Chapter 2

RIGHT OF ACCESSION
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Art. 440. The ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced
thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.
COMMENT:
(1) Accession Defined Accession is the right of a property owner to everything which is:
(a) produced thereby (accession discreta);
(b) or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially (accession continua or
accession non-interrumpida), which in turn is divided into:
1) natural accession (accession natural);
2) artificial accession (accession artificial or accession industrial).
[NOTE: Because of the word artificially, it is understood that IMPROVEMENTS made on the property
are included within the scope of accession.].
(2) Other Definitions of Accession
(a) According to Sanchez Roman (Vol. II, p. 89)
Accession is the right of an owner of a thing to the products of said thing as well as to whatever is
inseparably attached thereto as an accessory
(b) According to Stimsons Law Dictionary, Revised Edition, p. 58.
Accession is that by which property is given to a person in addition to what said person already possesses,
said additional property being the result of a natural increase, like land, by deposit of a river; or houses, when built
on ones own land; or the young of animals.
(c) According to Del Viso, Vol. II, p. 33.
Accession is the right which ownership of property gives over everything which the same produces, or
which is attached or incorporated thereto, naturally or artificially
Classification of Accession:
(a) Accession Discreta (To the Fruits)
1) natural fruits
2) industrial fruits
3) civil fruits
(b) Accession Continua (Attachment or Incorporation)
(1) With reference to real property
a) accession industrial
1) building
2) planting
3) sowing
(c) accession natural
(1) alluvium
(2) avulsion
(3) change of course of rivers
(4) formation of islands
(2) With respect to personal property
a) adjunction or conjunction
(1) inclusion (engraftment)
(2) soldadura (attachment)
(3) tejido (weaving)

(4) pintura (painting)

(5) escritura (writing)
(b) mixture (confusion liquids; commixtion solids)
(c) specification
Is a succession a Mode of acquiring Ownership?
In Book III of the Civil Code, which deals with different modes of acquiring ownership, the different modes are
enumerated, namely:
(a) occupation
(b) intellectual creation
(c) law
(d) donation
(e) succession
(f) tradition, as a consequence of certain contracts
(g) prescription
It will be noted that accession is not one of those listed therein. It is therefore safe to conclude that accession is not
a mode of acquiring ownership. The reason is simple: accession presupposes a previously existing ownership by the
owner over the principal. This is not necessarily so in the other modes of acquiring ownership. Therefore,
fundamentally and in the last analysis, accession is a right implicitly included in ownership, without which it will
have no basis or existence. Truly, it is one of the attributes or characteristics which will make up the concept of
dominion or ownership. (Manresa, 6th Ed., Vol. 3, p. 116; 180-182). We can of course refer to acquisition by
accession as acquisition by LAW (for the law itself gives the right.
Reason Behind Accession
a) for accession discreta (to the fruits) justice, pure and simple, for one who owns a thing should justly enjoy
its fruits.
b) for accession continua (attachment or incorporation) economic convenience is better attained in a state of
single ownership than in a co-ownership. Moreover, natural justice demands that the owner of the principal or
more important thing should also own the accessory. (2 Castan 215-216)
Right to Accession Generally Automatic
In general, the right to accession is automatic (ipso jure), requiring no prior act on the part of the owner of the
principal. (Villanueva v. Claustro, 23 Phil. 54). A good example is in the case of landowner over whose land a river
now flows. He is ipso facto the owner of the abandoned river bed in proportion to the area he has lost. (See Art. 461)
Section 1. RIGHT OF ACCESSION WITH RESPECT TO WHAT IS PRODUCED BY PROPERTY
(ACCESSION DISCRETA)
Art. 441. To the owner belongs:
(1) The natural fruits;
(2) The industrial fruits;
(3) The civil fruits
COMMENT:
(1) Accession Discreta (Right to the Fruits)
This Article refers to accession discreta which is defi ned as the right to the ownership of fruits produced by
our property. (See Del Viso, Vol. II, p. 33; 3 Sanchez Roman 89)
Some Decided Cases and Doctrines
(a) In an action to recover paraphernal property of the wife, the intervention of the husband is not needed, and
therefore the husband is not a necessary party. But if aside from the paraphernal property, fruits therefrom
are sought to be recovered, the husband must join in the action first because he is a co-owner of said fruits
(since they belong to the conjugal partnership) and secondly because he is the administrator of the conjugal
partnership. (See Quizon v. Salud, 12 Phil. 109)

(b) In action to recover persons property unlawfully in the possession of another, damages may in part consist
of the value of the fruits produced. (See Quizon v. Salud, Ibid.).
(c) A tenant who continues on the land after expiration of the lease contract and upon demand to vacate can be
considered a possessor in bad faith and is responsible for the fruits actually produced as well as those that
could have been produced by due diligence. It will be observed that liability for the fruits is a consequence
of the usurpation and not because of a provision in the contract violated. (See Guido v. Borja, 12 Phil. 71)
Instances When Owner of Land Does Not Own the Fruits
Under Art. 441, the owner of land owns the fruits. In the following cases, it is not the owner who owns the fruits,
but somebody else:
(a) possessor in good faith of the land (He owns the fruits already received). (See Art. 544, par. 1).
(b) usufructuary. (See Art. 566).
(c) lessee gets the fruits of the land (Of course, the owner gets the civil fruits in the form of rentals). (See Art.
1654).
(d) In the contract of antichresis, the antichretic creditor gets the fruits, although of course, said fruits should
be applied first, to the interest, if any is owing, and then to the principal amount of the loan. (See Art. 2132)
Art. 442. Natural fruits are the spontaneous products of the soil, and the young and other products of
animals.
Industrial fruits are those produced by lands of any kind through cultivation or labor.
Civil fruits are the rents of buildings, the price of leases of lands and other property and the amount of
perpetual or life annuities or other similar income.
COMMENT:
(1) Technical Meaning of Fruits
The term natural, Industrial, and civil fruits as defined by the Code are highly technical,
therefore when they are found in a final judgment, there can be no doubt as to their meaning. Thus, if a
final judgment speaks only of natural and civil fruits, it is understood that industrial fruits are NOT
included. (Pamintuan v. Garcia, 39 Phil. 746)
2) Natural Fruits
There are two kinds of natural fruits:
(a) the spontaneous products of the soil (that is, human labor does not intervene).
Examples herbs, common grass. (See 3 Manresa 182).
(b) the young and other products of animals. (See Art. 442, par. 1).
Examples chicks and chicken eggs
3) Industrial Fruits
As defined, they are those produced by lands of any kind thru cultivation or labor. (Art. 442,
par.2).
Examples:
(a) lanzones and bananas
(b) palay and corn
(c) zacate (when this is cultivated as food for horses). (See 3 Manresa 182-183)
(d) all kinds of cultivated vegetables, since there is no doubt also produced by the land thru human labor (but
not canned goods or manufactured products). (3 Manresa 192-193).
[NOTE: Are the cultivated trees in themselves to be considered fruits?]
ANS.: It is submitted that strictly, they are not fruits in the juridical sense for they are really immovables as
long as they are still attached to the land, which may themselves produce fruits. However, there is no doubt we may
consider said trees as fruits when they are expressly cultivated or exploited to carry on an industry. (See 3 Manresa
183)

NOTE: Under American law, distinction has been made between:

a) perennial crops (those growing each season without need of replanting, like oranges and apples).
b) annual crops (those which have to be planted each year, like cereals and grains).
In America, (a) is referred to as natural fruits while (b) is called industrial fruits. (See Walsh, The Law of
Property, pp. 14-15)
Young of Animals
Whether brought about by scientific means or not, it would seem that the young of animals should be considered
as natural fruits, since the law makes no distinction.
Meaning of Other Products of Animals
The phrase no doubt refers to such things as chicken eggs, or horse manure, or milk, or wool.
BAR Question (Re: Offspring of Animals)
To whom does the offspring of animals belong when the male and female belong to different owners?
ANS.: This point is not covered either by the old or the new Civil Code. However, under the Partidas, the owner
of the female was considered also the owner of the young, unless there is a contrary custom or speculation. (2
Navarro Amandi 276). Moreover, in one case it was held that the legal presumption, in the absence of proof to the
contrary, is that the calf, as well as its mother belong to the owner of the latter, by the right of accretion. (U.S. v.
Caballero, 25 Phil. 356). (See also Siari Valley Estate v. Lucasan, L-7046, Aug. 31, 1955). Commentators opine that
the rule of the Partidas may be applied under the Codes because such rule merely continues the ownership which the
owner of the female possessed, when the young was still in the womb of the mother. This is also in accord with the
maxim pratus sequitor ventrem (the offspring follows the dam or mother). (See 3 Sanchez Roman 139). This
maxim is based on two good reasons:
(a) First, oftentimes, it is not known who the male is.
(b) Second, during the pregnancy of the female, its owner is greatly burdened by the consequential expenses and
virtual uselessness of the animal, and it is only fair that when the young is born, the owner should gain, or at least
recover his loss. (See Blackstone Comm. 390)
Some Problems
(a) A leased a female animal from B. During the period of the lease, the animal produced a sibling. Who owns the
young (sibling)?
ANS.: A owns the young, for after all a contract of lease is onerous. It should be observed that by virtue of the
contract of lease, the general rule that the owner of the female is also the owner of the young must give way. (See 3
Corpus Juris 22).
(b) Suppose in the preceding problem, A was merely given the animal by way of commodatum (gratuitous borrowing),
would your answer be the same?
ANS.: No. This time the owner of the female retains ownership in view of the gratuitous contract. (See Orser v.
Stoems, 9 Cow [N.Y.] 687
Civil Fruits
As defined, civil fruits consist of:
(a) rent of buildings;
(b) price of leases (rentals) of lands and other property (even if personal property);
(c) the amount of perpetual or life annuities or other similar income (but not a bonus granted as a reward or as
a compensation to a person who mortgaged and thus risks his land to secure anothers indebtedness). (See
Bachrach Motor Co. v. Talisay-Silay Milling Co., 56 Phil. 117).

In the case of Bachrach v. Seifert and Elianoff, 48 O.G. 569, it was held that a dividend, whether in the form of
cash or stock, is income or fruits, because it is declared out of the profits of a corporation, and not out of the capital.
(See also Orozco, et al. v. Araneta, L-3691, Nov. 21, 1951)
CASES:
Bachrach Motor Co. v. Talisay-Silay Milling Co. 56 Phil. 117
FACTS: A milling company, in order to obtain a loan from a bank, requested one of its sugar planters to mortgage
the latters land as security. As a reward, the company gave the mortgagor a bonus.
The bonus was later claimed by:
(a) a creditor of the mortgagor;
(b) the bank. (The bank reasoned out that as mortgagee, it was entitled to the fruits and that the bonus should
be considered as civil fruits).
HELD: The creditor of the mortgagor is entitled. In the first place, a mortgagee is not entitled to the fruits of the
land mortgaged. In the second place, the bonus is not civil fruits. It is not one of those meant by the law when it says
other similar income since this phrase refers merely to things analogous to rents, leases, and annuities. Assuming
that it is income, still it is not income obtained or derived from the land itself, but income obtained as compensation
for the risk assumed by the owner. It should, moreover, be remembered that the bonus was not based upon the value
or importance of the land but upon the total value of the debt secured. And this is something distinct from and
independent of the property mortgaged.
Wait v. Williams 5 Phil. 571
FACTS: From the 1st of a certain month to the 20th, Regidor was entitled to the fruits of a certain property; and
from the 21st to the 30th of the same month, the Obras Pias was entitled. The property was being rented. Who
should get the rentals?
HELD: The rentals for the fi rst 20 days should belong to Regidor; those for the last 10 days should go to the Obras
Pias. This is because civil fruits are deemed to accrue daily. (Art. 544)