PROPERTY TRANSCRIPT.docx

8/14/2019 PROPERTY TRANSCRIPT.docx

1/9

PROPERTY(Audio + some discussion notes

Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT

PROP RTYART.415 -IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Mindanao Bus Company Case

SC held that the industry doesnt 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 meetdirectly 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

Insecticidessame 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

yardnot 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 itsfloating)

NAPOCOR power barge (dock along shore, portsupply electricity to provinces)

Floating Restaurant (fixed place)MOVABLE:

Boat which take on passenger, goes on a cruise onManila Bay, while cruising around dinner is served

(10) Contract for Public works and servitude and other rea

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:


2/9


Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT

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 beauthorized 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 doesnt automatically

convert the property into patrimonial property.

-Still part o Public Domain & consequently not available for

private appropriation or ownership until theres 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 governmentalpurposes, 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

merely in TRUST for the state, for the benefit of inhabitants

of the locality

If that is so, it cant be considered as Patrimonial proper ty

still public property.

National LegislativeAbsolute control over this property.

LGU cant enter into contracts, cant 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, its for public use &

therefore beyond the power of local government unit to dea

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 areallowed to withdraw certain streets when no longer

necessary withdraw from public use. They cant convert i

without actually withdrawing it from public use, the will stil

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 & cant at the same time ente

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 longe

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


3/9


Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT

- 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 usedInvoke only at the time when there is ACTUAL or

THREATENED unlawful physical invasion NOT THEREAFTER!

If property has already been taken by 3rd

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 whoare 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.430Owner 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

-Later on, owner enclosed it with a fence. Consequently,

neighbor cant pass through his land & had to take anothe

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

theres 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 othersIn 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 artificia

bodies of water on the higher estate as something which

causes during bad weather as something prejudicial to the

adjoining lower estate

ART.432Emergency 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 dont have a right to prohibit the interference

to use the fire extinguisher. His negligence doesnt preclude

him from invoking the rule.

Any possible damage of my fire extinguisher is lesser than the

damage caused in burning his car


4/9


Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT

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 defendants 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 Powerno right to any indemnity

ART.437

Owner of property is the owner not only on its surface but of

everything under it. It doesnt 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 TreasureAny 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)

-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 = to owner & to finder rule

-If trespasser, NOT entitled to the 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 youll 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 rea

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


5/9


Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT

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, youngproduct 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 eithernaturally 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

Dont 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 doesnt distinguish people in good faith or persons inbad 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

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 no

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 wil

apply or when it would not

Whatever is B,P,S on land of another together withimprovements & 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.446Everything all works of sowing & planting presumed

is made by owner and at his expense

Disputable PresumptionART.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 its not the case of rea

attachment


6/9


Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT

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 BF2. 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 doesnt 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 shehas 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 thebuilding or planting to the builder or planter

He cant 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 thevalue of building, or planting

They can simply enter into lease agreement, if they didnt

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

Planter- last for years and continue producing fruits year afte

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, Im 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 arenot 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

The building is being leased or rented out by me from 3

r

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?


7/9


Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT

(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 cant be

compensated w/ the indemnity due him because he is theone 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 theres 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 entitledto 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 cant compel the LO ti simply sell the land therein or

at least the portion thereof to buy his building- he cant 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!)

-NO. He cant 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 cant pay)2. LO can ask for removal3. LO can ask for the sale, will first applied to the value

of land, the rest or the excess will be delivered to theowner of the house or building

(Problem)

Prior to the time if LO exercise his right of option of eithe

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 cant 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 doesnt 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 doesnt

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


8/9


Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT

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 youre 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 dont 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)

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

Builder used the materials of a 3rd

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 andmaterial 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 doesnt (LO) benefit from the accession thats why theres

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.

If in the contract of sale between the LO and 3

rd

person- LOwas 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 doesnt

benefit to the building. It would be the buyer who will pay

because the buyer was the one benefited.

ART.457 ALLUVION


9/9


Dean Navarro

AUSL/JLAT

PROPERTY TRANSCRIPT.docx

Documents

Transcript of PROPERTY TRANSCRIPT.docx