BERNARDO v BATACLAN
Plaintiff Vicente Bernardo acquired a parcel of land fromPastor Samonte thru a contract of sale. Thereafter, Bernardoinstituted a case against said vendor to secure possession of theland. Bernardo was able to obtain a favorable decision from thecourt. The plaintiff found the defendant herein, Catalino Bataclan, inthe said premises. It appears that he has been authorized by formerowners, as far back as 1922, to clear the land and makeimprovements thereon. Thus, plaintiff instituted a case againstBataclan in the Court of First Instance of Cavite. In this case, plaintiff was declared the owner of the land but the defendant was held to bea possessor in good faith, entitled to reimbursement in the total sumof P1,642, for work done and improvements made. Both partiesappealed the decision. The court thereafter made some modifications by allowing thedefendant to recover compensation amounting to P2,212 and byreducing the price at which the plaintiff could require the defendantto purchase the land in question from P300 down to P200 perhectare. Plaintiff was likewise given 30 days from the date when thedecision became final to exercise his option,
either to sell the landto the defendant or to buy the improvements from him
. On January 9, 1934, the plaintiff conveyed to the court his desire
"torequire the defendant to pay him the value of the land at therate of P200 per hectare or a total price of P18,000 for thewhole tract of land."
The defendant indicated that he was
unableto pay the land
and, on January 24, 1934, an order was issuedgiving the plaintiff 30 days within which to pay the defendant thesum of P2,212.Subsequently, on April 24, 1934, the court below, at the instance of the plaintiff and without objection on the part of the defendant,ordered the sale of the land in question at public auction. The landwas sold on April 5, 1935 to Toribio Teodoro for P8,000.
ISSUE: WON DEFENDANT BATACLAN IS STILL ENTITLED TORECOVER THE COURT MANDATED COMPENSATION ARISINGFROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TO TORIBIO
HELD: NO. Manresa, basing on Art 448 of the NCC, where the planter,builder or sower has acted in good faith, a conflict of rights arisesbetween the owners and it becomes necessary to protect the ownerof the improvements without causing injustice to the owner of theland. The law provided a just and equitable solution by giving theowner of the land the option to acquire the improvements afterpayment of the proper indemnity or to oblige the builder or planterto pay for the land and the sower to pay the proper rent. In this case,the plaintiff, as owner of the land, chose to require the defendant, asowner of the improvements to pay for the land. The defendant avers that
“he is a possessor in good faith andthat the amount of P2,212 to which he is entitled has not yetbeen paid to him.”
Defendant further claims that he has a right toretain the land in accordance with the provisions of article 453 of theCivil Code. While the said argument is legally tenable, the samemust perforce be denied because defendant Bataclan has lost hisright of retention as he failed to pay for the land.
“The law, as wehave already said, requires no more than that the owner of the land should choose between indemnifying the owner of the improvements or requiring the latter to pay for theland”.IGNACIO v HILARIO
Elias Hilario and his wife Dionisia Dres filed a complaintagainst Damian, Francisco and Luis Ignacio concerning theownership of a parcel of land, partly rice-land and partly residential.After the trial of the case, the lower court under Judge Alfonso Felix,rendered judgment holding Hilario and Dres as the legal owners of the whole property but conceding to the Ignacios the ownership of the houses and granaries built by them on the residential portionwith the rights of a possessor in good faith, in accordance with article361 of the Civil Code.Subsequently, in a motion filed in the same CFI (now handled byrespondent Judge Hon. Felipe Natividad), Hilario and Dres prayed foran order of execution alleging that since they chose neither to paythe Ignacios for the buildings nor to sell to them the residential lot,the Ignacios should be ordered to remove the structure at their ownexpense and to restore Hilario and Dres in the possession of said lot.After hearing, the motion was granted by Judge Natividad. Hence,the petition for certiorari was filed by the Ignacios praying for (a) arestraint and annulment of the order of execution issued by JudgeNatividad; (b) an order to compel Hilario and Dres to pay them thesum of P2,000 for the buildings, or sell to them the residential lot forP45; or (c) a rehearing of the case for a determination of the rights of the parties upon failure of extra-judicial settlement. The Supreme Court set aside the writ of execution issued by JudgeNatividad and ordered the lower court to hold a hearing in theprincipal case wherein it must determine the prices of the buildingsand of the residential lot where they are erected, as well as theperiod of time within which Hilario and Dres may exercise theiroption either to pay for the buildings or to sell their land, and, in the