Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
WON the trial court erred in ordering Tobon to deliver to
the plaintiffs the fruits of the land from 1912 to 1927?
RULING:
Yes, the trial court erred insofar that it ordered Tobon to
deliver to the plaintiffs the fruits of the land from 1912 to
1927. Evidence being lacking to show that when he entered
upon the possession of the lands in question, he was aware
of any flaw in his title or mode of acquiring it,he is deemed a
3) Floreza vs Evangelista
Facts: Petitioners own a residential lot upon which
respondent built a house of light material which was with
the consent of petitioners but with no agreement as to the
rental since the petitioners have a debt of P100.00 to
respondent. Petitioners subsequently borrowed more
money from respondent the value of which reached
P740.00. Respondent demolished the house and replaced it
with a house of strong materials and as before, no rentals
were paud. Petitioner then sold said lot to respondent with
a right of repurchase within 6 years. Before the expiration of
the repurchase period, the petitioners paid in full the
repurchase price. Petitioners then asked respondent to
vacate the premises who however refused to do so until he
was reimbursed the value of his house.
Issue: WON petitioner was a builder in good faith
Facts:
- restituta tacalinar guanaco de pombuena received the
questioned lot of the cadastre survey of the municipality of
centro mizamis occidental either as a purported donation or
by way of purchase (50php, feb 11,1927)
- transaction took place during her mother's lifetime, her
father having predeceased the mother
- that the donation or sale was consummated while restituta
was already married to juan pombuenA
- jan 22,1935 Juan filed for himself and his supposed coowner restituta an application for a torrens title over the
land
- nov 22,1938 a decision was promulgated pronouncing juan
(married to restituta) as the owner of the land
- sept 22,1949 a contract of lease was entered into bet pet
and restituta (with consent of Juan) for 10 years
- dec 27 1960 restituta sued pet for unlawful detainer (the
lease contract having expired)
- an original certificate of title was issued in Juan's name
("married to restituta")
- unlawful detainer case was won by spouses in the
municipal court but cfi dismissed it on appeal bec of an
understanding (barter) whereby pet became the owner of
the disputed lot and the spouses in turn became the owners
of a parcel of land (with house constructed thereon)
previously owned by pet
- that the barter agreement (oct 10,1962) bet juan and pet,
pet constructed on disputed land a concrete building,
without any objection on the part of restituta
- restituta sued both Juan and pet for reconveyance of the
title over the lot, for the annulment of the barter, and for
recovery of the land with damages
Issue:
1. Is the questioned lot paraphernal or conjugal?
2. In having constructed the building on the lot, should pet
be regarded as a builder in good faith (hence be entitled to
reimbursement) or a builder in bad faith (no right to
reimbursement)?
Held:
1. Land is conjugal. Not donation, no public instrument.
Ownership was acquired both by Juan and restituta by
tradition (delivery) as a consequence of contract of sale
(50php). Lot is conjugal, having been acquired by the
spouses thru onerous title (money used being presumably
conjugal there being no proof that restituta had paraphernal
funds of her own).
been exhausted.
Because of PETCs refusal to pay the delinquency the
Lopez Inc. brought an action of ejectment in the Municipal
Court of Baguio to have the PETC vacate the premises pay
the back rentals with legal interest
Municipal Court rendered judgment in favor of the
Plaintiff
PETC appealed to the Court of First Instance of Baguio. CFI
ruled in favor of the Plaintiff ordering the Defendant to
vacate the property. Said Defendant, however, is not
obliged to pay the said P300 monthly in cash. It has the right
to set off against the rental, part of the value of the
improvements. Regarding the P2,200, back rentals, the
court also declares that this sum is already offset by a part
of the amount of the value of the improvements. The
Defendant is free from paying it in cash.
Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals
Issue: WON the PETC have the right to reimburse the value
of the improvements from Lopez Inc.
Held: As the Court already said, they both thought that a
lessee may be considered a possessor in good faith and that
improvements introduced by him on the leased premises
are to be regarded as made in good faith. This rule or
principle contained in the civil law refers only to party who
occupies or possess property in the belief that he is the
owner thereof and said good faith ends only when he
discovers a flaw in his title so as to reasonably advise or
inform him that after all he may not be the legal owner of
said property. This principle of possessor in good faith
naturally cannot apply to a lessee because as such lessee he
knows that he is not the owner of the leased property.
Neither can he deny the ownership or title of his lessor.
Knowing that his occupation of the premises continues only
during the life of the lease contract and that he must vacate
the property upon termination of the lease or upon the
violation by him of any of its terms, he introduces
improvements on said property at his own risk in the sense
that he cannot recover their value from the lessor, much
less retain the premises until such reimbursement. His right
to improvements introduced by him is expressly governed
by Articles 1573 and 487 of the old Civil Code which reads as
follows:
Article 1573. A lessee shall have, with respect to useful and
voluntary improvements, the same rights which are granted
to usufructuaries.
Article 487. The usufructuary may make on the property
10. Pecson vs CA
Facts: Petitioner Pecson was the owner of a commercial lot
located at Quezon City on which he built a four-story
apartment building. Petitioner however failed to pay realty
taxes which caused said land to be sold at public auction by
the city treasurer who in turn sold it to herein private
respondents spouses Nuguid. The respondents contend that
the building should be included in the sale but the trial court
as well as the CA and the SC upon a petition for review,
denied such.
In 1993, respondents filed with the trial court a motion for
the delivery of possession of the lot and the apartment
building citing Art 546 of the Civil Code. The trial court
decreed that the movant (respondent) shall reimburse
thereof. But he said he could not pay and the land was sold
at public auction to Toribio Teodoro. When he failed to pay
for the land, the defendant herein lost his right of retention.
ISSUE:Whether or not there is good faith.
RULING: The court finds that defendant has lost his right of
retention. In obedience to the decision of this court in G.R.
No. 37319, the plaintiff expressed his desire to require the
defendant to pay for the value of the land. The said
defendant could have become 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 to Toribio Teodoro. The law, as we have already
said, requires no more than that the owner of the land
should choose between indemnifying the owner of the
improvements or requiring the latter to pay for the land.
When he failed to pay for the land, the defendant herein
lost his right of retention.
The sale at public auction having been asked by the plaintiff
himself and the purchase price of P8,000 received by him
from Toribio Teodoro, we find no reason to justify a rapture
of the situation thus created between them, the defendantappellant not being entitled, after all, to recover from the
plaintiff the sum of P2,212.
17.Republic vs CA
Facts: Respondents are the registered owners of a parcel of
land in Meycuayan, Bulacan. They subsequently filed an
application for the registration of three lots adjacent to their
property. The provincial fiscal however opposed said
application and the respondents subsequently filed a partial
withdrawal of their application and proceeded only upon
one lot (Lot 1) upon recommendation of the Commissioner
appointed by the court. The lower court then granted such
application finding the lands to be accretions top the
respondent"s land which the CA likewise approved of.
The petitioner submits that there is no accretion to speak of
under Article 457 of the New Civil Code because what
actually happened is that the private respondents simply
transferred their dikes further down the river bed of the
Meycauayan River, and thus, if there is any accretion to
speak of, it is man-made and artificial and not the result of
the gradual and imperceptible sedimentation by the waters
of the river.
Facts:
A lot, which was formerly a part of Lot No. 908 of the
Cadastral Survey of Jaro, Iloilo, was plaintiff C.N. Hodges
from Salustiano Mirasol and subsequently registered in his
name as evidenced by a TCT issued by the Register of Deeds
of Iloilo. This property was bounded on the north by the
Salog River. Adjoining that river on the other side is Lot No.
2290, which was purchased by Amador D. Garcia from Dr.
Manuel Hechanova.
Garcia had the land he bought resurveyed. The survey
disclosed that the land, which was originally surveyed in
1912 and was then bounded on the SE and SW by the Salog
river, had increased in area by the river bank, and that the
added area, which bounds the land on the SE and SW, is in
turn bounded on the SE and SW by the Salog river.
In due time, defendant applied for the registration of the
additional area under the Land Registration Act. The
cadastral court rendered a decision holding that the land
sought to be registered is an accretion to Lot No. 2290 and
decreeing that the land be registered in his name. OCT was
issued in favor of Garcia.
CN Hodges filed an action with the CFI Iloilo for the
possession of a portion of land designated as Lot 908-Q with
an area of 5,931 sq. m., which he claims that the portion of
the area added to Lot No. 2290 was separated from his Lot
No. 908 by the current of the river when the Salog river
changed its course, and the separation was abrupt, like in
avulsion, so that under Art. 374 of the Civil Code (Art. 463 of
the new) he retains ownership thereof. The court ruled in
favor of Garcia.
Hodges appealed to the CA. The appellate court certified
the case to SC that it was decided upon a stipulation of facts
and for that reason question of facts can no longer be raised
on appeal.
Issue: who has better right over the lot in question
Held: It clearly appearing that the land in question has
become part of Garcia's estate as a result of accretion, it
follows that said land now belongs to him. The fact that the
accretion to his land used to pertain to Hodges's estate,
which is covered by a Torrens certificate of title, cannot
preclude Garcia from being the owner thereof. Registration
does not protect the riparian owner against the diminution
of the area of his land through gradual changes in the
course of the adjoining stream. Accretions which the banks
of rivers may gradually receive from the effect of the
current become the property of the owners of the banks.
(Art. 366 of the old Civil Code; art. 457 of the new.) Such
accretions are natural incidents to land bordering on
running streams and the provisions of the Civil Code in that
respect are not affected by the Land Registration Act.
(Payatas Estate Improvement Co. vs. Tuason, supra).
21 BAES vs CA
FACTS: The govt dugged a canal on a private parcel of land
to streamline the Tripa de Gallina Creek. This lot was later
acquired by Baes. The lot was divided into 3 parcels. The
government gave him another equivalent parcel as
compensation since the middle part (B) of Baes lot was
covered by the canal. Baes had the Aand C parcel
resurveyed. He submitted a petition for the approval of his
resurvey and subdivision plans, claiming that after the said
lots were plotted by a competent surveyor, it was found
that there were errors in respect of their bearings and
distances. This was approved by the CFI.
The Republic of the Philippines discovered that Lot B the
petitioners had erected an apartment building, covered Lot
3611 of the Pasay Cadastre, which is a filled-up portion of
the Tripa de Gallina creek. Moreover, lot C had been
unlawfully enlarged. The RTC then ruled that lot C be
reverted back to its status before the resurvey of the said
lot.
The only remaining dispute relates to lot B, which the
petitioners, relying on Article 461 of the Civil Code, are
claiming as their own. The government rejects this claim
and avers that the petitioners had already been fully
compensated for it
ISSUE:WON Baes owned Lot 1-B.
RULING:
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED, with costs against the
petitioners. It is so ordered.
Art. 461, NCC
River beds abandoned through NATURAL CHANGE ipso
facto belong to owner whose lands are occupied by the new
course in proportion to the are lost. Owners of the land
adjoining the river bed have the right to acquire by paying
its value (must not exceed value of new beds area)
If change is due to concessioners authorized by the
Government, the concession may be granted to
concessioners. No grant = land belongs to owners of land
covered by the waters. Must not prejudice tge superior
rights of third persons with sufficient title.