223456  Ramos owns a parcel of land
KINDS OF POSSESSION  De Vera et al occupied a triangular
G.R. No. 97761
DE VERA v CA
PURISIMA, J.
Summarized by Ira Agting
Ramos filed a complaint vs De Veras for
recovery of his property. The De Veras
claim they had possession even before
Ramos obtained a Homestead Patent
over the Land. Ramos sent them letters
telling them they were on his property.
They were asked to choose between
buying or leasing the property they
occupied. They refused and even built a
house of strong materials on it. SC: De
Veras are possessors and builders in bad
faith. Ramos gave Agueda de Vera the
option to either pay him the value of the
property or lease the same on a yearly or
monthly basis. Parties failed to reach a
compromise agreement. Despite this, De
Veras constructed a house of strong
materials. Good faith consists in the
possessors belief that the person from
whom he received a thing was the owner
of the same and could convey his title. It
consists in an honest intention to abstain
from taking any unconscientious
advantage of another, and is the
opposite of fraud.
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
 AGUEDA DE VERA, MARIO DE LA
CRUZ, EVANGELINE DELA CRUZ, and
EDRONEL DE LA CRUZ - petitioners,
builders in bad faith
 RICARDO RAMOS – respondent,
rightful owner
FACTS
Ricardo Ramos filed a complaint against
Agueda de Vera for recovery of property
and damages
22 sqm portion of the property
where they constructed a house of
strong and permanent materials
(used to be a building of light
materials)
 It took Ramos 23 years before
demanding that they vacate. The de
Veras Refused
Basis of Ramos' claim: Ramos was
granted a Homestead Patent and OCT
after he fully complied with the
cultivation and residence requirements of
the public land act
 After the issuance of his
Homestead Patent, Ramos brought a
complaint for recovery of possession
against several people for ejectment
 A protracted litigation between
Ramos and the defendants ensued
with the latter averring that
Homestead Patent and Original
Certificate were obtained in violation
of Section 19 of the Public Land Law
and null and void.
 The case eventually reached this
Court which, on January 27, 1981,
came out with a decision upholding
the validity of Ramos' title
 April 27, 1981, Ramos wrote De
Veras reminding them that their
house is on his titled property, and
asking them to buy the portion
occupied by them or to lease the
same on a yearly or monthly basis;
otherwise, Ramos would be
constrained to take proper legal
action against them. But the letter
of private respondent was ignored by
petitioners.
Basis of De Vera's claim: De Vera et al
claim they have been in possession of 70
sqm of land since the late1950s, before
Ramos filed his Homestead Patent
1
  Their
possession was
through their predecessor in interest,
Teodoro de la Cruz (Husband of de
Vera) by virtue of a valid title
(Miscellaneous Sales Application).
 They honestly believed that the
other portions formed part of the lot
with an area of 70 square meters
covered by their Miscellaneous Sales
Application
 They claim that Ramos' knowledge
that they had been occupying the
portions for several years prior to his
filing of the application for a
homestead patent, opens to
question the validity of his
homestead patent and the title
derived therefrom
TC:
 A Relocation Survey showed that
only a portion of 22 sqm of Ramos'
lot is occupied by the De Veras and
that between the National Road and
Ramos' property is an area of 51
square meters
 Ramos is owner of all lands,
ordered De Veras to vacate and pay
rent
On appeal, De Veras argue that TC erred
 in not dismissing the complaint on
the ground of laches;
 in holding that they are possessors
in bad faith and
De Veras claimed they are not liable
for rental payments for the use of
the disputed property, for attorney's
fees and the costs of suit.
CA: Modified, deleted monthly rents
ISSUE/HELD/RATIO
1. W/N De Vera et al were
possessors and builders in bad
faith -- YES
Facts and circumstances stated are
outward acts and proven conduct
2 2
indicating bad faith of petitioners as
possessor and builder
 Prior to the construction in 1983
of De Vera's house on the land,
a demand letter dated April 27,
1981 was sent by Ramos,
informing them that the land
they were possessing and
occupying is within his titled
property.
 Ramos gave Agueda de Vera the
option to either pay him the
value of the property or lease
the same on a yearly or monthly
basis.
 Parties failed to reach a
compromise agreement
 Despite this, De Veras
constructed a house of strong
materials in 1983, after
dismantling their previous
building of light materials
 Ramos demanded that they
remove their improvements,
which option is legally feasible
under the attendant facts and
circumstances
Tolentino
 Good faith consists in the
possessors belief that the
person from whom he received
a thing was the owner of the
same and could convey his title.
It consists in an honest intention
to abstain from taking any
unconscientious advantage of
another, and is the opposite of
fraud.
o A possessor in good faith is
one who is unaware that
there exists a flaw which
invalidates his acquisition of
the thing.
o Since good faith is a state of
the mind, and is not a
visible, tangible fact that
can be seen or touched, it
can only be determined by
 outward acts and proven
conduct.
o It implies freedom from
knowledge and
circumstances which ought
to put a person on inquiry
2. W/N Ramos is barred by laches
--NO
In light of the factual background of
the case, the principle of laches has
no application
 Ramos' failure to assert his
rights over the land for 23
years (1958-81) was due to
the prolonged litigation he
was embroiled with the De
Veras
 As the validity of his patent
itself was being questioned, the
cause of action of Ramos vis-a-
vis the land he acquired by
homestead patent had to be
kept dormant, pending
determination of the validity of
the said homestead patent.
 The delay is not unreasonable
and considering that the
essence of laches is the
unreasonableness of the delay
in the prosecution or institution
of a case, the principle of
laches finds no room for
application here
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS
Article 526 of the New Civil Code
He is deemed a possessor in good
faith who is not aware that there
exists in his title or mode of
acquisition any flaw which
invalidates it.
He is deemed a possessor in bad
faith who possesses in any case
contrary to the foregoing.
Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult
question of law may be the basis of
good faith.
Article 449
He who builds ... in bad faith on the
land of another, losses what is built,
... without right to indemnity.
Article 450
The owner of the land on which
anything has been built, ... in bad
faith may demand the demolition of
the work, ... in order to replace
things in their former condition at
the expense of the person who
built, ...; or he may compel the
builder ... to pay the price of the
land, ...
Article 451
In the cases of the two preceding
articles, the landowner is entitled to
damages from the builder...
Under the aforecited Articles 449
and 450, the landowner has three
alternative rights, either:
1. to appropriate what has been
built without any obligation
to pay indemnity therefor; or
2. to demand the builder to
remove what he had built; or
3. to compel the builder to pay
the value of the land.
In any event, he (landowner) is
entitled to be indemnified by the
builder in bad faith, pursuant to
Article 451
CA Affirmed