PROPERTY – 2H 2020-2021

CASE TITLE Manotoc Realty v. Tecson G.R. NO. L-47475

PONENTE Gutierrez Jr., J. DATE August 19, 1988

DOCTRINE Right of Accession with respect to Immovable Property

Article 448 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.
FACTS Petitioner Manotok Realty filed a complaint against Nilo Madlangawa for recovery of possession
with damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila. The Regional Trial Court rendered the
following decision:
1. Declaring Madlangawa as a builder or possessor in good faith;
2. Ordering the company to Madlangawa to remain in Lot 345, Block 1, of the Clara
Tambunting Subdivision until after he shall have been reimbursed by the company the sum
of P7,500.00, without pronouncement as to costs.
Unsatisfied with the Decision of the RTC, petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals and upon
affirming the trial court’s decision, it elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

On July 13, 1977, the Supreme Court issued a resolution denying Manotok’s petition for lack of
merit. Petitioner then filed with the tria l court (Judge Jose H. Tecson), a motion for the approval of
the company’s exercise of option and for satisfaction of judgment.
After the denial of respondent judge of the motion, a petition for mandamus was filed alleging that
the respondent Judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying the petitioner’s motion to
exercise option and for execution of judgment on the grounds that under Article 448 and 564 of
the Civil code.

ISSUE/S Whether or not respondent Judge can deny petitioner’s motion to avail of its option.

RULING/S No, respondent Judge Tecson has no basis for denying the Petitioner the benefit of availing the
option to appropriate the improvements made on its property. Neither can the judge deny the
issuance of a writ of execution because the private respondent was adjudged a builder in good
faith or on the ground of “peculiar circumstances which supervened after the institution of this
case, like, for instance, the introduction of certain major repairs of and other substantial
improvements…” because the option given by law belongs to the owner of the land.
Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the right to appropriate the works or improvements or to
oblige the one who built or planted to pay the proper price of the land belongs to the owner of the
land. The only right given to the builder in good faith is the right of reimbursement of necessary
expenses for the preservation of the land; the builder cannot compel the landowner to sell such
land to the former.
PROPERTY – 2H 2020-2021