You are on page 1of 9

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12812 September 29, 1959
FILIPINAS COLLEGES, INC., plaintiff-appellee,
vs.
MARIA GARCIA TIMANG, ET AL., defendants.
------------------------------
G.R. No. L-1281! September 29, 1959
MARIA GARCIA TIMANG, ET AL., plaintiffs.
MARIA GARICA TIMANG, plaintiff-appellant,
vs.
MARIA GER"ACIO LAS, defendant-appellee.
De Guzman and Fernandez for appellee Filipinas Colleges, Inc.
San Huan, Africa and Benedicto for appellant Maria Garcia Timang.
!icanor S. Sison for appellee Maria Ger"acio Blas.
ARRERA, J.:
This is an appeal taken fro an order of the Court of !irst "nstance of Manila dated Ma# $%, $&'( )a*
declarin+ the ,heriff-s certificate of sale coverin+ a school buildin+ sold at public auction null and void
unless .ithin $' da#s fro notice of said order the successful bidders, defendants-appellants spouses
Maria /arcia Tiban+ and Marcelino Tiban+, shall pa# to, appellee Maria /ervacio Blas directl# or
throu+h the ,heriff of Manila the su of P',('%.%% that the spouses Tiban+ had bid for the buildin+ at the
,heriff-s sale0 )b* declarin+ the other appellee !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. o.ner of 12,'%%34,15',&42 undivided
interest in 6ot No. 1-a covered b# certificate of tile No 2'&(%, on .hich the buildin+ sold in the auction sale
is situated0 and )c* orderin+ the sale in public auction of the said undivided interest of the !ilipinas
Colle+es, "nc., in lot No. 1-a aforeentioned to satisf# the unpaid portion of the 7ud+ent in favor of
appellee Blas and a+ainst !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. in the aount of P5,1%%.%% inus the su of P',('%.%%
entioned in )a* above.
The order appealed fro is the result of three otions filed in the court a #uo in the course of the e8ecution
of a final 7ud+ent of the Court of Appeals rendered in 1 cases appealed to it in .hich the spouses
Tiban+, the !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc., and Maria /ervacio Blas .ere the parties. "N that 7ud+ent of the
Court of Appeals, the respective ri+hts of the liti+ants have been ad7udicated as follo.s9$:.ph;l .n<t
)$* !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. .as declared to have ac=uired the ri+hts of the spouses Tiban+ in and
to lot No. 1-a entioned above and in consideration thereof, !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc., .as ordered to
pa# the spouses Tiban+ the aount of P$',5%(.&% plus such other aounts .hich said spouses
i+ht have paid or had to pa# after !ebruar#, $&'4, to >oskins and Co. "nc., a+ent of the ?rban
Estates, "nc., ori+inal vendor of the lot. !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. ori+inal vendor of the total aount
.ith the court .ithin &% da#s after the decision shall have becoe final.
)1* Maria /ervacio Blas .as declared to be a builder in +ood faith of the school buildin+
constructed on the lot in =uestion and entitled to be paid the aount of P$&,%%%.%% for the sae.
!ilipinas Colle+es, "nc., purchaser of the said buildin+ .as ordered to deliver to Blas stock
certificate )E8h. C* for $%5 shares of !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. .ith a par value of P$%,5%%.%% and to
pa# Blas the su of P5,1%%.%% of the house.
)4* "n case !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. failed to deposit the value of the land, .hich after li=uidation .as
fi8ed at P41,5'&.42, .ithin the &%-da# period set b# the court, !ilipinas Colle+es .ould lose all its
ri+hts to the land and the spouses Tiban+ .ould then becoe the o.ners thereof. "n that
eventualit#, the Tiban+s .ould ake kno.n to the court their option under Art. 225 of the Civil
Code .hether the# .ould appropriate the buildin+ in =uestion, in .hich even the# .ould have to
pa# !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. the su of P$&,%%%.%%, or .ould copel the latter to ac=uire the land
and pa# the price thereof.
!ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. havin+ failed to pa# or deposit the su of P41,5'&.42 .ithin the tie prescribed, the
spouses Tiban+, in copliance .ith the 7ud+ent of the Court of Appeals, on ,epteber 15, $&'@, ade
kno.n to the court their decision that the# had chosen not of appropriate the buildin+ but to copel
!ilipinas Colle+es, "nc., for the pa#ent of the su of P41,5'&,42. The otion havin+ been +ranted, a .rit
of e8ecution .as issued on Aanuar# 5, $&'(.
Bn Aanuar# $@, $&'(, appellee Blas in turn filed a otion for e8ecution of her 7ud+ent of P5,1%%.%%
representin+ the unpaid portion of the price of the house sold to !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. Bver the ob7ect of
the Tiban+s, the court +rated the otion and the correspondin+ .rit of e8ecution .as issued on Aanuar#
4%, $&'(, date of the +rantin+ of the otion for e8ecution, Blas throu+h counsel, sent a letter to the ,heriff
of Manila advisin+ hi of her preferential clai or lien on the house to satisf# the unpaid balance of the
purchase price thereof under Article 1121 of the Civil Code, and to .ithhold fro the proceed of the auction
sale the su of P5,1%%.%%. 6ev# havin+ been ade on the house in virtue of the .rits of e8ecution, the
,heriff of Manila on March ', $&'(, sold the buildin+ in public auction in favor of the spouses Tiban+, as
the hi+hest bidders, in the aount of P',('%.%%. Personal properties of !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. .ere also
auctioned for P12'.%% in favor of the spouses Tiban+.
As a result of these actuation, three otion .ere subse=uentl# filed before the lo.er court9
)$* B# appellee Blas, pra#in+ that the ,heriff of Manila and3or the Tiban+ spouses be ordered to
pa# and deliver to her the su of P',('%.%% representin+ the proceeds of the auction sale of the
buildin+ of !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. over .hich she has a lien of P5,1%%.%% for the unpaid balance of
the purchase price thereof0.
)1* Also b# the appellee Bals, pra#in+ that there bein+ still t.o unsatisfied e8ecutions, one for the
su of P41,5'&.42 in favor the land involved, 6ot No. 1-a, be sold at public auction0 and )4* B#
!ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. pra#in+ that because its properties, the house and soe personal
properties, have been auctioned for P',('%.%% and P12'.%% respectivel# in favor of the Tiban+
spouses .ho applied the proceeds to the partial pa#ent of the su of P41,5'&.42 value of the
land, 6ot No. 1-a, it )!ilipinas Colle+es, "nc.* be declared part o.ner of said lot to the e8tent of the
total aount realiCed fro the e8ecution sale of its properties.$:.ph;l.n<t
The Tiban+ spouses presented their opposition to each and all of these otion. After due hearin+ the
lo.er court rendered its resolution in the anner indicated at the be+innin+ of this decision, fro .hich the
Tiban+s alone have appealed.
"n assailin+ the order of the court a =uo directin+ the appellants to pa# appellee Blas the aount of their bid
)P',('%.%%* ade at the public auction, appellants- counsel has presented a novel, albeit in+enious,
ar+uent. "t is contended that because the builder in +ood faith has failed to pa# the price of the land after
the o.ners thereof e8ercised their option under Article 225 of the Civil Code, the builder lost his ri+ht of
retention provided in Article '2@ and b# operation of Article 22', the appellants as o.ners of the land
autoaticall# becae the o.ners ipso facto, the e8ecution sale of the house in their favor .as superfluous.
Conse=uentl#, the# are not bound to ake +ood their bid of P',('%.%% as that .ould be to ake +oods to
pa# for their o.n propert#. B# the sae token, Blas clai for preference on account of the unpaid balance
of the purchase price of the house does not appl# because preference applies onl# .ith respect to the
propert# of the debtor, and the Tiban+s, o.ners of the house, are not the debtors of Blas.
This Court cannot accept this oversiplification of appellants- position. Article 225 and '2@ of the Civil
Code definin+ the ri+ht of the parties in case a person in +ood faith builds, so.s or plants on the land of
another, respectivel# provides9
ART. 225. The o.ner of the land on .hich an#thin+ has been built, so.n or plated in +ood faith
shall have the ri+ht to appropriate as his o.n the .orks, so.in+ or plantin+, after pa#ent of the
indenif# provided for in article '2@ and '25, or to obli+ate the one .ho built or planted to pa# the
price of the land, and the one .ho so.ed, the proper rent. >o.ever, the builder or planter cannot
be obli+ed to bu# the land if its value is considerabl# ore than that of the buildin+ or trees. "n such
case, he shall pa# reasonable rent, if the o.ner of the land does not choose to appropriate the
buildin+ or trees after proper indenit#. The parties shall a+ree upon the ters of the lease and in
case of disa+reeent, the court shall fi8 the ters thereof.
ART. '2@. Necessar# e8penses shall be refunded to ever# possessor0 but onl# the possessor in
+ood faith a# retain the thin+ until he has reibursed therefor.
?seful e8penses shall be refunded onl# to the possessor in +ood faith .ith the sae ri+ht of
retention the person .ho has defeated hi in the possession havin+ to option of refundin+ the
aount of e8penses or of pa#in+ the case in value .hich thin+ a# have ac=uired b# reason
thereof.
?nder the ters of these article, it is true that the o.ner of the land has the ri+ht to choose bet.een
appropriatin+ the buildin+ b# reibursin+ the builder of the value thereof or copellin+ the builder in +ood
faith to pa# for his land. Even this second ri+ht cannot be e8ercised if the value of the land is considerabl#
ore than that of the buildin+. "n addition to the ri+ht of the builder to be paid the value of his iproveent,
Article '2@ +ives hi the corollar# ri+ht of retention of the propert# until he is indenified b# the o.ner of
the land. There is nothin+ in the lan+ua+e of these t.o article, 225 and '2@, .hich .ould 7ustif# the
conclusion of appellants that, upon the failure of the builder to pa# the value of the land, .hen such is
deanded b# the land-o.ner, the latter becoes autoaticall# the o.ner of the iproveent under Article
22'. The case of Bernardo "s. Bataclan, @@ Phil., '&% cited b# appellants is no authorit# for this conclusion.
Althou+h it is true it .as declared therein that in the event of the failure of the builder to pa# the land after
the o.ner thereof has chosen this alternative, the builder-s ri+ht of retention provided in Article '2@ is lost,
nevertheless there .as nothin+ said that as a conse=uence thereof, the builder loses entirel# all ri+hts over
his o.n buildin+. The =uestion is0 .hat is the recourse or reed# left to the parties in such eventualit#
.here the builder fails to pa# the value of the landD Ehile the Code is silent on this Court in the cases
of Miranda "s. Fadullon, et al., &( Phil., 5%$0 '$ Bff. /aC., F$1G @11@0 Ignacio "s. Hilario, (@ Phil., @%' and
the cited case of Bernardo "s. Bataclan, supra.
"n the first case, this Court has said9
A builder in +ood faith not be re=uired to pa# rentals. he has ri+ht to retain the land on .hich he has
built in +ood faith until he is reibursed the e8penses incurred b# hi. $ossil% &e mig&t e made
to pa% rental onl% '&en t&e o'ner of t&e land c&ooses not to appropriate t&e impro"ement and
re#uires t&e uilder in good fait& to pa% for t&e land ut t&at t&e uilder is un'illing or unale to pa%
t&e land, and t&en t&e% decide to lea"e t&ings as t&e% are and assume t&e relation of lessor and
lessee, and s&ould t&e% disagree as to t&e amount of rental t&en t&e% can go to t&e court to fi( t&at
amount. )Ephasis supplied*
,hould the parties not a+ree to leave thin+s as the# are and to assue the relation of lessor and lessee,
another reed# is su++ested in the case of Ignacio "s. Hilario, supra, .herein the court has ruled that the
o.ner of the land in entitled to have the iproveent reoved .hen after havin+ chosen to sell his land to
the other part#, i.e., the builder in +ood faith fails to pa# for the sae.
A further reed# is indicated in the case of Bernardo "s. Bataclan, supra, .here this Court approved the
sale of the land and the iproveent in a public auction appl#in+ the proceeds thereof first to the pa#ent
of the value of the land and the e8cess, if an#, to be delivered to the o.ner of the house in pa#ent
thereof.
The appellants herein, o.ners o the land, instead of electin+ an# of the alternative above indicated chose
to seek recover# of the value of their land b# askin+ for a .rit of e8ecution0 lev#in+ on the house of the
builder0 and sellin+ the sae in public auction. ,and because the# are the hi+hest bidder in their o.n
auction sale, the# no. clai the# ac=uired title to the buildin+ .ithout necessit# of pa#in+ in cash on
account of their bid. "n other .ords, the# in effect pretend to retain their land and ac=uire the house .ithout
pa#in+ a cent therefor.
This contention is .ithout erit. This Court has alread# held in Matias "s. T&e $ro"incial S&eriff of !ue"a
)ci*a )(2 Phil., 41@* that .hile it is the inveriable practice, dictated b# coon sense, that .here the
successful bidder is the e8ecution creditor hiself, he need not pa# do.n the aount of the bid if it does
not e8ceed the aount of his 7ud+eent, nevertheless, .hen their is a clai b# a third-part#, to the
proceeds of the sale superior to his 7ud+ent credit, the e8ecution creditor, as successful bidder, ust pa#
in cash the aount of his bid as a condition precedent to the issuance to hi of the certificate of sale. "n
the instant case, the Court of Appeals has alread# ad7ud+ed that appellee Blas is entitled to the pa#ent of
the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the school buildin+. Blas is actuall# a lien on the school
buildin+ are concerned. The order of the lo.er court directin+ the Tiban+ spouses, as successful bidders,
to pa# in cash the aount of their bid in the su of P',('%.%% is therefore correct.
Eith respect to the order of the court declarin+ appellee !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. part o.ner of the land to
the e8tent of the value of its personal properties sold at public auction in favor of the Tiban+, this Court
6ike.ise finds the sae as 7ustified, for such aount represents, in effect, a partial pa#ent of the value of
the land. "f this resulted in the continuation of the so-called involuntar# partnership =uestioned b# the
difference bet.een P5,1%%.%% H the unpaid balance of the purchase price of the buildin+ and the su of
P',('%.%% H aount to be paid b# the Tiban+s, the order of the court directin+ the sale of such
undivided interest of the !ilipinas Colle+es, "nc. is like.ise 7ustified to satisf# the clai of the appellee Blas.
Considerin+ that the appellant spouses Marcelino Tiban+ and Maria /arcia Tiban+ a# not voluntaril#
pa# the su of P',('%.%% as ordered, thereb# further dela#in+ the final terination of this case, the first
part of the dispositive portion of the order appealed fro is odified in the sense that upon failure of the
Tiban+ spouses to pa# to the ,heriff or to Manila /ervacio Blas said su of P',('%.%% .ithin fifteen )$'*
da#s fro notice of the final 7ud+ent, an order of e8ecution shall issue in favor of Maria /ervasio Blas to
be levied upon all properties of the Tiban+ spouses not e8ept fro e8ecution for the satisfaction of the
said aount.
"n all other respects, the appealed order of the court a #uo is hereb# affired, .ith costs a+ainst the
appellants.
"t is so ordered.
$aras, C.+., Bengzon, $adilla, Montema%or, Bautista Angelo, ,arador, Concepcion and )ndencia, ++.,
concur.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-28#21 O$tober 5, 1928
MARTIN MEN%O&A '() NATALIO ENRI*UE&, plaintiffs-appellees,
vs.
MANUEL %E GU&MAN, defendant-appellant.
MA+ . SOLIS, intervenor-appellant.
+uan S. -ustia for appellants.
Godofredo -e%es for appellees.

MALCOLM, J.:
This case calls for the application of articles 4@$, 24', and 2'2 of the Civil Code to the proven facts.
Bn Noveber @, $&$@, 6eandra ,olis and her husband Bernardo ,olis brou+ht an action in the Court of
!irst "nstance of Ta#abas a+ainst Martin MendoCa for the recover# of a certain piece of land. Aud+ent .as
rendered in that case absolvin+ MendoCa fro the coplaint, and this 7ud+ent .as subse=uentl# affired
b# the ,upree Court. $ Ehen the case .as reanded to the court of ori+in, the trial 7ud+e issued an order
re=uirin+ the provincial sheriff iediatel# to dissolve the preliinar# .rit of in7unction and to put MendoCa
in the possession of the land. B# virtue of this order, MendoCa .as in fact put in possession of the propert#.
"n the cadastral proceedin+s of the unicipalit# of ,aria#a, Ta#abas, the piece of land above-entioned
.as identified as lot No. @5(. "n the decision rendered in the cadastral case, this lot .as ad7udicated in
favor of Martin MendoCa and Natalio Enri=ueC in e=ual parts pro indi"iso sub7ect to the ri+ht of retention on
the part of Manuel de /uCan until he shall have been indenified for the iproveents e8istin+ on the
land. B# virtue of this 7ud+ent, Ie /uCan presented a otion re=uestin+ the issuance of a .rit of
possession for lot No. @5( in his favor .hich .as +ranted on Aune 1', $&12. !ro the tie 6eandra ,olis
and Bernardo ,olis, as .ell as Manuel de /uCan .ho .as .orkin+ on the land, .ere e7ected therefro,
Martin MendoCa possessed it until Aune 1', $&12, .hen de /uCan obtained the .rit of possession above-
entioned. ,ince then Ie /uCan has had doinion over the land.
Bein+ unable to coe to an a+reeent as to the aount .hich should be allo.ed for the iproveents
ade on the land, Martin MendoCa and Natalio Enri=ueC be+an an action re=uestin+ the court to )a* fi8 the
value of the necessar# and useful e8penses incurred b# Manuel de /uCan in introducin+ the
iproveents0 )b* re=uire the defendant to render an accountin+ of the fruits received b# hi and order
that the value of the fruits be applied to the pa#ent of the necessar# and useful e8penses0 and )c* decree
the restitution of the possession to the plaintiffs. To the coplaint, the defendant filed an ans.er in the for
of a +eneral denial .ith special defenses and appended a counter-clai and crosscoplaint, in .hich a
total of P@,%%% .as asked. Iurin+ the pendenc# of the case, Bernardo ,olis, or Ma8. B. ,olis, one of the
persons .ho .as e7ected fro the land, asked leave to intervene, alle+in+, aon+ other thin+s, that Ie
/uCan, in consideration of the su of P',%%%, had transferred all his ri+hts in the iproveents and in
the lot to hi .ith the e8ception of t.o hundred coconut trees. This petition .as +ranted b# the trial court.
Ehen the case .as called for trial, the parties entered into the foll.in+ stipulation9
$. That the plaintiffs are the o.ners and proprietors of the land described in the second para+raph
of the coplaint.
1. That a decree of re+istration has been issued on said land in the ters set forth in para+raph 4 of
the coplaint.
4. That the defendant Manuel de /uCan is the one .ho has been in possession and en7o#ent of
the land fro Aune 1', $&12, up to the present tie b# virtue of a .rit of possession obtained b#
hi fro the Court of 6and Re+istration.
2. That the defendant has ade iproveents on said land be plantin+ coconut trees thereon.
'. That the plaintiff Martin MendoCa is the one .ho has been in possession and en7o#ent of said
propert# and its iproveents since Ieceber $@, $&$@, b# virtue of a .rit of possession in civil
case No. 4'@ until said pssession .as transferred to the defendant Manuel de /uCan.
@. That fro March 1%, $&1%, the plaintiff Natalio Enri=ueC has been in possession and en7o#ent
of a portion of the land, the sub7ect atter of the coplaint herein, b# virtue of a deed of sale
e8ecuted in his favor b# Attorne# A+ustin AlvareC, .ho, in turn, ac=uired it fro the other plaintiff
Martin MendoCa, until Aune 1', $&12.
The parties desire to subit, as the# do subit, under this stipulation of facts the follo.in+
=uestions9
)a* The aount of the indenit# to be paid to the defendant for the iproveents ade b#
hi on said lot and the basis upon .hich said aount shall be fi8ed.
)b* Ehether or not the defendant is obli+ed to render an account of the fruits received b#
hi fro Aune 1', $&12, until the iproveents are delivered after sae have been paid
for. $a.phJl.net
)c* Ehether the value of said fruits and products received b# the defendant shall be applied
to the indenit# to .hich he is entitled, or .hether said defendant is obli+ed to deliver to the
plaintiffs the reainder in case of e8cess.
)d* Ehether or not the defendant has the ri+ht to be paid b# the plaintiffs in .hole or in part
for the value of the fruits received b# Martin MendoCa and Natalio Enri=ueC fro the
respective dates that the# .ere in possession and en7o#ent of the land until Aune 1',
$&12.
The parties at the sae tie that the# subit to the court for decision the =uestions presented in
the above stipulation reserve to theselves, .hatever said decision a# be, the ri+ht to present
later their evidence in support of their respective vie.s .ith respect to the aount of the indenit#.
After the preliinar# =uestions have been decided, the parties re=uest that coissioners be
appointed to receive said evidence .ith respect to the aount of the indenit# in accordance .ith
the vie.s of both parties.
The trial court resolved the =uestions presented b# holdin+ )$* that in accordance .ith the provisions of
articles 24' and 2'2 in relation .ith article 4@$ of the Civil Code, the value of the KindeniCationK to be paid
to the defendant should be fi8ed accordin+ to the necessar# and useful e8penses incurred b# hi in
introducin+ Klas plantaciones en cuestionK0 )1* that the plaintiffs as the o.ner of the propert# have the ri+ht
to ake their o.n Klas plantaciones hechas por el deandadoK upon pa#ent in the for indicated in No.
$, the defendant havin+ the ri+ht to retain the land until the e8penditures have been refunded0 )4* that the
defendant is obli+ed to render a detail and 7ust account of the fruits and other profits received b# hi fro
the propert# for their due application0 and )2* that the value of the fruits received b# the defendant should
first be applied to the pa#ent of the KindeniCacion,K and in that it e8ceeds the value of the
KindeniCacion,K the e8cess shall be returned to the plaintiffs. Eith respect to the last =uestion as to
.hether or not the plaintiffs are obli+ed to return to the defendant the value of the fruits received b# the
before the defendant took possession of the land, the trial court abstained fro akin+ an#
pronounceent for the reason that the circustances under .hich the plaintiffs ac=uired possession and
the defendant a+ain ac=uired it .ere not before hi, the parties needin+ to subit their evidence .ith
respect to this point.
At the trial .hich follo.ed and at the instance of the parties, t.o coissioners .ere appinted .ith
instructions to inspect the land and to count the nuber of coconut trees planted thereon, deterinin+ the
nuber of fruit-bearin+ trees and those that are not fruit-bearin+ as .ell as the condition of the sae. After
trial, Aud+e of !irst "nstance /loria rendered 7ud+ent declarin+ )a* that the defendant Manuel de /uCan
and the intervenor Bernardo ,olis have the ri+ht to collect fro the plaintiffs Martin MendoCa and Natalio
Enri=ueC the su of P1,%2@ as copensation for the necessar# and useful e8penditures in the proportion
of 1% per cent for Manuel de /uCan and 5% per cent for Bernardo ,olis0 and )b* that Manuel de /uCan
and Bernardo ,olis are obli+ed to pa# to the plaintiffs the su of P@@@.&4 per annu fro Aune 1', $&12,
one-fifth of this aount to be paid b# Manuel de /uCan and the other four-fifths b# Bernardo ,olis. As on
the date .hen this 7ud+ent .as rendered, that is on ,epteber 14, $&1(, the aount that the plaintiffs
.ere re=uired to pa# to the defendant and intervenor e8ceeded the aount that the latter .ere to pa# the
forer, the defendant and intervenor .ere ordered to deliver the land and its iproveent as soon as the
plaintiffs have paid the difference, .ithout special pronounceent as to costs.
The appeal of the defendant and intervenor is based on fourteen assi+ned errors relatin+ to both =uestions
of fact and of la.. The =uestion of fact ainl# concerns the aount to be paid as KindeniCacionK in the
for of necessar# and useful e8penditures incurred b# the defendant. The =uestion of la. ainl# concerns
the interpretation of articles 4@$, 2'4, and 2'2 of the Civil Code. Counsel for the appellants has presented
a learned brief divided into three chapters. Counsel for the appellees has countered .ith an e=uall# helpful
brief in .hich the fourteen assi+ned errors are reduced for purposes of ar+uents to four fundaental
=uestions. "t .ould not be profitable and it is not necessar# to follo. opposin+ counsel into all of their
refineents of fact and la..
As to the facts, the findin+s of the trial 7ud+e should be +iven effect. An e8aination of the evidence sho.s
that these findin+s are full# substantiated. Bur onl# doubt has been as to the 7ust value for each coconut
tree no. found on the land. >o.ever, ever#thin+ considered, .e have at last deterined that .e .ould not
be 7ustified in chan+in+ the value per tree of P1 as fi8ed in the trial court. Eith respect to the fruits received
b# the defendant .hile the land .as in his possession, the findin+ in the trial court is correct.
Eith the facts as above indicated, little tie need be taken to discuss the points of la.. Article 4@$ of the
Civil Code in the ori+inal ,panish te8t uses the .ord KindeniCacion.K >o.ever one a# speculate as to
the true eanin+ of the ter KindeniCacionK .hether correctl# translated as KcopensationK or
Kindenit#,K the aount of the KindeniCacionK is the aount of the e8penditures entioned in articles 2'4
and 2'2 of the Civil Code, .hich in the present case is the aount of the necessar# and useful
e8penditures incurred b# the defendant. Necessar# e8penses have been variousl# described b# the
,panish coentators as those ade for the preservation of the thin+ )2 Manresa-s Comentarios al
Codigo Ci"il, p. 1'5*0 as those .ithout .hich the thin+ .ould deteriorate or be lost
),caevola-s Comentarios al Codigo Ci"il, p.2%5*0 as those that au+ent the incoe of the thin+s upon
.hich the# are e8panded )2 Manresa-s Comentarios al Codigo Ci"il, p. 1@$0 5 ,caevola-s Comentarios al
Codigo Ci"il, p. 2$@*. Aon+ the necessar# e8penditures are those incurred for cultivation, production,
upkeep, etc. )2 Manresa-sComentarios al Codigo Ci"il, p. 1'(*. >ere the plaintiffs have chosen to take the
iproveents introduced on the land and are disposed to pa# the aount of the necessar# and useful
e8penses incurred b# the defendant. "nasuch as the retentionist, .ho is not e8actl# a posessor in +ood
faith .ith in the eanin+ of the la., seeks to be reibursed for the necessar# and useful e8penditures, it is
onl# 7ust that he should account to the o.ners of the estate for an# rents, fruits, or crops he has +athered
fro it.
"n brief, therefore, and .ith special reference to the decision appealed fro, the errors assi+ned on appeal,
and the ar+uent of counsel as addressed to the decision in the lo.er court and the assi+nent of errors,
.e a# sa# that .e are content to ake the findin+s of fact and la. of Aud+e /loria in the lo.er court the
findin+s of fact and la. in the appellate court.
Based on the fore+oin+ considerations, the 7ud+ent appealed fro .ill be affired, .ith the costs of this
instance a+ainst the appellants.
A"ancena, C.+., +o&nson, Street, .strand, -omualdez and /illa0-eal, ++., concur.
Foot(ote,
$ /. R. No. $2%44, Espinosa and ,olis vs. MendoCa, proul+ated Au+ust 14, $&$&, not reported.
Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
G.R. No. L-12-8. A/0/,t !1, 19.1
LEONOR GRANA '() 2ULIETA TORRALA, petitioners,
vs.
T3E COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA ONGATO '() 2AR%ENIO SANC3E&, respondents.
Tran#uilino .. Calo, +r. for petitioners.
).D. Mercado, +./. .ng and +.T. Gonzales for respondents.
GUTIERRE& %A"I%, J.4
This is a petition to revie. on certiorari a decision of the Court of Appeals.
6eonor /rana and Aulieta Torralba, defendants belo. and herein petitioners, .ere on April $4, $&'$ sued
b# Aurora Bon+ato and Aardenio ,ancheC, respondents herein, before the Court of !irst "nstance of
A+usan, for the recover# of 5( s=uare eters of residential land. After trial, the court rendered 7ud+ent
declarin+ the plaintiffs, herein respondents, o.ners of the land in controvers# and orderin+ petitioners to
vacate and deliver it to said respondents and to pa# a onthl# rental of P$%.%% fro the filin+ of the
coplaint until the# actuall# vacate the sae, plus attorne#-s fees and costs. The decision, on appeal,
havin+ been affired b# the Court of Appeals .ith the onl# odification of disallo.in+ the a.ard for
attorne#-s fees, petitioners brou+ht the case to this Court throu+h the present petition for revie..
The record discloses that soetie in $&%& a cadastral surve# of Butuan, A+usan, .as ade b# the
Bureau of 6ands. "n that surve#, the parcel of land here in =uestion .as included as part of the lot
belon+in+ to /re+orio Bon+ato and Clara Botcon for .hich Bri+inal Certificate of Title No. RB-(1 )$45* .as
issued in their favor on !ebruar# $1, $&14. Bn Noveber 1', $&44, this lot .as purchased b# the spouses
Marcos Bon+ato and Eusebia More, and upon their death, the land .as inherited b# the respondents
Aurora Bon+ato and Aardenio ,ancheC, the forer bein+ the dau+hter of Marcos Bon+ato b# his first
arria+e .hile the latter is the son of Eusebia More also b# her first arria+e.
Petitioners clai that the lands in Butuan .ere subse=uentl# resurve#ed due to conflicts and overlappin+ of
boundaries. "n that resurve# )T,-@' Butuan Cadastre*, /re+orio Bon+ato-s lot, accordin+ to petitioners,
.as identified as 6ot No. 4$$ and that of "sidaria Trillo, their predecessor in interest, as 6ot No. 4$%. Citin+
the fact that Bri+inal Certificate of Title No. RB-(1 )$45* covers 1&' s=uare eters of land, .hile the sketch
plan of the second cadastral surve# of Butuan sho.s that 6ot No. 4$$ has onl# 14% s=uare eters,
petitioners aintain that it is the latter area properl# belon+s to respondents and that the land in =uestion is
part of the ad7oinin+ land, 6ot No. 4$%, .hich belon+ed to their predecessor in interest.
Petitioners- stand is untenable. No proof .as presented to sho. that the first surve# .as erroneous or that
it included part of the conti+ous land of petitioners- predecessor in interest as part of the lot no. covered b#
Bri+inal Certificate of Title No. RB-(1 )$45*. Note that the difference in area bet.een the land covered b#
said title and 6ot No. 4$$ of the resurve# plan is @' s=uare eters .hile the area of the land in dispute if 5(
s=uare eters. And .hat is ore, the alle+ed sketch plan of the resurve# .as not presented in evidence.
?pon the other hand, it is not disputed that the land in =uestion is part of the lot covered b# the Torrens title
issued .a# back in $&14 in the nae of respondents- predecessor in interest. ,aid title has not been
contested up to the present, and, therefore, has becoe inconvertible evidence of the o.nership of the
land covered b# it. Eell settled is the rule that a Torrens certificate of title becoes conclusive and
indefeasible after the lapse of the period .ithin .hich it a# be ipu+ned )Re#es, et al. "s. Borbon, et al.,
'% Phil., (&$0 Luul "s. Rivera, et al., @2 Phil., $4*.
Petitioners- contention that the Court of Appeals erred in not +rantin+ their otion for ne. trial on the
+round of ne.l# discovered evidence, like.ise, cannot be sustained. The ne. evidence sou+ht to be
introduced .as the sketch plan of the second surve#, .hich, .ith the eplo#ent of reasonable dili+ence
.ould have easil# been discovered and produced at the trial. An#.a#, even if presented at the result of the
case. "f a subse=uent certificate of title cannot be peritted to prevail over a previous Torrens title )Re#es,
et al, "s. Borbon, et al.,supra* .ith ore reason should a resurve# plan not to be allo.ed to alter or odif#
such title so as to ake the area of the land therein described a+ree .ith that +iven in the plan. ),ee
/overnent of the Philippines "s. Arias, 4@ Phil., $&'*.
Althou+h .ithout an# le+al and valid clai over the land in =uestion, petitioners, ho.ever, .ere found b#
the Court of Appeals to have constructed a portion of their house thereon in +ood faith. ?nder Article 4@$ of
the old Civil Code )Article 225 of the ne.*, the o.ner of the land on .hich an#thin+ has been built in +ood
faith shall have the ri+ht to appropriate as his o.n faith shall have the ri+ht to appropriate as his o.n the
buildin+, after pa#ent to the builder of necessar# and useful e8penses, and in the proper case, e8penses
for pure lu8ur# or ere pleasure, or to obli+e the builder to pa# the price of the land. Respondents, as
o.ners of the land, have therefore the choice of either appropriatin+ the portion of petitioners- house .hich
is on their land upon pa#ent of the proper indenit# to petitioners, or sellin+ to petitioners that part of
their land on .hich stands the iproveent. "t a# here be pointed out that it .ould be ipractical for
respondents to choose to e8ercise the first alternative, i.e., bu# that portion of the house standin+ on their
land, for in that event the .hole buildin+ i+ht be rendered useless. The ore .orkable solution, it .ould
see, is for respondents to sell to petitioners that part of their land on .hich .as constructed a portion of
the latter-s house. "f petitioners are un.illin+ or unable to bu#, then the# ust vacate the land and ust pa#
rentals until the# do so. Bf course, respondents cannot obli+e petitioners to bu# the land if its value is
considerabl# ore than that of the aforeentioned portion of the house. "f such be the case, then
petitioners ust pa# reasonable rent. The parties ust coe to an a+reeent as to the conditions of the
lease, and should the# fail to do so, then the court shall fi8 the sae. )Article 4@$, old Civil Code0 Article
225 of the ne.*.
"n this connection, the appellate court erred in orderin+ petitioners to pa# onthl# rentals of P$%.%% fro
the date of filin+ of the coplaint until the# actuall# vacate said land. A builder in +ood faith a# not be
re=uired to pa# rentals. >e has a ri+ht to retain the land on .hich he has built in +ood faith until he is
reibursed the e8penses incurred b# hi. )Miranda "s. !adullon, et al., &( Phil., 5%$0 '$ Bff. /aC., @11@,
see also MartineC "s. Ba+anus, 15 Phil., '%%0 Ie /uCan "s. Ie la !uente, '' Phil., '%$0
Masila+ "s. Rodri+ueC, Bff. /aC., ,upp., Au+ust $@, $&2$, p. 12(*.
Petitioners further contend that he coplaint should have been disissed for non7oinder of an
indispensable part#, it bein+ alle+ed that their other Maria Cupin, .ho o.ns the land in =uestion as part of
her 6ot No. 4$%, has not been ade a part# defendant in the case. This contention, .hich .as not raised in
the trial court, deserves scant consideration. Petitioners clearl# asserted o.nership over the land in dispute
as .ell as over 6ot No. 4$% in their ans.er to the coplaint. The# are conse=uentl# estopped fro alle+in+
other.ise.
As to petitioners- assertion that the# should have been a.arded daa+es alle+ed to have been suffered b#
the in their counterclai, suffice it to sa# that petitioners failed to prove that the# suffered an# daa+e at
all b# reason of the filin+ of the coplaint. "ndeed, in the li+ht of the vie. .e have taken of the case, the#
could not have substantiated their clai for daa+es.
"n vie. of the fore+oin+, the appealed decision is odified in the sense that respondents are hereb#
directed to e8ercise .ithin 4% da#s fro this decision their option to either bu# the portion of the petitioners-
house on their land or sell to said petitioners the portion of their land and petitioners are un.illin+ or unable
to bu#, then the# ust vacate the sae and ust pa# reasonable rent of P$%.%% onthl# fro the tie
respondents ade their choice up to the tie the# actuall# vacate the preises. But if the value of the
eland is considerabl# ore than the value of the iproveent, then petitioners a# elect to rent the land,
in .hich case the parties shall a+ree upon the ters of a lease. ,hould the# disa+ree, the court of ori+in is
hereb# instructed to intervene and fi8 the ters thereof. Petitioners shall pa# reasonable rent of P$%.%%
onthl# up to the tie the parties a+ree on the ters of the lease or until the curt fi8es such ters.
,o ordered .ithout pronounceent as to costs.
$aras, C.+., Bengzon, Bautista Angelo, ,arador, Concepcion, -e%es, +.B.,., Barrera and Dizon,
++., concur.