BERNARDO v BATACLAN (1938; Laurel)

FACTS: Plaintif Vicente Bernardo acquired a parcel of land from

Pastor Samonte thru a contract of sale !hereafter" Bernardo
instituted a case a#ainst said $endor to secure possession of the
land Bernardo %as a&le to o&tain a fa$ora&le decision from the
court !he plaintif found the defendant herein" 'atalino Bataclan"
in the said premises (t appears that he has &een authori)ed &*
former o%ners" as far &ac+ as 19,," to clear the land and ma+e
impro$ements thereon !hus" plaintif instituted a case a#ainst
Bataclan in the 'ourt of -irst (nstance of 'a$ite (n this case"
plaintif %as declared the o%ner of the land &ut the defendant %as
held to &e a possessor in #ood faith" entitled to reim&ursement in
the total sum of P1"./," for %or+ done and impro$ements made
Both parties appealed the decision
!he court thereafter made some modi0cations &* allo%in# the
defendant to reco$er compensation amountin# to P,",1, and &*
reducin# the price at %hich the plaintif could require the defendant
to purchase the land in question from P311 do%n to P,11 per
hectare Plaintif %as li+e%ise #i$en 31 da*s from the date %hen the
decision &ecame 0nal to e2ercise his option" either to sell the
land to the defendant or to buy the imrovements from him
3n 4anuar* 9" 193/" the plaintif con$e*ed to the court his desire
!to re"uire the defendant to ay him the value of the land
at the rate of #$%% er he&tare or a total ri&e of #'()%%%
for the *hole tra&t of land+! !he defendant indicated that he
%as unable to ay the land and" on 4anuar* ,/" 193/" an order
%as issued #i$in# the plaintif 31 da*s %ithin %hich to pa* the
defendant the sum of P,",1,
Su&sequentl*" on 5pril ,/" 193/" the court &elo%" at the instance
of the plaintif and %ithout o&6ection on the part of the defendant"
ordered the sale of the land in question at pu&lic auction !he land
%as sold on 5pril 7" 1937 to !ori&io !eodoro for P8"111
,SS-E: .ON DEFENDANT BATACLAN ,S ST,LL ENT,TLED TO
RECO/ER T0E CO-RT 1ANDATED CO1#ENSAT,ON AR,S,N2
FRO1 T0E SALE OF T0E #RO#ERT3 TO TOR,B,O
89L:; <3 =anresa" &asin# on 5rt //8 of the <''" %here the
planter" &uilder or so%er has acted in #ood faith" a con>ict of ri#hts
arises &et%een the o%ners and it &ecomes necessar* to protect the
o%ner of the impro$ements %ithout causin# in6ustice to the o%ner
of the land !he la% pro$ided a 6ust and equita&le solution &* #i$in#
the o%ner of the land the option to acquire the impro$ements after
pa*ment of the proper indemnit* or to o&li#e the &uilder or planter
to pa* for the land and the so%er to pa* the proper rent (n this
case" the plaintif" as o%ner of the land" chose to require the
defendant" as o%ner of the impro$ements to pa* for the land
!he defendant a$ers that 4he is a ossessor in 5ood faith and
that the amount of #$)$'$ to *hi&h he is entitled has not
yet been aid to him+6 :efendant further claims that he has a
ri#ht to retain the land in accordance %ith the pro$isions of article
/73 of the 'i$il 'ode ?hile the said ar#ument is le#all* tena&le"
the same must perforce &e denied &ecause defendant Bataclan has
lost his ri#ht of retention as he failed to pa* for the land 4The la*)
as *e have already said) re"uires no more than that the
o*ner of the land should &hoose bet*een indemnifyin5 the
o*ner of the imrovements or re"uirin5 the latter to ay for
the land6+
,2NAC,O v 0,LAR,O (19/.; =oran)
Facts: 9lias 8ilario and his %ife :ionisia :res 0led a complaint
a#ainst :amian" -rancisco and Luis (#nacio concernin# the
o%nership of a parcel of land" partl* rice@land and partl* residential
5fter the trial of the case" the lo%er court under 4ud#e 5lfonso -eli2"
rendered 6ud#ment holdin# 8ilario and :res as the le#al o%ners of
the %hole propert* &ut concedin# to the (#nacios the o%nership of
the houses and #ranaries &uilt &* them on the residential portion
%ith the ri#hts of a possessor in #ood faith" in accordance %ith
article 3.1 of the 'i$il 'ode
Su&sequentl*" in a motion 0led in the same '-( (no% handled &*
respondent 4ud#e 8on -elipe <ati$idad)" 8ilario and :res pra*ed
for an order of e2ecution alle#in# that since the* chose neither to
pa* the (#nacios for the &uildin#s nor to sell to them the residential
lot" the (#nacios should &e ordered to remo$e the structure at their
o%n e2pense and to restore 8ilario and :res in the possession of
said lot 5fter hearin#" the motion %as #ranted &* 4ud#e <ati$idad
8ence" the petition for certiorari %as 0led &* the (#nacios pra*in#
for (a) a restraint and annulment of the order of e2ecution issued &*
4ud#e <ati$idad; (&) an order to compel 8ilario and :res to pa*
them the sum of P,"111 for the &uildin#s" or sell to them the
residential lot for P/7; or (c) a rehearin# of the case for a
determination of the ri#hts of the parties upon failure of e2tra@
6udicial settlement
!he Supreme 'ourt set aside the %rit of e2ecution issued &* 4ud#e
<ati$idad and ordered the lo%er court to hold a hearin# in the
principal case %herein it must determine the prices of the &uildin#s
and of the residential lot %here the* are erected" as %ell as the
period of time %ithin %hich 8ilario and :res ma* e2ercise their
option either to pa* for the &uildin#s or to sell their land" and" in the
last instance" the period of time %ithin %hich the (#nacios ma* pa*
for the land" all these periods to &e counted from the date the
6ud#ment &ecomes e2ecutor* or unappeala&le 5fter such hearin#"
the court shall render a 0nal 6ud#ment accordin# to the e$idence
presented &* the parties; %ith costs a#ainst 8ilarion and :res
'+ Ri5ht of retention of builder in 5ood faith
!he o%ner of the &uildin# erected in #ood faith on a land o%ned &*
another" is entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is
paid the $alue of his &uildin#" under article /73 5rticle /73
pro$ides that A<ecessar* e2penses shall &e refunded to e$er*
possessor; &ut onl* the possessor in #ood faith ma* retain the thin#
until such e2penses are made #ood to him Bseful e2penses shall
&e refunded to the possessor in #ood faith %ith the same ri#ht of
retention" the person %ho has defeated him in the possession
ha$in# the option of refundin# the amount of the e2penses or
pa*in# the increase in $alue %hich the thin# ma* ha$e acquired in
consequence thereofC
$+ Otion of the lando*ner to ay for the buildin5 or sell his
land to the o*ner of the buildin57 Ri5ht of remotion only
available if he &hose the latter and the o*ner of the
buildin5 &annot ay
!he o%ner of the land" upon the other hand" has the option" under
article 3.1" either to pa* for the &uildin# or to sell his land to the
o%ner of the &uildin# 5rticle 3.1 pro$ides that A!he o%ner of land
on %hich an*thin# has &een &uilt" so%n or planted in #ood faith"
shall ha$e the ri#ht to appropriate as his o%n the %or+" so%in# or
plantin#" after the pa*ment of the indemnit* stated in articles /73
and /7/" or to o&li#e the one %ho &uilt or planted to pa* the price
of the land" and the one %ho so%ed" the proper rentD 8e cannot
ho%e$er refuse &oth to pa* for the &uildin# and to sell the land and
compel the o%ner of the &uildin# to remo$e it from the land %here
it is erected 8e is entitled to such remotion onl* %hen" after ha$in#
chosen to sell his land" the other part* fails to pa* for the same
8+ Order amends 9ud5ment substantially and thus null and
void
!he order of 4ud#e <ati$idad compellin# the (#nacios to remo$e
their &uildin#s from the land &elon#in# to 8ilario and :res onl*
&ecause the latter chose neither to pa* for such &uildin#s nor to sell
the land" is null and $oid" for it amends su&stantiall* the 6ud#ment
sou#ht to &e e2ecuted and is" furthermore" ofensi$e to articles 3.1
and /73 of the 'i$il 'ode
:+ Ori5inal de&ision did not be&ome ;nal as it failed to
determine the value of the buildin5s and of the lot7 and the
time to *hi&h the otion may be e<er&ised
(n the decision of 4ud#e -eli2" the ri#hts of &oth parties %ere %ell
de0ned under articles 3.1 and /73 of the 'i$il 'ode" &ut it failed to
determine the $alue of the &uildin#s and of the lot %here the* are
erected as %ell as the periods of time %ithin %hich the option ma*
&e e2ercised and pa*ment should &e made" these particulars
ha$in# &een left for determination apparentl* after the 6ud#ment
has &ecome 0nal !he procedure is erroneous" for after the
6ud#ment has &ecome 0nal" no additions can &e made thereto and
nothin# can &e done there%ith e2cept its e2ecution 5nd e2ecution
cannot &e had" the sherif &ein# i#norant as to ho%" for ho% much"
and %ithin %hat time ma* the option &e e2ercised" and certaint* no
authorit* is $ested in him to settle these matters %hich in$ol$e
e2ercise of 6udicial discretion !hus" the 6ud#ment rendered &*
4ud#e -eli2 has ne$er &ecome 0nal" it ha$in# left matters to &e
settled for its completion in a su&sequent proceedin#" matters
%hich remained unsettled up to the time the petition is 0led in the
present case
-rancisco :epra $s 5#ustin :umlao EF L@7G3/8 1. =a* 1987
-acts; :epra is the o%ner of a parcel of land to %hich :umlao" li$in#
in an ad6oinin# lot" had &uilt a +itchen that encroached an area of
3/ square meters !he encroachment %as disco$ered in a
relocation sur$e* of :epraHs propert* Bpon disco$er*" :epraHs
mother %rote a demand letter as+in# :umlao to mo$e &ac+ from
his encroachment She then 0led a case of Bnla%ful :etainer
a#ainst :umlao
(n the trial court it %as pro$en that :umlao %as a &uilder in #ood
faith; thus the =unicipal 'ourt rendered it 6ud#ment that reads;
3rderin# that a forced lease is created &et%een the parties %ith the
plaintifs" as lessors" and the defendants as lessees" o$er the
disputed portion %ith an area of thirt* four (3/) square meters" the
rent to &e paid is 0$e (P711) pesos a month" pa*a&le &* the lessee
to the lessors %ithin the 0rst 0$e (7) da*s of the month the rent is
due; and the lease shall commence on the da* that this decision
shall ha$e &ecome 0nal
<either part* appealed 8o%e$er" :epra did not accept the
pa*ment of rentals so that :umlao deposited such rentals %ith the
=unicipal 'ourt
:epra then 0led a 'omplaint for Iuietin# of !itle a#ainst :umlao"
the latter admitted the encroachment &ut alle#ed" that the present
suit us &arred &* res 6udicate &* $irtue of the decision of the
=unicipal 'ourt
:9PF5 claims that the :ecision of the =unicipal 'ourt %as null and
$oid a& initio &ecause its 6urisdiction is limited to the sole issue of
possession" %hereas decisions afectin# lease" %hich is an
encum&rance on real propert*" ma* onl* &e rendered &* 'ourts of
-irst (nstance
(ssue;
( ?hether or not the =unicipal 'ourtHs decision %as null and $oid
a& initio &ecause it has no 6urisdiction o$er the caseJ
(( ?hether or not the factual situations of :B=L53 and :9PF5
conform to the 6uridical positions respecti$el* de0ned &* la%" for a
C&uilder in #ood faithC under 5rticle //8" a Cpossessor in #ood faithC
under 5rticle 7,. and a Clando%ner in #ood faithK under 5rticle //8J
8eld;
( 5ddressin# out sel$es to the issue of $alidit* of the
:ecision of the
=unicipal 'ourt" %e hold the same to &e null and $oid !he
6ud#ment in a detainer case is efecti$e in respect of possession
onl* (Sec G" Fule G1" Fules of 'ourt) !he =unicipal 'ourt o$er@
stepped its &ounds %hen it imposed upon the parties a situation of
Cforced leaseC" %hich li+e Cforced co@o%nershipC is not fa$ored in
la% -urthermore" a lease is an interest in real propert*" 6urisdiction
o$er %hich &elon#s to 'ourts of -irst (nstance (no% Fe#ional !rial
'ourts) (Sec //(&)" 4udiciar* 5ct of 19/8; Sec 19 (,) Batas
Pam&ansa Bl# 1,9) Since the =unicipal 'ourt" acted %ithout
6urisdiction" its :ecision %as null and $oid and cannot operate as
res 6udicata to the su&6ect complaint for Iuetin# of !itle Besides"
e$en if the :ecision %ere $alid" the rule on res 6udicata %ould not
appl* due to diference in cause of action (n the =unicipal 'ourt"
the cause of action %as the depri$ation of possession" %hile in the
action to quiet title" the cause of action %as &ased on o%nership
-urthermore" Sec G" Fule G1 of the Fules of 'ourt e2plicitl* pro$ides
that 6ud#ment in a detainer case Cshall not &ar an action &et%een
the same parties respectin# title to the land C
(( 5F! //8 !he o%ner of the land on %hich an*thin# has &een &uilt
so%n or planted in #ood faith"
shall ha$e the ri#ht
to appropriate as his o%n the %or+s" so%in# or plantin#" after
pa*ment of the indemnit* pro$ided for in articles 7/. and 7/8" or
to o&li#e the one %ho &uilt or planted to pa* the price of the land"
and the one %ho so%ed" the proper rent
8o%e$er" the &uilder or planter cannot &e o&li#ed to &u* the land if
its $alue is considera&l* more than that of the &uildin# or trees (n
such case" he shall pa* reasona&le rent" if the o%ner of the land
does not choose to appropriate the &uildin# or trees after proper
indemnit* !he parties shall a#ree upon the terms of the lease and
in case of disa#reement" the court shall 02 the terms thereof
(Para#raphin# supplied)
Pursuant to the fore#oin# pro$ision" :9PF5 has the option either to
pa* for the encroachin# part of :B=L53Ks +itchen" or to sell the
encroached 3/ square meters of his lot to :B=L53 8e cannot
refuse to pa* for the encroachin# part of the &uildin#" and to sell
the encroached part of his land" 7 as he had manifested &efore the
=unicipal 'ourt But that manifestation is not &indin# &ecause it
%as made in a $oid proceedin#
8o%e$er" the #ood faith of :B=L53 is part of the Stipulation of
-acts in the 'ourt of -irst (nstance (t %as thus error for the !rial
'ourt to ha$e ruled that :9PF5 is Centitled to possession"C %ithout
more" of the disputed portion impl*in# there&* that he is entitled to
ha$e the +itchen remo$ed 8e is entitled to such remo$al onl*
%hen" after ha$in# chosen to sell his encroached land" :B=L53
fails to pa* for the same . (n this case" :B=L53 had e2pressed his
%illin#ness to pa* for the land" &ut :9PF5 refused to sell
SAR1,ENTO /+ A2ANA
'$= SCRA '$$

FACTS:
?hile 9rnesto Valentino %as still courtin# his %ife" latterHs mother
ofered a lot for the construction of house &* the spouses (t
%as assumed that the %ifeHs mother %as the o%ner of the land"
%hich %ould e$entuall* transfer to the spouses (t turned out that
Sarmiento %as the o%ner of the land Sarmiento 0led an e6ectment
suit to %hich the trial court found out that the spouses are
possessors in #ood faith and ordered Sarmiento to e2ercise option
&ased on 5rt //8 Sarmiento did not e2ercise an* of the options
!he spouses then consi#ned the amount in court
(SSB9; ?hether or not Sarmiento can refuse to e2ercise the #i$en
options

0ELD: Ne5ative+ !he lando%ner cannot refuse &oth to
appropriate or sell the land" and to compel the &uilder to
remo$e it from the land on %hich it is located 8e is entitled to
such demolition onl* %hen after ha$in# chosen to sell the land" the
other part* fails to pa* for the same
Filiinas Colle5es ,n&+ vs+ 2ar&ia Timban5
-ilipinas 'olle#es %as declared to ha$e acquired the ri#hts of the
spouses !im&an# and in consideration thereof" -ilipinas 'olle#es
%as ordered to pa* the spouses P17"81G91 plus other amounts
-ilipinas 'olle#es %as required to deposit this to the court %ithin 91
da*s after the decision shall ha$e &ecome 0nal
=ean%hile" =aria Eer$acio Blas %as declared to &e a &uilder in
#ood faith of the school &uildin# constructed on the lot in question
and entitled to &e paid the amount of P19"111 for it -ilipinas
'olle#es" purchaser of the said &uildin#" %as ordered to deli$er to
Blas stoc+ certi0cate and pa* her P8",11 representin# the unpaid
&alance of the purchase price of the house
-ilipinas 'olle#es failed to pa* the said amounts Spouses !im&an#
made +no%n to the court that the* had chosen to compel -ilipinas
'olle#es to acquire the land and pa* them the $alue thereof !he
spouses as+ed for an order of e2ecution" %hich %as #ranted &*
court =oreo$er" the le$ied on the house of the &uilder and then
sold the same in pu&lic auction
!he Sherif of =anila sold the &uildin# in pu&lic auction in fa$or of
the spouses !im&an# as the hi#hest &idders Personal properties of
-ilipinas 'olle#es %ere also auctioned in fa$or of the spouses
!he lo%er court declared the SherifHs certi0cate of sale co$erin#
the school &uildin# null and $oid unless %ithin 17 da*s from notice
of said order" the successful &idders pa* Blas P7"G71 (t also
declared -ilipinas 'olle#es as the o%ner of undi$ided interest in Lot
,@1 on %hich the &uildin# sold in the auction sale is situated and
ordered the sale in pu&lic auction of said undi$ided interest of the
-ilipinas 'olle#es in fa$or of Blas and a#ainst -ilipinas 'olle#es
!he appellant spouses posited that &ecause the &uilder in #ood
faith has failed to pa* the price of the land after the o%ners thereof
e2ercised their option under 5rt //8" the &uilder lost his ri#ht of
retention pro$ided in 5rt 7/. and &* operation of 5rt //7" the
appellants as o%ners of the land automaticall* &ecame the o%ners
of the &uildin#
(SSB9; ?hether or not the contention of the appellants are $alid
FBL(<E; <e#ati$e
Bnder the terms of these article" it is true that the o%ner of the land
has the ri#ht to choose &et%een appropriatin# the &uildin# &*
reim&ursin# the &uilder of the $alue thereof or compellin# the
&uilder in #ood faith to pa* for his land 9$en this second ri#ht
cannot &e e2ercised if the $alue of the land is considera&l* more
than that of the &uildin# (n addition to the ri#ht of the &uilder to &e
paid the $alue of his impro$ement" 5rticle 7/. #i$es him the
corollar* ri#ht of retention of the propert* until he is indemni0ed &*
the o%ner of the land !here is nothin# in the lan#ua#e of these t%o
article" //8 and 7/." %hich %ould 6ustif* the conclusion of
appellants that" upon the failure of the &uilder to pa* the $alue of
the land" %hen such is demanded &* the land@o%ner" the latter
&ecomes automaticall* the o%ner of the impro$ement under 5rticle
//7 !he case of Bernardo vs. Bataclan" .. Phil" 791 cited &*
appellants is no authorit* for this conclusion 5lthou#h it is true it
%as declared therein that in the e$ent of the failure of the &uilder to
pa* the land after the o%ner thereof has chosen this alternati$e"
the &uilderKs ri#ht of retention pro$ided in 5rticle 7/. is lost"
ne$ertheless there %as nothin# said that as a consequence thereof"
the &uilder loses entirel* all ri#hts o$er his o%n &uildin#
!he question is; %hat is the recourse or remed* left to the parties in
such e$entualit* %here the &uilder fails to pa* the $alue of the
landJ ?hile the 'ode is silent on this 'ourt in the cases of Miranda
vs. Fadullon, et al" 9G Phil" 811; 71 3f Ea)" L1,M .,,.; Ignacio
vs. Hilario" G. Phil" .17 and the cited case of Bernardo vs.
Bataclan" supra
a decide to leave things as they are and assume the relation
of lessor and lessee, and should they disagree as to the amount of
rental then they can go to the court to fx that amount
& Should the parties not a#ree to lea$e thin#s as the* are and
to assume the relation of lessor and lessee" another remed* is
su##ested in the case of Ignacio vs. Hilario, supra" %herein the
court has ruled that the o%ner of the land in entitled to ha$e the
impro$ement remo$ed %hen after ha$in# chosen to sell his land to
the other part*" ie" the &uilder in #ood faith fails to pa* for the
same
c 5 further remed* is indicated in the case of Bernardo vs.
Bataclan, supra" %here this 'ourt appro$ed the sale of the land and
the impro$ement in a pu&lic auction appl*in# the proceeds thereof
0rst to the pa*ment of the $alue of the land and the e2cess" if an*"
to &e deli$ered to the o%ner of the house in pa*ment thereof
Orti> vs+ ?ayanan
-acts; Plaintif used to &e the le#al #uardian of =artin :olorico ((
?hen his %ard died" plaintif continued to culti$ate and possess the
latterHs propert*" %hich %as formerl* a su&6ect of homestead
application (n the said application" the %ardHs uncle %as named as
his heir and successor in interest !hus" the uncle e2ecuted an
aNda$it relinquishin# his ri#hts o$er the propert* in fa$or of
'omintan and Oamora" his #randson and son@in@la% and requested
the :irector of Lands to cancel the homestead application !he
homestead application %as cancelled to the protest of 3rti) sa*in#
that he should &e #i$en preference to purchase the lot inasmuch as
he is the actual occupant and has &een in continuous possession of
the same Still" the lot in question %as sold at a pu&lic auction
%herein defendant 'omintan %as the onl* &idder
!he plaintifHs protest %as in$esti#ated upon &ut his claim %as not
#i$en due course 3n appeal" respondent court rules that half of the
portion of land should &e #i$en to the defendant" &ein# the
successful &idder !he other half should &e a%arded to Oamora
%ithout pre6udice to the ri#ht of 3rti) to participate in the pu&lic
&iddin# of the lot (f 3rti) is to &e not declared the successful
&idder" defendants should reim&urse 6ointl* said plaintif for the
impro$ements introduced on the land" %ith him" ha$in# the ri#ht to
retain the propert* until after he has &een paid for
Plaintif appealed the 6ud#ment (t %as later found out that 3rti)
collected tolls on a portion of the propert* %herein he has not
introduced an* impro$ement
!he 6ud#ment &ecame 0nal and e2ecutor* Pri$ate respondents 0led
a motion for its e2ecution requestin# that the* 0le a &ond in lieu of
the amount that should &e paid to 3rti)" on the condition that after
the accountin# of the tolls collected &* plaintif" there is still and
amount due and pa*a&le to the said plaintif" the &ond shall &e held
ans%era&le
Petitioner thus 0led the instant petition" contendin# that in ha$in#
issued the 3rder and ?rit of 92ecution" respondent 'ourt Cacted
%ithout or in e2cess of 6urisdiction" andPor %ith #ra$e a&use of
discretion" &ecause the said order and %rit in efect $ar* the terms
of the 6ud#ment the* purportedl* see+ to enforceC 8e ar#ued that
since said 6ud#ment declared the petitioner a possessor in #ood
faith" he is entitled to the pa*ment of the $alue of the
impro$ements introduced &* him on the %hole propert*" %ith ri#ht
to retain the land until he has &een full* paid such $alue 8e
li+e%ise a$erred that no pa*ment for impro$ements has &een made
and" instead" a &ond therefor had &een 0led &* defendants (pri$ate
respondents)" %hich" accordin# to petitioner" is not the pa*ment
en$isa#ed in the decision %hich %ould entitle pri$ate respondents
to the possession of the propert* -urthermore" %ith respect to
portion CBC" petitioner alle#es that" under the decision" he has the
ri#ht to retain the same until after he has participated and lost in
the pu&lic &iddin# of the land to &e conducted &* the Bureau of
Lands (t is claimed that it is onl* in the e$ent that he loses in the
&iddin# that he can &e le#all* dispossessed thereof
(t is the position of petitioner that all the fruits of the propert*"
includin# the tolls collected &* him from the passin# $ehicles" %hich
accordin# to the trial court amounts to P,7"11111" &elon#s to
petitioner and not to defendantPpri$ate respondent Iuirino
'omintan" in accordance %ith the decision itself" %hich decreed
that the fruits of the propert* shall &e in lieu of interest on the
amount to &e paid to petitioner as reim&ursement for
impro$ements 5n* contrar* opinion" in his $ie%" %ould &e
tantamount to an amendment of a decision %hich has lon# &ecome
0nal and e2ecutor* and" therefore" cannot &e la%full* done
!he issue decisi$e of the contro$er* isQafter the rendition &* the
trial court of its 6ud#ment in 'i$il 'ase <o '@91 on =arch ,," 19..
con0rmin# the a%ard of one@half of the propert* to Iuirino
'omintanQ%hether or not petitioner is still entitled to retain for his
o%n e2clusi$e &ene0t all the fruits of the propert*" such as the tolls
collected &* him from =arch 19.G to :ecem&er 19.8" and
Septem&er 19.9 to =arch 31" 19G1" amountin# to a&out
P,7"11111
FBL(<E; <e#ati$e
1 <o contention that the possessor in #ood faith is entitled to
the fruits recei$ed &efore the possession is le#all* interrupted
Possession in #ood faith ceases or is le#all* interrupted from the
moment defects in the title are made +no%n to the possessor" &*
e2traneous e$idence or &* the 0lin# of an action in court &* the
true o%ner for the reco$er* of the propert*

8ence" all the fruits
that the possessor ma* recei$e from the time he is summoned in
court" or %hen he ans%ers the complaint" must &e deli$ered and
paid &* him to the o%ner or la%ful possessor
, 8o%e$er" e$en after his #ood faith ceases" the possessor
can still retain the propert* (5rt 7/.) until he has &een full*
reim&ursed for all the necessar* and useful e2penses made &* him
on the propert* he principal characteristic of the ri#ht of retention
is its accessor* character (t is accessor* to a principal o&li#ation
'onsiderin# that the ri#ht of the possessor to recei$e the fruits
terminates %hen his #ood faith ceases" it is necessar*" in order that
this ri#ht to retain ma* &e useful" to concede to the creditor the
ri#ht to secure reim&ursement from the fruits of the propert* &*
utili)in# its proceeds for the pa*ment of the interest as %ell as the
principal of the de&t %hile he remains in possession
3 Petitioner cannot appropriate for his o%n e2clusi$e &ene0t
the tolls %hich he collected from the propert* retained &* him (t
%as his dut* under the la%" after deductin# the necessar* e2penses
for his administration" to appl* such amount collected to the
pa*ment of the interest" and the &alance to the pa*ment of the
o&li#ation
?e hold" therefore" that the disputed tolls" after deductin#
petitionerKs e2penses for administration" &elon# to Iuirino
'omintan" o%ner of the land throu#h %hich the toll road passed"
further considerin# that the same %as on portions of the propert*
on %hich petitioner had not introduced an* impro$ement !he trial
court itself clari0ed this matter %hen it placed the toll road under
recei$ership !he omission of an* mention of the tolls in the
decision itself ma* &e attri&uted to the fact that the tolls appear to
ha$e &een collected after the rendition of the 6ud#ment of the trial
court
/ 5s to the other lot" it appears that no pu&lic sale has *et
&een conducted &* the Bureau of Lands and" therefore" petitioner is
entitled to remain in possession thereof !his is not disputed &*
respondent 9leuterio Oamora 5fter pu&lic sale is had and in the
e$ent that 3rti) is not declared the successful &idder" then he
should &e reim&ursed &* respondent Oamora in the correspondin#
amount for the impro$ements on Lot 7G87@B
FLORE@A v E/AN2EL,STA L9. S'F5 131 (-e&ruar* ,1" 1981)M
<ature; Petition for re$ie% on certiorari of the decision of the '5
Ponente; 4 =elencio@8errera
-acts;

!he 9$an#elistas %ere the o%ner of a residential lot in Fi)al

%ith an area of ,1/18 sq m assessed at P/11
=a* 19/7; 9$an#elistas &orro%ed P111 from -lore)a
<o$em&er 19/7; -lore)a occupied the residential lot and
&uilt a house of li#ht material (&aron#@&aron#) %ith the consent of
the 9$an#elistas
5dditional Loans made &* the 9$an#elistas; Sept 19/. R
P111" 5u#ust 19/G R P,11" 4anuar* 19/9 R P,11" 5pril 19/9 R P1/1
!3!5L S PG/1 (includin# 0rst loan)
4anuar* 19/9; -lore)a demolished the house of li#ht material
and constructed one of stron# material assessed at P1/11 -lore)a
has not &een pa*in# an* rentals since the &e#innin# of their
transactions
5u#ust 19/9; 9$an#elistas sold" %ith a ri#ht to repurchase
%ithin . *ears" their land to -lore)a for P1111
Se$en months &efore the e2pir* of the repurchase period"
the 9$an#elistas %ere a&le to pa* in full
-lore)a refused to $acate the lot unless he %as 0rst
reim&ursed for the $alue of the house he &uilt
9$an#elistas 0led a complaint '-( ruled &ased on 5rt" //8 of
the 'i$il 'ode sa*in# that 9$an#elistas ha$e the choice &et%een
purchasin# the house or sellin# the land to -lore)a
'5 ruled that 5rt //8 %as inapplica&le and that -lore)a %as
not entiled to the reim&ursement of his house and could remo$e
the same at his o%n e2pense
(ssue;
1 ?3< -lore)a %as entitled to reim&ursement of the cost of
his house <3
, ?3< he (his heirs %ho replaced him) should pa* rental of
the land T9S
8eldPFatio;
1 (ssue of reim&ursement is not moot &ecause if -lore)a has
no ri#ht of retention" then he must pa* dama#es in the form of
rentals
5#ree %ith '5 that 5rt //8 is inapplica&le &ecause it applies onl*
%hen the &uilder is in #ood faith (he &elie$ed he had a ri#ht to
&uild)5rt /73 is also not applica&le &ecause it requires &oth of the
parties to &e in &ad faith <either is 5rt 1.1. applica&le &ecause
-lore)a is not a $endee a retro !he house %as alread* constructed
in 19/7 (li#ht materials) e$en &efore the pacto de retro %as
entered into in 19/9
-lore)a cannot &e classi0ed as a &uilder in #ood faith nor a $endee
a retro" %ho made useful impro$ements durin# the pacto de retro"
he has no ri#ht to reim&ursement of the $alue of the house" much
less to the retention of the premises until he is paid
8is ri#hts are more a+in to a usufructur* under 5rt 7G9" %ho ma*
ma+e on the propert* useful impro$ements &ut %ith no ri#ht to &e
indemni0ed thereof" 8e ma*" ho%e$er" remo$e such impro$ements
should it &e possi&le to do so %ithout dama#e to the propert*
, -rom the time the redemption price %as paid in 4anuar* 3"
1977" -lore)aHs ri#ht to use the residential lot %ithout rent ceased
8e should &e held lia&le for dama#es in the form of rentals for the
continued use of the lot for P11 monthl* from 4anuar* 3" 1977 until
the house %as remo$ed and the propert* $acated &* -lore)a or his
heirs
4ud#ment aNrmed %ith modi0cation
S#O-SES DEL CA1#O /S+ ABES,A
-acts; !his case in$ol$es a parcel of land %ith an area of onl* a&out
/7 square meters 5n action for partition %as 0led &* plaintifs in
the '-( of 'e&u Plaintifs and defendants are co@o%ners pro
indiviso of this lot in the proportion of and 1P3 share each"
respecti$el* !he trial court appointed a commissioner in
accordance %ith the a#reement of the parties 8e su&mitted a
report to the trial court recommendin# that the propert* &e di$ided
into t%o lots; Lot 11.1@5 %ith an area of 31 square meters for
plaintifs and Lot <o 11.1@B %ith an area of 17 square meters for
the defendants !he houses of plaintifs and defendants %ere
sur$e*ed and sho%n on the s+etch plan !he house of defendants
occupied the portion %ith an area of 7 square meters of Lot 11.1@5
of plaintifs !he parties manifested their conformit* to the report
and as+ed the trial court to 0nall* settle and ad6udicate %ho amon#
the parties should ta+e possession of the 7 square meters of the
land in question
(SSB9; ?hether or not 5rt //8 is applica&le to a &uilder in #ood
faith %hen the propert* in$ol$ed is o%ned in common
FBL(<E; 5Nrmati$e
!he court a quo correctl* held that 5rticle //8 of the 'i$il 'ode
cannot appl* %here a co@o%ner &uilds" plants or so%s on the land
o%ned in common for then he did not &uild" plant or so% upon land
that e2clusi$el* &elon#s to another &ut of %hich he is a co@o%ner
!he co@o%ner is not a third person under the circumstances" and
the situation is #o$erned &* the rules of co@o%nership
8o%e$er" %hen" as in this case" the co@o%nership is terminated &*
the partition and it appears that the house of defendants o$erlaps
or occupies a portion of 7 square meters of the land pertainin# to
plaintifs %hich the defendants o&$iousl* &uilt in #ood faith" then
the pro$isions of 5rticle //8 of the ne% 'i$il 'ode should appl*
=anresa and <a$arro 5mandi a#ree that the said pro$ision of the
'i$il 'ode ma* appl* e$en %hen there %as co@o%nership if #ood
faith has &een esta&lished
5ppl*in# the aforesaid pro$ision of the 'i$il 'ode" the plaintifs
ha$e the ri#ht to appropriate said portion of the house of
defendants upon pa*ment of indemnit* to defendants as pro$ided
for in 5rticle 7/. of the 'i$il 'ode 3ther%ise" the plaintifs ma*
o&li#e the defendants to pa* the price of the land occupied &* their
house 8o%e$er" if the price as+ed for is considera&l* much more
than the $alue of the portion of the house of defendants &uilt
thereon" then the latter cannot &e o&li#ed to &u* the land !he
defendants shall then pa* the reasona&le rent to the plaintif upon
such terms and conditions that the* ma* a#ree (n case of
disa#reement" the trial court shall 02 the terms thereof 3f course"
defendants ma* demolish or remo$e the said portion of their house"
at their o%n e2pense" if the* so decide
,2NAO /S+ ,AC
-5'!S; -lorencio (#nao and his uncles (pri$ate respondents) %ere
co@o%ners of a parcel of land !his %as ori#inall* o%ned &* Balta)ar
(#nao" %ho married t%ice (n his 0rst marria#e" he had four children"
includin# the father of the petitioner (n his second marria#e" he
also had four children %ho %ai$ed their ri#hts o$er the contro$erted
land
4usto" -lorencioHs father o%ned 7P8 of the land !hereafter" 4usto
acquired 1P8 share of &rother Leon for P711" %hich %as later sold to
his son -lorencio for the same amount ?hen 4usto died" -lorencio
inherited the 7P8 share of his father" %hich &rou#ht his land share to
.P8 Pri$ate respondents 4uan and (sidro each has 1P8 share on the
land
Petitioner &rou#ht an action for partition Before it %as
promul#ated" -lorencio sol 13/ sqm of his share !he decision for
partition allotted ,P8 of the land to pri$ate respondents 8o%e$er"
no actual partition %as efected !hus" petitioner instituted a
complaint for reco$er* of possession of real propert* a#ainst
pri$ate respondents" &ecause the area occupied &* the t%o houses
&uilt &* pri$ate respondents e2ceeded the portion allotted to them
!rial court ruled that the pri$ate respondents are &uilders in #ood
faith
(SSB9; ?hether or not the pro$isions of 5rt //8 should appl* on a
propert* held in common
FBL(<E; 5Nrmati$e
(t should &e noted that prior to partition" all the co@o%ners hold the
propert* in common dominion &ut at the same time each is an
o%ner of a share %hich is a&stract and undetermined until partition
is efected 5s cited in Euseio vs Intermediate !ppellate "ourt,
Can undi$ided estate is co@o%nership &* the heirsC
5s co@o%ners" the parties ma* ha$e unequal shares in the common
propert*" quantitati$el* spea+in# But in a qualitati$e sense" each
co@o%ner has the same ri#ht as an* one of the other co@o%ners
9$er* co@o%ner is therefore the o%ner of the %hole" and o$er the
%hole he e2ercises the ri#ht of dominion" &ut he is at the same time
the o%ner of a portion %hich is trul* a&stract" &ecause until di$ision
is efected such portion is not concretel* determined
?hether or not the pro$isions of 5rticle //8 should appl* to a
&uilder in #ood faith on a propert* held in common has &een
resol$ed in the aNrmati$e in the case of #pouses del "ampo vs
!esia" %herein the 'ourt ruled that;
!he court a quo correctl* held that 5rticle //8 of the 'i$il 'ode
cannot appl* %here a co@o%ner &uilds" plants or so%s on the land
o%ned in common for then he did not &uild" plant or so% upon land
that e2clusi$el* &elon#s to another &ut of %hich he is a co@o%ner
!he co@o%ner is not a third person under the circumstances" and
the situation is #o$erned &* the rules of co@o%nership
Ho$ever, $hen, as in this case, the o$nership is terminated y the
partition and it appears that the home of defendants overlaps or
occupies a portion of % square meters of the land pertaining to
plainti&s $hich the defendants oviously uilt in good faith, then
the provisions of !rticle ''( of the ne$ "ivil "ode should apply
=anresa and <a$arro 5mandi a#ree that the said pro$ision of the
'i$il 'ode ma* appl* e$en %hen there is a co@o%nership if #ood
faith has &een esta&lished
(n other %ords" %hen the co@o%nership is terminated &* a partition
and it appears that the house of an erst%hile co@o%ner has
encroached upon a portion pertainin# to another co@o%ner %hich
%as ho%e$er made in #ood faith" then the pro$isions of 5rticle //8
should appl* to determine the respecti$e ri#hts of the parties
PetitionerKs second assi#ned error is ho%e$er %ell ta+en Both the
trial court and the 5ppellate 'ourt erred %hen the* peremptoril*
adopted the C%or+a&le solutionC in the case of )rana vs "ourt of
appeals" and ordered the o%ner of the land" petitioner -lorencio" to
sell to pri$ate respondents" 4uan and (sidro" the part of the land
the* intruded upon" there&* depri$in# petitioner of his ri#ht to
choose Such rulin# contra$ened the e2plicit pro$isions of 5rticle
//8 to the efect that C(t)he o%ner of the land shall ha$e the
ri#ht to appropriate or to o&li#e the one %ho &uilt to pa* the
price of the land C !he la% is clear and unam&i#uous %hen it
confers the ri#ht of choice upon the lando%ner and not upon the
&uilder and the courts
!hus" in *uemuel vs +laes" the 'ourt cate#oricall* ruled that the
ri#ht to appropriate the %or+s or impro$ements or to o&li#e the
&uilder to pa* the price of the land &elon#s to the lando%ner
#ECSON /S+ CO-RT OF A##EALS
-5'!S; Pecson %as the o%ner of a commercial lot on %hich he &uilt
a four@door store*@apartment &uildin# -or his failure to pa* realt*
ta2es" the lot %as sold at pu&lic auction %ho in turn sold it to the
pri$ate respondents Petitioner challen#es the $alidit* of the
auction sale
(SSB9; ?hether or not 5rt //8 0nds application in the said case
FBL(<E; <e#ati$e
B* its clear lan#ua#e" 5rt //8 refers to a land %hose o%nership is
claimed &* t%o or more parties" one of %hom has &uilt some %or+s
or so%n or planted somethin# !he rule on #ood faith laid do%n in
5rt 7,. of the 'i$il 'ode shall &e applied in determinin# %hether
the &uilder" so%er or planter had acted in #ood faith
5rt //8 does not appl* to a case %here the o%ner of the land is the
&uilder" so%er or planter %ho then later loses o%nership of the land
&* sale or donation ?here the true o%ner himself is the &uilder of
%or+s on his o%n land" #ood faith or &ad faith is irrele$ant !hus" in
strict point of la%" 5rt //8 is not apposite to the case at &ar
<e$ertheless" the court applied the pro$ision therein on indemnit*
1.SS vs+ CA
-acts; !he 'it* of :a#upan 0led a complaint a#ainst <5?5S5 (no%
=?SS) for the reco$er* of the o%nership and possession of
:a#upan ?ater%or+s S*stem <5?5S5 interposed as one if its
special defenses F5 1383 %hich $ested upon it o%nership"
possession" and control of all %ater%or+s s*stems throu#hout the
Philippines !' found that <5?5S5 is a possessor in &ad faith and
hence not entitled to reim&ursement claimed &* it
(SSB9; ?hether or not a possessor in &ad faith has the ri#ht to
remo$e useful impro$ements
FBL(<E; <e#ati$e !his is &ased on 5rt //9 of the <'' 5s a &uilder
in &ad faith" =?SS lost %hate$er useful impro$ements it had made
%ithout ri#ht to indemnit*
5rt 7/.; 3nl* a possessor in #ood faith shall &e refunded for useful
e2penses %ith the ri#ht of retention until reim&ursed
5rt 7/G; 3nl* a possessor in #ood faith ma* remo$e useful
impro$ements if this can &e done %ithout dama#e to the principal
thin# and if the person %ho reco$ers the possession does not
e2ercise the option of reim&ursin# the useful e2penses !he ri#ht
#i$en to a possessor in &ad faith to remo$e impro$ements applies
onl* to impro$ements for pure lu2ur* or mere pleasure" pro$ided
the thin# sufers no in6ur* there&* and the la%ful possessor does
not prefer to retain them &* pa*in# the $alue the* ha$e at the time
he enters into possession
SAB,DO /S+ ,AC
-5'!S; !he case ori#inated from an action of quietin# of title 0led
&* Sps Victor :asal and =aria Pecunio a#ainst petitioners =a2imo
Fances and Palicula Sa&ido o$er t%o parcels of land" Lots B and :
!rial court declared the petitioners Sa&ido as o%ners of said lots
:ecision &ecame 0nal &ut %hen it %as &ein# carried out" the sherif
found 3 persons occup*in# portions of Lot B" includin# pri$ate
respondent Sta 5na Sta 5na claimed o%nership &* purchase from
one Prudencio La#arto Sta 5na challen#ed the order of demolition
upon certiorari proceedin#s !he S' remanded the case to the trial
court for the determination %hether or not the pri$ate respondent
is pri$* to the spouses :asal and Pecunio and %hether or not the
petitioners and pri$ate respondents are liti#atin# o$er the same
parcel of land or %hether there is o$erlappin# of &oundaries of their
respecti$e lands
(t %as found out that there %as pri$it* &et%een pri$ate respondent
and the spouses :asal and Pecunio as to the o%nership of Lor '
and as to the possession o$er the disputed Lot B -or that reason"
Sta 5na is &ound &* the 0nal decision a#ainst :asal and thus
su&6ect to the order of e2ecution and is &ound to $acate the land in
question or su&6ect a portion of his house and the surroundin# %alls
to demolition
5 motion of e2ecution %as 0led &* petitioners Sa&ido &ut Sta 5na
appealed sa*in# that the #rant of the motion depri$ed him of the
alternati$e choice of pa*in# the $alue of the disputed area
(SSB9; ?hether or not pri$ate respondent has the option of
e2ercisin# the alternati$e choice of sta*in# in the disputed land
FBL(<E; <e#ati$e !he pri$ate respondent has to remo$e all his
constructions o$er Lot B and $acate the premises !his is his onl*
option Bein# ad6ud#ed %ith pri$* %ith the spouses :asals" he
cannot a$ail himself of the ri#hts #ranted to a &uilder in #ood faith
8e" therefore" must remo$e all his useful impro$ements o$er Lot B
at his o%n e2pense and if the same ha$e alread* &een remo$ed" he
cannot &e entitled to the ri#ht of retention or to an*
reim&ursement