.
o Apply Art. 469 rule in Adjunction - Respective owners may demand separation, if the things united can be
separated without injury.

o However, in case the thing united for use, 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.

Art. 471. Whenever the owner of the material employed without his consent has a right to an indemnity, he may
demand that this consist in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value, and in all other respects, to that
employed, or else in the price thereof, according to expert appraisal.

Q. What is the rule whenever the owner of the material employed without his consent has a right to an indemnity?

A. Art. 471 provides HOW INDEMNITY is to be PAID

a.) Deliver a thing Equal in Kind and Value (quantity, quality), OR
b.) Pay the price of material per expert appraisal;
c.) Plus - Sentimental Value to material owner, if applicable (Art. 475)

Art. 472. If by the will of their owners two things of the same or different kinds are mixed, or if the mixture
occurs by chance, and in the latter case the things are not separable without injury, each owner shall acquire a
right proportional to the part belonging to him, bearing in mind the value of the things mixed or confused.

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 articles.

If the one who caused the mixture or confusion acted in bad faith, he shall lose the things belonging to him
thus mixed or confused, besides being obliged to pay indemnity for the damages caused to the owner of the
other thing with which his own was mixed.

Q. What is COMMIXTION or CONFUSION?

A. It refers to the mixture of things, either solid or liquid, pertaining to different owners.

Arts. 472 and 473 deal with Mixture wherein the respective identities of the component elements are lost in the union
or combination of the materials.

2
 Q. What are the TWO KINDS OF MIXTURE?
1. COMMIXTION (solids mixed silica, soda, lime, sulfur powders heated to make Glass)
2. CONFUSION (liquids mixed yellow and blue paints mixed resulting to a Green paint)

Q. When does commixtion or confusion take place?

A. Two things of the same or different kinds are mixed
i. By will of their owners, or
ii. By chance,

Q. What are the RULES or LEGAL EFFECTS in case of MIXTURE or CONFUSION?

Answer:
a.) If the mixture is caused by one owner in Good Faith, or by the will of both owners, or by chance, or by a
common agent, then CO-OWNERSHIP results. Each owner has a right proportional to the value of his material.

b.) If the mixture is made by one owner in Bad Faith, then

i. Owner in bad faith loses his material in favor of the other
ii. Owner in bad faith is also liable for damages (reason: to penalize bad faith)

c.) If mixture is made by common consent, the stipulation of parties controls.

d.) If parts mixed are of the same kind, quantity and quality, then mixture will be divided in equal parts or
proportionally.

e.) If mixture was caused by negligence of one of the parties, one who is negligent is liable (culpa aquiliana) and
should pay damages (Art. 2176). Good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence (Art. 456).

Art. 474. One who in good faith employs the material of another in whole or in part in order to make a thing of a
different kind, shall appropriate the thing thus transformed as his own, indemnifying the owner of the material
for its value.

If the material is more precious than the transformed thing or is of more value, its owner may, at his
option, appropriate the new thing to himself, after first paying indemnity for the value of the work, or demand
indemnity for the material.

If in the making of the thing bad faith intervened, the owner of the material shall have the right to
appropriate the work to himself without paying anything to the maker, or to demand of the latter that he
indemnify him for the value of the material and the damages he may have suffered. However, the owner of the
material cannot appropriate the work in case the value of the latter, for artistic or scientific reasons, is
considerably more than that of the material.

This article is about SPECIFICATION. The rule of accessory follows the principal applies here with LABOR as the
PRINCIPAL.

Q. What is Specification?

A. SPECIFICATION is defined as the giving of a new form to another material thru the application of labor. The material
undergoes a transformation or change of identity or nature.

Examples:
a.) Baking cake with flour of another
b.) Using paint of another to create a painting on ones own canvas
(NOTE: If painter uses his own paint but on the canvas of another, this is adjunction.
Reason: Canvas is deemed as accessory in Art. 468 on adjunction)

c.) Making a suit using fabric of another.

Nota Bene - Art. 474:

Gen. Rule: the WORKER or Maker, is entitled to appropriate the finished product and NOT the owner of
material.

Example: Sculpture is created by the national artist Abueva using scraps of iron and glass materials in the junkyard of Andoy.
The sculptor Abueva will own the finished sculpture, not the material owner Andoy. But Abueva must pay Andoy for the value
of materials.

Exception: It is only when the material is more precious or more valuable than the transformed thing, that the owner
of the material is given the preference or choice.

Q. What are the RULES TO FOLLOW IN SPECIFICATION [Art. 474], whereby one employs the material of another
in whole or in part in order to make a thing of a different kind?

1.) If the Worker (principal) is in Good Faith

3
 a. He can appropriate the new thing as his own
b. But he must indemnify the owner of the material for its value

Exception :
If the material (accessory) is more precious or more valuable, than the new thing,
the owner of the material has the option
a.) To get the new thing but he pays for the work, OR;
b.) To demand indemnity for his more precious/valuable material

2.) If the Worker is in Bad Faith, the Owner of the Material has the ff. option:
a.) He can appropriate the work without paying for the labor;
b.) Or - he can demand indemnity for his materials plus Damages

Exception: No option to appropriate if the value of the resulting work is more valuable for artistic or scientific
reasons.

Note: Distinguish Specification from Mixture and Adjunction. (p. 294 of Paras, CC.)

Art. 475. In the preceding articles, sentimental value shall be duly appreciated.

Chapter 3
QUIETING OF TITLE

Art. 476. Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument,
record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact
invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to
remove such cloud or to quiet the title.

An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest
therein.

Q. What is Quieting of Title?

A. Quieting of Title - is a remedy for the removal of any cloud or doubt or uncertainty with respect to title to real property.
(Vda. de Aviles v. CA, 76 SCAD 396, 1966)

Q. How do you classify the two kinds of Quieting of Title actions?

A. Kinds of Action to quiet title:
1.) Remedial action to remove the cloud or to quiet title (Art. 476, par.1)
2.) Preventive action to prevent a future cloud or doubt

Action to quiet title to real property or remove clouds therefrom, may be filed in the Regional Trial Court,
under Rule 63 (Sec. 1) of The Revised Rules of Court.

Q. How does the cloud on title exist? Or, What causes for a doubt or cloud on title to exist?

A. The cloud or doubt on title exists because:

a.) of a written instrument (deed, will, contract), or record or claim or encumbrance or proceeding

b.) which on its face appears to be valid or effective

If the instrument is not valid on its face, the remedy for QT does not apply.

c.) is, in truth and in fact, invalid, ineffective, voidable or unenforceable, or extinguished (or terminated) or barred by
extinctive prescription (Arts. 476-478).

d.) And may be prejudicial to the title (Art. 476)

NOTA BENE:

1.) Will the action to quiet title to property which is in the possession of the plaintiff prescribe?

A. An action to quiet title to property in the possession of the plaintiff is imprescriptible (Foja v. CA, 75 SCRA 441,
1977; Heirs of Uberas v. CFI of Negros Oriental, L48268, Oct. 30, 1978)

Jurisprudence abounds in holding that, if a person claiming to be the owner is in actual possession of the
property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.
(Pioneer Insurance and Surety v. Heirs of Vicente Coronado, 595 SCRA 263)

2.) What is the real purpose of the Torrens System?

4
 A. The real purpose of the Torrens System is to quiet title to land and to stop forever any question as to its
legality. An indirect or collateral attack on a Torrens Title is not allowed (National Grains Authority v. IAC, GR
68741, Jan. 28, 1988)

3.) What is the exception to the conclusive effect on land covered by the Torrens Title and will thus not be subject of
an indirect or collateral attack?

A. The only exception to the above rule is where a person obtains a certificate of title to a land belonging to
another and he has full knowledge of the rights of the true owner. He is then considered guilty of fraud and
may be compelled to transfer the land to the real owner, provided this property has not yet been sold to a
buyer in good faith. (id.)

4. Is the result of Quieting of Title binding upon the whole world or in rem ?

A. The result of QT is not binding upon the whole world; it is not in rem. It is enforceable in personam, only
against the defeated party.

Rule 63, Sec. 2, Revised Rules of Court All persons who have or claim any interest which would be affected by
the declaration shall be made parties ; and no declaration shall, except as otherwise provided in these Rules,
prejudice the rights of persons not parties to the action.

In an action for quieting title which was dismissed by the trial court for failure of the petitioner to implead the
people of a particular locality as indispensable parties whom the court believed had a valid claim to the property in
dispute, the said people, not being a party to that action, cannot claim that they should be deemed to have obtained
a judgment of ownership of the land in their favor. (Episcopal Diocese v. MPED-DPWH, 608 SCRA 238)

5. Can an action to quiet title apply also to personal property?

A. Strictly speaking, an action to quiet title refers to real property or any interest therein. But by analogy, the
same principle may apply to personal property, especially vessels which though a movable, partake of the
nature of real property.

Rights of Property Owner to Have the Cloud Eliminated

Q. If a persons right to his real property is disturbed by unfounded claim of another, what legal remedies can he ask
from the Court?

1.) That the respective rights of the parties to be determined

2.) To place things in their proper place and make one who has no right to the immovable respect and not disturb
the other.

3.) For the benefit of both

4.) That he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated or removed.

5.) And he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use and even to abuse the
property as he deems best (Bautista v. Exconde, 40 OG, 8th S. No. 12, p.231)

Q. What are the Reasons for Allowing Quieting of Title Action:

1. To prevent costly litigation
2. To protect true title and possession
3. To promote right and justice

Q. What is the Requisite Needed to Bring an Action for QT:

A. To authorize an action to prevent a cloud being cast on title, it must be made clear that there is a fixed determination
on the part of the defendant to create a cloud and it is not sufficient that the danger is merely speculative.

Q. Does Action to Quiet Title Prescribe?

A. It depends:

a.) If plaintiff is in possession of the property, the action does not prescribe. (Sapto et al. v. Fabiana, 103 Phil. 683)

b.) If plaintiff is not in possession of the property, the action may prescribe.

Laches or estoppel may also bar QT action if delay is unreasonable or unjustified, or, there is no excuse offered
for the failure to assert the title sooner (Ongsiako v. Ongsiako, L-7510, Mar. 30, 1957).

Study Cases of:

1. Gallar v. Hussain, L-20954, May 24, 1967 (re-prescription of QT action)
2. Simeon Lee v. CA, L-37135, Dec. 28, 1973 (re- probate & QT action)
3. Vda. de Cabrera v. CA 78 SCAD 705, 1997 (QT-reconveyance imprescriptible)
4. Sapto v. Fabiana, 103 Phil. 683 (re-QT imprescriptible if in possession)

5
 i. Whether the deed of sale executed by appellants predecessors in favor of the appellee over the land in question,
although never registered, is valid and binding on appellants and operated to convey title and ownership to the
appellee.

As between the parties to a sale, registration is not necessary to make it valid and effective, for actual notice is equivalent
to registration.

"The purpose of registration is merely to notify the interests of strangers to a given transaction, who may be ignorant
thereof, and the non- registration of the deed evidencing said transaction does not relieve the parties thereto of their
obligation thereunder." (Casica v. Villaseca, L-9590, April 30, 1957).

In the sale in question, no right of innocent third persons having been involved, the conveyance between the appellee and
his vendors, although not registered, is valid and binding upon the latter as well as upon his heirs.

It is, therefore, clear that the conveyance between appellee and his vendors is valid and binding upon the latter, and is
equally binding and effective against the heirs of the vendors, herein appellants.

To hold otherwise would make of the Torrens system a shield for the commission of fraud by the vendors or his heirs
(Gustilo v. Maravilla, 48 Phil., 442), who would then be able to reconvey the same property to other persons.

2. It is error to require them to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of Fabiana, and argue that the latters action to
obtain it had long prescribed, twenty years having elapsed since the original sale.

This contention must be overruled, being predicated on the assumption that the reconveyance is sought by way of
performance of the contract of sale entered into in 1931.

No enforcement of the contract is in fact needed, since the delivery of possession of the land sold had consummated the
sale and transferred title to the purchaser, registration of the contract not being indispensable as between the parties.

Actually the action for conveyance was one to quiet title, i.e., to remove the cloud cast upon appellees ownership by the
refusal of the appellants to recognize the sale made by their predecessors. This action accrued only when appellants
initiated their suit to recover the land in 1954.

Furthermore, it is an established rule of American jurisprudence (made applicable in this jurisdiction by Art. 480 of the
New Civil Code) that actions to quiet title to property in the possession of the plaintiff are imprescriptible

Art. 477. The plaintiff must have legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject
matter of the action. He need not be in possession of said property.

Q. For an action to quiet title to prosper, is it always required that the plaintiff must have either legal ownership or
equitable or beneficial ownership?

A. YES, under Art. 477.

Q. What are the Difference/s in effect if one is in possession of the immovable, or not?

- Plaintiff In Possession
1. Period to file action does not prescribe
2. Plaintiffs only right is to remove or prevent cloud

- Plaintiff Not in Possession

1. period prescribes
2. may also bring actions for ejectment, publiciana or reivindicatoria within the prescriptive periods.
3. Plaintiffs only right is to remove or prevent cloud

Art. 478. There may also be an action to quiet title or remove a cloud therefrom when the contract, instrument or
other obligation has been extinguished or has terminated, or has been barred by extinctive prescription.

Two Instances in Art. 478, where the action to quiet title may be used:
a.) When the contract has ended
Example: A gave his 25 years old son B to enjoy all rights of ownership over As 2-storey office building for rent until he
reaches the age of 30 years old on June 12, 2000. Thereafter, the same right will be transmitted to As 25 year old daughter
C, until her lifetime.
But when A turned 30 years old, he contended that he is a co-owner of the building, and he will enjoy the same rights
with C as such. But the resolutory condition of the obligation/contract has been fulfilled. In this case, C can file an action
to quiet title.

b.) When the action has been barred by extinctive prescription

Example: Abe occupied and possessed the 2 hectare alluvium in good faith and in the concept of owner, continuously and
openly for 10 years as of May 1, 2010.
On the 12th year ( in 2012), Max the sole heir of the riparian owner to which the alluvium is attached, claimed the 2-
ha. Alluvium. Abe can bring an action to quiet title against Max.

6
 Abe is now the owner of the alluvium by virtue of prescription in good faith. Maxs right to recover the property has
now prescribed. Abe can now apply for land registration of the alluvium.

Art. 479. The plaintiff must return to the defendant all benefits he may have received from the latter, or reimburse
him for expenses that may have redounded to the plaintiffs benefit.

o This article provides that whenever the plaintiff is legally or morally bound to restore or reimburse for expenses that
is beneficial to him, he must do so.

Reason: He who comes to equity must do equity, and because the precise purpose of the action is merely to quiet title
and not to obtain financial benefits.

Example: B, buyer bought for P60,000 on Jan. 7, 2000 a 100 sq.m. residential lot from a real estate agent, A, who showed
B a SPA signed by the landowner C. This SPA to sell the land however, had been revoked by landowner-C in
writing/notarized, a month earlier. But agent-A did not reveal this to buyer-B. B then built a perimeter fence on the lot
worth P15,000 and paid P350 its 2000 real estate tax on Jan. 20, 2000.
Upon learning of As fraudulent sale to B, the landowner C filed an action against B to quiet title and won, for the sale
was void ab initio.

Q. In this case, is the landowner obliged to reimburse the expenses for the fence and real estate tax made by B- a buyer in
good faith?

A. The landowner C, must reimburse B for the expenses incurred for the fence and 2000 real estate tax under Art. 479.
B may set up his expenses as compulsory counterclaims in the same action.

Art. 480. The principles of the general law on the quieting of title are hereby adopted insofar as they are not in
conflict with this Code.

Q. In case of conflict between the Civil Code and the principles of the general law on quieting of title, which one will
prevail?

A. The Civil Code will prevail.

General Law Principles :

A. Regarding Defenses that may be availed of by Defendant to defeat Plaintiffs QT action:

1.) That the plaintiff does not have any legal or equitable title
2.) That the defendant has acquired the ownership by adverse possession
3.) That the action has prescribed, the plaintiff being outside of possession.
4.) That the case has already been decided before between the parties on the same issue; res judicata
5.) That the defendant became the owner after the action had been filed, but before he filed his Answer (as by
succession, donation, etc.)

B. Regarding the Reliefs Given:

1.) Unauthorized mortgages may be cancelled
2.) In an ordinary case, Defendant may in his counter-claim ask for quieting of title as against the plaintiff.

3.) Injunction may be availed of such as a prohibition to destroy certain properties or to prevent gathering of fruits
from the land in question.

4.)
Art. 481. The procedure for the quieting of title or the removal of a cloud therefrom shall be governed by such
rules of court as the Supreme Court shall promulgate.

Some Relevant Rules of Procedure:

1.) The venue of the action is determined by the location of the property.

2.) The process or notice should accurately describe the property and state in general terms the nature and extent
of the plaintiffs claim.

3.) The suit must be brought in the name of the real party in interest. (Rule 63, Sec. 2, Rules of Court)

4.) In suit for quieting of title, the actual possessor at the time of filing must be respected in his possession until
after there is adjudication on the merits. If the latter is disturbed by the other party, the former is entitled to a writ
of preliminary injunction.

What are some Instances When the Action to Quiet Title Will Not Prosper:
1.) If it is merely to settle dispute concerning boundaries.
2.) If it merely involves proper interpretation and meaning of a contract or document.
3.) If the action has prescribed and the plaintiff is not in possession of the property.
7
 4.) If the plaintiff has no legal or equitable title.
5.) If the contract, instrument, document is void on its face.
6.) If it is a mere claim or assertion (oral or written) unless such claim has been made in a court action, or the claim
asserts that an instrument or entry in behalf of the plaintiff is not really what it appears to be.

What is Task of the Court in a Quieting of Title Case?

A. In an action for quieting of title, the court is tasked to determine the respective rights of the parties so that the
complaint and those claiming under him may be forever free from any danger of hostile claim. (Rumarate v.
Hernandez, 487 SCRA 317, 2006)

Chapter 4
RUINOUS BUILDINGS AND TREES IN DANGER OF FALLING

Art. 482. If a building, wall, column, or any other construction is in danger of falling, the owner shall be obliged
to demolish it or to execute the necessary work in order to prevent it from falling.

If the proprietor does not comply with this obligation, the administrative authorities may order the
demolition of the structure at the expense of the owner, or take measures to insure public safety.

Q. Who may file the complaint?

A. The complainant who brings the case must either have his property adjacent to the dangerous construction, or must
have to pass by necessity in the immediate vicinity. (Manresa)

If the construction falls, the owner would be liable for damages, as a general rule. (Art. 2190)

Art. 483. Whenever a large tree threatens to fall in such a way as to cause damage to the land or tenement of
another or to travelers over a public or private road, the owner of the tree shall be obliged to fell and remove it;
and should he not do so, it shall be done at his expense by order of the administrative authorities.