Property Case Digest 09152020
Property Case Digest 09152020
Property Case Digest 09152020
Ignao vs IAC
Petition:
Reversal of Decision of Appellate Court Affirming RTC Decision ordering petitioner to sell
to respondents part of his property where respondents had built portion of their house.
Facts:
Petitioner, Florencio Ignao and private respondents, Juan and Isdro Ignao were owners of a
parcel of land in Cavite. Pursuant to action for partition 2/8 of land was granted to
respondents and remaining to petitioner.
Sometime in 1978, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession of real property
against respondents alleging that area occupied by two houses built by respondents exceeded
allotted area to them.
RTC conducted ocular inspection and found that respondents’ houses encroached Florencio’s
portion of land and ruled that though defendants, before partition, been in possession of more
than what rightfully, belongs to them, their possession was in good faith and based on the
facts of the case, it would be useless and unsuitable for Florencio to exercise the first option
of Article 448 of the Civil Code which is appropriating the improvements as this would
render the houses worthless.
ISSUE:
Whether or not provisions of Article 448 should apply to a builder in good faith on a property
held in common?
No, it cannot apply to a co-owner who builds, plants or sows on the land owned in
common for he did not build in land that belongs to another rather he built it in a land which
he co-owns.
Whether or not provisions of Article 448 should apply to the case at bar?
Yes, as land has already been partitioned co-ownership has already been terminated
thus they are no longer co-owners.
ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted
in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting,
after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who
built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent.
However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably
more than that of the building or trees.
In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the
terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
Therefore, as co-ownership has already been terminated then Florencio can either
appropriate as his own the portions of the houses upon payment of indemnity or sell to
respondents the land occupied and should it exceed the value of improvements, they must pay
reasonable rent at a rate agreed upon by the parties and in case of disagreement the courts
may fix the rate and terms of the lease.
6.
Pecson vs CA
Facts:
Petitioner Pecson was the owner of a commercial lot in Quezon City on which he built an
apartment building. For his failure to pay the realty taxes worth Php 12,000.00 the lot was
sold at a public auction by the City Treasure of Quezon City to Mameto Nepomuceno who
later sold it to Spouses Naguid for Php 103,000.
Petitioner challenged the validity of the auction sale which the RTC dismissed and held that
the apartment building was not a subject of litigation and held that there was no legal basis
that the building was included in the sale.
Both parties appealed to the CA which affirmed in toto the assailed decision.
Issue:
Whether or not Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code applies to the case at bar as both
parties agreed that petitioner was a builder on good faith at time of construction of the
building?
As for Article 448, no, it does not apply to a case where the owner of the land is the
builder, sower or planter who then later loses ownership of land by the sale or donation.
In the case of Coleongco vs. Regalado it has been held that Article 361 of the old
Civil Code is not applicable for Regalado constructed the house on his own land before he
sold said land to Coleongco. It applies only in cases where a person constructs a building on
the land of another in good or in bad faith, as the case may be.
Therefore, it does not apply to a case where a person constructs a building on his own
land, for then there can be no question as to good or bad faith on the part of the builder.
As to Article 546, yes by analogy, as the objective of Article 546 of the Civil Code is
to administer justice between the parties involved.
In Rivera vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila, it has been held that the said
provision was formulated in trying to adjust the rights of the owner and possessor in good
faith of a piece of land, to administer complete justice to both of them in such a way as
neither one nor the other may enrich himself of that which does not belong to him.
Since respondents had opted to appropriate the apartment building, the petitioner is
thus entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the apartment building, until he is paid the
proper indemnity, as well as of the portion of the lot where the building has been constructed.
7.
Pleasantville Development Corp. vs IAC
Facts:
Edith Robillo had bought from Pleasantville Lot 9 which rights to the lot was then bought by
Eldred Jardinico and at that time the said lot was vacant.
Upon completion of payments, Jardinico then secured a certificate of title over said lot
wherein he discovered that improvements had been introduced to it by Wilson Kee.
Kee had bought Lot 8 from Pleasantville in installment and under the contract he could
possess the lot even before completion of payment unfortunately Zenaida Octaviano, the
employee who had accompanied Kee to inspect Lot 8 had pointed at Lot 9. Thereafter, Kee
proceeded to construct his residence, a store, an auto repair shop and other improvements on
the lot.
After discovery of occupation of Kee of Lot 9, Jardinico confronted him and they tried to
reach an amicable settlement but failed.
Jardinico then filed an ejectment case against Kee and Kee filed a third-party complaint
against petitioner.
MTCC had ruled in favor of Jardinico and ordered Kee to vacate the premises and pay rent.
RTC ruled that petitioner was not at fault or negligent and found Kee a builder in bad faith.
The CA ruled that Kee was a builder in good faith as he was unaware of the “mix-up”, the
award of rental was without basis and petitioner was imputable to the wrong delivery.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Wilson Kee is a builder in good faith?
Yes, as Kee was pointed in the wrong property by petitioner’s employee and having
full faith and confidence in the company and due to positive identification of the property, he
had no reason to suspect there had been a wrong delivery.
The law states that good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is
building on and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.
And as good faith is presumed, petitioner has the burden of proving bad faith on the
part of Kee which petitioner failed to prove otherwise.
Therefore, petitioner having failed to prove his bad faith, Kee is a builder in good
faith for he was unaware of the “mix up”.
8.
Alviola vs CA
Facts:
Spouses Alviola built a copra dryer and store in a portion of land owned by Victoria
Sonjaconda Tingan.
Agustin, son of Victoria, filed an action for recovery of possession against petitioners’
Petitioners contend that they own the improvement in the disputed properties which are still
public lands and that they are rightful possessors by occupation of said properties for more
than twenty years.
RTC rendered judgment in favor or respondents declaring them absolute owners of the land
and ordering petitioners to vacate and surrender the premises. The Court of Appeals affirmed
said decision.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
1. WHO OWNS THE DISPUTED PROPERTY?
Respondents’ own the disputed property as petitioners' own evidence recognized the
ownership of the land in favor of Victoria Tinagan.
In their tax declarations, petitioners stated that the house and copra dryer are located
on the land of Victoria S. Tinagan/Agustin Tinagan.
By acknowledging that the disputed portions belong to Victoria/Agustin Tinagan in
their tax declarations, petitioners' claim as owners thereof must fail.