PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes) 1
Dean Navarro
PROPERTY
ART.415 -IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Mindanao Bus Company Case
SC held that the industry doesn’t carried on in this building
where the repair shop is located the transportation business
is carried on outside.
The repair equipment is not immobilized but remained
personal property.
Can the parties agree that certain machinery which has been
installed by the owner of the tenement for the industry or
works which will be carried on in which tend the need of such
industry works
Can the owner of such machinery and creditor agree to treat
this machinery as personal property? Subjected them to
chattel mortgage?
Ans: Yes. Principle of Estoppel, although the machinery inside
the building & installed by the owner & they tend to meet
directly the needs of industry / works which may be carried
on in that building. If the parties agree to treat the machinery
as chattel & enter into a chattel mortgage neither of the will
be permitted to question the validity of chattel mortgage
later on the ground that the subject was actually real
property.
(6) Animal houses, Pigeon houses, breeding places of similar
nature
In case their owner has placed the or preserves them with the
intention to have them permanently attached to the land &
forming a permanent part of it, animals in these places are
included.
Fish ponds > Bangus (immovable even swimming around)
For purposes of sale considered movable property (Bangus
Sale)
Donate Bangus to someone> donation of personal property
(7) Fertilizers used on a piece of land
Insecticides – same rules
(8) Mines, quarries & slag dumps, while the matter thereof
forms part of the bed, & water either running or stagnant.
Water referred to are Natural Water! Drums of water in your
yard – not referred into in Art.415 (8)
Water in rivers, lagoons, lakes.
(9) Docks & Structures which though floating, are intended by
their nature and object to remain at a fixed placed on a river,
lake, or coast. Example of REAL:
 Barge in a fixed place (real property even if it’s
floating)
AUSL/JLAT
 NAPOCOR power barge (dock along shore, port
supply electricity to provinces)
 Floating Restaurant (fixed place)
MOVABLE:
 Boat which take on passenger, goes on a cruise on
Manila Bay, while cruising around dinner is served
(10) Contract for Public works and servitude and other real
right over immovable property
ART.416-MOVABLE
ART.417
Real property which by any special provision of the law – is
considered movable
Example: growing crops
– By law is movable/personal, CHATTEL MORTGAGE LAW
provision on sales
While still growing- mobilization by anticipation
(Sibal vs Valdez)
Anticipating what will be subsequently gathered even before
they are gathered there is mobilization by anticipation.
Cannot be the subject of chattel mortgage.
-Forces of nature which are brought under control by science
Movable: Nuclear power, wind power, electricity
-Shares of stock in any corporation = movable
Regardless that the corporation which the shares are held is
real property or even all of the assets of corporations consists
of real property.
PUBLIC DOMINION or PRIVATE OWNERSHIP
Public Dominion
-intended for public use, public service, development of the
national wealth
Public use (roads, street, parks)
-open indiscriminately to the public, open for every one
Property of Public Dominion CANNOT BE: (CSL-PAER)
- The Subject matter of contracts
- Sold
- Lease
- Acquired by prescription
- Attached & sold to public auction to satisfy public
judgment
- Burdened by easement
- Registered under Torrens title system, if title is
issued covering property of public dominion = not a
title
The Government has property of 2 types:

1. Public Dominion
2. Patrimonial Property-can be subject of contracts
Property of Public Dominion –as long as it remains such is
subject to special rules.
Is it possible to convert property of public dominion to
patrimonial property? YES.
Is the mere fact of property of public dominion is no longer
actually being used for public use or no longer devoted for
public service, will that automatically convert from public
dominion into patrimonial property? NO.
-There must be a formal declaration in the case of national
government property.
-Formal declaration from the executive, legislative of such
conversion. Otherwise, the property remains the property of
public dominion.
Property of Political Subdivisions- conversion must be
authorized by law
(Roponggi Cases)
-Property of Philippines located in Japan, given to us by way
of reparation by Japanese as part of Reparation Agreement
-Originally intended for the use of Embassy but never used
for that purpose. After long period of time, there was an
attempt to sell the properties
SC: The mere fact that the properties in Japan have not been
actually used for their original purpose doesn’t automatically
convert the property into patrimonial property.
-Still part o Public Domain & consequently not available for
private appropriation or ownership until there’s a formal
declaration on the part of government to withdraw it from
being such
-Abandonment cannot be inferred. It must be definite!
On the part of Local Government Entities
-properties are subdivided into properties for public use &
patrimonial property
Public use- open indiscriminately to the public
(Zamboanga Del Norte vs City of Zamboanga)
SC ruled: As long as the property is for governmental
purposes, property is for public use
(Salas vs Jarencio)
-Absence of clear evidence as to the source of the funds used
in acquiring the property which was currently being held by
the local government unit, presumption- land came from the
state.
-LGU property = no clear showing of funds used =
presumption is the land came from the state. LGU is holding
AUSL/JLAT
PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes) 2
Dean Navarro
merely in TRUST for the state, for the benefit of inhabitants
of the locality
If that is so, it can’t be considered as Patrimonial property,
still public property.
National Legislative – Absolute control over this property.
LGU can’t enter into contracts, can’t validly authorized by
means of ordinance.
Awarding of contracts in a certain streets in favor of private
individuals for purpose of having flee market there
As long as the streets remains the street, it’s for public use &
therefore beyond the power of local government unit to deal
with by means of contracts.
Example: LGU enters into a contract. Certain street be
converted into a flea market. Ordinance authorized it.
SC ruled: IT CANT BE. What is quite clear from this cases is
that while even under Local Government code, LGU unit are
allowed to withdraw certain streets when no longer
necessary withdraw from public use. They can’t convert it
without actually withdrawing it from public use, the will still
maintain it as a street and at the same time operate it as a
flea market
As long as they are not withdrawn from public use, they
remain property of public use & can’t at the same time enter
into contract with private individuals who intend to operate
flee market.
(Chavez vs PEA)
Agreement between Public Estate Authority and Amari
-Amari will reclaim certain submerged lands, as payment, it
would be paid with reclaimed lands
SC ruled: Reclaimed lands on freedom island (157 hectares)
covered by titles under PEA- are ALIENABLE lands of public
domain. But they only be LEASED NOT SOLD to private
corporations. They may be sold to Filipino Citizens
Submerged Areas
-Inalienable, outside the commerce of man
-only after the PEA reclaim them may the government re-
classify them as alienable & disposable lands if no longer
needed for public service
-Transfer of submerged land into Amari = VOID, since the
constitution prohibit the alienation of our National Resources
other than the agricultural land of the public domain
OWNERSHIP
Traditional attributes (Right of Owner):
- Right to Use
- Right to The Fruits
- Right to Consume the thing but its use

- Right to Dispose
- Right to Vindicate/Recover
Limitation on the rights of owner
-comes from the State (Inherent)
-imposed by law (Easements)
-imposed by person transmitting property
ART.429
Doctrine of Self-Help
-Owner or lawful possessor
-Allowed by law
-The use of such force as may be reasonably necessary to
repel or prevent an ACTUAL or THREATENED unlawful
deprivation or physical invasion or usurpation of property
Only reasonable force should be used
Invoke only at the time when there is ACTUAL or
THREATENED unlawful physical invasion NOT THEREAFTER!
rd
If property has already been taken by 3 person you are NOT
ALLOWED to use force to get it back, you must invoke the aid
of judicial authorities.
(German Management& Service Incorporated)
-Land owner executed a power of attorney in favor of
German Management service to develop such property
-German Mgt discovered that certain individuals are
occupying & cultivating the property
-German Mgt used Physical force to oust this occupants who
are cultivating the portion of the land
-later on they invoked principle of Self-held
SC ruled: NOT PROPER. Not disputed that when they tried to
enter property, those occupants were already cultivating land
for some time. A party of peaceable, quiet possession shall
not be turned out with strong hands, violence or terror
Doctrine of Self-Help- ACTUAL & THREATENED dispossession
-when possession already lost > Judicial Process for the
recovery of his property
ART.430
Owner of the property has the right to enclose property with
fence, wall, or any other means
(Custodio vs CA)
-Property owned by a person with no fence around his
property. Some of his neighbors where passing through his
land to reach the public road
AUSL/JLAT
PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes) 3
Dean Navarro
-Later on, owner enclosed it with a fence. Consequently,
neighbor can’t pass through his land & had to take another
route to reach Public Street
SC ruled: “Namuum Absque Injurie”
Property owner is simply exercising a right explicitly granted
to him by law. The right to enclose his property with a fence
in a meantime, great inconvenience may caused by his
neighbors but these neighbors have no legal right to claim
damages. (cases decided: NO EASEMENT YET)
Only after the case was decided, Easement should have
created & SC ruled that they should pay indemnity. As long as
there’s no easement yet, you have perfect right to enclose
your property with fence.
ART.431
Property owner (jus utendi)
-right to use his property should be exercised in such a way as
not to injure others
-“use your own as not to injure others”
In one case…
2 adjoining properties
-owner of higher property built certain artificial bodies of
water, artificial lakes, water pots, etc.
-during inclement/bad weather, some of these constructions
were washed away & they fell to the adjoining lower estate
SC ruled: Case should be reinstated. Applying Art.431, “use
your own as not to injure others”, Construction of artificial
bodies of water on the higher estate as something which
causes during bad weather as something prejudicial to the
adjoining lower estate
ART.432
Emergency Doctrine
-you are the owner of a thing, you have no right to prohibit
the interference of another person with your property as long
as the interference is necessary to prevent an imminent
danger & as long as the threatened damage or injury is
greater(much greater) than the damage which would arise to
you from the interference with your property
-Negligence on the part of the person interfering has not
preclude resort to the rule
Example:
CAR- another vehicle driven by X (recklessly slammed in
Meralco Post) started to burn
Mr.X (even though negligent in driving his car) would have
the right to interfere with my property if I happen to have fire
extinguisher. I don’t have a right to prohibit the interference
to use the fire extinguisher. His negligence doesn’t preclude
him from invoking the rule.
Any possible damage of my fire extinguisher is lesser than the
damage caused in burning his car

ART.433
Actual possession under claim of ownership raises a
disputable presumption of ownership. The true owner must
resort to judicial process for the recovery of the property.
ART.434
Action to recover requisites:
1. Property must be indentified
2. Plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title & not on the
weakness of the defendant’s claim
“He who alleges, has the burden of proof”
ART.435
Reinstatement of Constitution Law
Inherent Power of State
Power of Eminent Domain- upon payment of just
compensation
ART.436
Police power- if property was damaged as a consequence in
the exercise of Police Power – no right to any indemnity
ART.437
Owner of property is the owner not only on its surface but of
everything under it. It doesn’t mean that everything to be
taken under it should be literally construed.
Exception:
Minerals- State (Regalian Doctrine)
Up to what depth that a person can be the owner on what is
beneath your land?
-Extends up to such depth as you can still make use of it
(MPC vs Ibrahim)
-Property owner, unknown to him MPC constructed a tunnel
passing beneath his land. MPC is drawing water from Agos
River
ART.438
Hidden Treasure – Any hidden & unknown deposit of
Money, jewelry, or other precious objects, the lawful owner
of which does not appear (unknown owner)
-Neighbor digging a hole and hiding a jar full of jewelry =
NOT Hidden Treasure because you know the owner
(lawful ownership must not appear)
-law enumerates Money, jewelry, or other precious objects
(applying Ejusdem generis rule, limited to things of similar
nature)
-Therefore, Minerals & oil NOT hidden treasure (owned by
the state)
AUSL/JLAT
PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes) 4
Dean Navarro
-Rule: Hidden Treasure belongs to the owner of land,
building, and other property in which it is found
-If found by another person (other than the owner of the
land) by chance = ½ to owner & ½ to finder rule
-If trespasser, NOT entitled to the ½ rule or any share
-The requires finding must be by CHANCE =
traditional meaning is “Not intended, totally unexpected”
Supposing…
That a man has been given the usufruct of a parcel of land, by
his friend, he stay there on that land,
One day there is an old man, gave him what appear to be an
old map (treasure buried by pirates long time ago),
Usufructuary believing what was told to him by the old man,
digs at the precise spot and true enough he finds Hidden
Treasure, will he be entitled to the hidden treasure? Is it by
chance?
-If by traditional view, not entitled because he intentionally
looked for it
-MODERN VIEW: by CHANCE= by STROKE of GOOD FORTUNE
-Yamashita Treasure: many have tried but never located, no
guaranty that you’ll find one, even if you have a map.
So if you find one = finding is by stroke of GOOD FORTUNE (by
chance)
-If finder, precisely employed to find treasure= NOT ENTITLED
Art.438 remuneration will depend on the contract for the
work he would be undertaken (share/direct compensation)
Preliminary Examination:
Municipality vs Rojas
Town Plaza outside the commerce of man, cannot be the
subject of contract
Davao Sawmill vs City Assessor, Treasurer
Machineries owned by the Lessee is personal not real
property.
Leung Yee vs Strong Machine Co
Chattel Mortgage= Personal Property
Real Estate Mortgage= Real Property
ACCESSION
General Rule: ART.440
If you are the owner of the property by right of accession
=you are entitled also own which is PRODUCED by that
property or which is INCORPORATED or ATTACHED to that
property. Either NATURALLY or ARTIFICIALLY

Various kind of Accession
Accession Discreta – right given to the owner to everything
which is produced by that property
3 Types of fruits which can be possibly produced
1. Natural- Spontaneous products of soil, young
product of animals
(Ex. Animal manure, mushrooms not cultivated
usually after thunderstorm-some of these are
poisonous)
2. Industrial-produced by lands thru human labor &
cultivation (Ex. Mushroom produced/cultured in a
farm)
3. Civil- rents, price of leases of lands & other property,
life annuities & other similar income
Accession Continua- right given to the owner to everything
which is incorporated or attached to his property either
naturally or artificially
With regard to IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
Accession Industrial (sub classification of Accession Continua)
-building, planting, sowing
Accession Natural
-alluvium
-avulsion (due to risk exposed, they have right to recover-
w/in 2 yrs)
-change of river bed
-formation of islands
With regard to PERSONAL or MOVABLE PROPERTY
-adjunction/conjunction
-commixtion/confusion
-specification
To the owner belongs all of the fruits
Don’t forget however the rule in ART.443:
-He who receives the fruits has the obligation to reimburse
expenses made by another person in their production,
gathering & preservation
-law doesn’t distinguish people in good faith or persons in
bad faith, IT APPLIES TO EVERYONE.
If bad faith= as long as you spent for gathering, production &
preservation of fruits
Owner who is able to get back possession is obligated under
ART.443 to reimburse for the expenses incurred for the
Production, gathering & preservation
AUSL/JLAT
PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes) 5
Dean Navarro
ART.443 will not apply if fruits are not yet gathered.
(Fruits ungathered = art.443 NOT applicable)
If Bad faith & not yet gathered fruits when lawful owner
possessor recovers property form you – Art.443 not
applicable = you simply lose all of these ungathered fruits
Apply rules in:
Possessor in BF
Planters in BF
Sowers in BF
He who is in Bad faith loses everything he built, planted or
sown
ART.445
When these rules on Accession in immovable property will
apply or when it would not
Whatever is B,P,S on land of another together with
improvements & repairs thereon shall belong to owner of
land
If I B,P,S on my own land = No question because he is the
owner
Accession would not apply
Land of another!
ART.446 –Everything all works of sowing & planting presumed
is made by owner and at his expense
 Disputable Presumption
ART.447- Land owner & he decides to build on his property
using materials of another person
Parcel of Land
Build house there
Use your materials
2 possibilities- Good faith / Bad faith
GF= if I thought I own the material & use it
BF= if I knew that you are the owner of materials & I still use
it
If GF= pay their value of materials owned by you
Not liable for damages because GF
If BF= pay value of materials + damages
Owner of Materials (Rights)
If Land- remove materials if possible to do so owner is
without injury to the work constructed
in GF Limited removal of material- if possible to remove
materials without injury it means that it’s not the case of real
attachment

If BF= remove materials in any case (Land owner) aside from
the right of damages
Art.448
Land owner and somebody B,P,S on his land/ property
1. Determine whether B,P,S is in GF or BF
2. Determine also the Land owner if he is in GF or BF
Where will be the land owner be in BF?
If he knew that somebody is building on his property and he
allowed the building to continue
If GF= if he doesn’t knew that somebody is Building on his
land
Builder, planter or Sower would be in GF If he is not aware of
any defects or flaw in his title or mode of acquisition.
The builder thinks he owns that lands or he thought that she
has legal rights to build thereon.
If he was aware that he had no legal right to build on the
property, but he build, planted the same= BF!
Rights
Land owner & builder are in GF
Landowner- can appropriate what has been built, planted or
sown on his land
-has to pay proper indemnity to the planter, builder or sower
In case of building & planting
Land owner has option of selling the Land occupied by the
building or planting to the builder or planter
He can’t however avail the option if the value of land is
considerably more than the value of the building or planting
Considerably more:
If value of land or value of building or planting are more or
less the same or the difference of value is not too much
Land owner is not precluded of availing of that option
Difference of land should be considerable more that the
value of building, or planting
They can simply enter into lease agreement, if they didn’t
agree to the terms of lease- the court shall fix the terms
thereof. (Art.448)
Distinguish PLANTER & SOWER
Sower- what actually sow
-not produce fruits for long period of time ex. Rice, bananas
AUSL/JLAT
PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes) 6
Dean Navarro
Planter- last for years and continue producing fruits year after
year without having to replant them. Ex. Mango trees,
coconut trees
Indemnity: Builder spent 500k when he built at the time
when Land owner exercises his option to appropriate the
building was already worth 5M
What is the amount which will constitute proper indemnity?
SC deiced: the market value at the time when the indemnity
is to be paid, although 500k was spent since at the time when
the property is to be paid is worth 5M= it is 5M which is to be
paid by Land owner to the builder
If land owner decides to appropriate he has to pay indemnity
and prior to the payment of proper indemnity to the builder-
the builder has the right of retention
Ex. If you are the Land owner, I’m the builder (Both in GF)
LO option is to appropriate the building price of indemnity is
10M prior to your payment 10M to me, I have the right to
retain the building and to continue occupying your land
(Right of Retention given by law to me)
Purpose of right of retention: to ensure that I will be paid the
proper indemnity due to me
Supposing that during this period of retention while you have
not yet paid me the indemnity the building is lost (fortuitous
event)
Net effect: builder lose the right of retention because you are
not obligated as LO to pay for buildings or improvements
which are ceased to exist.
During period of retention, can the LO demand from the
builder the payment of rent?
No, as long as the builder has the right of retention he is not
compelled to pay rent. Why? Because if he would be required
to pay rent that will damage/ injure/negate his security for
the payment of indemnity.
Supposing…
rd
The building is being leased or rented out by me from 3
persons who is paying me rent during period when builder
has right of retention
Who is entitled to the renters being paid by rentals?
Can renters be offset with indemnity due to me?

(Ortiz vs Cayanan)
Possessor in GF, some improvements for which he was
entitled to indemnity, there was right of retention. During
retention, detour was constructed thru the property
1 highway was being constructed / repaired by the
government.
In the meantime, vehicles ahs to take the detour thru
property & tools were collected (which was under right of
retention)
Can the tolls collected by the possessor who had the right of
retention that is due to him? YES (Ortiz vs Cayanan) Right of
retention not merely a security but rather a way for the
extinguishment of the obligation to pay indemnity.
(Pecson)
SC said NO
-if the fruits are collected by builder in GF during his period of
exercising his right of retention this fruits/rentals can’t be
compensated w/ the indemnity due him because he is the
one entitled as c consequence of his right of retention to the
possession and tenancy of the property. He is also entitled to
these fruits so that there could be no compensation between
the fruits and the indemnity for the simple reason that they
are both due to him. They are both entitled to him.
(Better view)
As long as he built in GF
-he should not be deprived of rights pertaining to builder in
GF, one which is the right of retention even if considerably, at
some point. He is aware there’s a defect or flaw in the tile of
his acquisition. HE continues it; right of retention implies
tenancy and continued possession. As such he is still entitled
to the fruits and there is no compensation between the fruits
and the amount of indemnity due to him.
Option is given to Land Owner not Builder
LO decides:
-whether he appropriates what has been built or planted
-or whether he will ask the builder or planter to buy the land
Builder can’t compel the LO ti simply sell the land therein or
at least the portion thereof to buy his building- he can’t do
that because the OPTION is NOT given to the builder, but to
the Landowner.
Why the option given by the law to the landowner?
(Dupra vs Dumlao)
Because is landowner is all there.
Can LO simply refuse either of the option? NO.
Under ART.448 (No appropriation, not to sell the land- In
short, “Lumayas ka!”)
AUSL/JLAT
PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes) 7
Dean Navarro
-NO. He can’t just refuse to exercise his option and simply ask
for the removal in what in good faith has been built or
planted on his land. The option are limited to those on
ART.448.
Supposing that LO avails or elects the option of selling his
land and value of land is not considerably more than that of
the building. The builder is NOT ABLE TO PAY.
SC HELD:
That if this is the case the the LO can ask for the removal of
the building. If having opted to sell his land, not considerably
more than value of building, builder not able to pay – LO can
ask for removal of property or building.
Other remedies available to LO if this is the case:
1. Simply enter into a lease (if builder can’t pay)
2. LO can ask for removal
3. LO can ask for the sale, will first applied to the value
of land, the rest or the excess will be delivered to the
owner of the house or building
(Problem)
Prior to the time if LO exercise his right of option of either
appropriation or sale (prior to his moment of decision)
Builder has been of course occupying the land of the LO,
Can he be required to pay rent for his occupancy during that
period prior to the exercise by the LO of his option?
-YES. He should be
-The moment the LO exercise his option to appropriate, there
arises the right of retention on the part of the builder, from
that moment- He can’t be compelled to pay rent.
If LO opts instead of appropriation his option is sale of the
land to the builder, can rent be demanded for the meantime?
-YES. Rent will have to be paid until such time when the land
is in fact acquired by the builder.
-If Builder acquires the land, the builder is the owner already,
he simply doesn’t have to pay rent anymore.
If co-owner of the property, builds, or plants on the property
under co-ownership- these rules would not apply because the
co-owner is the owner of ideal aliquot(fractional) share of the
whole.
Under the rule on co-ownership, the co-owner has the right
to use the property under co-ownership as long as he doesn’t
prevent the co-owners from similarly using it.
If something is used by a co-owner- this rule is not available.
However, if co-ownership has already been terminated by a
partition of the property, and after the partition, it is
discovered that on of the co-owner(previous co-ownership)
has built on the part of the property which was later on

adjudicated to another co-owner, the rules under ART.448
should apply.
Co-owner who had earlier built on the property under co-
ownership but a portion of whose building is discovered to
encroach upon the part adjudicated in the partition to the
other co-owner will have the rights of builder in GF.
-will be considered as builder in Good Faith w/ the same
rights under ART.448
Claim of good faith may be made by successor in interest of
the original builder.
>Example: Land with the standing building thereon was
purchased by a buyer. Later on, upon the survey of the land it
was discovered that portion of a building encroached upon
the adjacent property.
SC held: YES. Buyer can invoke good faith. Art.448 can apply.
>Example: Couple bought lad from a subdivision. When
couple decided to construct a house, it was discovered that
the lot was not theirs (nagkamali ng turo ng lote sa kanila)
Can they invoke the rights of builders in good faith?
-YES.even if the property involved is registered property.
(Both property has title) can you still invoke builder in good
faith if property is covered with Torrens Title?
-YES. Because if you are just an ordinary person, you are not
expected to know the precise boundaries. Unless you are an
expert in science of surveying. Even if your property is
covered by Torrens title. (UNLESS you’re a SURVEYOR- an
expert in that field)
Example:
I built land in Manila, owner scolded me, I said sorry but I
have no title whatever. My property is in QC.
(I don’t have property in Manila) Can I claim Good Faith?
-NO. mere assertion that I thought I have legal rights to build
on the property is obviously a vagrant assertion because it
has NO VISIBLE means of SUPPORT
-If Builder is Bad Faith = he loses everything and becomes
liable for damages.
-LO can demand that you buy his land, regardless of the
value, NO restriction needed.
-You can be compelled to buy his land
-LO can demand right of removal
-You have NO RIGHT whatsoever, except Recovery of
Necessary Expenses for the Preservation of the property
-LO also incurred necessary expenses even if Builder is the
one who is in possession of property.
(Fairness and Basic Justice)
AUSL/JLAT
PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes) 8
Dean Navarro
ALL FRUITS BELONG TO THE PROPERTY OF THE OWNER.
Old case of “Giving Bonus”
-certain land owner was asked by certain land company to
mortgage their property to secure for the loan. And for the
risk you are going tot ake, we will give you certain bonuses.
Pumayag (nag-mortgage ka). Binigyan ng bonuses.
Are these bonuses, FRUITS?
-NO. because they are not produced by the land. Not even
civil fruits.
Supposing…
LO and builder are in BF
- they are both considered to have acted in GF. Apply ART.448
Supposing…
rd
Builder used the materials of a 3 person in building on the
land of another. The lot will depend on whether the builder
or owner are in GF or BF- assuming they are both in GF and
material owner are in GF.
Rights (Owner of Materials)
-can recover the value of materials who use dit but the LO
can be held subsidiariliy liable for the value of materials in
case the builder is unable to pay the owner of materials their
value.
-if however, builder is BF and consequently LO demands
removal or demolition of building. LO has no subsidiary
liability
Reason: In accession, he who benefits from the accession
must pay for it.
(Kung sino ang nakinabang sa accession, dpaat magbayad)
If LO decides to appropriate the building- there is subsidiary
liability on his part in case the builder is insolvent.
If LO decides to ask for removalor destructionof the building.
He doesn’t (LO) benefit from the accession that’s why there’s
no subsidiary liability on the part of the land owner.
If property is sold by LO pending payment of indemnity of the
builder? It depends.
rd
If in the contract of sale between the LO and 3 person- LO
was already paid not just the value of the land but the value
of the builing as well, the LO must pay the value of building.
(The proper indemnity to the builder)
If LO was not paid the value of the building the he doesn’t
benefit to the building. It would be the buyer who will pay
because the buyer was the one benefited.
ART.457 ALLUVION
 PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes) 9
Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT