Prop Digest

7/23/2019 Prop Digest

1/13

IGNACIO VS HILARIO

Sometime during the 1940s in Pangasinan, a civil suit arose between Damian Ignacio

and Elias Hilario. Hilario was the owner o a !arcel o land. He later discovered that

Ignacio built some buildings therein "a granar# and a house$. %ter trial, &udge %ntonio

'eli( o the )ourt o 'irst Instance o Pangasinan ruled that both were in good aith

"Hilario was the owner in good aith while Ignacio was the builder in good aith$.

&udge 'eli( then s!elled out the rights o the !arties to wit*

a.$ Ignacio can retain !ossession over the buildings he erected until ater he is !aid b#

Hilario or the value o the buildings he erected+

b.$ Hilario can choose to bu# the said buildings or he can choose to sell Ignacio his landsince the value o his land was onl# P4.00 while the value o the buildings erected was

P-,000.00.

However, Hilario reused to avail o his o!tions. Instead, he iled a motion in court to

have Ignacio be eected and have them destro# the buildings he erected. &udge 'eli!e

/atividad "he re!laced &udge 'eli($, granted Hilarios motion.

ISSUE: hether or not Hilario, the owner in good aith, ma# eect a builder in good aith

without choosing either to a!!ro!riate the building or himsel ater !a#ment o its value

or to sell his land to the builder in good aith.

HELD: /o. The owner in good faith has to mae a !hoi!e . He cannot dis!ense the

o!tions under the law and then eect the builder in good aith. 2his is because both are

in good aith.

But when can the owner in good faith compel the builder in good faith to remove the

building he erected?

2his is onl# available i ater the owner in good aith chose to sell his land to the builder

in good aith and the latter ails to !a# the value o the land within the agree !eriod. 3nl#

then can the owner in good aith com!el the builder in good aith to remove the building

he erected.


2/13

Ta"ag #s $%se!o

'%)2S*

useco had been rendering !roessional services without com!ensation to 5im.

5im oered to useco, to build a house within their lot.

useco acce!ted the oer "believing that the same was a donation or was

com!ensation or the services rendered$

useco built a house thereon.

5im sold to her daughter"2a#ag$ the lots where usecos house stood.

2a#ag as6ed useco to remove their house rom the lots or !a# a monthl# rental.useco reused.

2a#ag iled an action o eection or restitution o the lots.

2he case reached the S) and remanded the case to the 2rial court to give an

o!!ortunit# to 2a#ag to e(ercise their choice and o!tion whether the# would

a!!ro!riate the buildings and !a# useco or the value thereo 37 com!el

useco to !a# or the value o the lots.

In a maniestation, 2a#ag chose to a!!ro!riate the buildings.

2) issued a writ o e(ecution to collect rom 2a#ag the sum or the building.

2a#ag 8uestion said writ, contending that she still retain the right o o!tion and

even i she alread# had made her choice, she cannot be com!elled to !a# the!rice i(ed b# the court because o her inancial inabilit#.

ISSE* 3/2a#ag still retain the right o o!tion.

HE5D* /3. 3nce a choice is made b# the landowner, it is generall# irrevocable.

2hus, i the landowner has o!ted:elected to a!!ro!riate the building but he is

unable to !a# or the indemnit# or amount, the landowner )%//32 aterwards

o!t:elect to sell the land. Since 2a#ags irst choice had alread# been

communicated to the court and she had alread# been ordered to !a#, her dut#

has been converted into a monetar# obligation which can be enorced b# a writ o

e(ecution.

/ote* useco is a !ossessor in good aith, as she believed the land given was a

donation or was com!ensation or the services rendered.


3/13

LEONOR GRANA and &ULIETA TORRAL'A VS( THE COURT O) A**EALS+AURORA 'ONGATO and &ARDENIO SANCHE,

;7 5 ?1 %; 19>0

'acts*

2he herein Petitioners were sued b# @ongato and SancheA or the recover# o =Bs8uare meters o residential land which the# have inherited as the children o thes!ouses Carcos @ongato and Eusebia. 2he ormer were ordered b# the to vacate anddeliver it to said res!ondents and to !a# a monthl# rental o P10.00 rom the iling o thecom!laint until the# actuall# vacate the same, !lus attorne#s ees and costs.

2he Petitioners alleged that the said !ro!ert# became a subect o a cadastral surve#due to conlicts and overla!!ing o boundaries. In that surve#, ;regorio @ongatos lot,according to !etitioners, was identiied as 5ot /o. ?11 and that o Isidaria 2rillo, their!redecessor in interest, as 5ot /o. ?10. )iting the act that 3riginal )ertiicate o 2itle/o. 73 s8uare meters while the area o the land in dis!ute i =B

s8uare meters. %nd what is more, the alleged s6etch !lan o the resurve# was not!resented in evidence.

!on the other hand, it is not dis!uted that the land in 8uestion is !art o the lot coveredb# the 2orrens title issued wa# bac6 in 19-? in the name o res!ondents !redecessor ininterest. Said title has not been contested u! to the !resent, and, thereore, has becomeinconvertible evidence o the ownershi! o the land covered b# it. ell settled is the rulethat a 2orrens certiicate o title becomes conclusive and indeeasible ater the la!se o


4/13

the !eriod within which it ma# be im!ugned "7e#es, et al. vs. @orbon, et al., 0 Phil.,B91+ umul vs. 7ivera, et al., >4 Phil., 1?$.

%lthough without an# legal and valid claim over the land in 8uestion, !etitioners,however, were ound b# the )ourt o %!!eals to have constructed a !ortion o theirhouse thereon in good aith. nder %rticle ?>1 o the old )ivil )ode "%rticle 44= o the

new$, the owner o the land on which an#thing has been built in good aith shall havethe right to a!!ro!riate as his own aith shall have the right to a!!ro!riate as his ownthe building, ater !a#ment to the builder o necessar# and useul e(!enses, and in the!ro!er case, e(!enses or !ure lu(ur# or mere !leasure, or to oblige the builder to !a#the !rice o the land. 7es!ondents, as owners o the land, have thereore the choice oeither a!!ro!riating the !ortion o !etitioners house which is on their land u!on!a#ment o the !ro!er indemnit# to !etitioners, or selling to !etitioners that !art o theirland on which stands the im!rovement. It ma# here be !ointed out that it would beim!ractical or res!ondents to choose to e(ercise the irst alternative, i.e., bu# that!ortion o the house standing on their land, or in that event the whole building might berendered useless. 2he more wor6able solution, it would seem, is or res!ondents to sell

to !etitioners that !art o their land on which was constructed a !ortion o the lattershouse. I !etitioners are unwilling or unable to bu#, then the# must vacate the land andmust !a# rentals until the# do so. 3 course, res!ondents cannot oblige !etitioners tobu# the land i its value is considerabl# more than that o the aorementioned !ortion othe house. I such be the case, then !etitioners must !a# reasonable rent. 2he !artiesmust come to an agreement as to the conditions o the lease, and should the# ail to doso, then the court shall i( the same. "%rticle ?>1, old )ivil )ode+ %rticle 44= o the new$.


5/13

DE*RA V( DU-LAO ./0 SCRA 123

'%)2S*

'rancisco De!ra, is the owner o a !arcel o land registered, situated in the munici!alit#

o Dumangas, Iloilo. %gustin Dumlao, deendant


6/13

DEL CA-*O V( A'ESIA

hen land is co


7/13

72) then assigned the ull ?0s8m to Plainti and ordered Deendants to demolish the

s8m !art o their house encroaching the ?0s8m lot o the Plaintis. Deendants where

aghast at having to a(e the amil# home, hence the# a!!ealed.

)% airmed the decision. So we have the S) coming to the rescue.

ISSE*

w:n the rules o accession a!!lies "and not coownershi!$ on !ro!ert# that used to be

co


8/13

Spouses Del Campo vs Bernarda Abesia

Gr L-49219

April 15, 1988

Fa!s"

Spouses Del Campo, #s!anislao Del Can!o, and Barnarda Abesia $iled $or !%e

par!i!ion o$ !%e proper!& o-o'ned b& !%em( )%e ommissioner '%o surve&ed

!%e proper!& reommended !%a! !%e land be divided in!o !'o, *+ s( me!ers $or

Spouses Del Campo and Del Can!o and 15 s( me!ers $or Abesia( o'ever, i!

'as $ound !%a! !%e %ouse buil! b& Abesia enroa%ed upon !%e par! .iven !o

!%e plain!i$$s(

)%e our! ruled !%a! Ar!ile 448 o$ !%e ivil ode is inappliable and !%e rules

on o-o'ners%ip are more relevan! over !%e enroa%in. s!ru!rure and !%e

land on '%i% i! 'as buil!(

/ssue"

0%e!%er or no! Ar!ile 448 s%ould be applied(


9/13

Deision"

)%e our! ruled !%a! Ar!ile 448 is inappliable over ons!ru!ions made b& a

o-o'ner on a land o-o'ned( o'ever, !%e o-o'ners%ip 'as !ermina!ed b&!%e par!i!ion o$ !%e proper!&( e!i!ioners %as !%e ri.%! !o eerise !%e op!ion

provided in Ar!ile 448 as !%e builder in !%e ase a! bar is no lon.er !%e

lando'ner(

FILIPINAS COLLEGES INC. vs. MARIA GARCIA TIMBANG, ET AL.[G.R. No. L-1281, Septembe 2!, 1!"!#

BARRERA, $.%FACTS%This is an appeal taken from an order of the Court of First Instance of Maniladated May 10, 1957 (a declarin! the "heri#$s certi%cate of sale co&erin! aschool 'uildin! sold at pu'lic auction null and &oid unless ithin 15 daysfrom notice of said order the successful 'idders, defendants)appellantsspouses Maria *arcia Tim'an! and Marcelino Tim'an!, shall pay to, appelleeMaria *er&acio +las directly or throu!h the "heri# of Manila the sum of5,750-00 that the spouses Tim'an! had 'id for the 'uildin! at the "heri#$ssale. (' declarin! the other appellee Filipinas Colle!es, Inc- oner of

/,5002,/35,92 undi&ided interest in 4ot o- /)a co&ered 'y certi%cate oftile o 5970, on hich the 'uildin! sold in the auction sale is situated. and(c orderin! the sale in pu'lic auction of the said undi&ided interest of theFilipinas Colle!es, Inc-, in lot o- /)a aforementioned to satisfy the unpaidportion of the 6ud!ment in fa&or of appellee +las and a!ainst FilipinasColle!es, Inc- in the amount of 3,/00-00 minus the sum of 5,750-00mentioned in (a a'o&e- The order appealed from is the result of threemotions %led in the court a quo in the course of the eecution of a %nal


10/13

6ud!ment of the Court of 8ppeals rendered in / cases appealed to it in hichthe spouses Tim'an!, the Filipinas Colle!es, Inc-, and Maria *er&acio +lasere the parties- The Tim'an! spouses presented their opposition to eachand all of this motion- In assailin! the order of the court a uo directin! theappellants to pay appellee +las the amount of their 'id (5,750-00 made at

the pu'lic auction, appellants$ counsel has presented a no&el, al'eitin!enious, ar!ument- They contend that since the 'uilder in !ood faith hasfailed to pay the price of the land after the oners thereof eercised theiroption under 8rticle 3 of the Ci&il Code, the 'uilder has lost his ri!ht andthe appellants as oners of the land automatically 'ecame the oners ipsofacto-ISS&E'S%

1- :hether or not the contention of the appellants is &alid- If not, hatare the remedies left to the oner of the land if the 'uilder fails to pay;

/- :hether or not the appellants, as oner of the land, may seekreco&ery of the &alue of their land 'y a rit of eecution. le&y the

house of the 'uilder and sell it in pu'lic auction-(OL)ING * RATIO )ECI)EN)I%NO, T(E APPELLANTS CONTENTION IS S&PERFL&O&S.There is nothin!in the lan!ua!e of these to articles, 3 and 5


11/13

the school 'uildin!- :ith respect to the order of the court declarin! appelleeFilipinas Colle!es, Inc- part oner of the land to the etent of the &alue of itspersonal properties sold at pu'lic auction in fa&or of the Tim'an!, this Courtlikeise %nds the same as 6usti%ed, for such amount represents, in e#ect, apartial payment of the &alue of the land- Failure of the Tim'an! spouses to

pay to the "heri# or to Manila *er&acio +las said sum of 5,750-00 ithin%fteen (15 days from notice of the %nal 6ud!ment, an order of eecutionshall issue in fa&or of Maria *er&asio +las to 'e le&ied upon all properties ofthe Tim'an! spouses not eempt from eecution for the satisfaction of thesaid amount-

roperty

Topic art-3

"armiento &s- 8!ana 1/9 scra 1//

Facts>


12/13

?@?"TA as still courtin! his ife, the latter$s mother had told him

the couple could 'uild a @?"IB?TI84 =A"? whom Ernesto did construct a

@?"IB?TI84 =A"? on the 48B at a cost of 3,000-00 to 10,000-00 ho

pro'a'ly assumed that the ife$s mother as the oner of the 48B and

that, it ould 'e transferred to the spouses- "u'seuently turned out that

the 48B had 'een titled in the name of Mr- D Mrs- Eose C- "anto, Er- ho,

sold the same to petitioner "8@MI?TA- "8@MI?TA %led an ?6ectment suit

a!ainst them- In the e&identiary hearin!s 'efore the Municipal Court,

"8@MI?TA su'mitted the deed of sale of the 48B in her fa&or, hich

shoed the price to 'e 15,000-00- An the other hand, ?@?"TA testi%ed

that the then cost of the @?"IB?TI84 =A"? ould 'e from 20,000-00 to

0,000-00-"armiento refuse to pay and !i&e option to 'uy the property-

Issue> 1-:hether or not ?rnesto as in !ood faith-

/-:hether or not "armiento could eercise 'oth refusal to pay the

spouses and !i&e option to purchase-

=eld>

1-es- :e a!ree that ?@?"TA and ife ere 'uilders in !ood faith in

&ie of the peculiar circumstances under hich they had constructed the

@?"IB?TI84 =A"?- 8s far as they kne, the 48B as oned 'y

?@?"TA$s mother)in)la ho, ha&in! stated they could 'uild on the

property, could reasona'ly 'e epected to later on !i&e them the 48B-

In re!ards to 'uilders in !ood faith, 8rticle 3 of the Code pro&ides>t.

hqw

8@T- 3-The oner of the land on hich anythin! has 'een 'uilt, son orplanted in !ood faith,shall ha&e the ri!htto appropriate as his on the orks,

soin! or plantin!, after payment of the indemnity pro&ided for in articles 5

Documents

Prop Digest