VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO vs.

CATALINO BATACLAN

66 Phil 598

G.R. No. L-44606 November 28, 1938

Doctrine:

The Civil Code confirms certain time-honored principles of the law of property. One of
these is the principle of accession whereby the owner of property acquires not only that
which it produces but that which is united to it either naturally or artificially.

Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another, and the improvements or repairs
made thereon, belong to the owner of the land (art. 358). Where, however, the planter,
builder, or sower has acted in good faith, a conflict of rights arises between the owners and
it becomes necessary to protect the owner of the improvements without causing injustice
to the owner of the land.

Facts:

1. Bernardo learned when he entered into the premises of the property purchased from
Pastor Samonte that the latter authorised Catalino Bataclan to make improvements
thereon. In a civil case to secure possession, the court ruled that Bataclan was a
builder and possessor in good faith and was entitled to reimbursement for the
works and improvements,

2. The court gave the plaintiff 30 days within which to choose between the sale of the
land or to buy the works. Bernardo decided to sell the land to the defendant but the
latter informed the court that he is unable to pay the sum required. The court then
awarded the respondent 30 days to purchase the land or else the property will be
sold in a public auction.

3. In the auction sale, Toribio Teodoro was the highest bidder for 8,000 Pesos. The
purchaser sought judicial remedy for the possession of the property.

Issue:

W/N the defendant lost his right to retain the property pending payment for indemnity.

Decision:

The Court ruled that the right to retain the property has already been lost. Due to the
failure and inability of the defendant to pay the purchase price the subject property was
sold in a public auction which Bernardo asked for, without any protest from Bataclan.
Therefore, the court found no reason to keep the property in the possession of the
defendant.

the Court explained that Article 448 provides a just and equitable solution to the
impracticability of creating "forced co-ownership" by giving the owner of the land the option
to acquire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity or to oblige the builder
or planter to pay for the land and the sower to pay the proper rent. The owner of the land is
allowed to exercise the said options because his right is older and because, by the
principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing.

MENESES vs. CA et al
G.R. No. 82220
July 14, 1995
FACTS: On March 1, 1977, Darum, then the District Land Officer of
Los Baos, Laguna, issued to Pablito Meneses 2 Free Patent and 2 OCT
covering lots located in Los Baos, Laguna.
Pablito acquired said property from Bautista through a Deed of Waiver and
Transfer of Rights executed in 1975 in consideration of Bautistas love and
affection for and some monetary obligations in favor of Meneses. After
the execution of said document, Meneses took possession of the land,
introduced improvements thereon, declared the land as his own for tax
purposes and paid the corresponding realty taxes. In turn, Bautista
acquired the land from his aunt. He had been occupying the land since
1956.

On the other hand, the Quisumbing family traces ownership of their land as
far back as 1919 when their matriarch was issued an OCT covering a lot,
with the Laguna de Bay as its northwestern boundary. The same parcel of
land was registered on 1973 under a TCT in the names of her heirs, all
surnamed Quisumbing.

The Quisumbings applied for registration and confirmation of title over an

additional area which had gradually accrued to their property by the
natural action of the waters of Laguna de Bay. The CFI of Bian confirmed
the Quisumbings title thereto.

In 1979, the Quisumbings filed a case before the CFI of Calamba against
Lorenzo and Pablito Meneses, Darum and Almendral for nullification of the
free patents and titles issued to Pablito Meneses. They alleged
that Lorenzo Menesis, then the Mayor of Los Baos, using his brother
Pablito as a tool and dummy, illegally occupied their private accretion
land and confederating with District Land Officer Darum and Land
Inspector Almendral, obtained free patents and OCTs to the land.
In 1984, the trial court rendered the decision finding that the lands
registered by the Meneses brothers are accretion lands to which the
Quisumbings have a valid right as owners of the riparian land to which
nature had gradually deposited the disputed lots. (The lots occupied by
Meneses, as found by the court, are to be accretion lands forming parts of
the bigger accretion land owned by the Quisumbings. )
Meanwhile, the Meneses brothers and Darum appealed the to the CA,
which affirmed in toto the lower courts decision.The defendants-
appellants filed two MRs of the CA decision but it was denied, hence this
petition for review on certiorari.
ISSUE: WON
1. The lands in question were not accretion lands but lands of the public
domain

2. Conspiracy to commit fraud, deceit and bad faith attended the issuance
of the free patent and titles to Pablito Meneses; and

HELD: WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision CA is

AFFIRMED

While the lots occupied by Villamor and Lanuzo may not be the very same
lots petitioners are claiming here, the two cases refer to the same accretion
lands northwest of the original land owned by the Quisumbings.

1. The submersion in water of a portion of the land in question

is due to the rains falling directly on or flowing into Laguna de
Bay from different sources. Since the inundation of a portion
of the land is not due to flux and reflux of tides it cannot be
considered a foreshore land. The land sought to be registered
not being part of the bed or basin of Laguna de Bay, nor a
foreshore land as claimed by the Director of Lands, it is not a
public land and therefore capable of registration as private
property provided that the applicant proves that he has a
registerable title.

Additionally, the provision of the law on waters will govern in determining

the natural bed or basin of the lake. And accordingly, to Art. 84 of the Law
of Waters of August 3, 1866:

Accretions deposited gradually upon land contiguous to creeks, streams,

rivers and lakes by accessions or sediments from the waters thereof, belong
to the owners of such lands.
As pointed out by the lower court, no act of appropriation is necessary in
order to acquire ownership of the alluvial formation as the law does not
require the same.

2. As found by the CA, petitioners conspired in the approval and

grant of the free patents heirs Quisumbing. Such fraud was confirmed by
this Court in Meneses v. People, which held the petitioners therein liable for
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in the issuance of the
same free patents and titles. In due course, the Sandiganbayan rendered a
decision finding the defendants guilty as charged. The judgment of
conviction was affirmed.
NOTES:
1. Accretion as a mode of acquiring property under Article 457 of the Civil
Code requires the concurrence of these requisites:

(1) that the deposition of soil or sediment be gradual and imperceptible;

(2) that it be the result of the action of the waters of the river (or sea); and

(3) that the land where accretion takes place is adjacent to the banks of
rivers (or the sea coast).

Pacific Farms, Inc. vs Simplicio Esguerra, et al.

Gr L-21783
November 29,1969
Facts:
Insular Farms, Inc. failed to pay 4,710.18 of the purchase price for lumber
and other construction materials used for construction of six buildings from
Carried Lumber Company.The Company instituted a civil case to recover
the balance. The CFI ruled in favor of the Company causing the sheriff to
levy the six buildings constructed by Insular Farms. Pacific Farms, Inc.
filed a third-party claim claiming to be the owner of the buildings even
before the institution of the case by the Company. Still the buildings were
judicially sold to Carried Lumber Company.
On May 24, 1962, Pacific Farms filed a complaint seeking the nullification
of the sale.
Issue:
Whether or not Article 447 of the Civil Code is applicable.
Decision:
The court ruled the Article 447 applies by analogy because it contemplates
the constriction of accessories, which in the case at bar are buildings,
through the use of materials owned by another person by the owner of the
land.
Pacific Farms cannot be considered as a purchaser in good faith since Atty.
Antonio Arante was the counsel of Pacific Farms who signed the complaint
and is also the president of Insular Farms. Therefore, if such sale was in fact
made, the fact that the property was already purchased should have already
been raised by the petitioner from the institution of the case.
Therefore, in applying Article 447, the owner of the materials may have the
materials removed if no injury would be resulted, otherwise, he must be
reimbursed of their value