Ignacio vs Hilario

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 Natividad
ISSUE
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:
o Pay for the building
o 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.


Spouses del Campo vs Abesia

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 expense
ISSUE
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:
o Appropriate said portion of the house of defendants upon the payment of indemnity
to defendants (546)
o 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.

Ignao vs IAC

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 CA
ISSUE
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


Bernardo vs Bataclan

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:
o Acquire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity
o Oblige the builder or planted to pay for the land and the sower to pay the proper
rent
The owner has the options because:
o His right is older
o By principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing


Filipinas Colleges Inc. vs Garcia Timbang, et al

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
o 108 shares of Filipinas Colleges 10,800.00
o 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 P8,200
ISSUE
What is the recourse or remedy left to the parties in such eventuality where the builder fails to
pay the value of the land
HELD
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):
o Appropriate the building
o 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 3
rd
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.


Manotok Realty, Inc. vs Tecson

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)
Unconstitutional
ISSUE

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:
o A person assert title to the land on which he builds, i.e. he be a possessor in
concept of owner
o He be unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it
Only right of BIGF:
o 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





Ballatan vs CA

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
o 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









Pecson vs CA

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 apartment
ISSUE
Application of Articles 448 and 456
HELD
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


Technogas vs CA

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 convicted
ISSUE

HELD
No one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by mere examining his
paper title
Good faith: Technogas
o Belief of the builder that the land he is building is his
o 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:
o Appropriating the encroached portion after payment of proper indemnity
o Obliging the latter to buy the lot
Uy cannot choose a remedy of his own liking.


Pleasantville vs CA

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
o Belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his
o 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

Geminiano vs CA

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 Salcedo Dionisio spouses
Dionisio wrote to Nicolas demanding to vacate the premises and pay the rentals in arrears
within twenty days from notice.
Geminiano filed complaint for unlawful detainer and damages

ISSUE
WON Nicolases are builders in good faith or mere lessees
HELD
Being lessees, the Nicolases knew their occupation of the premises would continue only for
the life of the lase
Full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement
is made applies only to a POSSESSOR IN GOOD FAITH
Not applicable for lessees
NOT possessors in good faith

Heirs of Ramon Durano, Sr. vs Uy

FACTS

ISSUE

HELD