88
CASES IN PROPERTY BATCH 4 (FULL TEXT) 1.Bernardo v. Bataclan 66 Phil. 598 G.R. No. 44606 VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CATALINO BATACLAN, defendant-appellant. TORIBIO TEODORO, purchaser-appellee. Pedro de Leon for plaintiff-appellant. Angel H. Mojica and Francisco Lavides for defendant appellant. Jose Y. Garde for appellee. LAUREL, J.: This is an appeal taken by both the plaintiff and the defendant from the order of September 26, 1935, hereinabove referred to, of the Court of First Instance of Cavite in Civil Case No. 2428. There is no controversy as to the facts. By a contract of sale executed from Pastor Samonte and others ownership of a parcel of land of about 90 hectares situated in sitio Balayunan, Silang, Cavite. To secure possession of the land from the vendors the said plaintiff, on July 20, 1929, instituted Civil Case No. 1935 in the Court of First Instance of Cavite. The trial court found for the plaintiff in a decision which was affirmed by this Supreme Court on appeal (G.R. No. 33017).[[1]] When plaintiff entered upon the premises, however, he found the defendant herein, Catalino Bataclan, who appears to have been authorized by former owners, as far back as 1922, to clear the land and make improvements thereon. As Bataclan was not a party in Case No. 1935, plaintiff, on June 11, 1931, instituted against him, in the Court of First Instance of Cavite, Civil Case No. 2428. In this case, plaintiff was declared owner but the defendant was held to be a possessor in good faith, entitled to reimbursement in the total sum of P1,642, for work done and improvements made. The dispositive part of the decision reads: Por las consideraciones expuestas, se declara al demandante Vicente Santo Domingo Bernardo dueño con derecho a la posesion del terreno que se describe en la demanda, y al demandado Catalino Bataclan con derecho a que del demandante le pague la suma de P1,642 por gastos utiles hechos de buena fe en el terreno, y por el cerco y ponos de coco y abaca existentes en el mismo, y con derecho, ademas a retener la posesion del terreno hasta que se le pague dicha cantidad. Al demandante puede optar, en el plazo de treinta dias, a partir de la fecha en que fuere notificado de la presente, por pagar esa suma al demandado, haciendo asi suyos el cerco y todas las plantaciones existentes en el terreno, u obligar al demandado a pagarle el precio terreno, a razon de

Cases in Property Batch 4 (Full Text)

Tags:

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

s

Citation preview

CASES IN PROPERTY BATCH 4 (FULL TEXT)1.Bernardo v. Bata!an "" P#$!. %&'(.R. No. 44")" *ICENTE STO. +O,IN(O BERNAR+O- .!a$nt$/0a..e!!ant- v1. CATALINO BATACLAN- de2endant0a..e!!ant. TORIBIO TEO+ORO- .3r#a1er0a..e!!ee. Pedro de Leon 2or .!a$nt$/0a..e!!ant. An4e! H. ,o5$a and Fran$1o Lav$de1 2or de2endant a..e!!ant. 6o1e Y. (arde 2or a..e!!ee.LAUREL- 6.7This is an appeal taken by both the plaintif and the defendant from the order of September26, 1935, hereinabove referred to, of the Court of irst !nstan"e of Cavite in Civil Case #o$2%2&$There is no "ontroversy as to the fa"ts$ 'y a "ontra"t of sale e(e"uted from )astor Samonteand others o*nership of a par"el of land of about 9+ he"tares situated in sitio 'alayunan,Silan,, Cavite$ To se"ure possession of the land from the vendors the said plaintif, on -uly2+, 1929, instituted Civil Case #o$ 1935 in the Court of irst !nstan"e of Cavite$ The trial "ourtfound for the plaintif in a de"ision *hi"h *as a.rmed by this Supreme Court on appeal /0$1$#o$ 33+123$44155 6hen plaintif entered upon the premises, ho*ever, he found the defendantherein, Catalino 'ata"lan, *ho appears to have been authori7ed by former o*ners, as farba"k as 1922,to "lear the land andmake improvements thereon$ 8s'ata"lan *as not aparty in Case #o$ 1935, plaintif, on -une 11, 1931, instituted a,ainst him, in the Court of irst!nstan"e of Cavite, CivilCase #o$ 2%2&$ !n this "ase, plaintif *as de"lared o*ner but thedefendant *as held to be a possessor in ,ood faith, entitled to reimbursement in the totalsum of )1,6%2, for *ork done and improvements made$ The dispositive part of the de"isionreads9)or las "onsidera"iones e(puestas, se de"lara al demandante :i"ente Santo ;omin,o'ernardo duendno reason to @ustify a rapture of the situation thus "reated bet*een them, the defendantEappellant not bein, entitled, after all, to re"over from the plaintif the sum of )2,212$The @ud,ment of the lo*er "ourt is a""ordin,ly modi>ed by eliminatin, therefrom the reservation made in favor of the defendantEappellant to re"over from the plaintif the sum of )2,212$ !n all the respe"ts, the same is a.rmed, *ithout pronoun"ement re,ardin, "osts$ So ordered$8.S.o31e1 +e! Oa9.o v. A:e1$a 1") SCRA ;nally settle and ad@udi"ate *ho amon, the parties should take possession of the 5 s=uaremeters of the land in =uestion$!n solvin, the issue the trial "ourt held as follo*s9The Court believed that the plaintifs "annot be obli,ed to pay for the value of the portion ofthedefendantsI house*hi"hhasen"roa"hedanareaof >ve/53 s=$ metersof thelandalloted to them$ The defendants "annot also be obli,ed to pay for the pri"e of the said >ve/53 s=uare meters$ The ri,hts of a builder in ,ood faith under 8rti"le %%& of the #e* CivilCode does /si"3 not apply to a "ase *here one "oEo*ner has built, planted or so*n on theland o*ned in "ommon$ BCanresa a,reein, *ith San"he7 1oman, says that as a ,eneral rulethis arti"le is not appli"able be"ause the matter should be ,overned more by the provisionson "oEo*nership than on a""ession$ )laniol and 1ipert are also of the opinion that this arti"leis not appli"able to a "oEo*ner *ho "onstru"ts, plants or so*s on the "ommunity property,even if the land *here the "onstru"tion, plantin, or so*in, is made is a third person underthe "ir"umstan"es, and the situation is ,overned by the rules of "oEo*nership$ Aur Court of8ppeals has held that this arti"le "annot be invoked by one "oEo*ner a,ainst another *hobuilds, plants or so*s upon their land, sin"e the latter does not do so on land not belon,in,to him$ /C$8$3, A$0$ Supp$, 8u,$ 3+, 19%, p$ 1263$ !n the li,ht of the fore,oin, authorities and"onsiderin, that the defendants have e(pressed their "onformity to the partition that *asmadebythe"ommissionerassho*ninthesket"hplanatta"hedtothe"ommissionerIsreport,said defendants have no other alternative e("epttoremove and demolish part oftheir house that has en"roa"hed an area of >ve /53 s=$ meters of the land allotted to theplaintifs$6J?1?A1?, @ud,ment is hereby rendered assi,nin, Got 1161E8 *ith an area of thirty /3+3s=$ meters to the plaintifs spouses Con"ep"ion ernande7 8besia, Gourdes ernande7 1odil,0enaro ernande7 and ;omin,a 8$ ernande7, in the respe"tive metes and bounds as sho*nin the subdivision sket"h plan atta"hed to the CommissionerIs 1eport dated may 29, 1926prepared by the Commissioner, 0eodeti" ?n,ineer ?spiritu 'una,an$ urther, the defendantsare hereby ordered at their e(pense to remove and demolish part of their house *hi"h hasen"roa"hed an area of >ve /53 s=uare meters from Got 1161E8 of the plaintifsK *ithin si(ty/6+3 days from date hereof and to deliver the possession of the same to the plaintifs$ or theCommissionerIs fee of )%++$++, the defendants are ordered to pay, @ointly and severally, thesum of )133$33 and the balan"e thereof to be paid by the plaintifs$ The "osts of suit shall bepaid by the plaintifs and the defendants in the proportion of t*oEthirds /2H33 and oneEthird/1H33 shares respe"tively$ 8 "erti>ed "opy of this @ud,ment shall be re"orded in the o."e ofthe 1e,ister of ;eeds of the City of Cebu and the e(pense of su"h re"ordin, shall be ta(edas a part of the "osts of the a"tion$Jen"e, this appeal interposed by the defendants *ith the follo*in, assi,nments of errors9!TJ?T1!8GCAD1T?11?;!##AT8))GL!#0TJ?1!0JTSA8'D!G;?1!#0AA;8!TJD#;?1 81T$ %%& A TJ? #?6 C!:!G CA;? TA ;??#;8#TSE8))?GG8#TS 6!TJ 1?S)?CT TATJ8T )81T A TJ?!1 JADS? ACCD)L!#0 8 )1AT!A# A TJ? GAT 8SS!0#?; TA )G8!#T!SE8))?GG??S$!!TJ? T1!8G CAD1T ?11?; !# A1;?1!#0 ;??#;8#TSE8))?GG8#TS TA 1?CA:? 8#;;?CAG!SJ 8T TJ?!1 ?M)?#S?, TJ8T )81T A TJ?!1 JADS? 6J!CJ J8S ?#C1A8CJ?; A#8# 81?8 A !:? SND81? C?T?1S A GAT 1161E8 A )G8!#T!SE8))?GG??S$8rti"le %%& of the #e* Civil Code provides as follo*s98rt$ %%&$ The o*ner of the land on *hi"h anythin, has been built, so*n, or planted in ,oodfaith, shall havetheri,httoappropriateashiso*nthe*orks, so*in,orplantin,, afterpayment of the indemnity provided for in arti"les 5%6 and 5%&, or to obli,e the one *ho builtor planted to pay the pri"e of the land, and the one *ho so*ed, the proper rent$ Jo*ever,the builder or planter "annot be obli,ed to buy the land if its value is "onsiderably more thanthat of the buildin, or trees$ !n su"h "ase, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the o*ner of theland does not "hoose to appropriate the buildin, or trees after proper indemnity$ The partiesshall a,ree upon the terms of the lease and in "ase of disa,reement, the "ourt shall >( theterms thereof$The "ourt a =uo "orre"tly held that 8rti"le %%& of the Civil Code "annot apply *here a "oEo*ner builds, plants or so*s on the land o*ned in "ommon for then he did not build, plant orso* upon land that e("lusively belon,s to another but of *hi"h he is a "oEo*ner$ The "oEo*ner is not a third person under the "ir"umstan"es, and the situation is ,overned by therules of "oEo*nership$ 1Jo*ever, *hen, asinthis"ase, the"oEo*nershipisterminatedbythepartitionanditappears that the house of defendants overlaps or o""upies a portion of 5 s=uare meters ofthe land pertainin, to plaintifs *hi"h the defendants obviously built in ,ood faith, then theprovisions of 8rti"le %%& of the ne* Civil Code should apply$ Canresa and #avarro 8mandia,ree that the said provision of the Civil Code may apply even *hen there *as "oEo*nershipif ,ood faith has been established$ 28pplyin, the aforesaid provision of the Civil Code, the plaintifs have the ri,ht to appropriatesaidportionof thehouseof defendants uponpayment of indemnitytodefendants asprovidedfor in8rti"le5%6of theCivil Code$ Ather*ise, theplaintifs may obli,ethedefendants to pay the pri"e of the land o""upied by their house$ Jo*ever, if the pri"e askedfor is "onsiderably mu"h more than the value of the portion of the house of defendants builtthereon, then the latter "annot be obli,ed to buy the land$ The defendants shall then pay thereasonable rent to the plaintif upon su"h terms and "onditions that they may a,ree$ !n "aseof disa,reement, thetrial "ourt shall >(thetermsthereof$ Af "ourse, defendantsmaydemolish or remove the said portion of their house, at their o*n e(pense, if they so de"ide$6J?1?A1?, the de"ision appealed fromis hereby CA;!!?;by orderin, plaintiftoindemnify defendants for the value of the !d portion of the house of defendants ina""ordan"e*ith8rti"le5%6of theCivil Code, ifplaintifsele"ttoappropriatethesame$Ather*ise, the defendants shall pay the value of the 5 s=uare meters of land o""upied bytheir house at su"h pri"e as may be a,reed upon *ith plaintifs and if its value e("eeds theportion of the house that defendants built thereon, the defendants may "hoose not to buythe land but defendants must pay a reasonable rental for the use of the portion of the land ofplaintifs 8s may be a,reed upon bet*een the parties$ !n "ase of disa,reement, the rate ofrental shall be determined by the trial "ourt$ Ather*ise, defendants may remove or demolishat their o*n e(pense the said portion of their house$ #o "osts$;. I4nao v. Inter9ed$ate A..e!!ate Co3rt (1&; SCRA 1 #$1 Le4a! He$r1- and ISI+RO I(NAO- re1.ondent1.+o!or?no and +o9$n43e@ LaA OBe1 2or .et$t$oner.A9:ro1$o Pad$!!a- ,e9.$n C Re>e1 LaA OBe1 2or .r$vate re1.ondent1.!n this petition for revie* by "ertiorari, petitioner seeks the reversal of the de"ision of the!ntermediate8ppellateCourt/no*Courtof8ppeals3a.rmin,intotothede"isionoftheCourt of irst !nstan"eof Cavite, orderin,petitioner loren"io!,naotosell toprivaterespondents -uan and !sidro !,nao, that part of his property *here private respondents hadbuilt a portion of their houses$The ante"edent fa"ts are as follo*s9)etitionerloren"io!,naoandhisun"lesprivaterespondents-uan!,naoand!sidro!,nao*ere "oEo*ners ofapar"elofland*ith an area of53%s=uare meters situated in'arrioTabon, Cuni"ipality of Oa*it,Cavite$)ursuant to an a"tion forpartition >led by petitionerdo"keted as Civil Case #o$ #E16&1, the then Court of irst !nstan"e of Cavite in a de"isiondated ebruary 6, 1925 dire"ted the partition of the aforesaid land, allotin, 133$5 s=uaremetersor 2H&thereof toprivaterespondents-uanand!sidro, and,ivin,theremainin,portion *ith a total area of 266$5 s=uare meters to petitioner loren"io$ Jo*ever, no a"tualpartition *as ever efe"ted$ 1An -uly 12, 192&, petitioner instituted a "omplaint for re"overy of possession of real propertya,ainst privaterespondents-uanand!sidrobeforetheCourt of irst !nstan"eof Cavite,do"keted as Civil Case #o$ 2662$ !n his "omplaint petitioner alle,ed that the area o""upiedbythet*o/23 housesbuilt byprivaterespondentse("eededthe133$5s=uaremeterspreviously alloted to them by the trial "ourt in Civil Case #o$ #E16&1$Conse=uently, the lo*er "ourt "ondu"ted an o"ular inspe"tion$ !t *as found that the housesof-uanand!sidroa"tuallyen"roa"hedupon a portionof theland belon,in,toloren"io$Dpona,reement of theparties, thetrial "ourt orderedali"ensed,eodeti"en,ineer to"ondu"t a survey to determine the e(a"t area o""upied by the houses of privaterespondents$ The survey subse=uently dis"losed that the house of -uan o""upied %2 s=uaremeters *hile that of !sidro o""upied 59 s=uare meters of loren"ioIs land or a total of 1+1s=uare meters$!n its de"ision, the trial "ourt /thru -ud,e Guis G$ :i"tor3 ruled that althou,h privaterespondents o""upied a portion of loren"ioIs property, they should be "onsidered builders in,ood faith$ The trial"ourt took into a""ount the de"ision of the Court of irst !nstan"e ofCavite in the a"tion for partition 2 and =uoted9$ $ $ $ Jen"e, it is the *ellE"onsidered opinion of the Court that althou,h it turned out that thedefendants had, before partition, been in possession of more than *hat ri,htfully belon,s tothem, their possession of *hat is in e("ess of their ri,htful share "an at *orst be possessionin ,ood faith *hi"h e(empts them from bein, "ondemned to pay dama,es by reason thereof$3urthermore, the trial "ourt stated that pursuant to 8rti"le %%& of the Civil Code, the o*ner oftheland/loren"io3shouldhavethe"hoi"etoeitherappropriatethatpartof thehousestandin, on his land after payment of indemnity or obli,e the builders in ,ood faith /-uan and!sidro3 to pay the pri"e of the land$ Jo*ever, the trial "ourt observed that based on the fa"tsof the "ase, it *ould be useless and unsuitable for loren"io to e(er"ise the >rst option sin"ethis *ould render the entire houses of -uan and !sidro *orthless$ The trial "ourt then appliedthe rulin, in the similar "ase of 0rana vs$ Court of 8ppeals, % *here the Supreme Court hadadvan"ed a more B*orkable solutionB$ Thus, it ordered loren"io to sell to -uan and !sidrothose portions of his land respe"tively o""upied by the latter$ The dispositive portion of saidde"ision reads as follo*s96J?1?A1?, @ud,ment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants andP/a3 Arderin, the plaintif loren"io !,nao to sell to the defendants -uan and !sidro !,naothat portion of his property *ith an area of 1+1 s=uare meters at )%+$++ per s=uare meter,on *hi"h part the defendants had built their housesK and/b3 Arderin,thesaidplaintiftoe(e"utethene"essary deedof "onveyan"etothedefendants in a""ordan"e *ith para,raph /a3 hereof$6ithout pronoun"ement as to "osts$ 5)etitioner loren"io !,nao appealed to the !ntermediate 8ppellate Court$ An 8u,ust 22, 19&5,the8ppellateCourt, Se"ondCivil Cases;ivision, promul,atedade"ision, 6a.rmin,thede"ision of the trial "ourt$Jen"e the instant petition for revie* *hi"h attributes to the 8ppellate Court the follo*in,errors91$ That the respondent Court has "onsidered private respondents builders in ,ood faithonthelandon=uestion, thusapplyin,8rt$ %%&of theCivil Code, althou,hthelandin=uestion is still o*ned by the parties in "oEo*nership, hen"e, the appli"able provision is 8rt$%&6 of the Civil Code, *hi"h *as not applied$2$ That, ,rantin, for the sake of ar,ument that 8rt$ %%& $ $ $ is appli"able, the respondentCourt has ad@ud,ed the *orkin, solution su,,ested in 0rana and Torralba vs$ C8$ /1+9 )hil$26+3, *hi"h is @ust an opinion by *ay of passin,, and not the @ud,ment rendered therein,*hi"h is in a""ordan"e *ith the said provision of the Civil Code, *herein the o*ner of theland to buy /si"3 the portion of the buildin, *ithin 3+ days from the @ud,ment or sell the lando""upied by the buildin,$3$ That, ,rantin, that private respondents "ould buy the portion of the land o""upied bytheir houses, the pri"e >(ed by the "ourt is unrealisti" and preE*ar pri"e$ 2The re"ords of the "ase reveal that the disputed land *ith an area of 53% s=uare meters *asori,inallyo*nedby'alta7ar!,nao*homarriedt*i"e$ !nhis>rst marria,e, hehadfour"hildren, namely -usto /the father of petitioner loren"io3, Geon and private respondents -uanand !sidro$ !n his se"ond marria,e, 'alta7ar had also four "hildren but the latter *aived theirri,hts over the "ontroverted land in favor of -usto$ Thus, -usto o*ned %H& of the land *hi"h*as *aived by his halfEbrothers and sisters plus his 1H& share or a total of 5H&$ Thereafter,-usto a"=uired the 1H& share of Geon for )5++$++ *hi"h he later sold to his son loren"io forthe same amount$ 6hen -usto died, loren"io inherited the 5H& share of his father -usto plushis1H&shareof theland*hi"hhebou,ht or atotal of 6H&/representin,%++$5s=uaremeters3$ )rivaterespondents, -uanand!sidro, ontheother hand, had1H&share/66$25s=uare meters3 ea"h of the land or a total of 133$5 s=uare meters$'efore the de"ision in the partition "ase *as promul,ated, loren"io sold 13% s=uare metersof his share to a "ertain :i"ta for )5,+++$++ on -anuary 22, 1925$ 6hen the de"ision *ashandeddo*n on ebruary 6,1925, the lo*er "ourt alloted2H&of the landtoprivaterespondents -uan and !sidro, or a total of 133$5 s=uare meters$!t should be noted that prior to partition, allthe "oEo*ners hold theproperty in "ommondominion but at the same time ea"h is an o*ner of a share *hi"h is abstra"t andundetermined until partition is efe"ted$ 8s "ited in ?usebio vs$ !ntermediate 8ppellate Court,& Ban undivided estate is "oEo*nership by the heirs$B8s "oEo*ners, the parties may have une=ual shares in the "ommon property, =uantitativelyspeakin,$ 'ut in a =ualitative sense, ea"h "oEo*ner has the same ri,ht as any one of theother "oEo*ners$ ?very "oEo*ner is therefore the o*ner of the *hole, and over the *hole hee(er"ises the ri,ht of dominion, but he is at the same time the o*ner of a portion *hi"h istruly abstra"t, be"ause until division is efe"ted su"h portion is not "on"retely determined$ 9)etitioner loren"io, in his >rst assi,nment of error, asseverates that the "ourt a =uo erred inapplyin, 8rti"le %%& of the Civil Code, sin"e this arti"le "ontemplates a situation *herein theland belon,s to one person and the thin, built, so*n or planted belon,s to another$ !n theinstant "ase, the land in dispute used to be o*ned in "ommon by the "ontendin, parties$8rti"le %%& provides98rt$ %%&$ The o*ner of the land on *hi"h anythin, has been built, so*n or planted in ,oodfaith, shall havetheri,httoappropriateashiso*nthe*orks, so*in,orplantin,, afterpayment of the indemnity provided for in arti"les 5%6 and 5%&, or to obli,e the one *ho builtor planted to pay the pri"e of the land, and the one *ho so*ed, the proper rent$ Jo*ever,the builder or planter "annot be obli,ed to buy the land if its value is "onsiderably more thanthat of the buildin, or trees$ !n su"h "ase, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the o*ner of theland does not "hoose to appropriate the buildin, or trees after proper indemnity$ The partiesshall a,ree upon the terms of the lease and in "ase of disa,reement, the "ourt shall >( theterms thereof$6hether or not the provisions of 8rti"le %%& should apply to a builder in ,ood faith on aproperty held in "ommon has been resolved in the a.rmative in the "ase of Spouses delCampo vs$ 8besia, 1+ *herein the Court ruled that9The "ourt a =uo "orre"tly held that 8rti"le %%& of the Civil Code "annot apply *here a "oEo*ner builds, plants or so*s on the land o*ned in "ommon for then he did not build, plant orso* upon land that e("lusively belon,s to another but of *hi"h he is a "oEo*ner$ The "oEo*ner is not a third person under the "ir"umstan"es, and the situation is ,overned by therules of "oEo*nership$Jo*ever, *hen, as in this "ase, the o*nership is terminated by the partition and it appearsthat the home of defendants overlaps or o""upies a portion of 5 s=uare meters of the landpertainin, to plaintifs *hi"h the defendants obviously built in ,ood faith, then the provisionsof 8rti"le %%& of the ne* Civil Code should apply$ Canresa and #avarro 8mandi a,ree thatthe said provision of the Civil Code may apply even *hen there is a "oEo*nership if ,oodfaith has been established$ 11!n other *ords, *hen the "oEo*nership is terminated by a partition and it appears that thehouseof an erst*hile "oEo*ner has en"roa"hed upona portionpertainin, to another"oEo*ner*hi"h*asho*evermadein,oodfaith, thentheprovisionsof 8rti"le%%&shouldapply to determine the respe"tive ri,hts of the parties$)etitionerIs se"ondassi,nederror is ho*ever *ell taken$ 'oththetrial "ourt andthe8ppellate Court erred *hen they peremptorily adopted the B*orkable solutionB in the "ase of0rana vs$ Court of appeals, 12 and ordered the o*ner of the land, petitioner loren"io, to sellto private respondents, -uanand!sidro, thepart ofthe landthey intrudedupon,therebydeprivin, petitioner of his ri,ht to "hoose$ Su"h rulin, "ontravened the e(pli"it provisions of8rti"le %%& to the efe"t that B/t3he o*ner of the land$ $ $ shall have the ri,ht toappropriate $ $ $or to obli,e the one *ho built $ $ $ to pay the pri"e of the land $ $ $ $B The la* is"lear and unambi,uous *hen it "onfers the ri,ht of "hoi"e upon the lando*ner and not uponthe builder and the "ourts$Thus, in Nuemuel vs$ Alaes, 13 the Court "ate,ori"ally ruled that the ri,ht to appropriate the*orks or improvements or to obli,e the builder to pay the pri"e of the land belon,s to thelando*ner$8s to the third assi,nment of error, the =uestion on the pri"e to be paid on the land need notbe dis"ussed as this *ould be premature inasmu"h as petitioner loren"io has yet to e(er"isehis option as the o*ner of the land$6J?1?A1?, the de"ision appealed from is hereby CA;!!?; as follo*s9 )etitioner loren"io!,naoisdire"ted*ithin thirty /3+3daysfromentryof @ud,ment to e(er"ise hisoptiontoeither appropriate as his o*n the portions of the houses of -uan and !sidro !,nao o""upyin,his landupon payment of indemnity in a""ordan"e *ith 8rti"les 5%6 and 5%& of the CivilCode, or sell to private respondents the 1+1 s=uare meters o""upied by them at su"h pri"eas may be a,reed upon$ Should the value of the land e("eed the value of the portions of thehouses that private respondents have ere"ted thereon, private respondents may "hoose notto buy the land but they must pay reasonable rent for the use of the portion of petitionerIsland as may be a,reed upon by the parties$ !n "ase of disa,reement, the rate of rental andother terms of the lease shall be determined by the trial "ourt$ Ather*ise, privaterespondents may remove or demolish at their o*n e(pense the said portions of their housesen"roa"hin, upon petitionerIs land$ 1% #o "osts$4. ,anotoD Rea!t>- In. v. Te1on (1"4 SCRA %'ed *ith the trial "ourtIs de"ision, the petitioner appealed to the Court of 8ppealsand upon a.rman"e by the latter of the de"ision belo*, the petitioner elevated its "ase tothis Court$An -uly 13, 1922, *e issued a resolution dated -uly 11, 1922 denyin, the petitionerIs petitionfor la"k of merit$ Jen"e, on 8u,ust 5, 1922, the petitioner >led *ith the trial "ourt, presidedover by respondent -ud,e -ose J$ Te"son, a motion for the approval of petitionerIs e(er"ise ofoption and for satisfa"tion of @ud,ment, prayin, that the "ourt issue an order9 a3 approvin,the e(er"ise of petitionerIs option to appropriate the improvements introdu"ed by the privaterespondent on the propertyK b3 thereafter, private respondent be ordered to deliverpossession of the property in =uestion to the petitioner$An A"tober 2, 1922, the respondent @ud,e issued the disputed order, to *it98"tin,onthemotionfor approval of plaintifse(er"iseof optionandfor satisfa"tionof@ud,ment >led by the plaintif, and the opposition thereto interposed by the defendant, boththrou,h "ounsels, and after a @udi"ious revie* of all the fa"ts and "ir"umstan"es obtainin, inthis"ase, intheli,htof statutoryprovisions/8rt$ 6, #e*Civil Code3and@urisprudentialdo"trines /:ide, 'enares v$ Capitol Subdivision, !n"$, GE233+ /#ov$ 29, 196+3, and "onsiderin,further thede>nitiverulin,of our SupremeTribunal inthe"aseof -oseC$ Cristobal v$8le@andro Cel"hor, 0$1$ #o$ GE%32+3 promul,ated on -uly 29, 1922, *herein the Court says9BThis Court, applyin, the prin"iple of e=uity, need not be bound to a ri,id appli"ation of thela* but rather its a"tion should "onform to the "onditions or e(i,en"ies of a ,iven problem orsituation in order to ,rant relief that it *ill serve the ends of @usti"e$B((( ((( (((the Court is of the "onsidered vie* that under the pe"uliar "ir"umstan"es *hi"h supervenedafter the institution of this "ase, like, for instan"e, the introdu"tion of "ertain ma@or repairs ofand other substantial improvements on the "ontroverted property, the instant motion of theplaintif is not *ellEtaken and therefore not le,ally proper and tenable$6J?1?A1?, and for la"k of merit, the instant motion for approval of the plaintifIs faiErn ofoption and for satisfa"tion of @ud,ment should be, as hereby it is, denied$ /pp$ %5E%6, 1ollo38fter a denial of its motion for re"onsideration, the petitioner >led the present petition formandamus alle,in,that therespondent @ud,e"ommitted,raveabuseof dis"retionindenyin, his motion to e(er"ise option and for e(e"ution of @ud,ment on the ,rounds thatunder 8rti"les %%& and 5%6 of the Civil Code, the e(er"ise of option belon,s to the o*ner ofthe property, *ho is the petitioner herein, and that upon >nality of @ud,ment, the prevailin,party is entitled, as a matter of ri,ht, to its e(e"ution *hi"h is only a ministerial a"t on thepart of the respondent @ud,e$An 8pril 15, 192&, the private respondent >led his "omment on the petition alle,in, that thesame has already be"ome moot and a"ademi" for t*o reasons9 >rst, >re ,utted not only thehouse of the private respondent but the ma@ority of the houses in Tambuntin, ?stateK andse"ond, as a result of the said >re, the then irst Gady and Cetro Canila 0overnor !melda 1$Car"os has pla"ed the disputed area under her Qonal !mprovement )ro@e"t, thereby allo*in,the vi"tims of the >re to put up ne* stru"tures on the premises, so that the *illin,ness andreadiness of the petitioner to e(er"ise the alle,ed option "an no lon,er be e(er"ised sin"ethe sub@e"tEmatter thereof has been e(tin,uished by the >re$ urthermore, the )resident ofthe)hilippineshasalreadyissueda)residential ;e"reefor thee(propriationof "ertainestatesinCetroCanilain"ludin,theTambuntin,?state$ Therefore, thebene>"ient andhumanitarian purpose of the Qonal !mprovement )ro@e"t and the e(propriation pro"eedin,*ould be defeated if petitioner is allo*ed to e(er"ise an option *hi"h *ould result in thee@e"tment of the private respondent$An;e"ember2&, 19&+, )residential ;e"ree/)$;$3#o$ 1669*asissuedprovidin,forthee(propriationof theTambuntin,?state$ Jo*ever, thisde"ree*as"hallen,edbeforethisCourt in 0$1$ #o, 55166 entitled The B?lisa 1$ Canotok, et al$ v$ #ational Jousin, 8uthority,et al$B Jen"e, *e de"ided to hold the de"ision on this petition pendin, the resolution of theabove entitled "ase$AnCay21, 19&2, theCourt renderedade"isioninthe?lisaCanotok"ase/Canotokv$#ational Jousin, 8uthority, 15+ SC18 &93 rulin, that )$;$ 1669 is un"onstitutional for bein,violative of the due pro"ess "lause$ Thus, sin"e the present petition has not been renderedmoot and a"ademi" by the de"ision in said "ase, *e *ill no* de"ide on its merits$8s stated earlier, the petitioner ar,ues that sin"e the @ud,ment of the trial "ourt has alreadybe"ome >nal, it is entitled to the e(e"ution of the same and that moreover, sin"e the houseof the private respondent *as ,utted by >re, the e(e"ution of the de"ision *ould no* involvethe delivery of possession of the disputed area by the private respondent to the petitioner$6e >nd merit in these ar,uments$6hen the de"ision of the trial "ourt be"ame >nal and e(e"utory, it be"ame in"umbent uponthe respondent @ud,e to issue the ne"essary *rit for the e(e"ution of the same$ There is,therefore, no basis for the respondent @ud,e to deny the petitionerIs motion to avail of itsoption to approriate the improvements made on its property$!n the "ase of ;uenas v$ Candi /151 SC18 53+, 5%53, *e said9((( ((( ((($$$Gike*ise settled is the rule that after a @ud,ment has be"ome >nal, no additions "an bemadethereto, andnothin,"anbedonethere*ithe("ept itse(e"ution, other*isethere*ould be no end to le,al pro"esses$ /abular v$ Court of 8ppeals, 11 9 SC18 3293#either"antherespondent@ud,edenytheissuan"eof a*ritof e(e"utionbe"ausetheprivaterespondent *asad@ud,edabuilder in,oodfaithor onthe,roundof Bpe"uliar"ir"umstan"es*hi"hsupervenedafter theinstitutionof this"ase, like, for instan"e, theintrodu"tion of "ertain ma@or repairs of and other substantial improvements$$$B be"ause theoption ,iven by la* either to retain the premises and pay for the improvements thereon or tosell the said premises to the builder in ,ood faith belon,s to the o*ner of the property$ 8s *ehave in Nuemel v$ Alaes /1 SC18 1159,116339((( ((( ((($$$The plaintifs "laim that their se"ond "ause of a"tion is based on 8rti"le %%& in "onne"tion*ith 8rt$5%6,of the ne* Civil Code$ 8 "ursory readin, of these provisions,ho*ever, *illsho*that they are not appli"able to plaintifIs "ase$ Dnder 8rti"le %%&, the ri,ht toappropriate the *orks or improvements or to obli,e the one *ho built or planted to pay thepri"e of the landI belon,s to the o*ner of the land$ The only ri,ht ,iven to the builder in ,oodfaith is the ri,ht to reimbursement for the improvementsK the builder, "annot "ompeltheo*ner of the land to sell su"h land to the former$ $$$8,ain, in the re"ent "ase of )a7 Cer"ado, et al$ v$ Jon$ Court of 8ppeals, et al$, /0$1$ #o$ GE%%++1, -une 1+, 19&&3, *e said9$$$ To be deemed a builder in ,ood faith, it is essential that a person assert title to the land on*hi"h he buildsK i$e$, that he be a possessor in "on"ept of o*ner /8rt$ 525, Civil CodeK Gope7,!n"$ v$ )hil$ ?astern Tradin, Co$, !n"$, 9& )hil$ 3%&3 and that he be una*are Ithat there e(istsinhistitleor modeof a"=uisitionanyFa**hi"hinvalidatesit$I /8rt$ 526, Civil CodeK0ranados v$ Conton, &6 )hil$ %2K 8rriola v$ 0ome7 de la Serna, 1% )hil$ 622K See also Canotok1ealty, !n"$ v$ C$8$, 13% SC18 329, "itin, Caram v$ Gaureta, 1+3 SC18 23 !t is su"h a builder in,ood faith *ho is ,iven the 1i,ht to retain the thin,, even as a,ainst the real o*ner, until hehas been reimbursed in full not only for the ne"essary e(penses but also for useful e(penses$/8rt$ 5%6, Civil CodeK )oli"arpio v$ C8$, 129 SC18 51K Sarmiento v$ 8,ana, 129 SC18 1221K "f,Nueto v$ C$8$, 122 SC18 2+63 $$$urthermore, theprivaterespondentIs,oodfaith"easedafterthe>lin,of the"omplaintbelo* by the petitioner$ !n the "ase of Cindanao 8"ademy, !n"$ v$ Lap /13 SC18 19+,1963, *eruled9((( ((( ((($$$8lthou,h the bad faith of one party neutrali7es that of the other and hen"e as bet*eenthemselves their ri,hts *ould be as if both of them had a"ted in ,ood faith at the time of thetransa"tion, this le,al >"tion of LapIs ,ood faith "eased *hen the "omplaint a,ainst him *as>led, and "onse=uently the "ourtIs de"laration of liability for the rents thereafter is "orre"tand proper $ 8 possessor in ,ood faith is entitled to the fruits only so lon, as his possessionis not le,ally interrupted, and su"h interruption takes pla"e upon servi"e of @udi"ial summons/8rts$ 5%% and 1123, Civil Code3$Thus, the repairs and improvements introdu"ed by the said respondents after the "omplaint*as >led "annot be "onsidered to have been built in ,ood faith, mu"h less, @ustify the denialof the petitionerIs faiErn of option$Sin"etheimprovementshavebeen,uttedby>re, andtherefore, thebasisfor privaterespondentIs ri,ht to retain the premises has already been e(tin,uished *ithout the fault ofthepetitioner, thereisnoother re"oursefor theprivaterespondent but tova"atethepremises and deliver the same to herein petitioner$6J?1?A1?, !#:!?6ATJ?A1?0A!#0, thepetitionis018#T?;andtherespondent@ud,eis herebyorderedtoimmediatelyissuea*rit of e(e"utionorderin,theprivaterespondent tova"atethedisputedpremisesanddeliver possessionof thesametothepetitioner$%.F$!$.$na1 Co!!e4e1 In. v. (ar$a T$9:an4 et. a!. (1)" P#$!. 84nal @ud,ment of the Court of 8ppeals rendered in 2 "ases appealed toit in *hi"h the spouses Timban,, the ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$, and Caria 0erva"io 'las *erethe parties$ !# that @ud,ment of the Court of 8ppeals, the respe"tive ri,hts of the liti,antshave been ad@udi"ated as follo*s91R*phSl$nTt/13 ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ *as de"lared to have a"=uired the ri,hts of the spouses Timban,in and to lot #o$ 2Ea mentioned above and in "onsideration thereof, ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$,*as ordered to pay the spouses Timban, the amount of )15,&+2$9+ plus su"h other amounts*hi"h said spouses mi,ht have paid or had to pay after ebruary, 1953, to Joskins and Co$!n"$, a,ent of theDrban?states, !n"$, ori,inal vendor of thelot$ ilipinasColle,es, !n"$ori,inalvendorof the totalamount *ith the "ourt *ithin 9+ days after the de"ision shallhave be"ome >nal$/23 Caria0erva"io'las *asde"laredto be abuilderin ,ood faith of thes"hool buildin,"onstru"ted on the lot in =uestion and entitled to be paid the amount of )19,+++$++ for thesame$ ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$, pur"haser of the said buildin, *as ordered to deliver to 'lassto"k"erti>"ate/?(h$ C3 for 1+&shares of ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ *ithapar valueof)1+,&++$++ and to pay 'las the sum of )&,2++$++ of the house$/33 !n"aseilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ failedtodeposit thevalueof theland, *hi"hafterli=uidation*as>(edat )32,&59$3%, *ithinthe9+Edayperiodset bythe"ourt, ilipinasColle,es *ould lose all its ri,hts to the land and the spouses Timban, *ould then be"omethe o*ners thereof$ !n that eventuality, the Timban,s *ould make kno*n to the "ourt theiroptionunder 8rt$ %%&of theCivil Code*hether they*ouldappropriatethebuildin,in=uestion, in *hi"h even they *ould have to pay ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ the sumof)19,+++$++, or *ould "ompel the latter to a"=uire the land and pay the pri"e thereof$ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ havin, failed to pay or deposit the sum of )32,&59$3% *ithin the timepres"ribed, the spouses Timban,, in "omplian"e *ith the @ud,ment of the Court of 8ppeals,on September 2&, 1956, made kno*n to the "ourt their de"ision that they had "hosen not ofappropriate the buildin, but to "ompel ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$, for the payment of the sum of)32,&59,3%$ The motion havin, been ,ranted, a *rit of e(e"ution *as issued on -anuary &,1952$An -anuary 16, 1952, appellee 'las in turn >led a motion for e(e"ution of her @ud,ment of)&,2++$++ representin, the unpaid portion of the pri"e of the house sold to ilipinas Colle,es,!n"$ Aver the ob@e"t of the Timban,s, the "ourt ,rated the motion and the "orrespondin, *ritof e(e"ution*as issuedon-anuary3+, 1952, dateof the,rantin,of themotionfore(e"ution, 'las throu,h "ounsel, sent a letter to the Sherif of Canila advisin, him of herpreferential "laim or lien on the house to satisfy the unpaid balan"e of the pur"hase pri"ethereof under 8rti"le 22%2 of the Civil Code, and to *ithhold from the pro"eed of the au"tionsale the sum of )&,2++$++$ Gevy havin, been made on the house in virtue of the *rits ofe(e"ution, the Sherif of Canila on Car"h 5, 1952, sold the buildin, in publi" au"tion in favorof thespousesTimban,, asthehi,hest bidders, intheamount of )5,25+$++$ )ersonalproperties of ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ *ere also au"tioned for )2%5$++ in favor of the spousesTimban,$8s a result of these a"tuation, three motion *ere subse=uently >led before the lo*er "ourt9/13 'yappellee'las, prayin,that theSherifof CanilaandHor theTimban,spousesbeordered to pay and deliver to her the sum of )5,25+$++ representin, the pro"eeds of theau"tion sale of the buildin, of ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ over *hi"h she has a lien of )&,2++$++for the unpaid balan"e of the pur"hase pri"e thereofK$/23 8lso by the appellee 'als, prayin, that there bein, still t*o unsatis>ed e(e"utions, onefor the sum of )32,&59$3% in favor the land involved, Got #o$ 2Ea, be sold at publi" au"tionKand /33 'y ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ prayin, that be"ause its properties, the house and somepersonal properties, have been au"tioned for )5,25+$++ and )2%5$++ respe"tively in favor oftheTimban,spouses*hoappliedthepro"eedstothepartial payment of thesumof)32,&59$3% value of the land, Got #o$ 2Ea, it /ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$3 be de"lared part o*nerof saidlot tothe e(tent of the total amount reali7edfromthee(e"ution sale of itsproperties$1R*phSl$nTtThe Timban, spouses presented their opposition to ea"h and all of these motion$ 8fter duehearin, the lo*er "ourt rendered its resolution in the manner indi"ated at the be,innin, ofthis de"ision, from *hi"h the Timban,s alone have appealed$!n assailin, the order of the "ourt a =uo dire"tin, the appellants to pay appellee 'las theamount of their bid /)5,25+$++3 made at the publi" au"tion, appellantsI "ounsel haspresented a novel, albeit in,enious, ar,ument$ !t is "ontended that be"ause the builder in,ood faith has failed to pay the pri"e of the land after the o*ners thereof e(er"ised theiroption under 8rti"le %%& of the Civil Code, the builder lost his ri,ht of retention provided in8rti"le 5%6 and by operation of 8rti"le %%5, the appellants as o*ners of the landautomati"ally be"ame the o*ners ipso fa"to, the e(e"ution sale of the house in their favor*as superFuous$ Conse=uently, they are not bound to make ,ood their bid of )5,25+$++ asthat *ould be to make ,oods to pay for their o*n property$ 'y the same token, 'las "laim forpreferen"e on a""ount of the unpaid balan"e of the pur"hase pri"e of the house does notapply be"ause preferen"e applies only *ith respe"t to the property of the debtor, and theTimban,s, o*ners of the house, are not the debtors of 'las$This Court "annot a""ept this oversimpli>"ation of appellantsI position$ 8rti"le %%& and 5%6of the Civil Code de>nin, the ri,ht of the parties in "ase a person in ,ood faith builds, so*sor plants on the land of another, respe"tively provides981T$ %%&$ The o*ner of the land on *hi"h anythin, has been built, so*n or plated in ,oodfaithshall havetheri,httoappropriateashiso*nthe*orks, so*in,orplantin,, afterpayment of the indemnify provided for in arti"le 5%6 and 5%&, or to obli,ate the one *hobuilt orplantedtopaythepri"eof theland, andtheone*hoso*ed, theproper rent$Jo*ever, the builder or planter "annot be obli,ed to buy the land if its value is "onsiderablymore than that of the buildin, or trees$ !n su"h "ase, he shall pay reasonable rent, if theo*ner of the landdoes not "hoose to appropriate the buildin,or trees after properindemnity$ The parties shall a,ree upon the terms of the lease and in "ase of disa,reement,the "ourt shall >( the terms thereof$81T$ 5%6$ #e"essary e(penses shall be refunded to every possessorK but only the possessorin ,ood faith may retain the thin, until he has reimbursed therefor$Dseful e(penses shall be refunded only to the possessor in ,ood faith *ith the same ri,ht ofretention the person *ho has defeated him in the possession havin, to option of refundin,the amount of e(penses or of payin, the "ase in value *hi"h thin, may have a"=uired byreason thereof$Dnder the terms of these arti"le, it is true that the o*ner of the land has the ri,ht to "hoosebet*eenappropriatin,thebuildin,byreimbursin,thebuilder of thevaluethereof or"ompellin, the builder in ,ood faith to pay for his land$ ?ven this se"ond ri,ht "annot bee(er"ised if the value of the land is "onsiderably more than that of the buildin,$ !n addition tothe ri,ht of the builder to be paid the value of his improvement, 8rti"le 5%6 ,ives him the"orollary ri,ht of retention of the property until he is indemni>ed by the o*ner of the land$There is nothin, in the lan,ua,e of these t*o arti"le, %%& and 5%6, *hi"h *ould @ustify the"on"lusion of appellants that, upon the failure of the builder to pay the value of the land,*hen su"h is demanded by the landEo*ner, the latter be"omes automati"ally the o*ner ofthe improvement under 8rti"le %%5$ The "ase of 'ernardo vs$ 'ata"lan, 66 )hil$, 59+ "ited byappellants is no authority for this "on"lusion$ 8lthou,h it is true it *as de"lared therein thatin the event of the failure of the builder to pay the land after the o*ner thereof has "hosenthis alternative, the builderIs ri,ht of retention provided in 8rti"le 5%6 is lost, neverthelessthere *as nothin, said that as a "onse=uen"e thereof, the builder loses entirely allri,htsover his o*n buildin,$ The =uestion isK *hat is the re"ourse or remedy left to the parties insu"h eventuality *here the builder fails to pay the value of the landU 6hile the Code is silenton this Court in the "ases of Ciranda vs$ adullon, et al$, 92 )hil$, &+1K 51 Af$ 0a7$, 41256226K !,na"io vs$ Jilario, 26 )hil$, 6+5 and the "ited "ase of 'ernardo vs$ 'ata"lan, supra$!n the >rst "ase, this Court has said98 builder in ,ood faith not be re=uired to pay rentals$ he has ri,ht to retain the land on *hi"hhe has built in ,ood faith until he is reimbursed the e(penses in"urred by him$ )ossibly hemi,ht be made to pay rental only *hen the o*ner of the land "hooses not to appropriate theimprovement and re=uires the builder in ,ood faith to pay for the land but that the builder isun*illin, or unable to pay the land, and then they de"ide to leave thin,s as they are andassume the relation of lessor and lessee, and should they disa,ree as to the amount of rentalthen they "an ,o to the "ourt to >( that amount$ /?mphasis supplied3Should the parties not a,ree to leave thin,s as they are and to assume the relation of lessorand lessee, another remedy is su,,ested in the "ase of !,na"io vs$ Jilario, supra, *hereinthe "ourt has ruled that the o*ner of the land in entitled to have the improvement removed*hen after havin, "hosen to sell his land to the other party, i$e$, the builder in ,ood faithfails to pay for the same$8 further remedy is indi"ated in the "ase of 'ernardo vs$ 'ata"lan, supra, *here this Courtapproved the sale of the land and the improvement in a publi" au"tion applyin, the pro"eedsthereof >rst to the payment of the value of the land and the e("ess, if any, to be delivered tothe o*ner of the house in payment thereof$The appellants herein, o*ners o the land, instead of ele"tin, any of the alternative aboveindi"ated "hose to seek re"overy of the value of their land by askin, for a *rit of e(e"utionKlevyin, on the house of the builderK and sellin, the same in publi" au"tion$ Sand be"ausethey are the hi,hest bidder in their o*n au"tion sale, they no* "laim they a"=uired title tothe buildin, *ithout ne"essity of payin, in "ash on a""ount of their bid$ !n other *ords, theyin efe"t pretend to retain their land and a"=uire the house *ithout payin, a "ent therefor$This"ontentionis*ithoutmerit$ ThisCourthasalreadyheldinCatiasvs$ The)rovin"ialSherifof #ueva?"i@a/2%)hil$, 3263that *hileit istheinveriablepra"ti"e, di"tatedby"ommon sense, that *here the su""essful bidder is the e(e"ution "reditor himself, he neednotpay do*ntheamount of the bid ifitdoesnot e("eedtheamount of his @ud,ement,nevertheless, *hen their is a "laim by a thirdEparty, to the pro"eeds of the sale superior tohis@ud,ment "redit, thee(e"ution"reditor, assu""essful bidder, must payin"ashtheamount of his bid as a "ondition pre"edent to the issuan"e to him of the "erti>"ate of sale$ !nthe instant "ase, the Court of 8ppeals has already ad@ud,ed that appellee 'las is entitled tothepaymentof theunpaidbalan"eof thepur"hasepri"eof thes"hool buildin,$ 'lasisa"tually a lien on the s"hool buildin, are "on"erned$ The order of the lo*er "ourt dire"tin,the Timban, spouses, as su""essful bidders, to pay in "ash the amount of their bid in thesum of )5,25+$++ is therefore "orre"t$6ith respe"t to the order of the "ourt de"larin, appellee ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ part o*ner ofthe land to the e(tent of the value of its personal properties sold at publi" au"tion in favor ofthe Timban,, this Court Gike*ise >nds the same as @usti>ed, for su"h amount represents, inefe"t, a partial payment of the value of the land$ !f this resulted in the "ontinuation of thesoE"alledinvoluntarypartnership=uestionedbythediferen"ebet*een)&,2++$++Ptheunpaid balan"e of the pur"hase pri"e of the buildin, and the sum of )5,25+$++ P amount tobe paid by the Timban,s, the order of the "ourt dire"tin, the sale of su"h undivided interestof the ilipinas Colle,es, !n"$ is like*ise @usti>ed to satisfy the "laim of the appellee 'las$Considerin, that the appellant spouses Car"elino Timban, and Caria 0ar"ia Timban, maynot voluntarilypaythesumof )5,25+$++asordered, therebyfurther delayin,the>naltermination of this "ase, the >rst part of the dispositive portion of the order appealed from ismodi>ed in the sense that upon failure of the Timban, spouses to pay to the Sherif or toCanila 0erva"io 'las said sum of )5,25+$++ *ithin >fteen /153 days from noti"e of the >nal@ud,ment, an order of e(e"ution shall issue in favor of Caria 0ervasio 'las to be levied uponall properties of the Timban, spouses not e(empt from e(e"ution for the satisfa"tion of thesaid amount$!n all other respe"ts, the appealed order of the "ourt a =uo is hereby a.rmed, *ith "ostsa,ainst the appellants$!t is so ordered$".A431t$n v. Inter9ed$ate A..e!!ate Co3rt (1'< SCRA 81')EULO(IO A(USTIN- HEIRS OF BAL+O,ERO LAN(CAY- ARTURO BALISI C 6UAN LAN(CAY- .et$t$oner1- v1.INTER,E+IATE APPELLATE COURT- ,ARIA ,ELA+- TI,OTEO ,ELA+- PABLO BINAYU( C (ERONI,A UBINA- re1.ondent1.Anton$o N. La443$ 2or .et$t$oner1.Pedro R. Pere@- 6r. 2or .r$vate re1.ondent1.The Ca,ayan 1iver separates the to*ns of Solana on the *est and Tu,ue,arao on the east inthe provin"e of Ca,ayan$ 8""ordin, to the unrebutted testimony of 1omeo 1i,or, 0eodeti"?n,ineer of the 'ureau of Gands, in 1919 the lands east of the river *ere "overed by theTu,ue,arao Cadastre$ !n 1925, Ari,inal Certi>"ate of Title #o$ 5%22 *as issued for land eastof the Ca,ayan 1iver o*ned by defendantEpetitioner ?ulo,io 8,ustin /?(h$ 2E8,ustin3$8s the years *ent by, the Ca,ayan 1iver moved ,radually east*ard, depositin, silt on the*estern bank$ The shiftin, of the river and the siltation "ontinued until 196&$!n195+, all lands*est of theriver*erein"ludedintheSolanaCadastre$ 8mon,theseo""upyin, lands "overed by the Solana Cadastre *ere plaintifsEprivate respondents, namely,)ablo 'inayu,, *ho has beenin possession of Gots 33%9, 2&26, 2&22, 2&2&, 2&29, 2&25,2&&1, 2&&2, 2&&3, 2&&%, 2&&5, 2&91 and 2&92, and Caria Celad, *ho o*ns Got 3351 /?(h$ 3E'inayu,K ?(h$ 'ECelad3$ )ablo 'inayu, be,an his possession in 19%2$ 8n area of ei,ht /&3he"tares *as planted to toba""o and "orn *hile 12 he"tares *ere over,ro*n *ith talahib/?(h$ CE1'inayu,$3 'inayu,Is Jomestead8ppli"ation#o$ 6E29+55over this land*asapproved in 1959 /?(h$ 'E'inayu,3$ 'inayu,Is possession *as re"o,ni7ed in the de"ision inCivil Case #o$ 1+1 /?(h$ E'inayu,3$ An the other hand, as a result of Civil Case #o$ 3%3ET,Ca"ario Celad, the prede"essorEinEinterest of Caria Celad and Timoteo Celad, *as issuedAri,inal Certi>"ate of Title #o$ )E5+26 for Got 3351 of Cad$ 293 on -une 1, 1956$Throu,htheyears, theCa,ayan1iver erodedlandsof theTu,ue,araoCadastreonitseasternbankamon,*hi"h*asdefendantEpetitioner?ulo,io8,ustinIsGot &%52/?(h$ ?ECelad3, depositin, the alluvium as a""retion on the land possessed by )ablo 'inayu, on the*estern bank$Jo*ever, in 196&, after a bi, Food, the Ca,ayan 1iver "han,ed its "ourse, returned to its1919 bed, and, in the pro"ess, "ut a"ross the lands of Caria Celad, Timoteo Celad, and thespouses )ablo 'inayu, and 0eronima Dbina *hose lands *ere transferred on the eastern, orTu,ue,arao, side of the river$ To "ultivate those lots they had to "ross the river$!n 8pril, 1969, *hile the private respondents and their tenants *ere plantin, "orn on theirlots lo"ated on the eastern side of the Ca,ayan 1iver, the petitioners, a""ompanied by themayor and some poli"emen of Tu,ue,arao, "laimed the same lands as their o*n and drovea*ay the private respondents from the premises$An8pril 21,192+,privaterespondentsCaria Celadand TimoteoCelad >led a"omplaint/Civil Case #o$ 3%3ET3 to re"over Got #o$ 3351 *ith an area of 5 he"tares and its 6$6Ehe"tarea""retion$ An 8pril 2%, 192+, private respondent )ablo 'inayu, >led a separate "omplaint/Civil Case #o$ 3%%ET3 to re"over his lots and their a""retions$An -une 16, 1925, the trial "ourt rendered a de"ision, the dispositive portion of *hi"h reads96J?1?A1?, premises "onsidered, @ud,ment is hereby made9!nCivilCase#o$ 3%3ET, "ommandin, ?ulo,io8,ustin,0re,orio Tuliao, -a"into 'u=uelandA"tavio'an"ud, or anybody a"tin, as their representative4s5 or a,entstova"ate Got #o$3351 of Solana Cadastre to,ether *ith its a""retion "onsistin, of portions of Gots 9%63, 9%62and 9%61 of Tu,ue,arao Cadastre and for these defendants to restore o*nership in favor ofCaria Celad and Timoteo Celad *ho are the only interested heirs of Ca"ario Celad$!n Civil Case #o$ 3%%ET, "ommandin, defendants -usto 8dduru, 8ndres )astor, Teo>loTa,a"ay, :i"ente Camilan, #i"anor Cora, 'aldomero Ca,uran,an, ;omin,o Nuilan,, CesarCabal7a, ?lias Ca"ababbad, Titon, Ca"ababbad, 8rturo 'alisi, -ose 8llabun, ?ulo,io 8,ustin,'anon, 8=uino, -unior Cambri and -uan Gan,oay, or any of their a,ents or representatives tova"ate the Gots 33%9, 2&26, 2&22, 2&2&, 2&29, 2&25, 2&&1, 2&&2, 2&&3, 2&&%, 2&&5, 2&91and 2&92, to,ether *ith its a""retion and to restore possession to plaintifs )ablo 'inayu,and0eronimaDbina$ 6ithout pronoun"ement as todama,es *hi"h*erenot properlyproven and to "osts$SA A1;?1?;$ /8s amended by the order dated 8u,ust 15, 1925$3 /pp$ 2%E25, 1ollo$3AnlydefendantEpetitioner?ulo,io8,ustinappealedinCivil Case#o$ 3%3ET, *hileinCivilCase #o$ 3%%ET, only defendantsEpetitioners ?ulo,io 8,ustin, 'aldomero Ca,uran,an/substitutedbyhisheir3, 8rturo'alisi and-uanGan,"ayappealed$ 'ut uponmotionofplaintifsEprivate respondents,the trial"ourt ordered the e(e"ution pendin, appealof the@ud,ment in Civil Case #o$ 3%%ET a,ainst Ca,uran,an, 'alisi and Gan,"ay on the ,round thattheir appeal *asdilatoryastheyhadnot presentedeviden"eat thetrial /Arder dated8u,ust 15, 19253$An #ovember 29, 19&3, the !ntermediate 8ppellate Court rendered a de"ision a.rmin, intoto the @ud,ment of the trial "ourt, *ith "osts a,ainst the defendantsEappellants$!n their petition for revie* of that de"ision, the petitioners alle,e that the Court of 8ppealserred91$ in de"larin, that the land in =uestion had be"ome part of private respondentsI estateas a result of a""retionK2$ in de"larin, that the a""retion to private respondentsI estate *hi"h used to pertain topetitionersI estate "annot pre"lude the private respondents from bein, the o*ners thereofKand3$ inde"larin,that theo*nershipof privaterespondents over thea""retionis notafe"tedbythesuddenandabrupt "han,einthe"ourseof theCa,ayan1iver *henitreverted to its old bedThe petition is unmeritorious and must be denied$The >ndin, of the Court of 8ppeals that there had been a""retions to the lots of the privaterespondents *hodidnot losetheo*nershipof su"ha""retions evenafter they*ereseparated from the prin"ipal lots by the sudden "han,e of "ourse of the river, is a >ndin, offa"t *hi"h is "on"lusive on this Court$ That >ndin, is supported by 8rt$ %52 of the #e* CivilCode *hi"h provides98rt$ %52$ To the o*ners of lands ad@oinin, the banks of rivers belon, the a""retion *hi"hthey ,radually re"eive from the efe"ts of the "urrent of the *aters$ /36638""retion bene>ts a riparian o*ner *hen the follo*in, re=uisites are present9 /13 that thedeposit be ,radual and imper"eptibleK /23 that it resulted from the efe"ts of the "urrent ofthe *aterK and /33 that the land *here a""retion takes pla"e is ad@a"ent to the bank of a river/1epubli" vs$ C8, 132 SC18 51%3$8ll these re=uisites of a""retion are present in this "ase for, as the trial "ourt found9$ $ $ Ca,ayan 1iver did move year by year from 1919 to 196& or for a period of %9 years$6ithin this period, the alluvium /si"3 deposited on the other side has be"ome ,reater in areathantheori,inal landsof theplaintifsinboth"ases$ Still theadditionineveryyear isimper"eptible in nature, one "ould not dis"ern it but "an be measured after the lapse of a"ertaintime$ Thetestimonial eviden"einthese"ases that saidCa,ayan1iver movedeast*ard year by year is over*helmin, as a,ainst the denial of defendant ?ulo,io 8,ustinalone$ Cesar Caronan, one time mayor of Solana, Ca,ayan, said so$ 8rturo Ta,uian said so$Timoteo Celad said so$ ran"is"o Dbina said so$ 0eodeti" ?n,ineer 1i,or impliedly said so*hen he testi>ed that *hen Solana Cadastre *as e(e"uted in 195+ it overlapped portions ofTu,ue,araoCadastree(e"utedin1919$ This "ouldnot havehappenedif that part ofTu,ue,arao Cadastre *as not eroded by the overFo*of the Ca,ayan 1iver$ Thesetestimonies"annot bedestroyedbythedenialsof :i"enteCauilan, Car"elo8,ustinand?ulo,io 8,ustin alone $ $ $ $ /p$ 22, 1ollo$3The appellate "ourt "on>rmed that the a""retion on the *estern bank of the Ca,ayan 1iverhad been ,oin, on from 1919 up to 196& or for a period of %9 years$ !t *as ,radual andimper"eptible$ Anly *hen Got #o$ 3351, *ith an ori,inal area of 5 he"tares des"ribed in thefree patent that *as issued to Ca"ario Celad in -une 1956, *as resurveyed in 196& did itbe"omekno*nthat 6$6he"tares hadbeenaddedto it$ Got #o$ 3351, "overedby ahomestead patent issued in -une, 195+ to )ablo 'inayu,, ,re* from its ori,inal area of 1&he"tares, byanadditional 5+he"taresthrou,halluviumastheCa,ayan1iver,raduallymoved to the east$ These a""retions belon, to riparian o*ners upon *hose lands the alluvialdeposits *ere made /1o(as vs$ Tuason, 9 )hil$ %+&K ;ire"tor of Gands vs$ 1i7al, &2 )hil$ &+63$The reason for this prin"iple is be"ause, if lands borderin, on streams are e(posed to Foodsand other dama,e due to the destru"tive for"e of the *aters, and if by virtue of la* they aresub@e"t to en"umbran"es and various kinds of easements, it is only @ust that su"h risks ordan,ers as may pre@udi"e the o*ners thereof should in some *ay be "ompensated by theri,ht of a""retion /Cortes vs$ City of Canila, 1+ )hil$ 5623$TheprivaterespondentsIo*nershipof thea""retiontotheirlands *as not lost uponthesuddenandabrupt"han,eofthe"ourseoftheCa,ayan1iverin196&or1969*henitreverted to its old 1919 bed, and separated or transferred said a""retions to the other side/oreasternbank3of theriver$ 8rti"les%59and%63of the#e*Civil Codeapplytothissituation$8rt$ %59$ 6henever the "urrent of a river, "reek or torrent se,re,ates from an estate onits bank a kno*n portion of land and transfers it to another estate, the o*ner of the land to*hi"h the se,re,ated portion belon,ed retains the o*nership of it, provided that he removesthe same *ithin t*o years$8rt$ %63$ 6henever the "urrent of a river divides itself into bran"hes, leavin, a pie"e ofland or part thereof isolated, the o*ner of the land retains his o*nership$ Je also retains it ifa portion of land is separated from the estate by the "urrent$ /?mphasis supplied3$!n the "ase at bar, the sudden "han,e of "ourse of the Ca,ayan 1iver as a result of a stron,typhoon in 196& "aused a portion of the lands of the private respondents to be Bseparatedfrom the estate by the "urrent$B The private respondents have retained the o*nership of theportion that *as transferred by avulsion to the other side of the river$6J?1?A1?, thepetitionisdeniedfor la"kof merit$ Thede"isionof the!ntermediate8ppellate Court, no* Court of 8ppeals, is hereby a.rmed$ Costs a,ainst the petitionersled an appli"ation to re,ister and "on>rm his title to a par"el of land, situated in Sibo"on, 'alan,a, 'ataan, des"ribed in )lan )suE1251&1 and said to have an area of 1%6,611 s=uare meters$ )as"ual "laimed that this land is an a""retion to his property, situated in 'arrio )uerto 1ivas, 'alan,a, 'ataan, and "overed by Ari,inal Certi>"ate of Title #o$ 6&3+$ !t is bounded on the eastern side by the Talisay 1iver, on the *estern side by the 'ula"an 1iver, and on the northern side by the Canila 'ay$ The Talisay 1iver as *ell as the 'ula"an 1iver Fo* do*nstream and meet at the Canila 'ay thereby depositin, sand and silt on )as"ualIs property resultin, in an a""retion thereon$ Sinforoso )as"ual "laimed the a""retion as the riparian o*ner$An Car"h 25, 196+, the ;ire"tor of Gands, represented by the 8ssistant Soli"itor 0eneral, >led an opposition thereto statin, that neither )as"ual nor his prede"essorsEinEinterest possessed su."ient title to the sub@e"t property, the same bein, a portion of the publi" domain and, therefore, it belon,s to the 1epubli" of the )hilippines$ The ;ire"tor of orestry, throu,h the )rovin"ial is"al, similarly opposed )as"ualIs appli"ation for the same reason as that advan"ed by the ;ire"tor of Gands$ Gater on, ho*ever, the ;ire"tor of Gands *ithdre* his opposition$ The ;ire"tor of orestry be"ome the sole oppositor$An -une 2, 196+, the "ourt a =uo issued an order of ,eneral default e("eptin, the ;ire"tor of Gands and the ;ire"tor of orestry$Dpon motion of ?miliano #avarro, ho*ever, the order of ,eneral default *as lifted and, on ebruary 13, 1961, #avarro thereupon >led an opposition to )as"ualIs appli"ation$ #avarro "laimed that the land sou,ht to be re,istered has al*ays been part of the publi" domain, it bein, a part of the foreshore of Canila 'ayK that he *as a lessee and in possession of a part of the sub@e"t property by virtue of a >shpond permit issued by the 'ureau of isheries and "on>rmed by the A."e of the )residentK and that be bad already "onverted the area "overedby the lease into a >shpond$;urin, the penden"y of the land re,istration "ase, that is, on #ovember 6, 196+, Sinforoso )as"ual >led a "omplaint for e@e"tment a,ainst ?miliano #avarro, one Car"elo Gope7 and their privies, alle,ed by )as"ual to have unla*fully "laimed and possessed, throu,h stealth, for"e and strate,y, a portion of the sub@e"t property "overed by )lan )suE1251&1$ The defendants in the "ase *ere alle,ed to have built a provisional dike thereon9 thus they have thereby deprived )as"ual of the premises sou,ht to be re,istered$ This, not*ithstandin, repeated demands for defendants to va"ate the property$The "ase *as de"ided adversely a,ainst )as"ual$ Thus, )as"ual appealed to the Court of irst!nstan"e /no* 1e,ional Trial Court3 of 'alan,a, 'ataan, the appeal havin, been do"keted as Civil Case #o$ 2&23$ 'e"ause of the similarity of the parties and the sub@e"t matter, the appealed "ase for e@e"tment *as "onsolidated *ith the land re,istration "ase and *as @ointlytried by the "ourt a =uo$;urin, the penden"y of the trial of the "onsolidated "ases, ?miliano #avarro died on #ovember 1, 1961 and *as substituted by his heirs, the herein petitioners$Subse=uently, on 8u,ust 26, 1962, )as"ual died and *as substituted by his heirs, the herein private respondents$An #ovember 1+, 1925, the "ourt a =uo rendered @ud,ment >ndin, the sub@e"t property to be foreshore land and, bein, a part of the publi" domain, it "annot be the sub@e"t of land re,istration pro"eedin,s$The de"isionIs dispositive portion reads96J?1?A1?, @ud,ment is rendered9/13 ;ismissin, plaintif 4private respondent5 Sinforoso )as"ualIs "omplaint for e@e"tment inCivil Case #o$ 2&23K/23 ;enyin, the appli"ation of Sinforoso )as"ual for land re,istration over the land in =uestionK and/33 ;ire"tin, said Sinforoso )as"ual, throu,h his heirs, as plaintif in Civil Case #o$ 2&23 and as appli"ant in Gand 1e,istration Case #o$ #E&% to pay "osts in both instan"es$B 6The heirs of )as"ual appealed and, before the respondent appellate "ourt, assisted the follo*in, errors91$ The lo*er "ourt erred in not >ndin, the land in =uestion as an a""retion by the a"tion of the Talisay and 'ula"an 1ivers to the land admittedly o*ned by appli"antsEappellants 4private respondents5$2$ The lo*er "ourt erred in holdin, that the land in =uestion is foreshore land$3$ The lo*er "ourt erred in not orderin, the re,istration of the land in "ontroversy in favor of appli"antsEappellants 4private respondents5$%$ The lo*er "ourt erred in not >ndin, that the appli"antsEappellants 4private respondents5 are entitled to e@e"t the oppositorEappellee 4petitioners5$ 2An appeal, the respondent "ourt reversed the >ndin,s of the "ourt a =uo and ,ranted the petition for re,istration of the sub@e"t property but e("ludin, therefrom >fty /5+3 meters from"orner 2 to*ards "orner 1K and >fty meters /5+3 meters from "orner 5 to*ards "orner 6 of the )suE1251&1$The respondent appellate "ourt e(plained the reversal in this *ise9The paramount issue to be resolved in this appeal as set forth by the parties in their respe"tive briefs is P *hether or not the land sou,ht to be re,istered is a""retion or foreshore land, or, *hether or not said land *as formed by the a"tion of the t*o rivers of Talisay and 'ula"an or by the a"tion of the Canila 'ay$ !f formed by the a"tion of the Talisay and 'ula"an rivers, the sub@e"t land is a""retion but if formed by the a"tion of the Canila 'aythen it is foreshore land$((( ((( (((!t is undisputed that appli"antsEappellants 4private respondents5 o*ned the land immediatelyad@oinin, the land sou,ht to be re,istered$ Their property *hi"h is "overed by ACT #o$ 6&3+ is bounded on the east by the Talisay 1iver, on the *est by the 'ula"an 1iver, and on the north by the Canila 'ay$ The Talisay and 'ula"an rivers "ome from inland Fo*in, do*nstream to*ards the Canila 'ay$ !n other *ords, bet*een the Talisay 1iver and the 'ula"an 1iver is the property of appli"ants *ith both rivers a"tin, as the boundary to said land and the Fo* of both rivers meetin, and emptyin, into the Canila 'ay$ The sub@e"t land *as formed at the tip or ape( of appellantsI 4private respondentsI5 land addin, thereto the land no* sou,ht to be re,istered$This makes this "ase =uite uni=ue be"ause *hile it is undisputed that the sub@e"t land is immediately atta"hed to appellantsI 4private respondentsI5 land and forms the tip thereof, at the same time, said land immediately fa"es the Canila 'ay *hi"h is part of the sea$ 6e "an understand therefore the "onfusion this "ase mi,ht have "aused the lo*er "ourt, fa"ed as it *as *ith the uneasy problem of de"idin, *hether or not the sub@e"t land *as formed by the a"tion of the t*o rivers or by the a"tion of the sea$ Sin"e the sub@e"t land is found at the shore of the Canila 'ay fa"in, appellantsI 4private respondentsI5 land, it *ould be =uite easy to "on"lude that it is foreshore and therefore part of the patrimonial property of the State as the lo*er "ourt did in fa"t rule $ $ $ $((( ((( (((!t is ho*ever undisputed that appellantsI 4private respondentsI5 land lies bet*een these t*o rivers and it is pre"isely appellantsI 4private respondentsI5 land *hi"h a"ts as a barri"ade preventin, these t*o rivers to meet$ Thus, sin"e the Fo* of the t*o rivers is do*n*ards to the Canila 'ay the sediments of sand and silt are deposited at their mouths$!t is, therefore, di."ult to see ho* the Canila 'ay "ould have been the "ause of the deposit thereat for in the natural "ourse of thin,s, the *aves of the sea eat the land on the shore, as they su,e 4si"5 inland$ !t *ould not therefore add anythin, to the land but instead subtra"t from it due to the a"tion of the *aves and the *ind$ !t is then more lo,i"al to believe that thet*o rivers Fo*in, to*ards the bay emptied their "ar,o of sand, silt and "lay at their mouths, thus "ausin, appellantsI 4private respondentsI5 land to a""umulate therein$Jo*ever, our distin,uished "ollea,e 4si"5, Cr$ -usti"e Serrano, do 4si"5 not seem to a""ept this theory and stated that the sub@e"t land arose only *hen $ $ $ $ )as"ual planted BpalapatB and Bbaka*anB trees thereat to serve as a boundary or strainer$ 'ut *e do not see ho* this a"t of plantin, trees by )as"ual *ould e(plain ho* the land mass "ame into bein,$ Cu"h less*ill it prove that the same "ame from the sea$ ollo*in, Cr$ -usti"e SerranoIs ar,ument that it *ere the fe* trees that a"ted as strainers or blo"ks, then the land that ,re* *ould have stopped at the pla"e *here the said trees *ere planted$ 'ut this is not so be"ause the land mass *ent far beyond the boundary, or *here the trees *ere planted$An the other hand, the pi"tureEe(hibits of appellants 4private respondents5 "learly sho* that the land that a""umulated beyond the soE "alled boundary, as *ell as the entire area bein, applied for is dry land, above sea level, and bearin, innumerable trees $ $ $ The e(isten"e of ve,etation on the land "ould only "on>rm that the soil thereat "ame from inland rather than from the sea, for *hat "ould the sea brin, to the shore but sand, pebbles, stones, ro"ks and "orralsU An the other hand, the t*o rivers *ould be brin,in, soil on their do*n*ard Fo* *hi"h they brou,ht alon, from the eroded mountains, the lands alon, their path, and dumped them all on the northern portion of appellantsI 4private respondentsI5 land$!n vie* of the fore,oin,, *e have to deviate from the lo*er "ourtIs >ndin,$ 6hile it is true that the sub@e"t land is found at the shore of the Canila 'ay frontin, appellantsI 4private respondentsI5 land, said land is not foreshore but an a""retion from the a"tion of the Talisay and 'ula"an rivers$ !n fa"t, this is e(a"tly *hat the 'ureau of Gands found out, as sho*n in the follo*in, report of the 8"tin, )rovin"ial A."er, -esus C$ Aro7"o, to *it9BDpon o"ular inspe"tion of the land sub@e"t of this re,istration made on -une 11, 196+, it *asfound out that the said land is $ $ $ $ sand*it"hed 4si"5 by t*o bi, rivers $ $ $ $ These t*o rivers brin, do*n "onsiderable amount of soil and sediments durin, Foods every year thus raisin, the soil of the land ad@oinin, the private property of the appli"ant 4private respondents5$ 8bout fourE>fth 4si"5 of the area applied for is no* dry land *hereon are planted palapat trees thi"kly ,ro*in, thereon$ !t is the natural a"tion of these t*o rivers that has "aused the formation of said land $ $ $ $ sub@e"t of this re,istration "ase$ !t has been formed, therefore, bya""retion$ 8nd havin, been formed by a""retion, the said land may be "onsidered the privateproperty of the riparian o*ner *ho is the appli"ant herein 4private respondents5 $ $ $ $!n vie* of the above, the opposition hereto >led by the ,overnment should be *ithdra*n, e("ept for the portion re"ommended by the land investi,ator in his report dated Cay 2, 196+, to be e("luded and "onsidered foreshore$ $ $ $B'e"ause of this report, no less than the Soli"itor 0eneral representin, the 'ureau of Gands *ithdre* his opposition dated Car"h 25, 196+, and limited Bthe same to the northern portionof the land applied for, "ompromisin, a strip 5+ meters *ide alon, the Canila 'ay, *hi"h should be de"lared publi" land as part of the foreshoreB $ $ $ $ &)ursuant to the afore"ited de"ision, the respondent appellate "ourt ordered the issuan"e of the "orrespondin, de"ree of re,istration in the name of private respondents and the reversion to private respondents of the possession of the portion of the sub@e"t property in"luded in #avarroIs >shpond permit$An ;e"ember 2+, 192&, petitioners >led a motion for re"onsideration of the afore"ited de"ision$ The ;ire"tor of orestry also moved for the re"onsideration of the same de"ision$ 'oth motions *ere opposed by private respondents on -anuary 22, 1929$An #ovember 21, 19&+, respondent appellate "ourt promul,ated a resolution denyin, the motion for re"onsideration >led by the ;ire"tor of orestry$ !t, ho*ever, modi>ed its de"ision,to read, vi79/33$ Arderin, private oppositors Jeirs of ?miliano #avarro to va"ate that portion in"luded in their >shpond permit "overed by )lan )suE1251&1 and hand over possession of said portion to appli"antsEappellants, if the said portion is not *ithin the strip of land >fty /5+3 meters *ide alon, Canila 'ay on the northern portion of the land sub@e"t of the re,istration pro"eedin,s and *hi"h area is more parti"ularly referred to as >fty /5+3 meters from "orner 2to*ards "orner 1K and >fty /5+3 meters from "orner 5 to*ards "orner 6 of )lan )suE1251&1$ $ $ $ 9An ;e"ember 15, 19&+, *e ,ranted the Soli"itor 0eneral, a"tin, as "ounsel for the ;ire"tor of orestry, an e(tension of time *ithin *hi"h to >le in this "ourt, a petition for revie* of the de"ision dated #ovember 29, 192& of the respondent appellate "ourt and of the afore"ited resolution dated #ovember 21, 19&+$Thereafter, the Soli"itor 0eneral, in behalf of the ;ire"tor of orestry, >led a petition for revie* entitled, BThe ;ire"tor of orestry vs$ the Court of 8ppeals$B 1+ 6e, ho*ever, denied the same in a minute resolution dated -uly 2+, 19&1, su"h petition havin, been prematurely >led at a time *hen the Court of 8ppeals *as yet to resolve petitionersI pendin, motion to set aside the resolution dated #ovember 21, 19&+$An A"tober 9, 19&1, respondent appellate "ourt denied petitionersI motion for re"onsideration of the de"ision dated #ovember 29, 192&$An A"tober 12, 19&1, respondent appellate "ourt made an entry of @ud,ment statin, that thede"ision dated #ovember 29, 192& had be"ome >nal and e(e"utory as a,ainst herein petitioners as oppositors in G$1$C$ Case #o$ #E&% and Civil Case #o$ 2&23 of the Court of irst !nstan"e /no* the 1e,ional Trial Court3 of 'alan,a, 'ataan$An A"tober 26, 19&1, a se"ond motion for re"onsideration of the de"ision dated #ovember 29, 192& *as >led by petitionersI ne* "ounsel$An Car"h 26, 19&2, respondent appellate "ourt issued a resolution ,rantin, petitionersI re=uest for leave to >le a se"ond motion for re"onsideration$An -uly 13, 19&%, after hearin,, respondent appellate "ourt denied petitionersI se"ond motion for re"onsideration on the ,round that the same *as >led out of time, "itin, 1ule 52, Se"tion 1 of the 1ules of Court *hi"h provides that a motion for re"onsideration shall be made e(Eparte and >led *ithin >fteen /153 days from the noti"e of the >nal order or @ud,ment$Jen"e this petition *here the respondent appellate "ourt is imputed to have palpably erred in appre"iatin, the fa"t of the "ase and to have ,ravely misapplied statutory and "ase la* relatin, to a""retion, spe"i>"ally, 8rti"le %52 of the Civil Code$6e >nd no merit in the petition$The disputed property *as brou,ht forth by both the *ithdra*al of the *aters of Canila 'ay and the a""retion formed on the e(posed foreshore land by the a"tion of the sea *hi"h brou,ht soil and sand sediments in turn trapped by the palapat and baka*an trees planted thereon by petitioner Sulpi"io )as"ual in 19%&8n"horin, their "laim of o*nership on 8rti"le %52 of the Civil Code, petitioners vi,orously ar,ue that the disputed 1%Ehe"tare land is an a""retion "aused by the @oint a"tion of the Talisay and 'ula"an 1ivers *hi"h run their "ourse on the eastern and *estern boundaries, respe"tively, of petitionersI o*n tra"t of land$8""retion as a mode of a"=uirin, property under said 8rti"le %52, re=uires the "on"urren"e ofthe follo*in, re=uisites9 /13 that the a""umulation of soil or sediment be ,radual and imper"eptibleK /23 that it be the result of the a"tion of the *aters of the riverK and /33 that the land *here the a""retion takes pla"e is ad@a"ent to the bank of the river$ 11 8""retion is the pro"ess *hereby the soil is deposited, *hile alluvium is the soil deposited on the estate frontin, the river bank 12K the o*ner of su"h estate is "alled the riparian o*ner$ 1iparian o*ners are, stri"tly speakin,, distin"t from littoral o*ners, the latter bein, o*ners of lands borderin, the shore of the sea or lake or other tidal *aters$ 13 The alluvium, by mandate of 8rti"le %52 of the Civil Code, is automati"ally o*ned by the riparian o*ner from the moment the soil deposit "an be seen 1% but is not automati"ally re,istered property, hen"e, sub@e"t to a"=uisition throu,h pres"ription by third persons 15$)etitionersI "laim of o*nership over the disputed property under the prin"iple of a""retion, is mispla"ed$irst, the title of petitionersI o*n tra"t of land reveals its northeastern boundary to be Canila 'ay$ )etitionersI land, therefore, used to ad@oin, border or front the Canila 'ay and not any ofthe t*o rivers *hose torrential a"tion, petitioners insist, is to a""ount for the a""retion on their land$ !n fa"t, one of the petitioners, Sulpi"io )as"ual, testi>ed in open "ourt that the *aves of Canila 'ay used to hit the disputed land bein, part of the bayIs foreshore but, afterhe had planted palapat and baka*an trees thereon in 19%&, the land be,an to rise$ 16Coreover, there is no dispute as to the lo"ation of9 /a3 the disputed landK /b3 petitionersI o*n tra"t of landK /"3 the Canila 'ayK and, /d3 the Talisay and 'ula"an 1ivers$ )etitionersI o*n land lies bet*een the Talisay and 'ula"an 1iversK in front of their land on the northern side lies no* the disputed land *here before 19%&, there lay the Canila 'ay$ !f the a""retion *ere to be attributed to the a"tion of either or both of the Talisay and 'ula"an 1ivers, the alluviumshould have been deposited on either or both of the eastern and *estern boundaries of petitionersI o*n tra"t of land, not on the northern portion thereof *hi"h is ad@a"ent to the Canila 'ay$ Clearly la"kin,, thus, is the third re=uisite of a""retion, *hi"h is, that the alluvium is deposited on the portion of "laimantIs land *hi"h is ad@a"ent to the river bank$Se"ond, there is no dispute as to the fa"t that petitionersI o*n tra"t of land ad@oins the Canila 'ay$ Canila 'ay is obviously not a river, and @urispruden"e is already settled as to *hat kind of body of *ater the Canila 'ay is$ !t is to be remembered that *e held that98ppellant ne(t "ontends that $ $ $ $ Canila 'ay "annot be "onsidered as a sea$ 6e >nd said "ontention untenable$ 8 bay is part of the sea, bein, a mere indentatiom of the same9B'ay$ P 8n openin, into the land *here the *ater is shut in on all sides e("ept at the entran"eK an inlet of the seaK an arm of the sea, distin"t from a river, a bendin, or "urbin, of the shore of the sea or of a lake$ B 2 C$-$ 1+13E1+1%$B 12The disputed land, thus, is an a""retion not on a river bank but on a sea bank, or on *hat used to be the foreshore of Canila 'ay *hi"h ad@oined petitionersI o*n tra"t of land on the northern side$ 8s su"h, the appli"able la* is not 8rti"le %52 of to Civil Code but 8rti"le % of the Spanish Ga* of 6aters of 1&66$The pro"ess by *hi"h the disputed land *as formed, is not di."ult to dis"ern from the fa"ts of the "ase$ 8s the trial "ourt "orre"tly observed98 perusal of the survey plan $ $ $ $ of the land sub@e"t matter of these "ases sho*s that on theeastern side, the property is bounded by Talisay 1iver, on the *estern side by 'ula"an 1iver, on the southern side by Got 1%36 and on the northern side by Canila 'ay$ !t is not "orre"t to state that the Talisay and 'ula"an 1ivers meet a "ertain portion be"ause the t*o rivers both Fo* to*ards Canila 'ay$ The Talisay 1iver is strai,ht *hile the 'ula"an 1iver is a little bit meanderin, and there is no portion *here the t*o rivers meet before they end up at Canila 'ay$ The land *hi"h is ad@a"ent to the property belon,in, to )as"ual "annot be "onsidered an a""retion 4"aused by the a"tion of the t*o rivers5$8ppli"ant )as"ual $ $ $ $ has not presented proofs to "onvin"e the Court that the land he has applied for re,istration is the result of the settlin, do*n on his re,istered land of soil, earth or other deposits so as to be ri,htfully be "onsidered as an a""retion 4"aused by the a"tion ofthe t*o rivers5$ Said 8rt$ %52 >nds no appli"ability *here the a""retion must have been "aused by a"tion of the bay$ 1&The "on"lusion formed by the trial "ourt on the basis of the afore,oin, observation is that the disputed land is part of the foreshore of Canila 'ay and therefore, part of the publi" domain$ The respondent appellate "ourt, ho*ever, per"eived the fa"t that petitionersI o*n land lies bet*een the Talisay and 'ula"an 1ivers, to be basis to "on"lude that the disputed land must be an a""retion formed by the a"tion of the t*o rivers be"ause petitionersI o*n land a"ted as a barri"ade preventin, the t*o rivers to meet and that the "urrent of the t*o rivers "arried sediments of sand and silt do*n*ards to the Canila 'ay *hi"h a""umulated someho* to a 1%Ehe"tare land$ These "on"lusions, ho*ever, are fatally in"on,ruous in the li,ht of the one undisputed "riti"al fa"t9 the a""retion *as deposited, not on either the eastern or *estern portion of petitionersI land *here a river ea"h runs, but on the northern portion of petitionersI land *hi"h ad@oins the Canila 'ay$ 6orse, su"h "on"lusions are further eroded of their pra"ti"al lo,i" and "onsonan"e *ith natural e(perien"e in the li,ht of Sulpi"io)as"ualIs admission as to havin, planted palapat and baka*an trees on the northern boundary of their o*n land$ !n ampli>"ation of this, plainly more reasonable and valid are -usti"e Cariano SerranoIs observations in his dissentin, opinion *hen he stated that98s appellantsI /titled3 land $ $ $ $ a"ts as a barri"ade that prevents the t*o rivers to meet, and "onsiderin, the *ide e(panse of the boundary bet*een said land and the Canila 'ay, measurin, some 593$++ meters $ $ $ $ it is believed rather farfet"hed for the land in =uestion to have been formed throu,h Bsediments of sand and salt 4si"5 $ $ $ $ deposited at their 4riversI5 mouths$B Coreover, if Bsin"e the Fo* of the t*o rivers is do*n*ards to the Canila 'ay the sediments of sand and silt are deposited at their mouths,B *hy then *ould the alle,ed "ar,o of sand, silt and "lay a""umulate at the northern portion of appellantsI titled land fa"in, Canila 'ay instead of merely at the mouths and banks of these t*o riversU That bein, the "ase, the a""retion formed at said portion of appellantsI titled 4land5 *as not "aused by the "urrent of the t*o rivers but by the a"tion of the sea /Canila 'ay3 into *hi"h the rivers empty$The "on"lusion $ $ $ $ is not supported by any referen"e to the eviden"e *hi"h, on the "ontrary, sho*s that the disputed land *as formed by the a"tion of the sea$ Thus, no less than Sulpi"io )as"ual, one of the heirs of the ori,inal appli"ant, testi>ed on "rossEe(amination that the land in dispute *as part of the shore and it *as only in 19%& that he noti"ed that the land *as be,innin, to ,et hi,her after he had planted trees thereon in 19%&$ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ it is established that before 19%& sea *ater from the Canila 'ay at hi,h tide "ould rea"h as far as the dike of appellantsI >shpond *ithin their titled property, *hi"h dike no* separates this titled property from the land in =uestion$ ?ven in 19%& *hen appellants had already planted palapat and baka*an trees in the land involved, inasmu"h as these trees *ere yet small, the *aves of the sea "ould still rea"h the dike$ This must be so be"ause in $ $ $ $ the survey plan of the titled property approved in 191&, said titled land *as bounded on the north by Canila 'ay$ So Canila 'ay *as ad@a"ent to it on the north$ !t *as only after the plantin, of the aforesaid trees in 19%& that the land in =uestion be,an to rise or to ,et hi,her in elevation$The trees planted by appellants in 19%& be"ame a sort of strainer of the sea *ater and at thesame time a kind of blo"k to the strained sediments from bein, "arried ba"k to the sea by the very *aves that brou,ht them to the former shore at the end of the dike, *hi"h must have "aused the shoreline to re"ede and dry up eventually raisin, the former shore leadin, to the formation of the land in =uestion$B 19!n other *ords, the "ombined and intera"tive efe"t of the plantin, of palapat and baka*an trees, the *ithdra*al of the *aters of Canila 'ay eventually resultin, in the dryin, up of its former foreshore, and the re,ular torrential a"tion of the *aters of Canila 'ay, is the formation of the disputed land on the northern boundary of petitionersI o*n tra"t of land$The disputed property is an a""retion on a sea bank, Canila 'ay bein, an inlet or an arm of the seaK as su"h, the disputed property is, under 8rti"le % of the Spanish Ga* of 6aters of 1&66, part of the publi" domain8t the outset, there is a need to distin,uish bet*een Canila 'ay and Ga,una de 'ay$6hile *e held in the "ase of !,na"io v$ ;ire"tor of Gands and :aleriano 2+ that Canila 'ay is "onsidered a sea for purposes of determinin, *hi"h la* on a""retion is to be applied in multifarious situations, *e have ruled diferently insofar as a""retions on lands ad@oinin, the Ga,una de 'ay are "on"erned$!n the "ases of 0overnment of the )$! v$ Cole,io de San -ose 21, 1epubli" v$ Court of 8ppeals 22, 1epubli" v$ 8la,ad 23, and Ceneses v$ Court of 8ppeals 2%, *e "ate,ori"ally ruled that Ga,una de 'ay is a lake the a""retion on *hi"h, by the mandate of 8rti"le &% of the Spanish Ga* of 6aters of 1&66, belon,s to the o*ner of the land "onti,uous thereto$The instant "ontroversy, ho*ever, brin,s a situation "allin, for the appli"ation of 8rti"le % of the Spanish Ga* of 6aters of 1&66, the disputed land bein, an a""retion on the foreshore of Canila 'ay *hi"h is, for all le,al purposes, "onsidered a sea$8rti"le % of the Spanish Ga* of 6aters of 8u,ust 3, 1&66 provides as follo*s9Gands added to the shores by a""retions and alluvial deposits "aused by the a"tion of the sea, form part of the publi" domain$ 6hen they are no lon,er *ashed by the *aters of the sea and are not ne"essary for purposes of publi" utility, or for the establishment of spe"ial industries, or for the "oastE,uard servi"e, the 0overnment shall de"lare them to be the property of the o*ners of the estates ad@a"ent thereto and as in"rement thereof$!n the li,ht of the afore"ited vinta,e but still valid la*, une=uivo"al is the publi" nature of thedisputed land in this "ontroversy, the same bein, an a""retion on a sea bank *hi"h, for all le,al purposes, the foreshore of Canila 'ay is$ 8s part of the publi" domain, the herein disputed land is intended for publi" uses, and Bso lon, as the land in liti,ation belon,s to the national domain and is reserved for publi" uses, it is not "apable of bein, appropriated by any private person, e("ept throu,h e(press authori7ation ,ranted in due form by a "ompetent authority$B 25 Anly the e(e"utive and possibly the le,islative departments have the ri,ht and the po*er to make the de"laration that the lands so ,ained by a"tion of the seais no lon,er ne"essary for purposes of publi" utility or for the "ause of establishment of spe"ial industries or for "oast ,uard servi"es$ 26 )etitioners utterly fail to sho* that either the e(e"utive or le,islative department has already de"lared the disputed land as =uali>ed, under 8rti"le % of the Spanish Ga* of 6aters of 1&66, to be the property of petitioners as o*ners of the estates ad@a"ent thereto$6J?1?A1?, the instant )etition for 1evie* is hereby ;?#!?; and ;!SC!SS?;$Costs a,ainst petitioners$'.Teno4a1 P#$!$..$ne1 v. Co3rt o2 A..ea!1 (8"' SCRA %)TECNO(AS PHILIPPINES ,ANUFACTURIN( CORPORATION- .et$t$oner- v1.COURT OF APPEALS (FOR,ER SPECIAL SE*ENTEENTH +I*ISION) and E+UAR+O UY- re1.ondent1.The parties in this "ase are o*ners of ad@oinin, lots in )araed deletin, para,raph % of the dispositive portion of our de"ision *hi"h reads9%$ Arderin, appellee to pay the value of the land o""upied by the t*oEstorey buildin,$The motion for re"onsideration of appellee is hereby ;?#!?; for la"k of merit$The fore,oin, 8mended ;e"ision is also "hallen,ed in the instant petition$The a"tsThe fa"ts are not disputed$ 1espondent Court merely reprodu"ed the fa"tual >ndin,s of the trial "ourt, as follo*s9 5That plaintif /herein petitioner3 *hi"h is a "orporation duly or,ani7ed and e(istin, under andby virtue of )hilippine la*s is the re,istered o*ner of a par"el of land situated in 'arrio San ;ionisio, )ara"ate of Title #o$ 3139+, of the 1e,istry of ;eeds for the )rovin"e of 1i7alK that portions of the buildin,s and *all bou,ht by plaintif to,ether *ith the land from )ari7 !ndustries are o""upyin, a portion of defendantIs ad@oinin, landK that upon learnin, of the en"roa"hment oro""upation by its buildin,s and *all of a portion of defendantIs land, plaintif ofered to buy from defendant that parti"ular portion of defendantIs land o""upied by portions of its buildin,s and *all *ith an area of 22+ s=uare meters, more or less, but defendant, ho*ever, refused the ofer$ !n 1923, the parties entered into a private a,reement before a "ertain Col$ 1osales in Cala"aled a "omplaint before the o."e of Cuni"ipal ?n,ineer of )aralin, by plaintif of the supplemental "omplaint in the aboveEentitled "ase anda separate "riminal "omplaint for mali"ious mis"hief a,ainst defendant and his *ife *hi"h ultimately resulted into the "onvi"tion in "ourt of defendantIs *ife for the "rime of mali"ious mis"hiefK that *hile trial of the "ase *as in pro,ress, plaintif >led in Court a formal proposal for settlement of the "ase but said proposal, ho*ever, *as i,nored by defendant$8fter trial on the merits, the 1e,ional Trial Court 6 of )asay City, 'ran"h 112, in Civil Case #o$)NE2631E), rendered a de"ision dated ;e"ember %, 19&9 in favor of petitioner *ho *as the plaintif therein$ The dispositive portionreads9 26J?1?A1?, @ud,ment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintif and a,ainst defendant and orderin, the latter to sell to plaintif that portion of land o*ned by him and o""upied by portions of plaintifIs buildin,s and *all at the pri"e of )2,+++$++ per s=uare meter and to pay the former91$ The sum of )%%,+++$++ to "ompensate for the losses in materials and properties in"urred by plaintif throu,h thievery as a result of the destru"tion of its *allK2$ The sum of )2,5++$++ as and by *ay of attorneyIs feesK and3$ The "osts of this suit$8ppeal *as duly interposed *ith respondent Court, *hi"h as previously stated, reversed and set aside the de"ision of the 1e,ional Trial Court and rendered the assailed ;e"ision and 8mended ;e"ision$ Jen"e, this re"ourse under 1ule %5 of the 1ules of Court$The !ssuesThe petition raises the follo*in, issues9 &/836hether or not the respondent Court of 8ppeals erred in holdin, the petitioner a builder in bad faith be"ause it is Bpresumed to kno* the metes and bounds of his property$B/'36hether or not the respondent Court of 8ppeals erred *hen it used the ami"able settlement bet*een the petitioner and the private respondent, *here both parties a,reed to the demolition of the rear portion of the fen"e, as estoppel amountin, to re"o,nition by petitioner of respondentIs ri,ht over his property in"ludin, the portions of the land *here theother stru"tures and the buildin, stand, *hi"h *ere not in"luded in the settlement$/C36hether or not the respondent Court of 8ppeals erred in orderin, the removal of the Bstru"tures and surroundin, *alls on the en"roa"hed areaB and in *ithdra*in, its earlier rulin, in its 8u,ust 2&, 1992 de"ision for the petitioner Bto pay for the value of the land o""upiedB by the buildin,, only be"ause the private respondent has Bmanifested its "hoi"e todemolishB it despite the absen"e of "ompulsory sale *here the builder fails to pay for the land, and *hi"h B"hoi"eB private respondent deliberately deleted from its September 1, 19&+ans*er to the supplemental "omplaint in the 1e,ional Trial Court$!n its Cemorandum, petitioner poses the follo*in, issues98$The time *hen to determine the ,ood faith of the builder under 8rti"le %%& of the #e* Civil Code, is re"koned durin, the period *hen it *as a"tually bein, builtK and in a "ase *here no eviden"e *as presented nor introdu"ed as to the ,ood faith or bad faith of the builder at thattime, as in this "ase, he must be presumed to be a Bbuilder in ,ood faith,B sin"e Bbad faith "annot be presumed$B 9'$!n a spe"i>" Bboundary overlap situationB *hi"h involves a builder in ,ood faith, as in this "ase, it is no* *ell settled that the lot o*ner, *ho builds on the ad@a"ent lot is not "har,ed *ith B"onstru"tive noti"eB of the te"hni"al metes and bounds "ontained in their torrens titles to determine the e(a"t and pre"ise e(tent of his boundary perimeter$ 1+C$The respondent "ourtIs "itation of the t*in "ases of Tuason V Co$ v$ Gumanlan and Tuason V Co$ v$ Ca"alindon, is not the B@udi"ial authorityB for a boundary dispute situation bet*een ad@a"ent torrens titled lot o*ners, as the fa"ts of the present "ase do not fall *ithin nor s=uare *ith the involved prin"iple of a dissimilar "ase$ 11;$Nuite "ontrary to respondent DyIs reasonin,, petitioner Te"no,as "ontinues to be a builder in,ood faith, even if it subse=uently builtHrepaired the *allsHother permanent stru"tures thereon *hile the "ase a =uo *as pendin, and even *hile respondent sent the petitioner many lettersH>led "ases thereon$ 12;$/?$3The ami"able settlement bet*een the parties should be interpreted as a "ontra"t and enfor"ed only in a""ordan"e *ith its e(pli"it terms, and not over and beyond that a,reed uponK be"ause the "ourts do not have the po*er to "reate a "ontra"t nor e(pand its s"ope$ 13?$/$38s a ,eneral rule, althou,h the lando*ner has the option to "hoose bet*een9 /13 Bbuyin, thebuildin, built in ,ood faithB, or /23 Bsellin, the portion of his land on *hi"h stands the buildin,B under 8rti"le %%& of the Civil CodeK the >rst option is not absolute, be"ause an e("eption thereto, on"e it *ould be impra"ti"al for the lando*ner to "hoose to e(er"ise the >rst alternative, i$e$ buy that portion of the house standin, on his land, for the *hole buildin,mi,ht be rendered useless$ The *orkable solution is for him to sele"t the se"ond alternative, namely, to sell to the builder that part of his land on *hi"h *as "onstru"ted a portion of the house$ 1%)rivate respondent, on the other hand, ar,ues that the petition is Bsuferin, from the follo*in, Fa*s9 151$ !t did not ,ive the e(a"t "itations of "ases de"ided by the Jonorable Supreme Court that alle,edly "ontradi"ts the rulin, of the Jon$ Court of 8ppeals based on the do"trine laid do*n in Tuason vs$ Gumanlan "ase "itin, also Tuason vs$ Ca"alindon, "ase /Supra3$2$ 8ssumin, that the do"trine in the alle,ed Co Tao vs$ Chi"o "ase is "ontradi"tory to the do"trine in Tuason vs$ Gumanlan and Tuason vs$ Ca"alindon,, the t*o "ases bein, more "urrent, the same should prevail$urther, private respondent "ontends that the follo*in, BunmistakablyB point to the bad faithof petitioner9 /13 private respondentIs pur"hase of the t*o lots, B*as ahead of the pur"hase by petitioner of the buildin, and lot from )ari7 !ndustriesBK /23 the de"laration of the 0eneral Cana,er of Te"no,as that the sale bet*een petitioner and )ari7 !ndustries B*as not re,isteredB be"ause of some problems *ith China 'ankin, CorporationK and /33 the ;eed of Sale in favor of petitioner *as re,istered in its name


Cases Batch 1

Cases Batch 1

Documents
Wills Cases Batch 1

Wills Cases Batch 1

Documents
Batch 3 Cases

Batch 3 Cases

Documents
Cases 4th Batch

Cases 4th Batch

Documents
Torts Cases Second Batch

Torts Cases Second Batch

Documents
LTD Cases Batch 1

LTD Cases Batch 1

Documents
Sales First Batch Cases

Sales First Batch Cases

Documents
IPL Cases Last Batch

IPL Cases Last Batch

Documents
Cases Batch Two

Cases Batch Two

Documents
2nd Batch Cases

2nd Batch Cases

Documents
Succession Cases Batch 1

Succession Cases Batch 1

Documents
1st Batch Corpo Cases

1st Batch Corpo Cases

Documents
2nd Batch (Poli Cases)

2nd Batch (Poli Cases)

Documents
Batch 1 Cases Property

Batch 1 Cases Property

Documents
Taxation Cases 2nd Batch

Taxation Cases 2nd Batch

Documents
Admin Batch III Cases Full Text

Admin Batch III Cases Full Text

Documents
Cases 2nd Batch

Cases 2nd Batch

Documents
Transpo Cases 5th Batch

Transpo Cases 5th Batch

Documents
6th Batch Consti Cases

6th Batch Consti Cases

Documents
Sales (Batch 4 Cases)

Sales (Batch 4 Cases)

Documents
Cases Batch 2

Cases Batch 2

Documents
Torts Cases (Batch 2) Full Text

Torts Cases (Batch 2) Full Text

Documents
44834992 Admin Batch III Cases Full Text

44834992 Admin Batch III Cases Full Text

Documents
Cases Batch 2-Labor

Cases Batch 2-Labor

Documents
Cases (3rd Batch)

Cases (3rd Batch)

Documents
Third Batch Tax Cases

Third Batch Tax Cases

Documents
Ltd Cases (Last Batch)

Ltd Cases (Last Batch)

Documents
Cases (1st Batch)

Cases (1st Batch)

Documents
Property Cases Batch 6

Property Cases Batch 6

Documents
Cases 6th Batch

Cases 6th Batch

Documents