Digests for Art 448-456

  • Published on

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)


Property case digest


<p>Ignacio vs Hilario</p> <p>FACTS Disputed land: residential, rice land Ignacios were adjudged to be the legal owners of the disputed land Hilarios own the granaries and houses possessors in good faith Order of execution c/o Ignacios they chose neither to pay the Hilarios nor sell to them the residential lot they wanted Hilarios to remove the structure at their expense Granted by Judge NatividadISSUE WON the order of Judge Natividad was proper?HELD No. Owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by another is entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the value of his building (Art. 453) Options of the land owner: Pay for the building Sell his land to the owner of the building Owner cannot refuse both to pay for the building and to sell the land and compel the owner of the building to remove it from the land where it is erected. Only when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same can the landowner have the building removed.</p> <p>Spouses del Campo vs Abesia</p> <p>FACTS Action for partition was filed by plaintiffs in the CFI of Ceby Del Ocampo and Abesia are co-owners of contested land 2/3 and 1/3 share each, respectively Survey Division of land Abesias house occupies the portion with an area of 5 sq meters of del Ocampos land Trial court ordered defendants to remove and demolish part of their house which has encroached an area of 5 sq meters from the lot of the plaintiffs, at their own expenseISSUE WON trial court erred in not applying the rights of a good faith builder under art 448?HELD When a co-ownership is terminated by the partition and the house of the defendant overlaps a portion of the land of the plaintiffs which defendants built in good faith, Art 448 applies. Owners rights: Appropriate said portion of the house of defendants upon the payment of indemnity to defendants (546) Oblige the defendants to pay the price of the land occupied If the price asked for is considerably much more than the value of the portion of the house of defendants built thereon, then the latter cannot be obliged to buy the land Defendant to pay reasonable rent In case of disagreement, the trial court shall fix the terms thereof. </p> <p>Ignao vs IAC</p> <p>FACTS Florencio Ignacio and his uncles were co-owners of a parcel of land in Kawit, Cavite Action for partition c/o Florencio Ignao 6/8 of the land goes to Florencio and the rest to his uncle No actual partition was ever effected Florencio instituted a complaint for recovery of possession of real property 2 houses built by his uncles exceed their property. Upon ocular inspection of the court encroachment over a hundred square meters CFI of Cavite ordered Florencio to sell to his uncles that portion of his property Affirmed by CAISSUE WON the provisions of Art 448 should apply to a builder in good faith on a property held in common?HELD Yes. Art 448 applies to properties held in common once it is partitioned Prior to partition, all the co-owners hold the property in common dominion but at the same time each is an owner of a share which is abstract and undetermined until partition is effected. Co-owners may have unequal shares in the common property, quantitatively speaking. But in a qualitative sense, each co-owner has the same right as any one of the other co-owners. Every owner is therefore the owner of the whole. It is the co-owner whose partition is encroached upon who has the option to sell that portion or buy the improvement</p> <p>Bernardo vs Bataclan</p> <p>FACTS Pastor Samonte (through COS) Vicente Bernardo Silang, Cavite When Bernardo entered into the premises, he found Catalino Bataclan, whp appears to have been authorized by Samonte, as far as 1922, to clear the land and make improvements Bernardo was declared by CFI Cavite as owner Bataclan was declared by CFI Cavite as holder in good faith, entitled to reimbursement (P2,212 200 per hectare) Bernardo manifested to the lower court his desire to require the defendant to pay him the value of the land. Bataclan informed the lower court that he was unable to pay for the land 30 days were given by the court within which to pay Bataclan P2,212, otherwise, public auction Public auction Toribio Teodoro ISSUE WON Bataclan has a right to retain the land?HELD No. He has lost his right of retention. Bernardo has exercised his desire to require Bataclan to pay for the value of the land Bataclan could have become the owner of both land and improvements and continued in possession thereof. But he said he could not pay and the land was sold at public auction. When Bataclan failed to pay for the land, he lost his right of retention Options of the owner of the land: Acquire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity Oblige the builder or planted to pay for the land and the sower to pay the proper rent The owner has the options because: His right is older By principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing</p> <p>Filipinas Colleges Inc. vs Garcia Timbang, et al</p> <p>FACTS Filipinas Colleges acquired the rights of the Timbang spouses over a parcel of land Filipinas is ordered to pay spouses P15,807.90 Maria Blas was declared to be a builder in good faith P19,000.00 108 shares of Filipinas Colleges 10,800.00 Unpaid balance of 8,200.00 Filipinas defaulted in payment to the spouses Spouses chose to compel Filipinas to pay them the value of the land Order of execution c/o spouses against Filipinas P32,859.00 Blas filed a motion for execution of her judgment (P8,200.00) granted by the court Auction of building (for a value of 5,750) and some personal properties of Filipinas Blas wanted the proceeds of the auction of the building , over which she has a lien of P8,200ISSUE What is the recourse or remedy left to the parties in such eventuality where the builder fails to pay the value of the landHELD Builder has the right of retention of the property until he is indemnified by the owner of the land Nothing in the law purports that upon the failure of the builder to pay the value of the land, when such is demanded by the land-owner, the latter becomes automatically the owner of the improvement under 445. Although it is true that in the event of the failure of the builder to pay the land, after the owner has chosen this alternative, the builders right of retention (Art. 546) is lost, NEVERTHELESS, there was nothing said that as a consequence thereof, the builder loses entirely all rights over his own building Landowners options (re Builder in good faith): Appropriate the building Compelling the builder in GF to pay for the land (and in case builder cannot pay): Lease (Art. 448) Remove improvements (what article?) when after having chosen to sell his land, the BIGF fails to pay for the same Public auction Payment of the value of the land, and anything in excess is to be Delivered to the owner of the improvement Although it is the invariable practice that where the successful bidder is the execution creditor himself, he need not pay the amount of the bid if it does not exceed the amount of his judgment, NEVERTHELESS, when there is a claim by a 3rd party to the proceeds of the sale SUPERIOR to his judgment credit, the execution creditor, as successful bidder must pay in cash the amount of his bid as a condition precedent to the issuance to him of the certificate of sale. CA gas already adjudged that Blas is entitled to the payment of the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the school building. Blas claim is therefore not a mere preferred credit, but is actually a lien on the school building. As such, it is SUPERIOR to the claim of the spouses. </p> <p>Manotok Realty, Inc. vs Tecson</p> <p>FACTS Madlangawa builder or possessor in good faith Madlangawa has right to remain in the Clara Tambunting Subd. until he shall have been reimbursed Manotok filed, under Judge Tecson, a motion for the approval of petitioners option to appropriate the improvements introduced by Madlangawa and then for the latter to deliver property Pending the case, Madlangawa introduced certain major repairs and other improvements in the property\ Tecson denied the motion Fire gutted the house of Madlangawa and the majority of the other houses in the Subd Imelda placed the disputed area under her Zonal Improvement Project (PD 1669) UnconstitutionalISSUE HELD The decision of the trial court became final and executor incumbent upon Judge Tecson to issue the necessary writ Owner has the right to choose between retaining the premises and pay for the improvements or to sell the premises to the BIGF Builder in good faith: A person assert title to the land on which he builds, i.e. he be a possessor in concept of owner He be unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it Only right of BIGF: Full reimbursement = Necessary expenses + useful expenses Cannot compel the owner of the land to sell such to the former Madlangawas good faith ceased after the filing of the complaint by the petitioner. The repairs and improvements were introduced AFTER the complaint was filed CANNOT be considered to have been built in good faith Improvements have been gutted by fire basis for private respondents right to retain the premises has already been extinguished without fault of the petitioner no other recourse for Madlangawa but to deliver the property</p> <p>Ballatan vs CA</p> <p>FACTS Ballatan, Martinez, Ling Lot No. 24 (1985) Go, Sr., Go (son) Lot No. 25 and 26 (1983) Yao Lot No. 27 (1982) Ballatan constructed her house on the stated lot During construction, she noticed that the house of Go encroached on the entire length of the eastern side of her property Ballatan informed Go Go claimed the house and fence were built within the parameters of his fathers lot as surveyed by Engr. Quedding (authorized surveyor of Araneta Institute of Agriculture owner-developer of the subd.) AIA authorized another survey Result: Lot 24 lost 25 sq meters Lot 25 same; encroached Lot 26 lost 3 sq meters Lot 27 gained 3 sq meters It moved westward Batallan wrote to Go and demanded the latter to remove and dismantle their improvements Go refused amicable settlement failed Trial court ordered Go to vacate land and to demolish and remove all improvements. ISSUE HELD It was the erroneous survey of Engr. Quedding that triggered these discrepancies Go merely relied on the survey constructing his house Go had NO KNOWLEDGE When a person had no knowledge that he encroached on his neighbors lot, he is deemed BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH until the time the latter informed him of his encroachment Good faith is always presumed. It is incumbent upon him who alleges bad faith to prove otherwise Options of landowner (Art. 448) Workable solution: Ballatan to sell that part of their land on which was constructed a portion of the latters house If Gos are unwilling or unable to but the lot, then they must vacate it, until they vacate, they must pay rent In the event that the owner elects to sell the land, the price must be fixed at the prevailing market value at the time of payment</p> <p>Pecson vs CA</p> <p>FACTS 4 door 2 storey apartment in Kamias Failure to pay RPT public auction Nepomuceno Nuguid Auction of LAND only Apartment is being leased Nuguid was willing to pay for the value of the apartment P53,000 (1965) Nuguid wanted to collect the rent Rent to offset the value of the apartmentISSUE Application of Articles 448 and 456HELD Art. 448 is still applicable by analogy where one loses the ownership of the land in which he earlier built an apartment Present market value Pecson to retain receiving rent until reimbursed by Nuguid for the value of the apartment</p> <p>Technogas vs CA</p> <p>FACTS Pariz Industies Inc (1970 with building and wall COS) Technogas Adjoining land with the Uys Portions of the building and wall bought by Technogas are occupying a portion of Uys land After knowledge Technogas offered to buy Uy refused Agreement: demolish wall Uy filed a complaint on the encroachment did not prosper Uy dug or caused to be dug a canal along Technogas wall collapse Technogas filed a criminal complaint for malicious mischief Uys wife was convictedISSUE HELD No one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by mere examining his paper title Good faith: Technogas Belief of the builder that the land he is building is his Ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title Good faith ceases from the moment defects in the title are made known to the possessor, by extraneous evidence or suit for recovery of the property by the true owner Technogas is deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the seller in regard to all rights of ownership over the immovable The supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner DOES NOT militate against its right to claim the status of a builder in good faith Uys options are limited to: Appropriating the encroached portion after payment of proper indemnity Obliging the latter to buy the lot Uy cannot choose a remedy of his own liking.</p> <p>Pleasantville vs CA</p> <p>FACTS Edith Robillo purchased a parcel of land in Pleasantville Subd., Bacolod City Eldred Jardinico bought rights to the Lot 9, which at that time was vacant, from Robillo Discovery: Wilson Kee has introduced improvements on the lot Kee bought Lot 8 but Octavino, CTTEIs employee, pointed him to Lot 9 Kee constructed his house, store, auto repair shop and improvements on the land Amicable settlement failed Kee refused to vacate Lot 9 Contract between Kee and CTTEI was rescinded for the failure of the former to pay installment due ISSUE WON a buyer who constructs improvements on the wrong property erroneously delivered by the owners agent is a builder in good faith?HELD Yes. Roots of the controversy can be traced directly to the errors committed by CTTEI when it pointed the wrong property Highly improbable that a purchaser would knowingly and willingly build his residence on a lot owned by another, deliberately exposing himself and his family to the risk of being ejected from the land and losing all improvements thereon, not to mention the social humiliation that will follow Kee is a layman thats why he asked to be pointed to the land he bought Good faith Belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his Ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title Rescinded no relevance on the liability of Pleasantville, as such fact does not negate the negligence of its agent in pointing out the wrong lot to Kee</p> <p>Geminiano vs CA</p> <p>FACTS Unfinished bungalow of the Geminianos was sold to the Nicolases Promise to sell the lot occupied by the house Contract of lease over a 126 sq meter portion of the lot, including that portion on which the house stood, in favor of Nicolas for a period of 7 years Nicolas: registered the house in their name + introduced improvements After the 7 years, Geminiano refused to accept rental Lot is the subject of a suit acquisition by Maria Lee Lee sold property...</p>