CASES IN PROPERTY BATCH 4 (DIGEST)1.Bernardo v. BataclanP!"l. #$%&act'(By a contract of sale executed from Pastor Samonte and others ownership of a parcelof land of about 90 hectares. To secure possession of the land from the vendors the saidplaintif, on uly !0, "9!9, instituted a civil case. The trial court found for the plaintif in adecisionwhichwasa#rmedbythisSupreme$ourt onappeal %&.'. (o. ))0"*+. ,henplaintifentereduponthepremises, however, hefoundthedefendant herein, $atalinoBataclan, who appears to have been authori-ed by former owners, as far bac. as "9!!, toclearthelandandma.eimprovementsthereon. /sBataclanwasnotapartyinthe civilcase, plaintif, on une "", "9)", instituted a0ainst him a civil case. 1n this case, plaintif wasdeclaredownerbutthedefendantwasheldtobeapossessorin0oodfaith, entitledforreimbursement in the total sum of P",23!, for wor. done and improvements made.The defendantstates thatheisa possessorin 0ood faith andthat the amountofP!,!"! to which he is entitled has not yet been paid to him. Therefore, he says, he has ari0ht to retain the land in accordance with the provisions of article 34) of the $ivil $ode. 1nobedience to the decision of this court in &.'. (o. )*)"9, the plaintif expressed his desire tore5uirethedefendant topayfor thevalueof theland. Thesaiddefendant couldhavebecome owner of both land and improvements and continued in possession thereof. But hesaid he could not pay and the land was sold at public auction to Toribio Teodoro. ,hen hefailed to pay for the land, the defendant herein lost his ri0ht of retention.I'')e(,hether or not there is 0ood faith.Held(The 6ud0ment of the lower court is accordin0ly modi7ed by eliminatin0 therefrom thereservation made in favor of the defendant8appellant to recover from the plaintif the sum ofP!,!"!. 1n all the respects, the same is a#rmed, without pronouncement re0ardin0 costs. SoorderedThesaleatpublicauctionhavin0beenas.edbytheplaintifhimself%p. !!, bill ofexceptions+ and the purchase price of P9,000 received by him from Toribio Teodoro, we 7ndno reason to 6ustify a rapture of the situation thus created between them, the defendant8appellant not bein0 entitled, after all, to recover from the plaintif the sum of P!,!"!.*. S+o)'e' Del Oca,+o v. A-e'"a 1. SCRA /0$&act'(Thiscaseinvolvesaparcel of land, situatedat thecorner of :. :loresand$avanStreets, $ebu $ity. /n action for partition was 7led by plaintifs in the $:1 of $ebu. Plaintifsand defendants are co8owners pro indiviso of this lot in the proportion of and ";) share each,respectively. The trial court appointed a commissioner in accordance with the a0reement ofthe parties. ,the 1d commissioner conducted a survey, prepared a s.etch plan and submitteda report to the trial court on ot (o. ""2"8B withanarea of "4s5uare meters for the defendants.The houses ofplaintifsanddefendantswere surveyed and shown on the s.etch plan. The house of defendants occupied the portionwithanareaof4s5uaremetersof>ot""2"8/ofplaintifs. Thepartiesmanifestedtheirconformity to the report and as.ed the trial court to 7nally settle and ad6udicate who amon0the parties should ta.e possession of the 4 s5uare meters of the land in 5uestion.I'')e( ,hether or (ot /rticle 339 of the $ivil $ode is applicable to a builder in 0ood faithwhen the property involved is owned in common.Held( ,hen the co8ownership is terminated by the partition and it appears that the house ofdefendantsoverlapsor occupiesaportionof 4s5uaremetersof thelandpertainin0toplaintifs which the defendants obviously built in 0ood faith, then the provisions of /rticle339 of the new $ivil $ode should apply. i.ewise, &o was also 0iven time to do the re0ardin0 JaoBs encroachment. Hn0ineerSueddin0 was still as.ed to pay attorneyBs fees.11. Develo+,ent Cor+orat"on v. Co)rt o6 A++eal' G.R. No. 0$%%5 &e-r)ar4 15 1$$Doctr"ne( Good 6a"t! con'"'t' "n t!e -el"e6 o6 t!e -)"lder t!at !e land !e "' -)"ld"n1on "' !"' and !"' "1norance o6 an4 de6ect or 9a: "n !"' t"tle. T!e -)rden o6 +rov"n1-ad 6a"t! -elon1' to t!e one a''ert"n1 "t.&act'= Hdith 'obillo purchased from Pleasantville Kevelopment $orporation, herein petitionera parcel of land at Pleasantville Subdivision, Bacolod $ity. The property was desi0nated as>ot 9, Phase 11. 1n "9*4, herein respondent Hldred ardinico bou0ht the said sub6ect lot fromthe former purchaser. Hldred later discovered that the property he purchased hadimprovements introduced therein by respondent ,ilson Aee.Aee on the other hand bou0ht on installments >ot 9 of the same subdivision from $.T.TorresHnterprises, 1nc. %$TTH1+whichistheexclusivereal estatea0entof thepetitioner.Cnderthecontract Aeewasallowedtota.epossessionof thepropertyevenbeforefullpayment of the price. $TTH1 throu0h an employee, Tenaida ?ctaviano accompanied AeeBswife Konabelle to inspect >ot (o. 9. ?ctaviano however mista.enly pointed towards >ot 9.@ence spouses Aee had their residence, an auto repair shop, a store and otherimprovements constructed on the wron0 lot. Cpondiscoveryof theblunder bothAeeandardinicotriedtoreachanamicablesettlement but they failed. ardinico demanded that the improvements be removed but asAeerefused, ardinico7ledacomplaint for e6ectment withdama0esa0ainst Aeeat theot9thatwasdeliveredtohim. PetitionerfurthercontendsthatAeewasne0li0entasaprovision in the $ontract of Sale on 1nstallment stated that the vendee must have personallyexamined the property and shall bear on his own the conse5uential expenses in the chan0esthatmayhappenthereon. Thecourtheldthatsuchprovisioncannotbeinterpretedasawaiver of the vendeeBs ri0ht to recover dama0es resultin0 from petitionerBs ne0li0ence. Suchinterpretationof thewaiveriscontrarytolawandpublicpolicyandcannot beallowed.Petitioner cannot claim and excuse itself from liability by claimin0 that it was not directlyinvolved in the delivery of the property. The principal must be responsible for the acts of thea0ent done within the scope of his authority. $TTH1 was the sole real estate representative ofthe petitioner whenthedeliverywas made.,ilson Aeeisthereforedeclaredabuilder in0ood faith. Petitioner and respondent $TTH1 are declared solidarily liable for dama0es due tone0li0ence. The award of rentals to ardinico is dispensed with1*.C)re1 v. Inter,ed"ate A++ellate Co)rt G.R. No. 0/4#5 Se+te,-er 05 1$%$