7/28/2019 Sarmiento Vs

1/5

Sarmiento vs. Agana 129 scra 122

Facts:

ERNESTO was still courting his wife, the latter's mother had told him the couple could build a RESIDENTIAL HOUSEwhom Ernesto did construct a RESIDENTIAL HOUSE on the LAND at a cost of P8,000.00 to P10,000.00 who probably assumed

that the wife's mother was the owner of the LAND and that, it would be transferred to the spouses. Subsequently turned outthat the LAND had been titled in the name of Mr. & Mrs. Jose C. Santo, Jr. who, sold the same to petitioner SARMIENTO.SARMIENTO filed an Ejectment suit against them. In the evidentiary hearings before the Municipal Court, SARMIENTOsubmitted the deed of sale of the LAND in her favor, which showed the price to be P15,000.00. On the other hand, ERNESTOtestified that the then cost of the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE would be from P30,000.00 to P40,000.00.Sarmiento refuse to pay andgive option to buy the property.

Issue: 1.Whether or not Ernesto was in good faith.

2.Whether or not Sarmiento could exercise both refusal to pay the spouses and give option to purchase.

Held:

1.Yes. We agree that ERNESTO and wife were builders in good faith in view of the peculiar circumstances under whichthey had constructed the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. As far as they knew, the LAND was owned by ERNESTO's mother-in-law who,having stated they could build on the property, could reasonably be expected to later on give them the LAND.

In regards to builders in good faith, Article 448 of the Code provides: t.hqw

ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith,shall havethe rightto appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity providedfor in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and theone who sowed, the proper rent.However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if itsvalue is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. Theparties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the termsthereof.

2.No. The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by another, is entitled to retain the possessionof the land until he is paid the value of his building, under article 453 (now Article 546). The owner, of the land. upon, the otherhand, has the option, under article 361 (now Article 448), either to pay for the building or to sell his land to the owner of thebuilding. But he cannot, as respondents here did, refuse both to pay for the building and to sell the land and compel the ownerof the building to remove it from the land where it is erected. He is entitled to such remotion only when, after having chosen tosell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same.

We hold, therefore, that the order of Judge Natividad compelling defendants-petitioners to remove theirbuildings from the land belonging to plaintiffs-respondents only because the latter chose neither to pay forsuch buildings nor to sell the land, is null and void, for it amends substantially the judgment sought to beexecuted and is, furthermore, offensive to articles 361 (now Article 448) and 453 (now Article 546) of theCivil Code. (Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605, 608 [1946]).

Disposition: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby ordered dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

7/28/2019 Sarmiento Vs

2/5

SPOUSES DEL CAMPO V. ABESIA160 SCRA 379

Jul4 Facts:

This case involves a parcel of land, situated at the corner of F. Flores and Cavan Streets, Cebu

City. An action for partition was filed by plaintiffs in the CFI of Cebu. Plaintiffs and defendants

are co-owners pro indiviso of this lot in the proportion of and 1/3 share each, respectively. The

trial court appointed a commissioner in accordance with the agreement of the parties. ,the Id

commissioner conducted a survey, prepared a sketch plan and submitted a report to the trial court

on May 29, 1976, recommending that the property be divided into two lots: Lot 1161-A with an

area of 30 square meters for plaintiffs and Lot No. 1161-B with an area of 15 square meters for

the defendants. The houses of plaintiffs and defendants were surveyed and shown on the sketch

plan. The house of defendants occupied the portion with an area of 5 square meters of Lot 1161-

A of plaintiffs. The parties manifested their conformity to the report and asked the trial court to

finally settle and adjudicate who among the parties should take possession of the 5 square meters

of the land in question.Issue: Whether or Not Article 448 of the Civil Code is applicable to a builder in good faith when

the property involved is owned in common.

Held: When the co-ownership is terminated by the partition and it appears that the house of

defendants overlaps or occupies a portion of 5 square meters of the land pertaining to plaintiffs

which the defendants obviously built in good faith, then the provisions of Article 448 of the new

Civil Code should apply. Manresa and Navarro Amandi agree that the said provision of the Civil

Code may apply even when there was co-ownership if good faith has been established.

Applying the aforesaid provision of the Civil Code, the plaintiffs have the right to appropriate

said portion of the house of defendants upon payment of indemnity to defendants as provided for

in Article 546 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, the plaintiffs may oblige the defendants to pay the

price of the land occupied by their house. However, if the price asked for is considerably much

more than the value of the portion of the house of defendants built thereon, then the latter cannot

http://ladysilhouette.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/spouses-del-campo-v-obesia-160-scra-379/http://ladysilhouette.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/spouses-del-campo-v-obesia-160-scra-379/http://ladysilhouette.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/spouses-del-campo-v-obesia-160-scra-379/http://ladysilhouette.wordpress.com/2012/07/04/spouses-del-campo-v-obesia-160-scra-379/

7/28/2019 Sarmiento Vs

3/5

be obliged to buy the land. The defendants shall then pay the reasonable rent to the plaintiff upon

such terms and conditions that they may agree. In case of disagreement, the trial court shall fix

the terms thereof. Of course, defendants may demolish or remove the said portion of their house,

at their own expense, if they so decide.

Article 448 of the New Civil Code provides as follows:

Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown, or planted in good faith,

shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the

indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay

the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter

cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or

trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to

appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of

the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.

IGNAO V. IAC193 SCRA 17

FACTS:An action for partition was filed but this didn't prosper. A case was then filedalleging that the house was occupying more than the share in the lot.

HELD:When co-owned estate is partitioned, it is the co-owner whose portion isencroached upon who has the option to sell that portion or buy theimprovement.

IGNAO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

7/28/2019 Sarmiento Vs

4/5

Facts: Petitioner Florencio Ignao and his uncles Private Respondents Juan Ignao and Isidro Ignao were co-ownersof a parcel of land with an area of 534 sq.m. Petitioner filed for an action for partition and in February 1975, thecourt ruled allotting 133.5 sq.m. or 2/8 of the land to private respondents Juan and Isidro, and giving the remainingportion of 266.5 sq.m. (6/8) to petitioner Florencio. However, no actual partition was ever effected.

In 1978, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of possession of real property against respondents

alleging that the are occupied by the 2 houses built by respondents exceeded the 133.5 sq.m. previously allottedto them. After an ocular inspection and survey, it was disclosed that the house of Juan occupied 42 sq.m. whilethat of Isidro occupied 59 sq.m. of Florencios land or a total of 101 sq.m. The court ruled that pursuant to Art. 448of the Civil Code, the owner of the land (Florencio) should have the choice to either appropriate that part of thehouse standing on his land after payment of indemnity to respondents for the improvements (houses), or obligethe builders in good faith to pay the price of the encroached land. However, the court observed that it would beuseless and unsuitable for Florencio to appropriate since this would render the houses of Juan and Isidro worthlessit effected a workable solution (based on Grana v. CA) ordering Florencio to sell to Juan and Isidro those portionsof the land occupied by them for P40.00 per sq.m. On appeal, the IAC (now CA) affirmed the decision of the lowercourt.

Hence, this petition for review filed by Florencio.

Issues: 1. The CA erred in considering respondents as builders in good faith thus applying Art. 448 of the CivilCode although the land is still owned by the parties in co-ownership hence the applicable provision is Art.486 but it was not applied.2. That granting tha t Art 448 is applicable, the Court wrongly applied the workable solution in Grana v.

CA, which was just an opinion in said case, and not the judgment rendered therein.3. That granting respondents could buy the portion of the land occupied by them, the priced fixed by the

court is unrealistic and pre-war price.

The Courts Ruling: MODIFIED.The records reveal that the land originally belonged to Baltazar Ignao who married twice. In the first

marriage, he had 4 children: Justo (father of petitioner Florencio), Leon, and respondents Juan and Isidro. In thesecond marriage, he also had 4 children but the latter waived their rights over the controverted land in favor of Justo. Thus Justo owned 4/8 (waived by other 4 children) plus his 1/8 share making 5/8. He then acquired Leonsshare of 1/8 for P500 which he later sold to Florencio for the same amount. Justo died and Florencio inherited the5/8 share of Justo plus the share he bought making it 6/8. Juan and Isidro have 1/8 share each. Before theFebruary 1975 decision in the partition case was promulgated, Florencio sold 134 sq.m. of his share to Victa inJanuary 1975.1. Prior to the partition, all the co-owners hold the property in common dominion but at the same time, each is

an owner of a share which is abstract and undetermined until partition is effected. As co-owners, the partiesmay have unequal shares in the common property, quantitatively speaking. But in a qualitative sense, each co -owner has the same right as any one of the other co-owners. Art. 448 is applicable to land co-owned as in this

case when the co-ownership was terminated by a partition and it appears that the house of an erstwhile co-owner has encroached upon a portion pertaining to another co-owner which was however made in good faith.

2. The lower courts erred in adopting the workable solution in Grana v. CA because it deprived Florencio, thelandowner, of the right to choose between appropriating the land or obliging the builder to buy the land.

3. The question on the price is premature since Florencio has yet to exercise his option as owner of the land.

TECHNOGAS PHIL. V. CA

7/28/2019 Sarmiento Vs

5/5

268 SCRA 5

FACTS:Technogas owned property with buildings and walls. Uy bought anadjacent property. There was an agreement for Technogas to demolishthe wall. Uy filed a complained but the case was dismissed. Thisprompted him to dig a hole along the wall, which led to the partialcollapse of the wall. A case for malicious mischief was filed against Uy.

HELD:1. Unless one is versed in the science of surveying, no one can

determine the precise extent or location of the property by merely examining his

proper title.

2. The supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner doesn't

militate against its right to claim the status of builder in good faith.

3. Bad faith isnt imputable to a registered owner of a land when a part of his

building encroaches upon a builders land