4 MANOTOK REALTY, INC., petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE Lady and Metro Manila Governor Imelda R.

Marcos
JOSE H. TECSON, Judge of the Court of First Instance of Manila has placed the disputed area under her Zonal
and NILO MADLANGAWA, respondents. Improvement Project, allowing the victims of the fire to
put up new structures on the premises, so that the
DOCTRINE: Under Art 448. the right to appropriate the works or willingness and readiness of the petitioner to exercise
improvements or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the alleged option can no longer be exercised since the
the price of the land belongs to the owner of the land. The only right subject-matter thereof has been extinguished by the
given to the builder in good faith is the right to reimbursement fire. Furthermore, the President of the Philippines
for the improvements; the builder cannot compel the owner of the has already issued a Presidential Decree for the
land to sell such land to the former. expropriation of certain estates in Metro Manila
including the Tambunting Estate. Therefore, the
FACTS: beneficient and humanitarian purpose of the Zonal
● In a complaint filed by the Manotok Realty for recovery Improvement Project and the
of possession and damages against Nilo Madlangawa, the expropriation proceeding would be defeated if
then Court rendered judgment, declaring Nilo Madlangawa petitioner is allowed to exercise an option which
as a builder or possessor in good faith; which upon would result in the ejectment of the private
appeal, was affirmed by the CA. Manotok Realty elevated the respondent.
case to SC but was dismissed for lack of merit. o On December 28, 1980, Presidential Decree (P.D.) No.
● Consequently, Manotok Realty filed with the trial court 1669 was issued providing for the expropriation of the
presided by Judge Tecson, a motion for the approval of Tambunting Estate
petitioner’s exercise of option for the satisfaction of judgment ▪ PD was challenged in the Manotok v NHA and
on the grounds that under Art 338 and 546, exercise of option was declared unconstitional
belongs to the owner of the property either to retain the
premises and pay for the improvements thereon or to sell said
premises to the builder in good faith
o Manotok Realty further alleges that since judgment of the TC
has become final, it is entitled to the execution of the same
and that since the house of Madlangawa was gutted by fire,
the execution would now involve delivery of possession of
the disputed area to Manotok Realty.
o Judge Tecson DENIED the motion.
o After MR denied, the petitioner filed the present petition for
mandamus alleging that the respondent judge committed
grave abuse of discretion in denying his motion to
exercise option and for execution of judgment on the
same grounds initially raised
o Madlangawa filed his comment on the petition alleging that the
same has already become moot and academic for two
reasons: first, fire gutted not only the house of the private
respondent but the majority of the houses in Tambunting
Estate; and second, as a result of the said fire, the then First
ISSUE: WON the petitioner is entitled to delivery of possession of the
disputed area? YES
FALLO: WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition
is GRANTED and the respondent judge is hereby ordered
to immediately issue a writ of execution ordering the private
respondent to vacate the disputed premises and deliver possession of
the same to the petitioner.
HELD:
● Judge Tecson cannot deny the issuance of a writ of execution
because Madlangawa was adjudged a builder in good faith or
on the ground of peculiar circumstances which
supervened after the institution of this case, because the
option given by law either to retain the premises and pay for
the improvements thereon or to sell the said premises to the
builder in good faith belongs to the owner of the property.
● Under Art 448. the right to appropriate the works or
improvements or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay
the price of the land belongs to the owner of the land. The only
right given to the builder in good faith is the right
to reimbursement for the improvements; the builder
cannot compel the owner of the land to sell such land to the
former.
● To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that
a person assert title to the land on which he builds and that he
be unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition
any flaw which invalidates it. It is such a builder in good faith
who is given the right to retain the thing, even as against the
real owner, until he has been reimbursed in full not only for the
necessary expenses but also for the useful expenses.
● Madlangawa’s good faith ceased after the filing of
the complaint below by the petitioner
o The repairs and improvements introduced by him after
the complaint was filed cannot be considered to have
been built in good faith
Since the improvements have been gutted by fire, and therefore the
basis for Madlangawa’s right to retain the premises has already been
extinguished without the fault of Manotok Realty; there is no
other recourse for Madlangawa but to vacate the premises and deliver
the same to Manotok Realty
5 Sarmiento v. Agana | G.R No. 57288 | April 30, 1984
Doctrine: "The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land
owned by another, is entitled to retain possession of the land until he
is paid the value of his building under Article 453 (now Article 546).
Facts:
1. While Ernesto was still courting his wife, the latter’s mother had told
him the couple could build a residential house on Lot D of a
subdivision.
2. Ernesto did construct a house assuming that the wife’s mother was
the owner of the land and that, eventually, it would somehow
be transferred to the spouses.
3. However, it turned out that the land had been titled in the name of
Mr. and Mrs. Santos who, sold the same to Sarmiento for 15K.
4. Sarmiento asked Ernesto and wife to vacate.
5. Sarmiento filed an Ejectment Suit against them.
6. Sarmiento submitted the deed of sale of the land in her favor while
Ernesto testified that the then cost of the house would be from
30K-40K. This was not questioned by Sarmiento.
7. CFI decided under Art 448 of the CC:
a. Sarmiento was required within 60 days to exercise the option to
REIMBURSE Ernesto and wife of 40K for the value of the house, or
b. The option to allow them the purchase the Land for 25K.
8. Sarmiento did not exercise any of the two options within the
indicated period, and Ernesto was then allowed to deposit the sum of
25K with the Court as purchase prices for the Land. Hence petition.
Issue: WON Art 448 would apply to the case. - YES
Held: Petition for Certiorari is hereby ordered dismissed.
We agree that Ernesto and wife were builders in good faith in view of
the peculiar circumstances under which they had constructed the
residential house. As far as they knew, the land was owned by
Ernesto's mother-in-law who, having stated they could build on
the property, could reasonably be expected to later on give them the
land.
The value of the Land, purchased for 15K on September 7,
1974, could not have been very much more than that amount
during the