Torbela v.

Spouses Rosario
G.R. No. 140528 | December 7, 2011
 FACTS
• The property involved in the case at bar is a parcel of land called Lot-356-A
located in Urdaneta City. In which the Torbela siblings executed a Deed of
Absolute Quitclaim in favor of Dr. Rosario.

• The controversy arose when Dr. Rosario executed a series of mortgages on Lot
356 and used the proceeds to construct a building on the lot initially used as a
hospital, later on became a commercial building.

• Rosario defaulted in its payment to the mortgage, specifically with Banco

Filipino, which resulted to the lot being extrajudicially foreclosed and was sold
at a public auction.
 FACTS
• The Torbelas filed an action to recover ownership and possession over
the said lot. They also claimed ownership over the improvements
made thereon based on the rules of accession.
 ISSUE
• Who has better rights over the commercial building.
 RULING
• Article 440 of the Civil Code states that the ownership of property
gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby,
or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or
artificially.

• Applying such article, the building constructed by Dr. Rosario is

something that is attached or incorporated to the lot of the Torbelas
and by right of accession, the latter is presumed to be the owner of
such property.
 However
• When it comes to the improvements on Lot No. 356-A, both the Torbela
siblings (as landowners) and Dr. Rosario (as builder) are deemed in bad faith.
The Torbela siblings were aware of the construction of a building by Dr. Rosario
on Lot No. 356-A, while Dr. Rosario proceeded with the said construction
despite his knowledge that Lot No. 356-A belonged to the Torbela siblings. This
is the case contemplated under Article 453 of the Civil Code, which reads:

• ART. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built,
planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of
such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both
had acted in good faith.
 RULING on 448
• When both the landowner and the builder are in good faith, the
following rules govern:

• ART. 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.
• Still following the rules of accession, civil fruits, such as rents, belong to the
owner of the building. Thus, Dr. Rosario has a right to the rents of the
improvements on Lot No. 356-A and is under no obligation to render an
accounting of the same to anyone. In fact, it is the Torbela siblings who are
required to account for the rents they had collected from the lessees of the
commercial building and turn over any balance to Dr. Rosario.

• Dr. Rosario’s right to the rents of the improvements on Lot No. 356-A shall
continue until the Torbela siblings have chosen their option under Article 448 of
the Civil Code. And in case the Torbela siblings decide to appropriate the
improvements, Dr. Rosario shall have the right to retain said improvements, as
well as the rents thereof, until the indemnity for the same has been paid.
Angeles v. Pascual
G.R. No. 157150 | September 21, 2011
 FACTS
• The property of controversy in this case are adjacent parcels of land
located in Cabanatuan City. Pascual owned Lot 4, Block 2 (Lot 4) of the
consolidation-subdivision plan (LRC). Angeles owned Lot 5, Block 2 (Lot
5) of the same consolidation-subdivision plan.

• The controversy arose when Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company

(Metrobank), as the highest bidder in the foreclosure sale of the
adjacent Lot 3, Block 2 (Lot 3), caused the relocation survey of Lot 3 that
the geodetic engineer discovered that Pascual’s house had encroached
on Lot 3. As a consequence, Metrobank successfully ejected Pascual.
 FACTS
• This resulted to Pascual causing the relocation survey of his own Lot 4
and discovered that Angeles’ house also encroached on his lot. Of the
318 square meters comprising Lot 4, Angeles occupied 252 square
meters, leaving Pascual with only about 66 square meters. Pascual
demanded rentals for the use of the encroached area of Lot 4 from
Angeles, or the removal of Angeles’ house. Angeles refused the
demand.
 ISSUE
• Whether or not Angeles should pay rent over the encroached
property of Pascual.
 RULING
• Yes. Article 448 of the Civil Code contemplates a person building, or sowing, or planting
in good faith on land owned by another.

• With the unassailable finding that Angeles’ house straddled the lot of Pascual, and that
Angeles had built his house in good faith, Article 448 of the Civil Code, which spells out
the rights and obligations of the owner of the land as well as of the builder, is applicable.

• Consequently, the land being the principal and the building the accessory, preference is
given to Pascual as the owner of the land to make the choice as between appropriating
the building or obliging Angeles as the builder to pay the value of the land. Contrary to
the insistence of Angeles, therefore, no inconsistency exists between the finding of good
faith in his favor and the grant of the reliefs set forth in Article 448 of the Civil Code
Editha Alviola v. CA &
Tinangan
G.R. No. 117642 | April 24, 1998
 FACTS
• The property involved in this case are two parcels of land situated at Valencia Negros
Oriental which are originally owned by Agustin and Florencia Tinangan during the
1950’s.

• It is to note that petitioners, the Spouses Alviola occupied portions of the land where
they built a store and copra dryer, engaging business in buying and selling copra.

• The controversy arose when petitioner Editha assisted by her husband filed a
complaint for partition and damages before the CFI claiming to be an acknowledged
natural child of Agustin and demanded the delivery of the shares in the properties
left by the deceased.
 FACTS
• Alviola contends that Victoria Sonjaco Tinagan, during her lifetime, ceded
her right to the disputed properties in favor of them and that they
acquired the properties by occupation for 20 years.

• They further maintained that they were not in bad faith in possessing the
disputed properties and that the improvements thereon were not
transferable as these are permanent structures, the walls thereof being
made of hollow-blocks and the floors made of cement. This was countered
by the respondents by saying that Victoria Tigan merely tolerated
petitioners' possession of the disputed properties for a period which was
less than that required for extraordinary prescription.
 ISSUE
• Whether or not the Spouses Alviola were builders in bad faith. -YES
 RULING:
• To point out their stay on the property was merely by tolerance on
the part of the Tinagan’s. The evidence shows that the spouses were
were merely permitted by Victoria Tinagan (Agustin’s Mother) to build
a copra dryer on the land when they got married.

• Considering that their occupation of the properties in dispute was

merely by tolerance, their posture that they have acquired the
property by "occupation" for 20 years does not have any factual or
legal foundation.
 RULING
• However, the Court noted here that both parties were actually in bad faith

• there was bad faith on the part of the Spouses when they constructed the copra dryer and store
on the disputed portions since they were fully aware that the parcels of land belonged to Victoria
Tinagan. And, there was likewise bad faith on the part of the Tinangan’s having knowledge of the
arrangement between the spouses and Victoria Tinagan relative to the construction of the copra
dryer and store.

• Applying Article 453 of the CC If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built,
planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights
of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith. Thus, for purposes
of indemnity, Article 448 of the New Civil Code was to be be applied wherein if 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.
• However, the copra dryer and the store, as determined by the trial court and CA,
are transferable in nature. Thus, it would not fall within the coverage of Article 448.

• To fall within the provision of this Article, the construction must be of permanent
character, attached to the soil with an idea of perpetuity; but if it is of a transitory
character or is transferable, there is no accession, and the builder must remove the
construction. The proper remedy of the landowner is an action to eject the builder
from the land."

• The private respondents' action for recovery of possession was the suitable
solution to eject petitioners from the premises.
Zapata v. Director of
Lands
G.R. No. L-17645 | October 30, 1962
 FACTS
• The property of controversy in this case are two parcels of land, Lots, 25
and 16 situated in Sto. Tomas, Pampanga, owned by Julianna Zapata,
adjoining a non-navigable and non-floatable river called the Candalaga
Creek.

• The problem arose when In 1915, when the cadastral survey of San
Fernando was begun, the width of the Candalaga Creek adjoining the two
parcels of land owned by Juliana Zapata increased from 90 or to 100
meters, to a width of 15 meters because soil had been accumulated by
the water current of the river on the banks of Lot No. 25 and of that part
of Lot No. 16
• The accreted land was delimited and later designated as lots 1, 2 and
3. Juliana Zapata claims that the aforesaid three lots belong to her by
accretion, was provided for in article 457 of the Civil Code, and prays
that the same be registered in her name under the Land Registration
Act.

• The Director of Lands objected to the petition arguing that "was not
due to the natural effect of the current but was artificially induced on
account of the erection of the fish traps on the creek."
 ISSUE
• Whether or not the accretion of land that was formed in Zapata’s
properties registrable under her name -Yes
 Ruling
• The accretion that formed adjacent to Zapata’s land belongs to her and can be
registered in her name.

• In this case, Lots 1, 2 and 3 adjoining Lot No. 25 and that part of Lot No. 16, both
owned by the Zapata, had been formed gradually due to the effect of the water
current of the Candalaga Creek.

• Fish traps might have slowed down the current of the Candalaga Creek and might
have brought about or caused the accretion, but as there is no evidence to show that
the setting up or erection of the fish traps was expressly intended or designed to
cause or bring about the accretion, Zapata may still invoke the benefit of the
provisions of Article 457 of the Civil Code to support her claim of the title.