5/25/2017 G.R.No.

157150

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila

FIRSTDIVISION
PEDROANGELES, G.R.No.157150
RepresentedbyADELINAT.
ANGELES,AttorneyinFact, Present:
Petitioner,
CORONA,C.J.,Chairperson,
LEONARDODECASTRO,
versus BERSAMIN,
DELCASTILLO,and

*PEREZ,JJ.
ESTELITAB.PASCUAL,
MARIATHERESAPASCUAL,
NERISSAPASCUAL,IMELDA Promulgated:
PASCUAL,MA.LAARNI
PASCUALandEDWIN
PASCUAL, September21,2011
Respondents.
xx

RESOLUTION

BERSAMIN,J.:


[1]
UnderappealisthedecisionpromulgatedonJanuary31,2002inCAG.R.CVNo.61600,
which involved a dispute about the true location of the respective lots of the parties, with the
respondents claiming that the petitioner had encroached on their lot but the latter denying the
encroachment.

Antecedents

Neighbors Regidor Pascual (Pascual) and Pedro Angeles (Angeles) were registered owners of
adjacentparcelsoflandlocatedinCabanatuanCity.PascualownedLot4,Block2(Lot4)ofthe
consolidationsubdivisionplan(LRC)Psd951,aportionoftheconsolidationofLots1419B
2B3, 1419B2B4 and 1419B2B5, Psd 9016, LGC (GLRO) Cadastral Record No. 94
[2]
coveredbyTransferCertificateTitleNo.T43707oftheRegistryofDeedsofNuevaEcija

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/157150.htm 1/8
5/25/2017 G.R.No.157150

AngelesownedLot5,Block2(Lot5)ofthesameconsolidationsubdivisionplancoveredby
[3]
TCTNo.T9459oftheRegistryofDeedsofNuevaEcija. Eachofthembuiltahouseonhis
respectivelot,believingallthewhilethathisrespectivelotwasproperlydelineated.Itwasnot
until Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company (Metrobank), as the highest bidder in the
foreclosuresaleoftheadjacentLot3,Block2(Lot3),causedtherelocationsurveyofLot3that
the geodetic engineer discovered that Pascuals house had encroached on Lot 3. As a
consequence,MetrobanksuccessfullyejectedPascual.

In turn, Pascual caused the relocation survey of his own Lot 4 and discovered that Angeles
housealsoencroachedonhislot.Ofthe318squaremeterscomprisingLot4,Angelesoccupied
252squaremeters,leavingPascualwithonlyabout66squaremeters.Pascualdemandedrentals
for the use of the encroached area of Lot 4 from Angeles, or the removal of Angeles house.
Angelesrefusedthedemand.Accordingly,PascualsuedAngelesforrecoveryofpossessionand
damagesintheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC)inCabanatuanCity.

In the course of the trial, Pascual presented Clarito Fajardo, the geodetic engineer who had
[4]
conductedtherelocationsurveyandhadmadetherelocationplanofLot4. Fajardotestified
thatAngeleshousewaserectedonLot4.Ontheotherhand,AngelespresentedJuanFernandez,
thegeodeticengineerwhohadpreparedthesketchplanrelieduponbyAngelestosupporthis
[5]
claim that there had been no encroachment. However, Fernandez explained that he had
performedonlyatablework,thatis,hedidnotactuallygotothesitebutbasedthesketchplan
on the descriptions and bearings appearing on the TCTs of Lot 4, Lot 5 and Lot 6 and
[6]
recommendedtheconductofarelocationsurvey.

[7]
InitsdecisionofNovember3,1998, theRTCheldthattherewasnodisputethatPascualand
Angeles were the respective registered owners of Lot 4 and Lot 5 that what was disputed
between them was the location of their respective lots that Pascual proved Angeles
encroachmentonLot4bypreponderantevidenceandthatPascualwasentitledtorelief. The
RTCthusdisposed:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiff and against
thedefendantasfollows:

1) orderingthedefendantorpersonsclaimingrightthroughhimtocausetheremovalof
his house insofar as the same occupies the portion of Lot 4, Block 2 (TCT No. T

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/157150.htm 2/8
5/25/2017 G.R.No.157150

43707), of an area of 252 square meters, as particularly indicated in the Sketch Plan
(ExhibitC1)and

2)andwithoutpronouncementtodamagesinboththecomplainantandcounterclaim.

WithCosts.

[8]
SOORDERED.

AngelesappealedtotheCA.

[9]
OnJanuary31,2002,theCAaffirmedtheRTC, andheldthatasbetweenthefindingsofthe
geodeticengineer(Fajardo)whohadactuallygonetothesiteandthoseoftheother(Fernandez)
who had based his findings on the TCTs of the owners of the three lots, those of the former
shouldprevail.However, the CA, modifying the RTCs ruling, appliedArticle 448 of the Civil
Code (which defined the rights of a builder, sower and planter in good faith). The decision
[10]
decreedthus:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is MODIFIED. Plaintiffsappellees are ordered to
exercise within thirty (30) days from the finality of this decision their option to either buy the
portion of defendantappellants house on their Lot. No. 4, or to sell to defendantappellant the
portionoftheirlandonwhichhishousestands.Ifplaintiffsappelleeselecttosellthelandorbuy
the improvement, the purchase price must be at the prevailing market price at the time of
payment. If buying the improvement will render the defendantappellants house useless, then
plaintiffsappellees should sell the encroached portion of their land to defendantappellant. If
plaintiffsappelleeschoosetosellthelandbutdefendantappellantisunwillingorunabletobuy,
thenthelattermustvacatethesubjectportionandpayreasonablerentfromthetimeplaintiffs
appelleesmadetheirchoiceuptothetimetheyactuallyvacatethepremises.Butifthevalueof
thelandisconsiderablymorethanthevalueoftheimprovement,thendefendantappellantmay
electtoleasetheland,inwhichcasethepartiesshallagreeuponthetermsofthelease.Should
theyfailtoagreeonsaidterms,thecourtoforiginisdirectedtofixthetermsofthelease.From
the moment plaintiffsappellees shall have exercised their option, defendantappellant shall pay
reasonablemonthlyrentuptothetimethepartiesagreeonthetermsoftheleaseoruntilthecourt
fixessuchterms.Thisiswithoutprejudicetoanyfuturecompromisewhichmaybeagreedupon
bytheparties.

SOORDERED.

Angelesexpectedlysoughtreconsideration,buttheCAdeniedhismotiononFebruary13,2003.

Issues

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/157150.htm 3/8
5/25/2017 G.R.No.157150

Hence, Angeles appeals, assailing: (a) the credence the CA accorded to the testimony and
relocation plan of Fajardo as opposed to the survey plan prepared by Fernandez and (b) the
optionslaiddownbytheCA,i.e.,forPascualeithertobuytheportionofAngeleshouseorto
selltoAngelestheportionofhislandoccupiedbyAngeleswerecontrarytoitsfindingofgood
faith.

Ruling

Thepetitionlacksmerit.

I
TheCourt,notbeingatrieroffacts,
cannotreviewfactualissues

Section1,Rule45oftheRulesofCourtexplicitlystatesthatthepetitionforreviewon
certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. In appeal by
certiorari,therefore,onlyquestionsoflawmayberaised,becausetheSupremeCourtisnota
trieroffactsanddoesnotnormallyundertakethereexaminationoftheevidencepresentedby
thecontendingpartiesduringthetrial.Theresolutionoffactualissuesisthefunctionoflower
courts,whosefindingsthereonarereceivedwithrespectandarebindingontheSupremeCourt
[11]
subjecttocertainexceptions. Aquestion,tobeoneoflaw,mustnotinvolveanexamination
of the probative value of the evidence presented by the litigants or any of them. There is a
question of law in a given case when the doubt or difference arises as to what the law is on
certainstateoffactsthereisaquestionoffactwhenthedoubtordifferencearisesastothetruth
[12]
orfalsehoodofallegedfacts.

Whethercertainitemsofevidenceshouldbeaccordedprobativevalueorweight,orshouldbe
rejectedasfeebleorspuriousorwhetherornottheproofsononesideortheotherareclearand
convincingandadequatetoestablishapropositioninissuewhetherornotthebodyofproofs
presented by a party, weighed and analyzed in relation to contrary evidence submitted by
adverseparty,maybesaidtobestrong,clearandconvincingwhetherornotcertaindocuments
presentedbyonesideshouldbeaccordedfullfaithandcreditinthefaceofprotestsastotheir
spuriouscharacterbytheothersidewhetherornotinconsistenciesinthebodyofproofsofa
partyareofsuchgravityastojustifyrefusingtogivesaidproofsweightalltheseareissuesof
fact. Questions like these are not reviewable by the Supreme Court whose review of cases
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/157150.htm 4/8
5/25/2017 G.R.No.157150

decided by the CA is confined only to questions of law raised in the petition and therein
[13]
distinctlysetforth.

Nonetheless,theCourthasrecognizedseveralexceptionstotherule,including:(a)when
the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures (b) when the
inferencemadeismanifestlymistaken,absurdorimpossible(c)whenthereisgraveabuseof
discretion(d)whenthejudgmentisbasedonamisapprehensionoffacts(e)whenthefindings
offactsareconflicting(f)wheninmakingitsfindingstheCourtofAppealswentbeyondthe
issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the admissions of both the appellant and the
appellee(g)whenthefindingsarecontrarytothoseofthetrialcourt(h)whenthefindingsare
conclusionswithoutcitationofspecificevidenceonwhichtheyarebased(i)whenthefactsset
forthinthepetitionaswellasinthepetitionersmainandreplybriefsarenotdisputedbythe
respondent(j)whenthefindingsoffactarepremisedonthesupposedabsenceofevidenceand
contradicted by the evidence on record and (k) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered,
[14]
would justify a different conclusion. The circumstances of this case indicate that none of
suchexceptionsisattendantherein.
ThecredencegivenbytheRTCtothetestimonyandrelocationplanofFajardowasconclusive
uponthisCourtespeciallybyvirtueoftheaffirmancebytheCAoftheRTC. Resultantly, the
factofAngelesencroachmentonPascualsLot4wasprovedbypreponderantevidence.

Itisnoteworthytopointout,too,thattheargumentofAngelesbasedontheindefeasibilityand
incontrovertibility of Torrens titles pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 1529 (The Property
RegistrationDecree)isinapplicableconsideringthattheownershipofLot4andLot5wasnot
theissue.NorwerethemetesandboundsofthelotsasindicatedintherespectiveTCTsbeing
assailed,fortheonlyissueconcernedtheexactandactuallocationofLot4andLot5.

II
Angeleswasabuilderingoodfaith

To be next determined is whether the CAs application of Article 448 of the Civil Code was
correctandproper.

Article448oftheCivilCodeprovidesthusly:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/157150.htm 5/8
5/25/2017 G.R.No.157150

Article448.The owneroftheland on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good
faith,shallhavetherighttoappropriateashisowntheworks,sowingorplanting,afterpayment
oftheindemnityprovidedforinarticles546and548,ortoobligetheonewhobuiltorplantedto
paythepriceoftheland,andtheonewhosowed,theproperrent.However,thebuilderorplanter
cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or
trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriatethebuildingortreesafterproperindemnity.Thepartiesshallagreeuponthetermsof
theleaseandincaseofdisagreement,thecourtshallfixthetermsthereof.
The provision contemplates a person building, or sowing, or planting in good faith on land
ownedbyanother.Thelawpresupposesthatthelandandthebuildingorplantsareownedby
different persons, like here. The RTC and CA found and declared Angeles to be a builder in
goodfaith.Wecannotveerawayfromtheirunanimousconclusion,whichcaneasilybedrawn
fromthefactthatAngelesinsistsuntilnowthathebuilthishouseentirelyonhisownlot.Good
faithconsistsinthebeliefofthebuilderthatthelandheisbuildingonishisandinhisignorance
[15]
ofadefectorflawinhistitle.
WiththeunassailablefindingthatAngeleshousestraddledthelotofPascual,andthatAngeles
hadbuilthishouseingoodfaith,Article448oftheCivilCode,whichspellsouttherightsand
obligations of the owner of the land as well as of the builder, is unquestionably applicable.
Consequently,thelandbeingtheprincipalandthebuildingtheaccessory,preferenceisgivento
Pascual as the owner of the land to make the choice as between appropriating the building or
obliging Angeles as the builder to pay the value of the land. Contrary to the insistence of
Angeles,therefore,noinconsistencyexistsbetweenthefindingofgoodfaithinhisfavorandthe
grantofthereliefssetforthinArticle448oftheCivilCode.

WHEREFORE,theCourtDENIESthepetitionforreviewoncertiorariandAFFIRMS the
decisionpromulgatedonJanuary31,2002bytheCourtofAppealsinC.A.G.R.CVNo.61600.
Nopronouncementoncostsofsuit.

SOORDERED.




LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice


WECONCUR:
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/157150.htm 6/8
5/25/2017 G.R.No.157150

RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice
Chairperson



TERESITAJ.LEONARDODECASTROMARIANOC.DELCASTILLO
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice


JOSEPORTUGALPEREZ
AssociateJustice



CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that the conclusions in the
aboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.


RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

*ViceAssociateJusticeMartinS.Villarama,Jr.,perSpecialOrderNo.1080datedSeptember13,2011.
[1]
Rollo,pp.4674pennedbyAssociateJusticeRemediosA.SalazarFernando,withAssociateJusticeRomeoJ.Callejo,Sr.(latera
MemberoftheCourt,butnowretired)andAssociateJusticePerlitaJ.TriaTirona(retired)concurring.
[2]
Records,p.69.
[3]
Id.,p.171.
[4]
Id.,p.69.
[5]
Id.,p.161.
[6]
TSNdatedMarch12,1996,pp.1012.
[7]
Rollo,pp.96104.
[8]
Id.,p.104.
[9]
Id.,pp.4674.
[10]
Id.,pp.7374.
[11]
FNCBFinancev.Estavillo,G.R.No.93394,December20,1990,192SCRA514,517.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/157150.htm 7/8
5/25/2017 G.R.No.157150

[12]
IIHerrera,RemedialLaw,2000Edition,p.648citingMoran,CommentsontheRulesofCourt,1979Edition.
[13]
Paternov.Paterno,G.R.No.63680,March23,1990,183SCRA630.
[14]
Sampayanv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.156360,January14,2005,448SCRA220TheInsularLifeAssuranceCompany,Ltd.v.
CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.126850,April28,2004,428SCRA79LangkaanRealtyDevelopment,Inc.v.UnitedCoconutPlanters
Bank,G.R.No.139437,December8,2000,347SCRA542,549Nokomv.NationalLaborRelationsCommission,G.R.No.140043,
July18,2000,336SCRA97,110Sps.Sta.Mariav.CourtofAppeals,349Phil.275,282283(1998).
[15]
PleasantvilleDevelopmentCorporationv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.79688,February1,1996,253SCRA10,18Florezav.
Evangelista,No.L25462,February21,1980,96SCRA130.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/september2011/157150.htm 8/8