When two things belonging to different owners are joined or mixed

It is accession as to movable property and specification: Subsection Two of Section Two and Section Three of Chapter II of Title III of Book Three of the Civil Code of 2020, Articles 767 to 776. They apply when the thing can no longer be returned as it was, because it ended up joined, mixed or transformed.

It applies to owners of movables that ended up joined, mixed or employed in a work of a new kind. It does not apply to what is built, planted or sown on another’s soil, which is governed by Subsection One.

• That the things be movable and belong to different owners.Verified against the official source
• For the union rule without damages, that no bad faith intervened.Verified against the official source
• For the conmixtión of Article 772, that the mixing was by the owners’ will or by chance and that the things are not separable without detriment.Verified against the official source
• For specification, that another’s material was employed to form a work of a new kind.Verified against the official source

• The expert appraisal, which Article 771 names as one of the two ways of fixing the indemnity.
• Evidence of each thing’s value, because which one is deemed principal and in what proportion the mixture is shared depend on it.

1. 1

   Step 1: First: were they joined, mixed or transformed?

   The Code treats the three separately and by different rules. Union is two movables of different owners being joined so as to form one. Conmixtión is their being mixed or confused. Specification is someone employing another’s material, in whole or in part, to form a work of a new kind. Starting from the wrong category leads to the wrong outcome.

2. 2

   Step 2: Union: the principal thing rules

   Article 767 says that where two movables belonging to different owners are joined so as to form one without bad faith intervening, the owner of the principal acquires the accessory, after indemnifying its value to the former owner. Article 768 defines which is principal: the one of greater value, and if that rule cannot determine it, the object whose use, perfection or ornament was achieved by the union of the other.

3. 3

   Step 3: When separation may be demanded

   Article 769 distinguishes. Where the joined things can be separated without detriment, the respective owners may demand separation: either of them. Where they cannot be separated without the accessory suffering deterioration, only the owner of the principal has the right to ask for separation, and must indemnify the owner of the accessory.

4. 4

   Step 4: Bad faith flips the outcome

   Article 770 settles it in three paragraphs. Where the owner of the accessory makes the incorporation in bad faith, they lose the incorporated thing and must indemnify the owner for the damage suffered. If the one acting in bad faith is the owner of the principal, they must pay the value of the accessory and indemnify the resulting damages. And if the incorporation is made by either owner in the sight, knowledge or sufferance of the other and without their opposition, the respective rights are determined in the manner provided for having acted in good faith. Article 773 repeats that same last rule for mixing.

5. 5

   Step 5: Conmixtión: each keeps their proportion

   Article 772 says that if two things of the same or different kind are mixed or confused by the will of their owners or by chance, and in the latter case the things are not separable without detriment, each owner acquires a right proportional to the part corresponding to them, having regard to the value of the things mixed or confused. And if one person alone mixes two things, but in good faith, the rights are determined the same way. By contrast, Article 773 says whoever in bad faith mixes or confuses two things belonging to different owners loses the thing belonging to them and must indemnify the damage caused to the other owner.

6. 6

   Step 6: Specification: making a work from another’s material

   Article 774 says that a person who in good faith employs another’s material, in whole or in part, to form a work of a new kind makes the work their own, indemnifying the value of the material to its owner. But if the material is more precious than the work in which it was employed, or superior in value, its owner may at their choice keep the new species, after indemnifying the value of the work, or ask for indemnity for the material. The choice belongs to the material’s owner, not to whoever made the work.

7. 7

   Step 7: Artistic merit, measured in price

   Article 775 introduces a variant. A person who in good faith employs another’s material to form a work of a new kind whose artistic merit exceeds the material in price makes the work their own, paying the value of the material to its owner. If the work’s artistic merit is inferior in price to the material, the material’s owner may keep the new species, after paying the value of the work, or ask for payment of the material. The Code measures artistic merit in price against the material; it says nothing about copyright.

8. 8

   Step 8: How the indemnity is paid

   Article 771 gives the choice to the injured party: whenever the owner of material used without their consent has a right to indemnity, they may demand that it consist of delivery of a thing equal in kind and value and in all its circumstances to the one used, or of its price according to expert appraisal. And if the specification was made in bad faith, Article 776 gives the material’s owner the right to keep the work without paying anything to its author, or to demand from them payment of the material’s value and indemnity for the damages suffered.

These are rules of substantive law between private parties: they are asserted between the parties or before the Court of First Instance. The Civil Code designates no agency to apply them.

• Believing the principal thing is the biggest one: the Code says it is the one of greater value.
• Demanding separation when the accessory deteriorates on separation: only the owner of the principal may ask for it there, and must indemnify.
• Thinking whoever transformed the material always keeps the work: if the material is superior in value, its owner chooses.
• Mixing another’s material on your own: in bad faith you lose your own and answer for the damage.
• Watching your property be incorporated or mixed and not objecting: that places you in the position of the other’s good faith.
• Confusing the artistic merit of Article 775 with copyright: the Code measures it in price against the material.

These are the government pages this guide is based on.

• Poder Judicial de Puerto Rico

  Poder Judicial

  bvirtualogp.pr.gov