68. RODOLFO V. ROSALES and LILY ROSQUETA ROSALES,petitioners, vs.

MIGUEL CASTELLTORT,
JUDITH CASTELLTORT, and LINA LOPEZ-VILLEGAS, assisted by her Attorney-in-Fact, Rene Villegas,
respondents.
8/16/95, pet discovered that resp Castelltort is constructing a house in their lot in Laguna without their knowledge
and consent . Resp Castelltort and wife purchased Lot 16 from Villegas through her son Rene, but after survey of
geodetic engr Augusto Rivera, he pointed Lot 17 as the Lot 16 purchased. Negations for settlement begun. Villegas
offered a larger lot near pets lot as replacement. Also proposed to pay purchase price of pets lot w/ legal int.
Both proposals rejected by petitioners they sent letter 8/24/95, directed Castelltort to sop construction and demolish
house and other structure built and desist from entering lot.
9/1/95 pet filed complaint for recovery of possession and damages with prayer for the issuance of a restraining order
and preliminary injunction against spouses Castelltort before the RTC . Castelltorts claimed they were they were
builders in good faith. Lina, thru Rene filed a Motion for Intervention.
Lina said Castelltorts constructed house in GF for they consult her before starting construction and relied on tech
description of LOT 16 w/c was verified by geodetic engr.
Lina proposed give pet a lot with area of 536 sq m w/ house and duplex structure or pet would encumber the 536 sq
m lot as collateral "to get immediate cash" to compensate them for Lot 16.

RTC, spouses Rosales are registered owners of land.

No well founded belief of ownership of land by the def. Mode of acquisition stemmed from Contract to Sell were
they were not even parties, Elizabeth Cruz is buyer and the sale is subjected to the judicial reconstitution of the title.
By own actions of Miguel, they betrayed very belief of ownership. Even if gf but failed to comply with having a
building permit so there was really bf on their part.
Resp filed to CA.
CA granted appeal. reversed RTC. Remand case to RTC. CA said RTC relied on flimsy, immaterial, allegations of
Rosales.
ISSUE: WON Miguel Castelltort is a builder in GF and was ignored by court a quo?
This case doesnt concern personal and property relation of spouses Castelltort and Elizabeth Cruz, so should have
focused on Miguel building in gf the house w/o notice of adverse claim of Rosales and under honest belief he owns
the land
As far as Miguel is concerned he relied on title given to him w/c has no annotation of prior adverse claim.
Failure to secure bldg permit doesnt impinge gf. In fact there was filing of permit but due to confusion of the
parameters of the property there was none. So bolstered fact that Miguel really had gf to believe he is bldg house on
his property.
Engr. Rebecca T. Lanuan testified that Miguel had already applied for a bldg permit as early as February 1994, he
was given a temporary blldg permit pending the completion of the req for said permit. Although bldg permit
belatedly given Jan 1996 not detract Miguels gf.
RTC erred in holding Miguel as builder in bf cause there were factual and incontrovertible evidence showing he was
in gf. Miguel cant be faulted on relying on tech description that was delivered to him.
Admittedly, Miguels house encroached properry of Rosales due to a mistake in the placement of stone monuments
as indicated in the survey plan, which error is directly attributable to the fault of the geodetic engineer who
conductedthe same. This fact alone negates bad faith on the part of appellant Miguel.

In view of the good faith the rights and obligations are to be governed by Article 448, which has been
applied to improvements or portions of improvements built by mistaken belief on land belonging to the
adjoining owner. . . .
Pet filed reconsideration but CA denied
Builder in gf if one who builds believes that he owns the land, or he has title so has right to build there and ignorant
of defect in title. Art 527 CC gf is ALWAYS PRESUMED, the one who alleges bf has burden of proof.
The Case.
Lina through Rene sell lot 16 >> Miguesalel and Elizabeth for 500k. Prior to sale showed photocopy of TCT from
Linas mother to Miguel and explained reason why photocopy only(duplicate copy was lost & judicial reconstitution
thereof was ongoing) . After sale Miguel as a prudent man went to Reg of Deed and asked true copy of TCT. True
copy did not bore any annotation of adverse claim.
There was really no difference on Lot 16 and 17. The confusion in the identification of Lot 16 was really on the
error committed by geodetic engineer Augusto Rivera's employees in placing stone monuments on petitioners'
property, instead of on Lot 16, the lot sold to Castelltort, based on the survey made by the engineer in 1992.
Ca found both parties acted in good faith at least until 8/21/95 , the applicable provision in this case is Article 448 of
the Civil Code.
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. 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.
Choice belongs to owner of land, in accordance with principle of accession. Accessory follows principal and not
otherway. But this grant is preclusive. Land owner CANT REFUSE to exercise EITHER OPTION and compel
removal of bldg.
Possession in good faith doesnt lose character except when facts show that the possessor is aware that he
possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully. GF ceases or in interrupted from time defects of title are known to
possessor, by extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery of the property by the true owner.
Castelltort's good faith ceased on August 21, 1995 when pet personally apprised him of their title over lot. As held
by CA , should pet opt to appropriate the house, they only be made to pay part of the improvement built by
Castelltort on land until August 21, 1995. But CA failed to qualify improvement must be pegged on current fmv.
CA also held payment f Castelltorts reasonable rent should commence on Aug 21 95 and be paid until time that
possession of property is delivered to pet. , subject to the reimbursement of expenses, if such option is for petitioners
to appropriate the house.
Generally Article 448 CC provides that payment of reasonable rent should be made only upon date appellees serve
notice of option to appellants . However, in the case at bar, Miguels builder in good faith ceased on Aug 21 95,
time he was notified of Rosales lawful title over property so reasonable rent commence at that tme. If the option
chosen by pet is compulsory sale, however, the payment of rent should continue up to the actual transfer of
ownership.
SC: Petition is DENIED.