TUATIS VS.

SPOUSES ELISEO AND VISMINDA ESCOL

TUATIS VS. SPOUSES ELISEO AND VISMINDA ESCOL
G.R. No. 175399               October 27, 2009

FACTS:
Visminda Escol, the seller and Ophelia Tuatis, the buyer entered into a Deed of Sale by Installments, the
subject matter of which is a parcel of land in Sindangan. It provided that upon the failure of the buyer to
pay the remaining balance within the time stipulated, he shall return the land to the seller, and the seller
shall return all the amounts paid by the buyer. Tuatis took possession of the land and constructed a
residential building. Tuatis asserted that she paid Visminda the remaining balance of P3000 in the
presence of one Erik Selda and thereafter requested Visminda to sign the absolute deed of sale.
Visminda refused contending that the purchase price has not been fully paid. The RTC dismissed Tuatis’s
complaint and also ruled that Tuatis constructed the building in bad faith for she had knowledge of the fact
that Visminda is still the absolute owner of the land and there was also bad faith on the part of Visminda
since she allowed the construction of the building without opposition on her part. 

The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal by Tuatis which resulted to the finality of the appealed
decision. Visminda filed a writ of execution. Tuatis then moved that the RTC issue an order allowing her
to buy the subject property. During the pendency of the motion, the writ of execution was enforced. Tuatis
filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus but the same was denied hence this
petition.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Tuatis is entitled to exercise the options granted in Art. 448 of the Civil Code.

RULING:

No, Tuatis is not entitled to exercise the options granted in Article 448 of the Civil Code.
Article 448 provides that the owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good
faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the
indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of
the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to
buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay
reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper
indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court
shall fix the terms thereof.

Visminda’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution cannot be deemed as an expression of her choice to
recover possession of the subject property under the first option, since the options under Article 448 of
the Civil Code and their respective consequences were also not clearly presented to her by the 19 April
1999 Decision of the RTC. She must then be given the opportunity to make a choice between the options
available to her after being duly informed herein of her rights and obligations under both.