MANOTOK REALTY, INC. vs. Hon. JOSE H. TECSON and NILO MADLANGAWA, G.R. No.

L-47475,
August 19, 1988

“Where the improvements have been destroyed by a fortuitous event without the fault of the landowner, the basis for
the builder’s right to retain the premises is extinguished; hence, there is no other recourse for him but to vacate the
premises and deliver the same to the landowner.”

FACTS
Manotok Realty is the owner of the subject property. It filed a complaint against Madlangawa for recovery of
possession. The CFI ruled against Manotok, and declared Madlangawa as a builder or possessor in good faith and
ordered the company to recognize the right of Madlangawa to remain in company’s lot until after he shall have been
reimbursed for P7,500. Decision became final.

Manotok then filed with the trial court, presided by Judge Jose Tecson, a motion for the approval of his exercise of
option, praying that the court issue an order: a) approving the exercise of his option to appropriate the improvements
introduced by Madlangawa; and b) Madlangawa be ordered to deliver possession of the property to it.

Judge Tecson denied the motion and the motion for reconsideration. Hence, this petition for mandamus.

Since there is a pending case (Manotok v. NHA) involving the expropriation of the land in question, the case was
suspended until after the outcome of the proceedings. Moreover, a fire engulfed the Tambunting estate covering the
disputed area of the land. The expropriation case was not granted and the law on such expropriation was declared
unconstitutional.

Petitioner Manotok’s Argument

Since the judgment of the trial court has already become final, it is entitled to the execution of the same as a matter
of right and that, since the house of Madlangawa was gutted by fire, the execution of the decision would now
involve the delivery of possession of the area to the petitioner. Under Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, the
exercise of option belongs to the owner of the property.

Respondent Madlangawa argued that the issue has already become moot because fire has already gutted the
buildings.

ISSUE
Whether petitioner is entitled to the delivery of the possession of the property in question

RULING
Yes. When the decision of the trial court became final and executory, it becomes incumbent upon the judge to issue
the writ for the execution.

Neither can the respondent judge deny the issuance of a writ of execution because the private respondent was
adjudged a builder in good faith because the option given by law either to retain the premises and pay for the
improvements or to sell the premises to the builder in good faith belongs to the owner of the property.

Under Article 448, the right to appropriate the works or improvements or to oblige the one who built or planted to
pay the price of the land' belongs to the owner of the land. The only right given to the builder in good faith is the
right to reimbursement for the improvements; the builder cannot compel the owner of the land to sell such land
to the former.

To be deemed a builder in good faith: (a) the person asserting title to the land is in the concept of owner (Art. 525);
and (b) that he be unaware 'that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it (Art.
526).

Furthermore, the respondent's good faith ceased after the filing of the complaint by the petitioner.

Thus, the repairs and improvements by the Madlangawa after the complaint was filed cannot be considered to have
been built in good faith.

Since the improvements have been gutted by fire, and therefore, the basis for Madlangawa’s right to retain the
premises has already been extinguished without the fault of Manotok, there is no other recourse for the former but to
vacate the premises and deliver the same to petitioner.

Petition is granted.