PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS ATTY.

PJ BERNARDO
IGNAO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT Facts: Petitioner Florencio Ignao and his uncles Private Respondents Juan Ignao and Isidro Ignao were co-owners of a parcel of land with an area of 534 sq.m. Petitioner filed for an action for partition and in February 1975, the court ruled allotting 133.5 sq.m. or 2/8 of the land to private respondents Juan and Isidro, and giving the remaining portion of 266.5 sq.m. (6/8) to petitioner Florencio. However, no actual partition was ever effected. In 1978, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession of real property against respondents alleging that the are occupied by the 2 houses built by respondents exceeded the 133.5 sq.m. previously allotted to them. After an ocular inspection and survey, it was disclosed that the house of Juan occupied 42 sq.m. while that of Isidro occupied 59 sq.m. of Florencios land or a total of 101 sq.m. The court ruled that pursuant to Art. 448 of the Civil Code, the owner of the land (Florencio) should have the choice to either appropriate that part of the house standing on his land after payment of indemnity to respondents for the improvements (houses), or oblige the builders in good faith to pay the price of the encroached land. However, the court observed that it would be useless and unsuitable for Florencio to appropriate since this would render the houses of Juan and Isidro worthless it effected a workable solution (based on Grana v. CA) ordering Florencio to sell to Juan and Isidro those portions of the land occupied by them for P40.00 per sq.m. On appeal, the IAC (now CA) affirmed the decision of the lower court. Hence, this petition for review filed by Florencio. Issues: 1. The CA erred in considering respondents as builders in good faith thus applying Art. 448 of the Civil Code although the land is still owned by the parties in coownership hence the applicable provision is Art. 486 but it was not applied. 2. That granting that Art 448 is applicable, the Court wrongly applied the workable solution in Grana v. CA, which was just an opinion in said case, and not the judgment rendered therein. 3. That granting respondents could buy the portion of the land occupied by them, the priced fixed by the court is unrealistic and pre-war price. The Courts Ruling: MODIFIED. The records reveal that the land originally belonged to Baltazar Ignao who married twice. In the first marriage, he had 4 children: Justo (father of petitioner Florencio), Leon, and respondents Juan and Isidro. In the second marriage, he also had 4 children but the latter waived their rights over the controverted land in favor of Justo. Thus Justo owned 4/8 (waived by other 4 children) plus his 1/8 share making 5/8. He then acquired Leons share of 1/8 for P500 which he later sold to Florencio for the same amount. Justo died and Florencio inherited the 5/8 share of Justo plus the share he bought making it 6/8. Juan and Isidro have 1/8 share each. Before the February 1975 decision in the partition case was promulgated, Florencio sold 134 sq.m. of his share to Victa in January 1975. 1. Prior to the 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. As co-owners, the parties 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. Art. 448 is applicable to land co-owned as in this case when the co-ownership was terminated by a partition and it appears that the house

1 BY: THERESE MARIE P. QUINTOS ATENEO LAW 2C

PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS ATTY. PJ BERNARDO

of an erstwhile co-owner has encroached upon a portion pertaining to another co-owner which was however made in good faith. 2. The lower courts erred in adopting the workable solution in Grana v. CA because it deprived Florencio, the landowner, of the right to choose between appropriating the land or obliging the builder to buy the land. 3. The question on the price is premature since Florencio has yet to exercise his option as owner of the land.

2 BY: THERESE MARIE P. QUINTOS ATENEO LAW 2C