All juridical acts, including unilateral and bilateral contracts, require the will and intention of individuals for their existence. In other words, one must first have knowledge and awareness of a matter of fact, and then his will or intention toward a juridical act would be formed. However, Article 356 of the Civil Code is seemingly in conflict with these general rules. This article explicitly states that if something is considered an accessory to the object of sale, its ownership will be transferred to the purchaser even if the parties to the contract are ignorant of it and there has been no intention concerning it. The present article deals with the following issues: Is the ruling of this article contrary to the principal rule? Is it counted as an implied legal term? Is an implied legal term essentially valid? Is this article consistent with the will and intention of the parties to the contract? Is this article detached from the above foundations, following another rule?