GUILLERMO, Krystel Marie | 11588004 | G01
Depra v Dumlao
G.R. No. L-57348
petitioner FRANCISCO DEPRA
respondent AGUSTIN DUMLAO
summary
Dumlao built kitchen on Depras land. Dumlao is builder in good faith.
Depra can choose whether to buy the kitchen or to sell the land to
Dumlao, but cannot refuse to choose and just remove the kitchen.
facts of the case
Depra is owner of Lot 685 in Dumangas, Iloilo, with an area of
approximately 8,870 square meters. Dumlao owns an adjoining lot,
designated as Lot No. 683, with an approximate area of 231 sq. ms.
Dumlao built a house in 1972; the kitchen part of the house was built
34 sq. ms. on Depras lot. Beatriz Depra( mother) wrote Dumlao to
move back his property and also filed an unlawful detainer case.
Court found Dumlao to be a builder in good faith and applied Art. 448
of the Civil Code. The court ruled that there is a forced lease between
the parties and that the rent is going to be P5.00 per month payable
within the first five (5) days of the month the rent is due; and the
lease shall start the day the decision became final. No appeal, but
Depra does not want to accept the rentals; Dumlao deposits them
with the Municipal Court.
Depra filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title against Dumlao before
CFI Iloilo involving the same land. Dumlao interposed the defense of
the earlier decision of the Municipal Court as res judicata. Court ruled
that Depra is owner and is entitled to possess it. Depra claims that
the decision of the Municipal Court was null and void ab initio
because its jurisdiction is limited to the sole issue of possession,
whereas decisions affecting lease, which is an encumbrance on real
property, may only be rendered by Courts of First Instance.
issue
WON Depra has a right to remove the kitchen part? NO
May 16, 1985
ratio
The stipulation of facts of the parties conceded Dumlao is a builder in
good faith and Depra is landowner in good faith so Court did not
examine the facts anymore. Pursuant to 448, Depra has the option
either to pay for the encroaching part of DUMLAO's kitchen, or to sell
the encroached 34 square meters of his lot to Dumlao. He cannot
refuse to pay for the encroaching part of the building, and to sell the
encroached part of his land, as he had manifested before the
Municipal Court. But that manifestation is not binding because it was
made in a void proceeding.
Art. 448 prescribes options for an owner in good faith when dealing
with a builder in good faith. An owner of land on which another, in
good faith, built improvement is entitled to the removal of
improvement only after the landowner has opted to sell the land and
the builder refused to pay for the same.
There are 2 conflicting interests here. The choice of whether to buy
the improvements or to sell the land is given to the owner because
his right is older and because, by the principle of accession, he
is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing.
CFI should not have ordered ruled that Depra is entitled to
possession given that it was already stipulated that Dumlao was a
builder in good faith. Depra is only entitled to remove the kitchen
when he has chosen to sell the land and Dumlao fails to pay. But
Dumlao wanted to pay, Depra did not want to sell.
The Court remanded the case to the RTC to determine the fair price
of the land, the expenses incurred by Dumlao, the increase in value
of the land, and whether the value of the land is considerably more
than the value of the kitchen built on it. The RTC shall then give
Depra 15 days to exercise such option.