You are on page 1of 2

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-175 April 30, 1946
DAMAN GNACO, !RANCSCO GNACO "#$ LUS GNACO, petitioners,
vs.
ELAS %LARO "#$ &i' (i)* DONSA DRES, "#$ !ELPE NAT+DAD, ,-$.* o)
!ir'/ #'/"#0* o) P"#."'i#"#, respondents.
Leoncio R. Esliza for petitioners.
Mauricio M. Monta for respondents.
MORAN, C.J.1
This is a petition for certiorari arising from a case in the Court of irst !nstance of
Pangasinan bet"een the herein respondents Elias #ilario and his "ife $ionisia $res
as plaintiffs, and the herein petitioners $amian, rancisco and %uis, surnamed !gnacio,
as defendants, concerning the o"nership of a parcel of land, partl& rice'land and partl&
residential. After the trial of the case, the lo"er court, presided over b& #on. Alfonso
eli(, rendered )udgment holding plaintiffs as the legal o"ners of the "hole propert&
but conceding to defendants the o"nership of the houses and granaries built b& them
on the residential portion "ith the rights of a possessor in good faith, in accordance
"ith article *+, of the Civil Code. The dispositive part of the decision, hub of this
controvers&, follo"s-
.herefore, )udgment is hereb& rendered declaring-
/,0 That the plaintiffs are the o"ners of the "hole propert& described in
transfer certificate of title No. ,1231 /E(hibit A0 issued in their name, and
entitled to the possession of the same4
/10 That the defendants are entitled to hold the position of the residential lot
until after the& are paid the actual mar5et value of their houses and granaries
erected thereon, unless the plaintiffs prefer to sell them said residential lot, in
"hich case defendants shall pa& the plaintiffs the proportionate value of said
residential lot ta5ing as a basis the price paid for the "hole land according to
E(hibit B4 and
/*0 That upon defendant6s failure to purchase the residential lot in 7uestion,
said defendants shall remove their houses and granaries after this decision
becomes final and "ithin the period of si(t& /+80 da&s from the date that the
court is informed in "riting of the attitude of the parties in this respect.
No pronouncement is made as to damages and costs.
9nce this decision becomes final, the plaintiffs and defendants ma& appear
again before this court for the purpose of determining their respective rights
under article *+, of the Civil Code, if the& cannot come to an e(tra')udicial
settlement "ith regard to said rights.
:ubse7uentl&, in a motion filed in the same Court of irst !nstance but no" presided
over b& the herein respondent ;udge #on. elipe Natividad, the plaintiffs pra&ed for an
order of e(ecution alleging that since the& chose neither to pa& defendants for the
buildings nor to sell to them the residential lot, said defendants should be ordered to
remove the structure at their o"n e(pense and to restore plaintiffs in the possession of
said lot. $efendants ob)ected to this motion "hich, after hearing, "as granted b& ;udge
Natividad. #ence, this petition b& defendants pra&ing for /a0 a restraint and annulment
of the order of e(ecution issued b& ;udge Natividad4 /b0 an order to compel plaintiffs to
pa& them the sum of P1,888 for the buildings, or sell to them the residential lot for P<=4
or /c0, a rehearing of the case for a determination of the rights of the parties upon
failure of e(tra')udicial settlement.
The )udgment rendered b& ;udge eli( is founded on articles *+, and <=* of the Civil
Code "hich are as follo"s-
ART. *+,. The o"ner of land on "hich an&thing has been built, so"n or
planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his o"n the "or5,
so"ing or planting, after the pa&ment of the indemnit& stated in articles <=*
and <=<, or to oblige the one "ho built or planted to pa& the price of the land,
and the one "ho so"ed, the proper rent.
ART. <=*. Necessar& e(penses shall be refunded to ever& possessor4 but
onl& the possessor in good faith ma& retain the thing until such e(penses are
made good to him.
>seful e(penses shall be refunded to the possessor in good faith "ith the
same right of retention, the person "ho has defeated him in the possession
having the option of refunding the amount of the e(penses or pa&ing the
increase in value "hich the thing ma& have ac7uired in conse7uence thereof.
The o"ner of the building erected in good faith on a land o"ned b& another, is entitled
to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the value of his building, under
article <=*. The o"ner of the land, upon the other hand, has the option, under article
*+,, either to pa& for the building or to sell his land to the o"ner of the building. But he
cannot, as respondents here did, refuse both to pa& for the building and to sell the land
and compel the o"ner of the building to remove it from the land "here it is erected. #e
is entitled to such remotion onl& "hen, after having chosen to sell his land, the other
part& fails to pa& for the same. But this is not the case before us.
1
.e hold, therefore, that the order of ;udge Natividad compelling defendants'
petitioners to remove their buildings from the land belonging to plaintiffs'respondents
onl& because the latter chose neither to pa& for such buildings not to sell the land, is
null and void, for it amends substantiall& the )udgment sought to be e(ecuted and is,
furthermore, offensive to articles *+, and <=* of the Civil Code.
There is, ho"ever, in the decision of ;udge eli( a 7uestion of procedure "hich calls
for the clarification, to avoid uncertaint& and dela& in the disposition of cases. !n that
decision, the rights of both parties are "ell defined under articles *+, and <=* of the
Civil Code, but it fails to determine the value of the buildings and of the lot "here the&
are erected as "ell as the periods of time "ithin "hich the option ma& be e(ercised
and pa&ment should be made, these particulars having been left for determination
apparentl& after the )udgment has become final. This procedure is erroneous, for after
the )udgment has become final, no additions can be made thereto and nothing can be
done there"ith e(cept its e(ecution. And e(ecution cannot be had, the sheriff being
ignorant as to ho", for ho" much, and "ithin "hat time ma& the option be e(ercised,
and certainl& no authorit& is vested in him to settle these matters "hich involve
e(ercise of )udicial discretion. Thus the )udgment rendered b& ;udge eli( has never
become final, it having left matters to be settled for its completion in a subse7uent
proceeding, matters "hich remained unsettled up to the time the petition is filed in the
instant case.
or all the foregoing, the "rit of e(ecution issued b& ;udge Natividad is hereb& set
aside and the lo"er court ordered to hold a hearing in the principal case "herein it
must determine the prices of the buildings and of the residential lot "here the& are
erected, as "ell as the period of time "ithin "hich the plaintiffs'respondents ma&
e(ercise their option either to pa& for the buildings or to sell their land, and, in the last
instance, the period of time "ithin "hich the defendants'petitioners ma& pa& for the
land, all these periods to be counted from the date the )udgment becomes e(ecutor& or
unappealable. After such hearing, the court shall render a final )udgment according to
the evidence presented b& the parties.
The costs shall be paid b& plaintiffs'respondents.
2