You are on page 1of 7

7/8/2015

G.R.No.125683

TodayisWednesday,July08,2015

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
SECONDDIVISION

G.R.No.125683March2,1999
EDENBALLATANandSPS.BETTYMARTINEZandCHONGCHYLING,petitioners,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, GONZALO GO, WINSTON GO, LI CHING YAO, ARANETA INSTITUTE OF
AGRICULTUREandJOSEN.QUEDDING,respondents.

PUNO,J.:
ThisisapetitionforreviewoncertiorariofthedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdatedMarch25,1996inCAG.R.
CVNo.32472entitled"EdenBallatan.,et.al.,plaintiffsappelleesv.GonzaloGoandWinstonGo,appellantsand
thirdpartyplaintiffsappellantsv.LiChingYao,et.al.,thirdpartydefendants."1
The instant case arose from a dispute over fortytwo (42) square meters of residential land belonging to
petitioners. The parties herein are owners of adjacent lots located at Block No. 3, Poinsettia Street, Araneta
University Village, Malabon, Metro Manila. Lot No. 24, 414 square meters in area, is registered in the name of
petitionersEdenBallatanandspousesBettyMartinezandChongChyLing. 2 Lots Nos. 25 and 26, with an area of
415 and 313 square meters respectively, are registered in the name of respondent Gonzalo Go, Sr. 3 On Lot No. 25,
respondentWinstonGo,sonofGonzaloGo,Sr.,constructedhishouse.AdjacenttoLotNo.26isLotNo.27,417square
metersinarea,andisregisteredinthenameofrespondentLiChingYao.4

In 1985, petitioner Ballatan constructed her house on Lot No. 24. During the construction, she noticed that the
concrete fence and side pathway of the adjoining house of respondent Winston Go encroached on the entire
lengthoftheeasternsideofherproperty. 5Herbuildingcontractorformedherthattheareaofherlotwasactuallyless
thanthatdescribedinthetitle.Forthwith,BallataninformedrespondentGoofthisdiscrepancyandhisencroachmentonher
property. Respondent Go, however, claimed that his house, including its fence and pathway, were built within the
parameters of his father's lot and that this lot was surveyed by Engineer Jose Quedding, the authorized surveyor of the
AranetaInstituteofAgriculture(AIA),theownerdeveloperofthesubdivisionproject.

PetitionerBallatancalledtheattentionoftheIAItothediscrepancyofthelandareainhertitleandtheactualland
areareceivedfromthem.TheAIAauthorizedanothersurveyofthelandbyEngineerJoseN.Quedding.
InareportdatedFebruary28,1985,EngineerQueddingfoundthatthelotareaofpetitionerBallatanwaslessby
few meters and that of respondent Li Ching Yao, which was three lots away, increased by two (2) meters.
Engineer Quedding declared that he made a verification survey of Lots Nos. 25 and 26 of respondents Go in
1983andallegedlyfoundtheboundariestohavebeenintheirproperposition.He,however,couldnotexplainthe
reduction in Ballatan's area since he was not present at the time respondents Go constructed their boundary
walls.6
OnJune2,1985,EngineerQueddingmadeathirdrelocationsurveyuponrequestoftheparties.Hefoundthat
LotNo.24lostapproximately25squaremetersonitseasternboundarythatLotNo.25,althoughfoundtohave
encroached on Lot No. 24, did not lose nor gain any area that Lot No. 26 lost some three (3) square meters
which, however, were gained by Lot No. 27 on its western boundary. 7 In short, Lots Nos. 25, 26 and 27 moved
westwardtotheeasternboundaryofLotNo.24.

Onthebasisofthissurvey,onJune10,1985,petitionerBallatanmadeawrittendemandonrespondentsGoto
removeanddismantletheirimprovementsonLotNo.24.RespondentsGorefused.ThepartiesincludingLiChing
Yao,however,metseveraltimestoreachanagreementonematter.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_125683_1999.html

1/7

7/8/2015

G.R.No.125683

Failing to agree amicably, petitioner Ballatan brought the issue before the barangay. Respondents Go did not
appear.Thus,onApril1,1986,petitionerBallataninstitutedagainstrespondentsGoCivilCaseNo.772MNfor
recoveryofpossessionbeforetheRegionalTrialCourt,Malabon,Branch169.TheGo'sfiledtheir"Answerwith
ThirdParty Complaint" impleading as thirdparty defendants respondents Li Ching Yao, the AIA and Engineer
Quedding.
OnAugust23,1990,thetrialcourtdecidedinfavorofpetitioners.ItorderedtheGo'stovacatethesubjectportion
ofLotNo.24,demolishtheirimprovementsandpaypetitionerBallatanactualdamages,attorney'sfeesandthe
costsofthesuit.Itdismissedthethirdpartycomplaintagainst:(1)AIAafterfindingthatthelotssoldtotheparties
wereinaccordancewiththetechnicaldescriptionaverificationplancoveredbytheirrespectivetitles(2)JoseN.
Quedding,therebeingnoprivityofrelationbetweenhimandrespondentsGoandhiserroneoussurveyhaving
beenmadeattheinstanceofAIA,notthepartiesand(3)LiChingYaoforfailuretoprovethathecommittedany
wronginthesubjectencroachment.8Thecourtmadethefollowingdisposition:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants,
orderingthelatter:
1.Todemolishandremoveallimprovementsexistingandencroachingonplaintiff'slot
2.Toclear,vacateanddeliverpossessionoftheencroachedareatotheplaintiffs
3.Topayplaintiffsjointlyandseverallythefollowing:
a)P7,800.00fortheexpensespaidtothesurveyors
b)P5,000.00forplaintiffs'transportation
4. To pay plaintiffs, jointly and severally, attorney's fees equivalent to 25% of the current market
valueofthesubjectmatterinlitigationatthetimeofexecutionand
5.Topaythecostsofsuit.
ThethirdpartycomplaintfiledbythirdpartyplaintiffGonzaloGoandWinstonGoagainstthirdparty
defendants Araneta Institute of Agriculture, Jose N. Quedding and Li Ching Yao is hereby
DISMISSED,withoutpronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.
Respondents Go appealed. On March 25, 1996, the Court of Appeals modified the decision of the trial court. It
affirmed the dismissal of the thirdparty complaint against the AIA but reinstated the complaint against Li Ching
YaoandJoseQuedding.InsteadoforderingrespondentsGotodemolishtheirimprovementsonthesubjectland,
theappellatecourtorderedthemtopaypetitionerBallatan,andrespondentLiChingYaotopayrespondentsGo,
areasonableamountforthatportionofthelotwhichtheyencroached,thevaluetobefixedatthetimeoftaking.
ItalsoorderedJoseQueddingtopayrespondentsGoattorney'sfeesofP5,000.00forhiserroneoussurvey.The
dispositiveportionofthedecisionreads:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,thedecisionappealedfromisherebyAFFIRMEDinsofarasthe
dismissal of the thirdparty complaint against Araneta Institute of Agriculture is concerned but
modifiedinallotheraspectsasfollows:
1)Defendantsappellantsareherebyorderedtopayplaintiffsappelleesthereasonablevalueofthe
fortytwo(42)squaremetersoftheirlotatthetimeofitstaking
2) Thirdparty defendant Li Ching Yao is hereby ordered to pay defendantsappellants the
reasonablevalueofthethirtyseven(37)squaremetersofthelatter'slotatthetimeofitstakingand
3) Thirdparty defendant Jose N. Quedding is hereby ordered to pay to defendantsappellants the
amountofP5,000.00asattorney'sfees.
LET THE RECORD of the case be remanded to the Regional Trial Court of Malabon for further
proceedingsandreceptionofevidenceforthedeterminationofthereasonablevalueofLotsNos.24
and26.
SOORDERED.9
Hence,thispetition.Petitionersallegethat:

RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED ON QUESTIONS OF LAW AND GRAVELY ABUSED


http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_125683_1999.html

2/7

7/8/2015

G.R.No.125683

ITSDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTIONWHEN:
1. IT APPLIED EQUITY OR EQUITABLE SOLUTIONS TO THE INSTANT CASE IN UTTER
DISREGARD AND IN VIOLATION OR GROSS IGNORANCE OF EXISTING LAWS AND
JURISPRUDENCE VESTING BASIC PROPERTY RIGHTS TO HEREIN PETITIONERS.
RESPONDENT COURT HAS NO POWER TO APPLY/USE EQUITY IN THE PRESENCE OF
EXISTINGLAWSTOTHECONTRARY.
2. UNDER THE GUISE OF APPLYING EQUITY BUT IN EFFECT A VERY APPARENT PARTIALITY
ANDFAVORTORESPONDENTSGO,ITORDEREDPAYMENTOFTHEENCROACHEDAREAAT
THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF ITS TAKING AND NOT THE VALUE AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT,
THEREBYENRICHINGTHEGO'SBUTDEPRIVINGPETITIONERSOFTHEFRUITSORINCREASE
IN VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY TO WHICH THEY ARE ENTITLED UNDER THE LAW AS THE
REGISTEREDOWNERSWITHTORRENSTITLEINTHEIRNAMES.
3.WHENITDIDNOTDISMISSTHETHIRDPARTYCOMPLAINTDUETONONPAYMENTOFANY
FILINGORDOCKETFEE.
4. WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONERS THE RECOVERY OF THE NECESSARY EXPENSES IN
PROTECTINGTHEIRRIGHTSINTHISCASE.10
Petitioners question the admission by respondent Court of Appeals of the thirdparty complaint by respondents
GoagainsttheAIA,JoseQueddingandLiChingYao.Petitionersclaimthatthethirdpartycomplaintshouldnot
havebeenconsideredbytheCourtofAppealsforlackofjurisdictionduetothirdpartyplaintiffs'failuretopaythe
docketandfilingfeesbeforethetrialcourt.
ThethirdpartycomplaintintheinstantcasearosefromthecomplaintofpetitionersagainstrespondentsGo.The
complaintfiledwasforaccionpubliciana,i.e.,therecoveryofpossessionofrealpropertywhichisarealaction.
The rule in this jurisdiction is that when an action is filed in court, the complaint must be accompanied the
paymentoftherequisitedocketandfilingfees. 11Inrealactions,thedocketandfilingfeesarebasedonthevalueof
thepropertyandtheamountofdamagesclaimed,ifany 12Ifthecomplaintisfiledbutthefeesarenotpaidatthetimeof
filing,thecourtacquiresjurisdictionuponfullpaymentofthefeeswithinareasonabletimeasthecourtmaygrant,barring
prescription. 13 Where the fees prescribed for the real action have been paid but the fees of certain related damages are
not, the court, although having jurisdiction over the real action, may not have acquired jurisdiction over the accompnying
claim for damages. 14 Accordingly, the court may expunge those claims for damages, or allow, on motion, a reasonable
time for amendment of the complaint so as to allege the precise amount of damages and accept payment of the requisite
legalfee. 15Ifthereareunspecifiedclaims,thedeterminationofwhichmayariseafterthefilingofthecomplaintorsimilar
pleading, the additional filing fee thereon shall constitute a lien on the judgment award. 16 The same rule also applies to
thirdpartyclaimsandothersimilarpleadings.17

In the case at bar, the thirdparty complaint filed by respondents Go was incorporated in their answer to the
complaint.Thethirdpartycomplaintsoughtthesameremedyastheprincipalcomplaintbutaddedaprayerfor
attorney'sfeesandcostswithoutspecifyingtheiramounts,thus:
ONTHETHIRDPARTYCOMPLAINT
1.ThatsummonsbeissuedagainstThirdPartyDefendantsAranetaInstituteofAgriculture,JoseN.
QueddingandLiChingYao
2. That after hearing, they be sentenced to indemnify the ThirdParty Plaintiffs for whatever is
adjudgedagainstthelatterinfavorofthePlaintiffs
3.ThatThirdPartyDefendantsbeorderedtopayattorney'sfeesasmaybeprovedduringtrial
4.ThatThirdPartyDefendantsbeorderedtopaythecosts.
Otherjustandequitablereliefsarealsoprayedfor.18
TheAnswerwithThirdPartyComplaintwasadmittedbythetrialcourtwithouttherequisitepaymentoffilingfees,
particularlyontheGo'sprayerfordamages. 19 The trial court did not award the Go's any damages. It dismissed the
thirdparty complaint. The Court of Appeals, however, granted the thirdparty complaint in part by ordering thirdparty
defendantJoseN.QueddingtopaytheGo'sthesumofP5,000.00asattorney'sfees.

Contrary to petitioners' claim, the Court of Appeal did not err in awarding damages despite the Go's failure to
specifytheamountprayedforandpaythecorrespondingadditionalfilingfeesthereon.Theclaimforattorney's
feesreferstodamagesarisingafterthefilingofthecomplaintagainsttheGo's.Theadditionalfilingfeeonthis
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_125683_1999.html

3/7

7/8/2015

G.R.No.125683

claimisdeemedtoconstitutealienonthejudgmentaward.20
TheCourtofAppealsfoundthatthesubjectportionisactuallyfortytwo(42)squaremetersinarea,notfortyfive
(45),asinitiallyfoundbythetrialcourtthatthisfortytwo(42)squaremeterportionisontheentireeasternside
ofLotNo.24belongingtopetitionersthatthissaidportionisfoundtheconcretefenceandpathwaythatextends
from respondent Winston Go's house on adjacent Lot No. 25 that inclusive of the subject portion, respondents
Go did not gain nor lose any portion of Lots Nos. 25 and 26 that instead, Lot No. 27, on which respondent Li
Ching Yao built his house, encroached on the land of respondents Go, gaining in the process thirtyseven (37)
squaremetersofthelatter'sland.21
WeholdthattheCourtofAppealscorrectlydismissedthethirdpartycomplaintagainstAIA..Theclaimthatthe
discrepancyinthelotareaswasduetoAIA'sfaultwasnotproved.Theappellatecourt,however,foundthatitwas
the erroneous survey by Engineer Quedding that triggered these discrepancies. And it was this survey that
respondentWinstonGorelieduponinconstructinghishouseonhisfather'sland.Hebuilthishouseinthebelief
thatitwasentirelywithintheparametersofhisfather'sland.Inshort,respondentsGohadnoknowledgethatthey
encroachedpetitioners'lot.Theyaredeemedbuildersingoodfaith22untilthetimepetitionerBallataninformedthem
oftheirencroachmentonherproperty.23

RespondentLiChingYaobuilthishouseonhislotbeforeanyoftheotherpartiesdid. 24Heconstructedhishouse
in 1982, respondents Go in 1983, and petitioners in 1985. 25 There is no evidence, much less, any allegation that
respondentLiChingYaowasawarethatwhenhebuilthishouseheknewthataportionthereofencroachedonrespondents
Go'sadjoiningland.Goodfaithisalwayspresumed,anduponhimwhoallegesbadfaithonthepartofapossessorreststhe
burdenofproof.26

All the parties are presumed to have acted in good faith. Their rights must, therefore, be determined in
accordancewiththeappropriateprovisionsoftheCivilCodeonproperty.
Art.448oftheCivilCodeprovides:
Art.448.Theownerofthelandonwhichanythinghasbeenbuilt,sownorplantedingoodfaith,shall
havetherighttoappropriateashisowntheworks,sowingorplanting,afterpaymentoftheindemnity
providedforinArticles546and548, 27 or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the
land,andtheonewhosowedtheproperrent.However,thebuilderorplantercannotbeobligedtobuytheland
ifitsvalueisconsiderablymorethanthatofthebuildingortrees.Insuchcase,heshallpayreasonablerent,
iftheownerofthelanddoesnotchoosetoappropriatethebuildingortreesafterproperindemnity.Theparties
shallagreeuponthetermsoftheleaseandincaseofdisagreement,thecourtshallfixthetermsthereof.

Theownerofthelandonwhichanythinghasbeenbuilt,sownorplantedingoodfaithshallhavetheright
toappropriateashisownthebuilding,plantingorsowing,afterpaymenttothebuilder,planterorsowerof
the necessary and useful expenses, and in the proper case, expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure.
Theownerofthelandmayalsoobligethebuilder,planterorsowertopurchaseandpaythepriceofthe
land.Iftheownerchoosestosellhisland,thebuilder,planterorsowermustpurchasetheland,otherwise
theownermayremovetheimprovementsthereon.Thebuilder,planterorsower,however,isnotobligedto
purchase the land if its value considerably more than the building, planting or sowing. In such case, the
builder,planterorsowermustpayrenttotheowneroftheland.Ifthepartiescannotcometotermsover
theconditionsofthelease,thecourtmustfixthetermsthereof.Therighttochoosebetweenappropriating
the improvement or selling the land on which the improvement stands to the builder, planter or sower, is
giventotheowneroftheland.28
Art.448hasbeenappliedtoimprovementsorportionsofimprovementsbuiltbymistakenbeliefonlandbelonging
totheadjoiningowner.29ThefactsoftheinstantcasearesimilartothoseinCabralv.Ibanez,30towit:
[P]laintiffsGeronimaZabalaandherhusbandJustinoBernardo,constructedtheirhouseinthebelief
that it was entirely within the area of their own land without knowing at that time that part of their
housewasoccupyinga14squaremeterportionoftheadjoininglotbelongingtothedefendants,and
thatthedefendantsBernardoM.CabralandMamertaM.Cabralwerelikewiseunawareofthefact
thataportionofplaintiff'shousewasextendingandoccupyingaportionoftheirlotwithanareaof14
squaremeters.Thepartiescametoknowofthefactthatpartoftheplaintiff'shousewasoccupying
part of defendant's land when the construction of plaintiff's house was about to be finished, after a
relocation of the monuments of the two properties had been made by the U.S. Army through the
BureauofLands,accordingtotheir"StipulationofFacts,"datedAugust17,1951.
Onthebasisofthesefacts,weheldthat:
Thecourt,therefore,concludesthattheplaintiffsarebuildersingoodfaithandtherelativerightsof
thedefendantMamertaCabralasownerofthelandandoftheplaintiffsasownersofthebuildingis
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_125683_1999.html

4/7

7/8/2015

G.R.No.125683

governedbyArticle361oftheCivilCode(CoTaov.JoaquinChanChico,46Off.Gaz.5514).Article
361oftheoldCivilCodehasbeenreproducedwithanadditionalprovisioninArticle448ofthenew
CivilCode,approvedJune18,1949.31
Similarly,inGranaandTorralbav.CourtofAppeals,32weheldthat:
Althoughwithoutanylegalandvalidclaimoverthelandinquestion,petitioners,however,werefound
by the Court of Appeals to have constructed a portion of their house thereon in good faith. Under
Article361oftheoldCivilCode(Article448ofthenew),theownerofthelandonwhichanythinghas
beenbuiltingoodfaithshallhavetherighttoappropriateashisownthebuilding,afterpaymentto
the builder of necessary or useful expenses, and in the proper case, expenses for pure luxury or
merepleasure,ortoobligethebuildertopaythepriceoftheland.Respondents,asownersofthe
land, have therefore the choice of either appropriating the portion of petitioners' house which is on
their land upon payment of the proper indemnity to petitioners, or selling to petitioners that part of
theirlandonwhichstandstheimprovement.Itmayherebepointedoutthatitwouldbeimpractical
forrespondentstochoosetoexercisethefirstalternative,i.e.,buythatportionofthehousestanding
on their land, for in that event the whole building might be rendered useless. The more workable
solution,itwouldseem,isforrespondentstoselltopetitionersthatpartoftheirlandonwhichwas
constructed a portion of the latter's house. If petitioners are unwilling or unable to buy, then they
must vacate the land and must pay rentals until they do so. Of course, respondents cannot oblige
petitionerstobuythelandifitsvalueisconsiderablymorethanthatoftheaforementionedportionof
thehouse.Ifsuchbethecase,thenpetitionersmustpayreasonablerent.Thepartiesmustcometo
anagreementastotheconditionsofthelease,andshouldtheyfailtodoso,thenthecourtshallfix
thesame.33
Inlightoftheserulings,petitioners,asownersofLotNo.24,maychoosetopurchasetheimprovementmadeby
respondents Go on their land, or sell to respondents Go the subject portion. If buying the improvement is
impracticalasitmayrendertheGo'shouseuseless,thenpetitionersmayselltorespondentsGothatportionof
LotNo.24onwhichtheirimprovementstands.IftheGo'sareunwillingorunabletobuythelot,thentheymust
vacate the land and, until they vacate, they must pay rent to petitioners. Petitioners, however, cannot compel
respondents Go to buy the land if its value is considerably more than the portion of their house constructed
thereon. If the value of the land is much more than the Go's improvement, the respondents Go must pay
reasonablerent.Iftheydonotagreeonthetermsofthelease,thentheymaygotocourttofixthesame.
IntheeventthatpetitionerselecttoselltorespondentsGothesubjectportionoftheirlot,thepricemustbefixed
attheprevailingmarketvalueatthetimeofpayment.TheCourtofAppealserredinfixingthepriceatthetimeof
taking, which is the time the improvements were built on the land. The time of taking is determinative of just
compensationinexpropriationproceedings.Theinstantcaseisnotforexpropriation.Itisnotatakingbythestate
ofprivatepropertyforapublicpurposeuponpaymentofjustcompensation.Thisisacaseofanownerwhohas
beenpayingrealestatetaxesonhislandbuthasbeendeprivedoftheuseofaportionofthislandforyears.Itis
butfairandjusttofixcompensationatthetimeofpayment.34
Art.448andthesameconditionsabovestatedalsoapplytorespondentsGoasownersandpossessorsoftheir
land and respondent Li Ching Yao as builder of the improvement that encroached on thirtyseven (37) square
metersofrespondentsGo'sland.
INVIEWWHEREOF,thedecisionofrespondentCourtofAppealsismodifiedasfollows:
(1)Petitionersareorderedtoexercisewithinthirty(30)daysfromfinalityofthisdecisiontheiroptiontoeitherbuy
theportionofrespondentsGo'simprovementontheirLotNo.24,orselltosaidrespondentstheportionoftheir
landonwhichtheimprovementstands.Ifpetitionerselecttosellthelandorbuytheimprovement,thepurchase
price must be at the prevailing market price at the time of payment. If buying the improvement will render
respondentsGo'shouseuseless,thenpetitionersshouldselltheencroachedportionoftheirlandtorespondents
Go.IfpetitionerschoosetosellthelandbutrespondentsGoareunwillingorunabletobuy,thenthelattermust
vacatethesubjectportionandpayreasonablerentfromthetimepetitionersmadetheirchoiceuptothetimethey
actuallyvacatethepremises.Butifthevalueofthelandisconsiderablymorethanthevalueoftheimprovement,
thenrespondentsGomayelecttoleasetheland,inwhichcasethepartiesshallagreeupontheterms,thelease.
Shouldtheyfailtoagreeonsaidterms,thecourtoforiginisdirectedtofixthetermsofthelease.
Fromthemomentpetitionersshallhaveexercisedtheiroption,respondentsGoshallpayreasonablemonthlyrent
uptothetimethepartiesagreeonthetermsoftheleaseoruntilthecourtfixessuchterms.
(2) Respondents Go are likewise directed to exercise their rights as owners of Lots Nos. 25 and 26, visavis
respondent Li Ching Yao as builder of the improvement that encroached on thirty seven (37) square meters of
respondentsGo'slandinaccordancewithparagraphoneabovementioned.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_125683_1999.html

5/7

7/8/2015

G.R.No.125683

(3)TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsorderingEngineerQuedding,asthirdpartydefendant,topayattorney's
fees of P5,000.00 to respondents Go is affirmed. The additional filing fee on the damages constitutes a lien on
thisaward.
(4)TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdismissingthirdpartycomplaintagainstAranetaInstituteofAgricultureis
affirmed.
SOORDERED.
Bellosillo,Mendoza,QuisumbingandBuena,JJ.,concur.
Footnotes
1 Penned by Justice Celia LipanaReyes and concurred in by Justices Alfredo L. Benipayo and Corona
IbaySomera.
2Exhibit"A,"FolderofPlaintiffs'Exhibits.
3Exhibits"1"and"2,"FolderofDefendantsGo'sExhibits.
4 Exhibit "1," Folder of Defendant Li Ching Yao's Exhibits Exhibit "4a" Folder Of Exhibits of Araneta
InstituteofAgriculture.
5Exhibit"D,"FolderofPlaintiffs'Exhibits.
6Exhibit"1,"FolderofExhibitsQuedding.
7Exhibit"5,"FolderofDefendantsGo'sExhibitsDecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,p.3,Rollo,p.25.
8Decisionofthetrialcourt,p.11,CourtofAppealsRollo,p.86.
9Rollo,p.44.
10Petition,p.4,Rollo,p.6.
11Tacayv.RTCofTagum,DavaodelNorte,180SCRA433,444[1989]SunInsuranceOffice,Ltd.(SIOL)
v.Asuncion170SCRA274,285[1989]seealsoManchesterDevelopmentCorporationv.CourtAppeals,
149SCRA562,568569[1987].
12Tacayv.RTCofTagum,DavaodelNorte,supra,at440,444arealactionmaybecommencedor
prosecutedwithoutanaccompanyingclaimfordamages.
13Id.
14OriginalDev't.andConstructionCorp.v.CourtofAppeals,202SCRA753,760[1991].
15Tacay,supra,at444OriginalDev't.andConstructionCorp.v.CourtofAppeals,supraat760.
16OriginalDevelopmentCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,supra,at761.
17Tacay,supra,at441442SunInsuranceOfficeLtd.v.Asuncion,170SCRA274,285[1989].
18AnswerwithThirdPartyComplaint,p.7,Records37.
19OrderdatedMay30,1986,Records,p.49.
20InSunInsuranceOffice,Ltd.(SIOL)v.Asuncion,supra,at279,itwasheldthattheManchesterruleand
itsclarificationsareproceduralrulesandmaybeappliedretroactivelytoactionspendingandundetermined
at the time of their passage. the instant case was pending at the time Manchester was promulgated in
1987.
21DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,pp.1516,Rollo,pp.3738.
22Art.526,CivilCodeprovides:
Art.526.Heisdeemedapossessoringoodfaithwhoisnotawarethatthereexistsinhistitleormodeof
acquisitionanyflawthatinvalidatesit.
23Art.5281CivilCodeprovides:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_125683_1999.html

6/7

7/8/2015

G.R.No.125683

Art. 528. Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character except in the case and from the
momentfactsexistwhichshowthatthepossessorisnotunawarethathepossessesthethingimproperlyor
wrongfully.
24DecisionoftheCourtofAppeals,p.16,Rollo,p.38.
25Id.,atpp.1617,Rollo,pp.3839.
26Art.527,CivilCode.
27Art.546and548provide:
Art.546.Necessaryexpensesshallberefundedtoeverypossessorbutonlythepossessoringoodfaith
mayretainthethinguntilhehasbeenreimbursedtherefor.
Usefulexpensesshallberefundedonlytothepossessoringoodfaithwiththesamerightofretention,the
personwhohasdefeatedhiminthepossessionhavingtheoptionofrefundingtheamountoftheexpenses
orofpayingtheincreasevaluewhichthethingmayhaveacquiredbyreasonthereof.
Art.548.Expensesforpureluxuryormerepleasureshallnotberefundedtothepossessoringoodfaith
buthemayremovetheornamentswithwhichhehasembellishedtheprincipalthingifitsuffersnoinjury
thereby,andifhissuccessorinthepossessiondoesnotprefertorefundtheamountexpended.
28Grana&Torralbav.CourtofAppeals,109Phil.260,263[1960]Acunav.FurukawaPlantation
Co.,93Phil.957,961[1953]Aringov.Arena,14Phil.263,269[1909].
29GranaandTorralbav.CourtofAppeals109Phil.260,263[1960]Mirandav.Fadullon,97Phil.
801[1955]Cabralv.Ibanez,98Phil.140[1955].
3098Phil.140[1955].
31Id.,at142.
32109Phil.260[1960].
33Id.,at263264.
34SeeCabral v. Ibanez, supra, at 143, where this Court gave the owner of the land thirty days to elect
either to purchase the improvement or sell the land and once having elected, the case was reset for
admissionofevidenceonthevalueoftheimprovement,orthevalueoftheland.Thisimpliesthattheprice
ofthelandorimprovementwasfixeddefinitelynotatthetimetakingseealsoAringov.Arena,supra, at
270.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1999/mar1999/gr_125683_1999.html

7/7

You might also like