G.R. No. 46623 - Kasilag v.

Rodriguez
Page 2

This is an appeal taken by the defendant-petitioner from the decision of the Court of
Appeals which modi︎ed that rendered by the Court of First Instance of Bataan in civil
case No. 1504 of said court and held: that the contract, Exhibit "1" is entirely null and
void and without effect; that the plaintiffs-respondents, then appellants, are the owners
of the disputed land, with its improvements, in common ownership with their brother
Gavino Rodriguez, hence, they are entitled to the possession thereof; that the
defendant-petitioner should yield possession of the land in their favor, with all the
improvements thereon and free from any lien; that the plaintiffs-respondents jointly
and severally pay to the defendant-petitioner the sum of P1,000 with interest at 6 per
cent per annum from the date of the decision; and absolved the plaintiffs-respondents
from the cross-complaint relative to the value of the improvements claimed by the
defendant-petitioner. The appealed decision also ordered the registrar of deeds of

Page 3

Bataan to cancel certi︎cate of title No. 325, in the name of the deceased Emiliana
Ambrosio and to issue in lieu thereof another certi︎cate of title in favor of the plaintiffs-
respondents and their brother Gavino Rodriguez, as undivided owners in equal parts,
free of all liens and incumbrances except those expressly provided by law, without
special pronouncement as to the costs.

The respondents, children and heirs of the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio, commenced
the aforesaid civil case to the end that they recover from the petitioner the possession
of the land and its improvements granted by way of homestead to Emiliana Ambrosio

that the petitioner pay to them the sum of P650 being the approximate value of the
fruits which he received from the land; that the petitioner sign all the necessary
documents to transfer the land and its possession to the respondents; that the
petitioner be restrained, during the pendency of the case, from conveying or
encumbering the land and its improvements; that the registrar of deeds of Bataan
cancel certi︎cate of title No. 325 and issue in lieu thereof another in favor of the
respondents, and that the petitioner pay the costs of suit.

The petitioner denied in his answer all the material allegations of the complaint and by
way of special defense alleged that he was in possession of the land and that he was
receiving the fruits thereof by virtue of a mortgage contract, entered into between him
and the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio on May 16, 1932,

and in counterclaim asked that the respondents pay him the sum of P1,000 with 12 per
cent interest per annum which the deceased owed him

that, should the respondents be declared to have a better right to the possession of
the land, that they be sentenced to pay him the sum of P5,000 as value of all the
improvements which he introduced upon the land.
 Page 6

The cardinal rule in the interpretation of contracts is to the effect that the intention of
the contracting parties should always prevail because their will has the force of law
between them.

Article 1281 of the Civil Code consecrates this rule and provides, that if the terms of a
contract are clear and leave no doubt as to the intention of the contracting parties, the
literal sense of its stipulations shall be followed;

Page 8

The Civil Code does not expressly de︎ne what is meant by bad faith, but section 433
provides that "Every person who is unaware of any ︎aw in his title, or in the manner of its
acquisition, by which it is invalidated, shall be deemed a possessor in good faith";

and provides, further, that "Possessors aware of such ︎aw are deemed possessors in
bad faith."

Article 1950 of the same Code, covered by Chapter II relative to prescription of

ownership and other real rights, provides, in turn, that "Good faith on the part of the
possessor consists in his belief that the person from whom he received the thing was
the owner of the same, and could transmit the title thereto."

Borrowing the language of Article 433, the question to be answered is whether the
petitioner should be deemed a possessor in good faith because he was unaware of any
︎aw in his title or in the manner of its acquisition by which it is invalidated.

This being the case, the question is whether good faith may be premised upon
ignorance of the laws.

Page 9

According to this author, gross and inexeusable ignorance of the law may not be the
basis of good faith, but possible, excusable ignorance may be such basis.

It is a fact that the petitioner is not conversant with the laws because he is not a lawyer

In accepting the mortgage of the improvements he proceeded on the well-grounded

belief that he was not violating the prohibition regarding the alienation of the land.

In taking possession thereof and in consenting to receive its fruits, he did not know, as
clearly as a jurist does, that the possession and enjoyment of the fruits are attributes of
the contract of antichresis and that the latter, as a lien, was prohibited by section 116.

These considerations again bring us to the conclusion that, as to the petitioner, his
ignorance of the provisions of section 116 is excusable and may, therefore, be the basis
of his good faith.

We, therefore, hold that the petitioner acted in good faith in taking possession of the
land and enjoying its fruits.