Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
TECNOGAS
PHILIPPINES
MANUFACTURING
CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
(FORMER SPECIAL SEVENTEENTH DIVISION) and
EDUARDO UY, respondents.
Civil Law; Property; Unless one is versed in the science of
surveying, no one can determine the precise extent or location of
his property by merely examining his paper title.We disagree
with respondent Court. The two cases it relied upon do not
support its main pronouncement that a registered owner of land
has presumptive knowledge of the metes and bounds of its own
land, and is therefore in bad faith if he mistakenly builds on an
adjoining land. Aside from the fact that those cases had factual
moorings radically different from those obtaining here, there is
nothing in those cases which would suggest, however remotely,
that bad faith is imputable to a registered owner of land when a
part of his building encroaches upon a neighbors land, simply
because he is supposedly presumed to know the boundaries of his
land as described in his certificate of title. No such doctrinal
statement could have been made in those cases because such
issue was not before the Supreme Court. Quite the contrary, we
have rejected such a theory in Co Tao vs. Chico, where we held
that unless one is versed in the science of surveying, no one can
determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely
examining his paper title.
Same; Same; Good faith consists in the belief of the builder
that the land he is building on is his, and his ignorance of any
defect or flaw in his title.There is no question that when
petitioner purchased the land from Pariz Industries, the buildings
and other structures were already in existence. The record is not
clear as to who actually built those structures, but it may well be
assumed
that
petitioners
predecessorininterest,
Pariz
Industries, did so. Article 527 of the Civil Code presumes good
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/23
9/2/2016
THIRD DIVISION.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/23
9/2/2016
paying the indemnity required by law, or (2) sell the land to the
builder.The obvious benefit to the builder under this article is
that, instead of being outrightly ejected from the land, he can
compel the landowner to make a choice between the two options:
(1) to appropriate the building by paying the indemnity required
by law, or (2) sell the land to the builder. The landowner cannot
refuse to exercise either option and compel instead the owner of
the building to remove it from the land.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioner is deemed to have stepped into
the shoes of the seller in regard to all rights of ownership over the
immovable sold, including the right to compel the private
respondent to exercise either of the two options provided under
Article 448 of the Civil Code.Upon delivery of the property by
Pariz Industries, as seller, to the petitioner, as buyer, the latter
acquired ownership of
7
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/23
9/2/2016
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
4/23
9/2/2016
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
5/23
9/2/2016
10
10
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
6/23
9/2/2016
Rollo, p. 10.
11
11
tiffs buildings and wall at the price of P2,000.00 per square meter
and to pay the former:
1. The sum of P44,000.00 to compensate for the losses in
materials and properties incurred by plaintiff through
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/23
9/2/2016
12
12
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/23
9/2/2016
Ibid., p. 392.
10
Ibid., p. 399.
11
Ibid., p. 402.
13
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
9/23
9/2/2016
13
Ibid., p. 410.
13
Ibid., p. 416.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
10/23
9/2/2016
Ibid., p. 423.
15
Ibid., p. 247.
14
14
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
11/23
9/2/2016
____________________________
16
17
18
19
Rollo, p. 14.
15
15
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
12/23
9/2/2016
U.S. vs. Rapian, 1 Phil. 294, 296 (1902); City of Manila vs. del
Rosario, 5 Phil. 227, 231 (1905); Gabriel, et al. vs. Bartolome, et al., 7 Phil.
699, 706 (1907); Sideco vs. Pascua, 13 Phil. 342, 344 (1909); Arriola vs.
Gomez De la Serna, 14 Phil. 627, 629 (1909); Cea vs. Villanueva, 18 Phil.
538, 542 (1911); Bondad vs. Bondad, 34 Phil. 232, 233 (1916); Serra vs.
National Bank, 45 Phil. 907 (1924); Escritor vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 155 SCRA 577, 583, November 12, 1987.
22
23
16
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
13/23
9/2/2016
Robleza vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 354, 365, June 28, 1989
26
Ortiz vs. Kayanan, 92 SCRA 146, 159, July 30, 1979 citing Article
17
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
14/23
9/2/2016
Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605 (1946); Sarmiento vs. Agana, 129
18
Estoppel
Respondent Court ruled that the amicable settlement
entered into between petitioner and private respondent
estops the former from questioning the private
respondents right over the disputed property. It held that
by undertaking to demolish the fence under said
settlement, petitioner recognized private respondents right
over the property, and cannot later on compel private
respondent to sell to it the land since
private respondent
28
is under no obligation to sell. We do not agree.
Petitioner cannot be held in estoppel for entering into the
29
amicable settlement, the pertinent portions of which read:
That the parties hereto have agreed that the rear portion of the
fence that separates the property of the complainant and
respondent shall be demolished up to the back of the building
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
15/23
9/2/2016
Rollo, p. 14.
29
30
19
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
16/23
9/2/2016
Civil Code on the basis merely of the fact that some years
after acquiring the property in good faith, it learned about
and aptly recognizedthe right of private respondent to
a portion of the land occupied by its building. The
supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner
does not militate against its right to claim the status of a
builder in good faith. In fact, a judicious reading of said
Article 448 will readily show that the landowners exercise
of his option can only take place after the builder shall
have come to know of the intrusionin short, when both
parties shall have become aware of it. Only then will the
occasion for exercising the option arise, for it is only then
that both parties will have been aware that a problem
exists in regard to their property rights.
Options of Private Respondent
What then is the applicable provision in this case which
private respondent
may invoke as his remedy: Article 448
31
or Article 450 of the Civil Code?
____________________________
31
Article 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,
planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or
that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their
former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed;
or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and
the sower the proper rent.
20
20
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
17/23
9/2/2016
33
Ignacio vs. Hilario, supra. In Sarmiento vs. Agana 129 SCRA 122,
21
21
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
18/23
9/2/2016
35
36
At p. 265.
37
Supra.
Heirs of Crisanta Y. GabrielAlmoradie vs. Court of Appeals, 229
22
Petitioner, however, must also pay the rent for the property
occupied by its building as prescribed by respondent Court
from October 4, 1979, but only up to the date private
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
19/23
9/2/2016
41
Castillo vs. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 529, 537, January 27, 1992,
citing Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5,
November 6, 1989 and Espiritu vs. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 50, June
19, 1985.
42
43
but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been
reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith
with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the
possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of
paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason
thereof.
23
23
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
20/23
9/2/2016
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
21/23
9/2/2016
24
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
22/23
9/2/2016
25
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156e6c216df39a2f52d003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
23/23