Adjunction

[1]
Notes by: Cli ord Enoc

ARTICLE 466.

Whenever two movable things belonging to di erent

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. (375)

Adjunction de ned.

Black's Law de nes adjunction as:

[17c] The act of adding to. 2.(Civil law) The union of an

item of personal property owned by one person with that
owned by another. See. Accession

In the light of Article 466, adjunction (or conjunction)

may be de ned as the union of two movable things
belonging to di erent owners in such a way that they
form a single object , but each one of the component things
[2]
preserves its value .

[3]
In Paras book, adjunction was de ned as the process by
virtue of which two movable things belonging to di erent
owners are united in such a way that they form a single
object. Example: A varnishes his chair with the varnish from
B.

Adjunction (or conjunction) takes place when two or

more movable things belonging to di erent owners are so
united that they cannot be separated without causing injury
[4]
to one or both them, thereby giving rise to a new thing. If
separation is possible without causing a substantial physical
or juridical injury to any of the movables, then there is no
accession. Hence, in the rst paragraph of Article 469 which
contemplates of adjunction through inclusion and soldering,
[5]
the respective owners may demand separation whenever
[6]
the things united can be separated without injury.

The distinguishing features of adjunction are the

following:

(1) that the two or more movables form a distinctive new

thing; and (2) that each one of the things making up the new
[7]
one preserves its own nature.

The latter characteristic serves to distinguish it from

confusion which implies a greater degree of identi cation
and in certain cases even a decomposition of the things
[8][9]
which have been confused.

✅ Characteristics of adjunction
In order that adjunction may take place, it is necessary
that:
 (1) There are two movables belonging to di erent
owners;

(2) They are united in such a way that they form a single
object; and

(3) They are so inseparable that their separation would

impair their nature or result in substantial injury to either
component.

In determining the right of the parties in adjunction,

regard is only to the things joined and not to the persons. But
where there is a mere change of form or value which does not
destroy the identity of the component parts, the original
owners may demand their separation. (see Art. 469.)

🟧 Kinds of adjunction
Adjunction may take place in either of the following
ways:

(1) inclusion or engraftment, such as when diamond is set

on a gold ring;

(2) soldadura or soldering, such as when lead is united or

fused to an object made of lead; it is ferruminacion if both the
accessory and principal objects are of the same metal; and
plumbatura, if they are of di erent metals;

(3) escritura or writing, such as when a person writes on

paper belonging to another;
 (4) pintura or painting, such as when a person paints on
can- vas belonging to another; or

(5) tejido or weaving, such as when threads belonging to

[10]
di erent owners are used in making textile.

Problem:

A in good faith uses the varnish of B in varnishing his

(A's) table. What are their rights?

ANSWER: A will become the owner of the varnish (in

fact, of the whole varnished table) but he must indemnify B
for the value of the varnish.
 Note

A is considered in good faith if he reasonably believed

that the varnish was his when as a matter of fact, it was
not. The law says, "He is deemed a possessor in good faith
who is not aware that there exists in this title or mode of
acquisition any aw which invalidates it x x x." Mistake
upon a doubtful or di cult question of law may be the basis
of good faith.(Art. 526, 1st and last paragraph.)

😄 Ownership of new object formed by

adjunction
(1) If the union took place without bad faith, the owner
of the principal thing acquires the accessory, with the
obligation to indemnify the former owner of the accessory
for its value in its uncontroverted state.

(2) If the union took place in bad faith, Article 470

applies.

ARTICLE 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.
(376)
 ARTICLE 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.
(377)

#important PVV #mnemonic

2021-10-19

🟩 Legal Effects of Adjunction

The legal e ects of adjunction will depend on how the
union or attachment was e ected — whether in good faith or
in bad faith.

🤙 If Effected In Good Faith

This situation is governed by Article 466 of the New Civil
Code, which reads:

ARTICLE 466.
 Whenever two movable things belonging to di erent
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. (375)

Thus, if the union or attachment was e ected in good

faith — whether by the owner of the principal or by the
owner of the accessory — the rule is that the owner of the
[11]
principal thing acquires the accessory following the
principle in accesion continua that the accessory follows the
principal (“accesion cedit principali”), but he must indemnify
the owner of the accessory for its value following the
principle that no one shall unjustly enrich himself at the
expense of another. The union or attachment is deemed to be
e ected in good faith if the person responsible therefore
honestly thought that the movables involved really belonged
to him.

However, if the accessory is much more precious than

the principal thing, its owner may demand its separation,
[12][13]
even though the principal may su er injury.

👎 If Effected In Bad Faith

If the union or attachment was e ected in good faith, it
is immaterial as to who was responsible for it. The rule shall
be the same as stated above regardless of who was
responsible for such union or attachment. But if the union or
attachment was e ected in bad faith, the legal e ects shall
vary depending as to who was responsible for it, as follows:
 👉 If Effected In Bad Faith By the Owner of
the Principal

This situation is governed by the second paragraph of

Article 470 of the New Civil Code, which reads:

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 or
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.

Following the principle of accesion continua that bad

faith subjects a person to damages and other unfavorable
consequences, the options in this situation are given to the
owner of the accessory and not to the owner of the principal
as a way of penalizing the latter. Hence, the owner of the
accessory may choose between the following options: (1) to
demand payment for the value of the accessory, with a right
to be indemni ed for damages; or (2) to demand for the
separation of the accessory, even though for this purpose it
be necessary to destroy the principal thing, with a right to be
[14]
indemni ed for damages.

The second option, however, does not apply if the same is

not practicable as in the case of painting (which cannot be
separated from the canvass) or writing (which cannot be
separated from the paper). In such a situation, the owner of
the accessory is limited only to the rst option mentioned
[15][16]
above.

👉 If Effected In Bad Faith By the Owner of

the Accessory

This situation is governed by the rst paragraph of

Article 470, which reads:

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
su ered.

Following the principle of accesion continua that bad

faith subjects a person to damages and other unfavorable
consequences, if the union or attachment was e ected by the
owner of the accessory in bad faith, he shall lose the thing
incorporated (the accessory) and shall be liable to pay
[17]
damages to the owner of the principal.

🟥 If Both Acted In Bad Faith

The third paragraph of Article 470 provides that “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.” In such a case, the provisions of Article 466 will
apply. Hence, whatever has been discussed in here shall also
apply to this situation.

In the foregoing situations, whenever the owner of the

material employed without his consent has a right to an
indemnity, he may demand that the same consist either: (1)
in the delivery of a thing equal in kind and value, and in all
other respects, to that employed; or (2) in the payment of the
[18][19]
price thereof according to expert appraisal.

Tests to determine principal in

adjunction
To determine which, as between two things
incorporated, is the principal and which is the accessory,
Articles 467 and 468 provide certain criteria. In the order of
application, the principal is:

(1) First Test — That to which the other has been united
as an ornament or for its use or perfection is the principal,
the thing added is the accessory;(Art. 467.) This is “the rule
of importance and purpose’’ ;

Note

The accessory is that which has been united as an

ornament, etc. This is the test of INTENTION.

(2) Second Test — if the rst test cannot be applied, then

the thing of greater value is the principal and the other the
accessory;

(3) Third Test — if both things are of equal value, then

the one of greater volume is the principal and the other the
accessory (Art. 468.); and

(4) Finally, that of greater merits taking into

consideration all the pertinent legal provisions (e.g., Art. 475)
applicable as well as the comparative merits, utility and
[20][21]
volume of their respective things.

#mnemonic PVV-M

See: #dn 2021-10-19

 Note

With reference to a motor vehicle, the engine may be

considered as the principal, all the other parts of the
[1][2]
vehicle being regarded as mere accessories.

1. See A.C. Ransom v. Puzon and Lazo, CA, 49 O.G. 2,

598. ↩

2. Paras, supra . ↩

The second test is reasonable because, as a general rule,

things of greater value are more important than things of
smaller value. The third test is purely arbitrary but is based
on the necessity of resolving the matter somehow.

The special rule regarding painting, etc. in the second

paragraph of Article 468 is based on the consideration that
what is painted, etc. is of greater value or importance than
the board, etc. inasmuch as the exceptions mentioned are
speci ed, its provision can not be applied by analogy to cases
of adjunction of similar nature which are deemed excluded.
Such cases shall be determined in accordance with Articles
[22][23]
467 and 468.

Special Rule

In the case of painting, sculpture, writings, printed matter,

engraving and lithographs, the board, metal, stone, canvas,
[24]
paper or parchment shall be deemed the accessory thing.
This is because what has been written, printed, etc. is
[25]
considered of greater importance.
 Note

Since the special rule speci es the special cases,

analogous cases which are not enumerated should not be
solved analogously, but in accordance with the general tests
provided for in Arts. 467 and 468, rst paragraph. "When
certain things are enumerated, those not included are
[1]
deemed excluded."

1. See 3 Manresa 286. ↩

Where adjunction involves three or more things.

In case adjunction takes place as to three or more things,

Article 466, et seq. should be applied in an equitable manner.

The principal should be determined and distinguished

from the others which would be considered the accessories.
Should there be two or more things that could be considered
principals with respect to the others, still the court should
determine by resort to reasonable means which is the
[26][27]
principal thing and which are the accessory things.

⭐
When separation of things
united allowed
In the following cases:
 (1) Separation without injury. — Whenever the separation
can be done without injury (not destruction), their respective
owners may demand their separation. Here, there has been
no real accession. Article 469 apparently contemplates
adjunction by inclusion and by soldering in which separation
[28]
is possible without injury to the things united.

ARTICLE 469.

Whenever the things united can be separated without

injury, their respective owners may demand their
separation.

Nevertheless, in case the thing united for the 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 su er some injury. (378)

Source of Article.— Taken from Article 373, old Civil

Code.

Impliedly, this article refers to adjunction by inclusion

and by soldering, which are the only forms in which
separation is possible without injury to the things united,
and to which the situation contemplated in the second
[29][30]
paragraph can have reference.

Expenses of Separation
 The expenses for the separation of the objects should be
borne by the owner who cause the union or incorporation,
[31]
because he is the one responsible for the con ict of rights.

Rule when there can be separation without injury

[32]
Here, there is no real accession. Hence, we have the
rule indicated in the rst paragraph.

It is understood that the rst paragraph can apply only to

soldering and inclusion because in all the rest, separation
[33]
would result in substantial injury.

(2) Accessory much more precious. — Under the second

paragraph, where the thing (e.g., diamond) united for the
use, embellishment or perfection of the other, is much more
(see Art. 448.) precious than the principal thing (e.g., gold
ring), the owner of the former may demand its separation
even though the principal thing may su er some injury. The
owner who made or caused the union or incorporation shall
bear the expenses for separation because he is the one
[34]
considered at fault although he also acted in good faith.

Rule if accessory is much more precious than the

Principal

In the second paragraph of the article, separation,

although with injury (but not destruction) is allowed, if the
thing united for the use, embellishment, or perfection of the
other is much more precious than the principal.
 Example: When a valuable diamond (the accessory —
because it is for embellishment of the ring) is set in good
faith on a silver ring, the owner of the diamond can ask for
separation, even though there will be injury to the ring.
Expenses for the separation must of course be borne by the
person who caused the union, considering that both parties
[35]
are in good faith.

(3) Owner of principal acted in bad faith. — The owner of

the accessory thing may separate it even if the principal
thing be destroyed. (Art. 470.)

ARTICLE 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
su ered.

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 or
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. (379a)

Source of Article.— Taken from Article 379, old Civil

Code.

*Applicability of Option

The option granted by paragraph two to the owner of the

accessory is applicable to the adjunction provided in Article
469; but in the cases enumerated in paragraph two of Article
468; it cannot apply because the separation cannot be made
even if the principal is destroyed. How can the painting be
separated from the canvas, or the writing from the paper?
The only solution seems to be to make the owner of the
principal thing pay to the owner of the accessory thing its
[36]
value and the indemnity for damages.

🔶 Rule in case of Bad Faith in the

Adjunction
(a) Example of the First Paragraph (Owner of Accessory is
in Bad Faith)

If I, in bad faith, will use my varnish on the chair of my

brother, I loses all rights to the varnish. Moreover, I will be
responsible for damages.

(b) Example of the Second Paragraph (Owner of the

Principal is in Bad Faith)
 If I, in bad faith, will use my brother's lead in soldering
my pipes, my brother has the right to ask for payment of the
lead plus damages; or, he may choose to have the lead
removed from the pipes even if the pipes be destroyed, plus
damages.

Effect of Bad Faith on the Part of Both

[37]
Both should be considered in good faith.

Indemnity; how paid

ARTICLE 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. (380)

Either by (a) delivery of a thing equal in kind and value

(quantity, quality); (b) or payment of price as appraised by
experts.

[38][39]
Here, sentimental value must be considered.

🟪Rule Applicable Only if Consent of

Owner Has Not Been Obtained
 The right to indemnify applies only if material was
employed without the owner's consent. The material may
have been the principal or the accessory.

Compiled by: Cli ord "The Paksiteer" Enoc, REB, JD

Dec.08.2021

References and Related topics:

commixtion or confusion

Right of accession

1. Second Year, Juris Doctor, University of San Jose

Recoletos School of Law. (Personal website:
www.cli ordx.com ) ↩

2. De Leon, Hector S., and Hector M. De Leon. Comments

and Cases on Property . 5th ed. Manila, Philippines: Rex
Book Store, 2006., p. 193. ↩

3. Paras, Edgardo Lardizábal, Civil Code of the

Philippines Annotated . Property Volume II, 2021 edition.
Manila, Philippines: Published and exclusively
distributed by Rex Book Store, 2021., p. 291 ↩

4. 3 Sanchez Roman, 98.↩

5. 3 Manresa, 6th ed., 284-285.↩

6. Rabuya, Elmer T. Property . Manila: Rex Book Store,

2008., p. 255. ↩
 7. 3 Manresa 272.↩

8. II Caguioa, Civil Code, 1966 ed., 111, citing 3

Manresa, 6th ed., 275.↩

9. Rabuya, supra. ↩

10. De Leon, supra at pp. 193-194. ↩

11. See Art. 466, NCC. ↩

12. Art. 469, 2nd par., NCC.↩

13. Rabuya, supra at p. 256. ↩

14. Rabuya, supra . at p. 257. ↩

15. 3 Manresa, 6th ed., 289.↩

16. Rabuya, supra. ↩

17. Rabuya, supra at p. 258. ↩

18. Art. 471, NCC.↩

19. Rabuya, supra. ↩

20. 3 Manresa 285-286. ↩

21. De Leon, supra at. p. 195. ↩

22. (Ibid.) ↩

23. De Leon supra . ↩

24. Art. 468, 2nd par. , NCC. ↩

25. Paras, supra. ↩

26. 3 Manresa 279. ↩

27. De Leon, supra at p. 196. ↩

28. 3 Manresa 288. ↩

29. 3 Manresa 288 ↩

30. Tolentino, Arturo M. Commentaries and Jurisprudence

on the Civil Code of the Philippines . Vol. II. 4 vols. Quezon
City: Central Professional Books, Inc., 1992., p. 143. ↩

31. 3 Manresa, 289. ↩

32. 3 Manresa 288 ↩

33. Ibid. ↩

34. 3 Manresa 289. ↩

35. See 3 Manresa 289 ↩

36. Manresa 293.↩

37. Art. 470, 3rd par . ↩

38. Art. 475. ↩

39. Paras, supra at p. 296. ↩