Rosales vs Castelltort 157044 2005

FACTS

1. In 1995, Petitioner Rodolfo Rosales bought a land denominated as LOT 17 in a subdivision in Los Banos, Laguna.
2. Upon entering the land, he discovered that there was already an occupant Miguel Castelltort constructing his house
in the same lot.
3. Castelltort’s story is that, he bought the lot from Lina Villegas through her son-attorney-in-fact Rene. However upon
surveying the land (Lot 17), the geodetic engineer, Augusto Rivera, he pointed Lot 17 instead of Lot 16. There was a
messy mix up

4. Negotiations ensued. Villegas offered 2 options to Rosales

A. To give him a bigger lot near Lot 17, or

B. To pay Rosales the purchase price of Lot 17 with legal interest

5. Rosales rejected both proposals and sent a demand letter to Castelltort to cease the construction of his house and
demolished those improvements already constructed.

6. Rosales filed a complaint in the RTC for recovery of possession and restraining order and preliminary injuction
against Castelltort’s construction
7. The RTC ruled in favor of Rosales and found Castelltort a builder in bad faith because of registering the land as
conjugal property with Elizabeth Yson Cruz when in fact they are not really married and his failure to secure a building
permit. Court ruled that this is a violation of the National Building Code.

8. Castelltort apealled to CA.

9. The CA ruled that RTC

A. Relied on flimsy and immaterial evidence in declaring Castelltort as a builder in bad faith and
B. Ordered Rosales to exercise his right under Art. 448 of the Civil Code to

 appropriate the building as his own and pay Castelltort the necessary expenses for building or
 oblige Castelltort to pay the purchase price of the land
 however the court found the the value of the land is considerably higher than that of the building so
the Court entered them into a “forced lease” and with order to notify the court of their terms

 Should there be no mutual terms reached by the parties the court shall fix it by allotting the monthly
rental t not less that (P2,000.00) per month, payable within the first five (5) days of each calendar
month for a period of not more than two (2) years from the finality of the judgment.
 Upon the expiration of the forced lease, or upon default by CASTELLTORT ROSALES shall be
entitled to terminate the forced lease, to recover their land, and to have the improvement removed
by the CASTELLTORT at his expense.
10. The CA further ruled that Castelltort is a builder in good faith because of his ignorance relying on the mistake of the
geodetic engineer, that when he bought the land there was no prior adverse claim. It also ruled the personal relations
with Elizabeth Cruz is an altogether different matter resolvable in another proceeding and that he applied for a
temporary building permit.

ISSUES

Whether or not Castelltort is a builder in bad faith.

RULING: NO

1. On personal relations with Ellizabeth Cruz, the court ruled that it is irrelevant.

2. Parties both have acted in good faith, the applicable provision in this case is Article 448.
The landowner can choose between appropriating the building by paying the proper indemnity or obliging the
builder to pay the price of the land, unless its value is considerably more than that of the structures, in which
case the builder in good faith shall pay reasonable rent. If the parties cannot come to terms over the
conditions of the lease, the court must fix the terms thereof.

The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule that accords with the principle of accession, i.e., that the accessory
follows the principal and not the other way around.
Even as the option lies with the landowner, the grant to him, nevertheless, is preclusive. The landowner cannot refuse
to exercise either option and compel instead the owner of the building to remove it from the land.

Where both landownder and builder are in good faith and a conflict of rights arises between the owners, and it
becomes necessary to protect the owner of the improvements without causing injustice to the owner of the land.

In view of the impracticability of creating a state of forced co-ownership, the law has provided a just solution by giving
the owner of the land the option to acquire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity, or to oblige the
builder or planter to pay for the land and the sower the proper rent.
3. The Civil Code provides that

A builder in good faith is one who builds with the belief that the land he is building on is his, or that by some
title one has the right to build thereon, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title.

Article 527 of the Civil Code provides that good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith
on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof.
4. Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character except in the case and from the moment facts exist
which show that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully. The good
faith ceases or is legally interrupted from the moment defects in the title are made known to the possessor, by
extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery of the property by the true owner.

5. While prior to the sale, Villegas showed Castelltort as evidence of his mother Lina’s ownership of the property was
only a photocopy of her title explaining that the owners duplicate of the title was lost and that judicial reconstitution
thereof was ongoing, Castelltort acted in the manner of a prudent man and went to the Registry of Deeds of Laguna to
procure a certified true copy of the TCT.The certified true copy bore no annotation indicating any prior adverse claim
on Lot 16.

6. The confusion in the identification of Lot 17 was traced to the error by geodetic engineer Augusto Rivera’s
employees in placing stone monuments (mohons) on Rosales property, instead of on Lot 16, the lot sold to Castelltort

7. The CA, however, failed to qualify that said part of the improvement should be pegged at its current fair market
value. If the option chosen by Rosales is compulsory sale, however, the payment of rent should continue up to the
actual transfer of ownership, up to the date landowner serve notice of his option to the builder.

Troadio vs Apeta146259 2007

FACTS

1. Ochoa and predecessors have been occupying Lot 1580 in Binan, Laguna with a TCT certificate to prove.
2. Apeta and Almazan also claim to be the owners of Lot 1580 with also title prove.

3. Apeta and Almazan filed to RTC a suit for recovery of possession. They aver that they are the true owners of the
property by presenting their title. In answer, Ochoa also presented their property with also their own title.

4. RTC commissioned Engr. Unciano to resurvey the land and he found out that the the title of Apeta and Almazan as
the owners of Lot 1580 and the tilte of Ochoa pertain to another lot, Lot 1581 who by that time is being occupied by
Isidro Jasmin.

5. RTC ruled in favor of Apeta and Almazan declaring them rightful owners and ordering Ochoa the return of the
property.

6. CA affirmed the decision.

7. Ochoa appealled to the SC.

ISSUE

A. Whether or not the Ochoa is the owner and that Apeta and Almazan’s actions are barred by prescription.

B. Considering that Ochoa have built their houses and apartment building on Lot No. 1580, should Apeta and Almazan
be allowed to take possession of those improvements?(Hence must be resolved whether or not Ochoa

RULING