100%(1)100% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (1 Abstimmung)
863 Ansichten2 Seiten
Maria Gervacio Blas was found to be a builder in good faith of a school building constructed on a lot. The spouses Timbang successfully bid on the school building at a public auction and were ordered to pay Blas. Filipinas Colleges, Inc. was ordered to deliver stock and pay unpaid balances to Blas regarding the purchase of the building. The Supreme Court affirmed that Blas was a builder in good faith and ordered the appellants to pay Blas the amount of their bid.
Maria Gervacio Blas was found to be a builder in good faith of a school building constructed on a lot. The spouses Timbang successfully bid on the school building at a public auction and were ordered to pay Blas. Filipinas Colleges, Inc. was ordered to deliver stock and pay unpaid balances to Blas regarding the purchase of the building. The Supreme Court affirmed that Blas was a builder in good faith and ordered the appellants to pay Blas the amount of their bid.
Maria Gervacio Blas was found to be a builder in good faith of a school building constructed on a lot. The spouses Timbang successfully bid on the school building at a public auction and were ordered to pay Blas. Filipinas Colleges, Inc. was ordered to deliver stock and pay unpaid balances to Blas regarding the purchase of the building. The Supreme Court affirmed that Blas was a builder in good faith and ordered the appellants to pay Blas the amount of their bid.
No. L-12813. Spetember 29, 1959 SUCCESSFUL BIDDERS MARIA GARCIA TIMBANG AND MARCELINO TIMBANG DEFENDANT APPELLANTS PLAINTIFF APPELLEE MARIA GERVACIO BLAS FACTS: Maria Gervacio Blas was declared to be a builder in good faith of the school building constructed on the lot in question. Spouses Timbang were the successful bidders of the school building sold at a public auction and shall pay Maria Gervacio Blas directly or through Sheriff of Manila P5,750.00. Filipinas Colleges, Inc. was declared to have acquired the rights of the spouses Timbang in and to Lot No. 2 thereof, Filipinas Colleges Inc was ordered to pay the spouses Timbang the amount of P15,807.90 plus other amounts which said spouses might have paid to the original vendor of Filipinas Colleges. Filipinas College Inc, purchaser of the said building was ordered to deliver to Blas stock certificate for 108 shares of the said school with par value of P10,800.0 and to pay Blass the sum of P8,200.00 representing the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the house. In case Filipinas Colleges failed to comply in the 90 day period, the latter would lose all its rights to the land and spouses Timbang would become the owners thereof. Upon failure to settle the payments, spouses Timbang had chosen not to appropriate the building but to compel Filipinas Colleges Inc to acquire the land and pay them the value thereof. Blas through a cpunsel, sent a letter to the Sherff of Manila advising him of her preferential claim or lien on the house to satisfy the unpaid balance of the purchase price thereof and to withhold from the process of the auction sale the sum of P8,200. Blas in turn filed a motion for execution of her judgment of P8,200.00 representing the unpaid portion of the price of the house sold to Filipinas Colleges Inc.
Blas claim for preference on account of the unpaid balance of the
purchase price of the house does not apply because preference applies only with respect to the property or the debtor, and the Timbangs, owners of the house are not the debtors of Blas. The owners of the land, instead of electing any of the alternatives, chose to seek recovery of the value of their land by asking for a writ of execution; levying on the house of the builder and selling the same in public auction. And because they are the highest bidder in their own auction sale, they now claim they acquired title to the building without necessity of paying in cash on account of their bid. In other words, they in effect pretend to retain their land and acquire the house without paying a cent therefor. ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent Blas is a builder in good faith? HELD: Yes. The Supreme Court affirms the decision of the Court of Appeals. The court ordert he appellants to pay appellee Blas the amount of their bid made at public auction. ANALYSIS: In the instant case, the Court of Appeals has already adjudged that appellee 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. CONCLUSION: It is true that the owner of the land has the right to choose between appropriating the building by reimbursing the builder of the value thereof or compelling the builder in good faith to pay for his land.