You are on page 1of 1

5. Mina vs Pascual Facts: Francisco Fontanilla and Andres Fontanilla were brothers.

Francisco Fontanilla acquired during his lifetime, on March 12, 1874, a lot in the center of the town of Laoag. Andres Fontanilla, with the consent of his brother Francisco, erected a warehouse on a art of the said lot, embracing 14 meters of its frontage b! 11 meters of its de th. Francisco Fontanilla, the former owner of the lot, being dead, the herein laintiffs, Ale"andro Mina, et al., were recogni#ed without discussion as his heirs. Andres Fontanilla, the former owner of the warehouse, also ha$ing died, the children of %u erta &ascual were recogni#ed li'es without discussion, though it is not said how, and consequentl! are entitled to the said building, or rather, as %u erta &ascual herself stated, to onl! si()se$enths of one-half of it, the other half belonging, as it a ears, to the laintiffs themsel$es, and the remaining one)se$enth of the first one)half to the children of one of the laintiffs, *lena de +illanue$a. ,he fact is that the laintiffs and the defendants are $irtuall!, to all a earance, the owners of the warehouse- while the laintiffs are undoubtedl!, the owners of the art of the lot occu ied b! that building, as well as of the remainder thereof. .n Ma! /, 1010, %u erta &ascual, as the guardian of her minor children, the herein defendants, etitioned the 2urt of First 3nstance of 3locos 4orte for authori#ation to sell 5the si()se$enths of the one-half of the warehouse, of 14 b! 11 meters, together with its lot.5 ,he laintiffs 6 that is Ale"andra Mina, et al. 6 o osed the etition of %u erta &ascual for the reason that the latter had included therein the lot occu ied b! the warehouse, which the! claimed was their e(clusi$e ro ert!. ,he warehouse, together with the lot on which it stands, was sold to 2u 7oco. ,he court re$ersed the "udgment of the lower court and held that the a ellants were the owners of the lot in question. 3t was then that the laintiffs commenced the resent action for the ur ose of ha$ing the sale of the said lot declared null and $oid and of no force and effect. Issue: 1. 2. 8.4 the sale was $alid. 8.4 the ro ert! should be returned on the basis that there was onl! a commodatum.

considering their constituti$e elements, as the! are defined and denominated b! law. <! the contract of loan, one of the arties deli$ers to the other, either an!thing not erishable, in order that the latter ma! use it during the certain period and return it to the former, in which case it is called commodatum . . . =art. 1741, 2i$il 2ode>. 3t is, therefore, an essential feature of the commodatum that the use of the thing belonging to another shall for a certain eriod. Francisco Fontanilla did not fi( an! definite eriod or time during which Andres Fontanilla could ha$e the use of the lot whereon the latter was to erect a stone warehouse of considerable $alue, and so it is that for the ast thirt! !ears of the lot has been used b! both Andres and his successors in interest. ,he resent contention of the laintiffs that 2u 7oco, now in ossession of the lot, should a! rent for it at the rate of &? a month, would destro! the theor! of the commodatum sustained b! them, since, according to the second aragra h of the aforecited article 1741, 5commodatum is essentiall! gratuitous,5 and, if what the laintiffs themsel$es a$er on age 7 of their brief is to be belie$ed, it ne$er entered Francisco@s mind to limit the eriod during which his brother Andres was to ha$e the use of the lot, because he e( ected that the warehouse would e$entuall! fall into the hands of his son, Fructuoso Fontanilla, called the ado ted son of Andres, which did not come to ass for the reason that Fructuoso died before his uncle Andres. 8ith that e( ectation in $iew, it a ears more li'el! that Francisco intended to allow his brother Andres a surface right- but this right su oses the a!ment of an annual rent, and Andres had the gratuitous use of the lot. Aence, as the facts aforestated onl! show that a building was erected on another@s ground, the question should be decided in accordance with the statutes that, thirt! !ears ago, go$erned accessions to real estate, and which were Laws 41 and 42, title 28, of the third !artida, nearl! identical with the ro$isions of articles B/1 and B/2 of the 2i$il 2ode. ;o, then, ursuant to article B/1, the owner of the land on which a building is erected in good faith has a right to a ro riate such edifice to himself, after a!ment of the indemnit! rescribed in articles 4?B and 4?4, or to oblige the builder to a! him the $alue of the land. ;uch, and no other, is the right to which the laintiff are entitled. For the foregoing reasons, it is onl! necessar! to annul the sale of the said lot which was made b! %u erta &ascual, in re resentation of her minor children, to 2u 7oco, and to maintain the latter in the use of the lot until the laintiffs shall choose one or the other of the two rights granted them b! article B/1 of the 2i$il 2ode.

Held: 1. 4.9 8hat is essentiall! ertinent to the case is the fact that the defendant agree that the laintiffs ha$e the ownershi , and the! themsel$es onl! the use, of the said lot. ,he urchaser could not acquire an!thing more than the interest that might be held b! a erson to whom realt! in ossession of the $endor might be sold, for at a "udicial auction nothing else is dis osed of. 8hat the minor children of %u erta &ascual had in their ossession was the ownershi of the si()se$enths art of one)half of the warehouse and the use of the lot occu ied b! his building. ,his, and nothing more, could the 2hinaman 2u 7oco acquire at that sale: not the ownershi of the lot- neither the other half, nor the remaining one)se$enth of the said first half, of the warehouse. 2onsequentl!, the sale made to him of this one)se$enth of one)half and the entire other half of the building was null and $oid, and li'ewise with still more reason the sale of the lot the building occu ies. 2. As res ects this action for reco$er!, this ;u reme 2ourt finds: XXX 3. That it is a fact explicitly admitted in the agreement, that neither Andres Fontanilla nor his successors paid any consideration or price whatever for the use of the lot occupied by the said building whence it is, perhaps, that both parties have denominated that use a commodatum. <ut, although both litigating arties ma! ha$e agreed in their idea of the commodatum, on account of its not being, as indeed it is not, a question of fact but of law, !et that denomination gi$en b! them to the use of the lot granted b! Francisco Fontanilla to his brother, Andres Fontanilla, is not acce table. 2ontracts are not to be inter reted in conformit! with the name that the arties thereto agree to gi$e them, but must be construed, dul!