Cornelio del Fierro, et.

al, petitioners
vs
Rene Seguiran, respondent
FACTS:
The subject of this case are two parcels of agricultural land, Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626. The records of the Lands
Management Bureau, show that the claimants of Lot No. 1625 was Lodelfo Marcial versus Miguel del Fierro, while the
claimants of Lot No. 1626 were Lodelfo Marcial versus Francisco Santos and Narciso Marcial.
August 1964: the heirs of Miguel del Fierro, filed an ejectment case (forcible entry) against Lodelfo Marcial and
Narciso Marcial before the MTC. Judgment was rendered in favor of del Fierros which was affirmed by RTC.
June 1964: Lodelfo Marcial mortgaged to the Rural Bank of San Marcelino, Inc.
December 1972: The bank extrajudicially foreclosed the real estate mortgage and was the highest bidder in the sale
of the property per the Certificate of Sale issued by the Provincial Sheriff.
October 1981, Marcial executed in favor of respondent Rene Seguiran a Deed of Absolute Sale over a parcel of
swampland designated as Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626
November 1981: Seguiran purchased Marcial's foreclosed property from the Rural Bank of San Marcelino Inc.
Respondent then filed an application for free patent over Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, which was approved by the
Bureau of Lands.
August 1983: petitioner petitioned the RTC to conduct a relocation survey of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, which petition
was approved by the court.
February 16, 1985: the heirs of Miguel and Generosa del Fierro filed a Motion to Quash Order of Execution claiming
they are in actual physical possession of Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626, and that prior to the sale of the said lots to
respondent, the vendor, Lodelfo Marcial no longer had any right over the property, since he lost in Civil Case No.
706-1 for ejectment filed by the Del Fierros.
May 1988: defendant claimed that when he bought the land in dispute on October, 28, 1981, Marcial was no longer
its owner, but the Rural Bank of San Marcelino since Marcial failed to redeem the land within the one-year period of
redemption. His only purpose for buying the land from the mortgagor, Lodelfo Marcial in November 1981 was for
the peaceful turn-over of the property to him by Marcial. [held in abeyance]
April 1998: the trial court rendered judgment in favor of Seguiran which was then affirmed by CA. Hence this
petition.
ISSUE: WON the action for reconveyance filed by the petitioners must be granted.
HELD: NO.
Article 434 of the Civil Code provides that to successfully maintain an action to recover the ownership of a
real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two (2) things: first, the identity of the land claimed;
and second, his title thereto.
Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance and cancellation of titles. Hence, it was incumbent on petitioners
to prove the requisites of reconveyance, one of which is to establish the identity of the parcels of land petitioners are
claiming. To reiterate, in an accion reinvindicatoria, the person who claims that he has a better right to the property
must first fix the identity of the land he is claiming by describing the location, area and boundaries thereof. Petitioners'
failure to present sufficient evidence on the identity of the properties sought to be recovered and their title thereto
resulted in the dismissal of their complaint. Further, the documents presented by petitioners to prove their title over Lot
Nos. 1625 and 1626 showed that the properties covered therein were located in Barrio Liozon, Palauig, Zambales,
while Lot Nos. 1625 and 1626 are located in Barrio Locloc, Palauig, Zambales.

|
[G.R. No. 149295. September 23, 2003]
PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, vs. GENEROSO DE JESUS
FACTS:
Respondent filed a complaint against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Occidental Mindoro for recovery of
ownership and possession, with damages, over the questioned property. On 26 March 1993, he had caused a
verification survey of the property and discovered that the northern portion of the lot was being encroached upon by a
building of petitioner to the extent of 124 square meters. Despite two letters of demand sent by respondent, petitioner
failed and refused to vacate the area.
Petitioner asserted that when it acquired the lot and the building sometime in 1981 from then Mayor Bienvenido
Ignacio, the encroachment already was in existence and to remedy the situation, Mayor Ignacio offered to sell the area
in question (which then also belonged to Ignacio) to petitioner at P100.00 per square meter which offer the latter
claimed to have accepted. The sale, however, did not materialize when, without the knowledge and consent of
petitioner, Mayor Ignacio later mortgaged the lot to the Development Bank of the Philippines.
The trial court decided the case in favor of respondent declaring him to be the rightful owner.
The Court of Appeals sustained the trial court.
ISSUE: W/N PETITIONER IS A BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH
HELD:
In reference to Article 448, et seq., of the Civil Code, a builder in good faith is one who, not being the owner of the
land, builds on that land believing himself to be its owner and unaware of any defect in his title or mode of acquisition.
The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of ones right, ignorance of a superior claim, and
absence of intention to overreach another. Applied to possession, one is considered in good faith if he is not aware that
there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. Evidently, petitioner was quite aware, and
indeed advised, prior to its acquisition of the land and building from Ignacio that a part of the building sold to it stood
on the land not covered by the land conveyed to it.
Equally significant is the fact that the building, constructed on the land by Ignacio, has in actuality been part of the
property transferred to petitioner. Article 448, of the Civil Code refers to a piece of land whose ownership is claimed
by two or more parties, one of whom has built some works (or sown or planted something) and not to a case where the
owner of the land is the builder, sower, or planter who then later loses ownership of the land by sale or otherwise for,
elsewise stated, where the true owner himself is the builder of works on his own land, the issue of good faith or bad
faith is entirely irrelevant.
In fine, petitioner is not in a valid position to invoke the provisions of Article 448 of the Civil Code.