BALTAZAR V.

CARIDAD 17 SCRA 460

DOCTRINE:

Builder in good faith; Requisite for good faith.—Good faith must rest on a colorable right in the builder,
beyond a mere stubborn belief in one’s title despite judicial adjudication. The fact that in 1959 appellants
demolished and replaced their old house with new and bigger ones, cannot enervate the rights of the
registered owners. Otherwise, the rights of the latter to enjoy full possession of their registered property
could be indefinitely defeated by an unsuccessful opponent through the simple subterfuge of replacing his
old house with a new one from time to time.

FACTS:

Julio Baltazar, the registered owner of Lot 8864, died. On December 6, 1961, his surviving wife and
children filed a motion, in the cadastral case praying for writ of possession against Silvina Caridad and
her daughter, Eduarda Caridad, who had been in possession of the southern portion of the said
property since 1939. On December 11, 1961, the trial court issued an order granting Baltazar's motion,
and overruled Caridads' opposition but directed the sheriff not to remove or destroy the permanent
improvements on the lot without an express command. On January 2, 1962, the order having become
final, the sheriff enforced the writ and placed Baltazar in possession of the southern portion of the lot.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the Court erred in compelling Silvina and Eduarda Caridad to remove their
respective houses from the disputed lot.
2. Whether or not Silvina and Eduarda Caridad were builders in good faith.

RULING:

1. The order dated March 20, 1962 of the cadastral court, granting Baltazar's motion to compel the
Caridads to remove their respective houses from the disputed lot, is valid and enforceable against
the latter. This may be concluded based on the following circumstances:
a. The Caridads did not dispute that during the pendency of the cadastral proceeding (to
which judgment was rendered awarding said lot 8864, and consequent issuance of the
final decree of registration of the same, in favor of Julio Baltazar), the late Andres
Caridad, his surviving spouse Silvina Caridad, and their children, one of whom is
Eduarda Caridad, were in possession of the southern portion of the disputed lot;
b. Eduarda Caridad claims right and title thereto as a mere heir and successor-in-interest of
said Andres Caridad; and
c. The Caridads did not dispute the propriety and validity of the order of the cadastral court,
granting the writ of possession in favor of Baltazar as well as its enforcement.
2. No, the Caridads cannot be regarded as builders in good faith because they are bound by the 1941
decree of registration which obligated their parents and predecessors-in-interest. Good faith must
rest on a colourable right in the builder, beyond a mere stubborn belief in one's title despite
judicial adjudication. The fact that the Caridads demolished and replaced their old house in 1959
with new and bigger ones cannot weaken the rights of the registered owners. Otherwise, the right
of the latter to enjoy full possession of their registered property could indefinitely be defeated by
an unsuccessful opponent through the simple maneuver of replacing his old house with a new one
from time to time.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION:
Wherefore, the appealed order should be, as it is hereby affirmed. With costs against respondents-
appellants.