LUCIANO BRIONES and NELLY defense of allegedly being a

BRIONES v. JOSE MACABAGDAL, purchaser in good faith for

FE D. MACABAGDAL and VERGON wrongful occupation of land
REALTY INVESTMENTS
CORPORATION ISSUE:

G.R. No. 150666 W/N the CA was correct in

affirming the decision of the trial
VILLARAMA, JR., J court ordering the petitioner to
demolish their only house and
FACTS: vacate the lot.

Respondent-spouses HELD:
purchased from Vergon Realty
Investments Corporation The petition is partly
(Vergon) Lot No. 2-R, a 325- meritorious.
square-meter land Trial court and ca erred
petitioners are the owners of Article 527[14] of the Civil
Lot No. 2-S, which is adjacent Code presumes good faith,
to respondents land and since no proof exists to
After obtaining the necessary show that the mistake was
building permit and the done by petitioners in bad
approval of Vergon, faith, the latter should be
petitioners constructed a presumed to have built the
house on Lot 2-R which they house in good faith.
thought was Lot No. 2-S When a person builds in
Respondent-spouses good faith on the land of
immediately demanded another, Article 448 of the
petitioners to demolish the Civil Code governs
house and vacate the The builder in good faith
property can compel the landowner
Respondent-spouses filed an to make a choice between
action to recover ownership appropriating the building
and possession by paying the proper
CA affirmed the RTCs finding. indemnity or obliging the
Based on the contracts to sell, builder to pay the price of
and the survey report made the land.
by the geodetic engineer, The choice belongs to the
petitioners house was built on owner of the land, a rule
the lot of the respondent- that accords with the
spouses. principle of accession, i.e.,
CA further ruled that that the accessory follows
petitioners cannot use the the principal and not the
 other way around.
He cannot, for instance,
compel the owner of the
building to remove the
building from the land
without first exercising either
option.
It is only if the owner
chooses to sell his land, and
the builder or planter fails to
purchase it where its value
is not more than the value
of the improvements, that
the owner may remove the
improvements from the
land.
The owner is entitled to
such remotion only when,
after having chosen to sell
his land, the other party fails
to pay for the same
Moreover, petitioners have
the right to be indemnified
for the necessary and
useful expenses they may
have made on the subject
property
This case must be
remanded to the RTC
which shall conduct the
appropriate proceedings
to assess the respective
values of the improvement
and of the land