G.R. No.

L-21783, November 29, 1969, 30 SCRA 684

Castro, J.

FACTS: On October 1, 1956 to March 2, 1957 the Company sold and delivered lumber and construction materials to the Insular Farms Inc. which the
latter used in the construction of the si buildings at its compound in Bolinao, Pangasinan, of the total procurement price of P15,000.00, the sum of
P4,710.18 has not been paid. Consequently, the Company instituted a civil case to recover the unpaid balance and the court sustained their claim. The
defendant sheriff levied th six buildings. The Pacific Farms, Inc. filed a suit against the Company and the sheriff asserting ownership over the levied
buildings which it had acquired from the Insular Farms by virtue of absolute sale executed on March 21, 1958. Pacific prays that the judicial sale of the
six buildings be declared null and void. The trial court rendered judgment annulling the levy and the certificate of sale. However, it denied the
plaintiff's claim for actual and exemplary damages on the ground that it was not "prepared to find there was gross negligence or bad faith on the part
of any defendants".

ISSUE: Whether or not the application by analogy of the rules of accession would suffice for a just adjudication.

HELD: Article 447 of the Civil Code contemplates a principal and an accessory; the land being considered the principal, and the plantings,
constructions or works, the accessory. The owner of the land who in good faith - whether personally or through another - makes constructions or
works thereon, using materials belonging to somebody else, becomes the owner of the said materials with the obligation however of paying for their
value. On the other hand, the owner of the materials is entitled to remove them, provided no substantial injury is caused to the landowner. Otherwise,
he has the right to reimbursement for the value of his materials,

Applying article 447 by analogy, the Court consider the buildings as the principal and the lumber and construction materials that went into their
construction as the accessory. Thus the appellee, if it does own the six buildings, must bear the obligation to pay for the values of the said materials;
the appellant which apparently has no desire to remove the materials, and, even if it were minded to do so, cannot remove them without
necessarily damaging the buildings has the corresponding right to recover the value of the unpaid lumber and construction materials.

Pecson v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 115814, May 26, 1995, 244 SCRA 407
Davide, Jr. J.

FACTS: Pedro Pecson owned a commercial lot situated in Kamias street, Quezon City, on which he built a a four-door, two-storey apartment building.
But because of failure to pay realty taxes amounting to P12,000.00, the commercial lot owned was sold at a public auction. It was purchased by
Nepomuceno, which later sold the same to the Nuguid spouses for P103,000 on October 12, 1983. Pecson then challenged the sale, alleging that the
apartment building, contrary to the claim of the Nuguid spouses, was not included in the sale. The lower court judged in favor of Pecson, declaring
that the apartment building was indeed not included in the subject sale. The Court of Appeals affirmed the same. The Spouses Nuguid then filed a
motion for delivery of possession of the lot and the apartment building. The lower court ruled in favor of the private respondents, but subject to the
reimbursement to Pecson of the cost of constructing the apartment building minus the rents due to the spouses (calculated at P21,000 from June 23,
1993 to September 23, 1993). With the said decision at hand, the spouses then made a move to eject Pecson and as well as the tenants residing
therein. However, the spouses have yet to pay Pecson for the construction costs.