Nuguid v. CA G.R.

151815

FACTS: Pedro P. Pecson owned a commercial lot located at 27 Kamias Road, Quezon City, on which he
built a four-door two-storey apartment building. For failure to pay realty taxes, the lot was sold at public
auction by the City Treasurer of Quezon City to Mamerto Nepomuceno, who in turn sold it for P103,000
to the spouses Juan and Erlinda Nuguid. Pecson challenged the validity of the auction sale however the
RTC upheld the spouses title but declared that the four-door two-storey apartment building was not
included in the auction sale. The Nuguid spouses moved for delivery of possession of the lot and the
apartment building which the RTC approved; directing the deputy sheriff to put the spouses Nuguid in
possession of the subject property with all the improvements thereon and to eject all the occupants
therein. Pecson filed a Motion to Restore Possession and a Motion to Render Accounting, praying
respectively for restoration of his possession over the subject 256-square meter commercial lot and for the
spouses Nuguid to be directed to render an accounting under oath, of the income derived from the subject
four-door apartment from November 22, 1993 until possession of the same was restored to him. After
conducting a hearing, the lower court issued an Order directing the spouses to pay the sum of P1,344,000
as reimbursement of the unrealized income of Pecson for the period beginning November 22, 1993 up to
December 1997. The sum was based on the computation of P28,000/month rentals of the four-door
apartment. The Nuguid spouses filed in the CA which reduced the rentals from P1,344,000 to P280,000 in
favor of the appellee.

ISSUE: Whether or not Pecson is entitled to receive the amount of rentals from the Spouses Nuguid.

HELD: Yes. Under Article 448, the landowner is given the option, either to appropriate the improvement
as his own upon payment of the proper amount of indemnity or to sell the land to the possessor in good
faith. Relatedly, Article 546 provides that a builder in good faith is entitled to full reimbursement for all
the necessary and useful expenses incurred; it also gives him right of retention until full reimbursement is
made. Since petitioners opted to appropriate the improvement for themselves as early as June 1993, when
they applied for a writ of execution despite knowledge that the auction sale did not include the apartment
building, they could not benefit from the lots improvement, until they reimbursed the improver in full,
based on the current market value of the property.

Despite the Courts recognition of Pecsons right of ownership over the apartment building, the
petitioners still insisted on dispossessing Pecson by filing for a Writ of Possession to cover both the lot
and the building. Clearly, this resulted in a violation of respondents right of retention. Worse, petitioners
took advantage of the situation to benefit from the highly valued, income-yielding, four-unit apartment
building by collecting rentals thereon, before they paid for the cost of the apartment building. It was only
four years later that they finally paid its full value to the respondent. Thus the Court finds that the
increased award of rentals by the RTC was reasonable and equitable and the petitioner should account and
pay for such benefits they received from the apartment from the time they disposessed Pecson up to the
time he was fully paid for the building.
Cruz v. De Leon G.R. L-6546 January 15, 1912

FACTS: In 1907, Gregoria Arnedo Cruz, in her own behalf and in the name and representation of her
sisters, made written applications to the Court of Land Registration for the registration of two parcels of
land, situated in the barrio of San Miguel, pueblo of Calumpit, Province of Bulacan, of which they
claimed to be absolute owners. The petitioners alleged that there was no encumbrance on the property,
nor any person entitled to any right or share therein, according to their best knowledge and belief as well
as that they acquired this land by inheritance from their deceased parents, Jose Arnedo Cruz and Maria
Santos Espiritu. Upon a hearing of the case, the court decreed the adjudication and registration of the two
aforedescribed in the names of Gregoria Arnedo Cruz and her sisters. By a written petition, Toribio de
Leon and 30 others stated to the court that they were the owners and possessors of certain building lots
which formed a part of the two parcels of land concerned in this case, and that, notwithstanding the fact
that the applicants knew that the said lots were held by the petitioners as owners thereof, nevertheless
included the same as their property and in their application for registration maliciously made no mention
of the petitioners as the occupants of such portions of the said parcels of land.

ISSUE: Whether or not the lands possessed by respondents should be registered in favor of petitioners

HELD: NO. Although the documentary and other evidence produced by the petitioners have shown
conclusively that they are the legitimate owners and possessors of the two aforementioned parcels of land,
yet they have not duly established the fact that they are the owners of the portions now in the possession
of the respondents, and whether these lots are comprised within the perimeter and boundaries of the two
said parcels of land designated on the plan under the letters A and B. As regards the unestablished
allegation that the respondents are mere usurpers of certain portions of the properties in dispute,
petitioners have not proved that the said respondents occupy these portions of land by virtue of any
permission, nor by the mere tolerance of the owners of the two parcels before mentioned, nor have they
shown how and in what manner the respondents succeeded in entering thereon.

The respondents on the other hand have furnished the proof that they, as well also as their predecessors in
interest, have been in possession, as owners, of their respective lots, all of them for much more than ten
years. The Court stated that by abandonment, negligence or carelessness, owners provided with the most
perfect titles may be deprived and dispossessed of their properties by usurpers who, by the lapse of the
time specified by law, acquire the same by prescription. Civil possession, according to the article 430 of
the Civil Code*, is the holding of a thing of the enjoyment of a right, together with the intention of
acquiring ownership of the thing or right. Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession;
and should he be disturbed therein, he must be protected or possession must be restored to him by the
means established in laws of procedure. Therefore the registration of the two parcels of land, the subject
matter of the application, is deemed proper, with the exclusion of the lots or portions of land owned by
the respondents.

* Old Civil Code I Suppose