Limense v. de Ramos

7/25/2019 Limense v. de Ramos

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/limense-v-de-ramos 1/11

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 152319 October 28, 2009

HEIRS OF THE LTE !O"UIN LIMENSE, #$%e&'( CONCES LIMENSE, S)r*+*+# S-o)e/ $#NILO $# !OSELITO, bot )r#$%e L+%e#e, c+&re#, Petitioners,vs.RIT . E RMOS, RESTITUTO RMOS, IRGILIO I4, IRENEO RMOS, EN!MIN RMOS,6L7TRUES RMOSSILIO, TRINI RMOSRO, P4 RMOSPSCU, FELICISIMRMOSRE7ES, $# !CINT RMOS, Respondents.

D ! I S I O N

PERLT, J.,

This is a petition for revie" on certiorari under Rule #$ of the Rules of !ourt see%in& to annul and set asidethe Decision' of the !ourt of (ppeals dated Dece)ber *+, *++' in !(-.R. !V No. $/0 affir)in& in totothe Decision* of the Re&ional Trial !ourt of Manila, 1ranch '$, dated Septe)ber *', '00+ in !ivil !ase No./'2'*/.

The antecedent facts are as follo"s3

Dal)acio 4o5ada "as the re&istered o"ner of a parcel of land identified as 4ot No. '*, 1loc% No. '+6# ofthe cadastral surve7 of the !it7 of Manila covered b7 Ori&inal !ertificate of Title 8O!T9 No. 6+2 issued atthe !it7 of Manila on :une '#, '0*6, containin& an area of /6./+ s;uare )eters, )ore or less, located in1eata Street, Pandacan, Manila.

Dal)acio 4o5ada subdivided his propert7 into five 8$9 lots, na)el73 4ot Nos. '*(, '*1, '*!, '*D and'*. Throu&h a Deed of Donation dated March 0, '0*,# he donated the subdivided lots to his dau&hters,na)el73 Isabel, Salud, !atalina, and <elicidad, all surna)ed 4o5ada. The Deed of Donation "as re&istered "ith the office of the Re&ister of Deeds of Manila on March '$, '0*.

=nder the said Deed of Donation, the lots "ere ad>udicated to Dal)acio?s dau&hters in the follo"in&

)anner3

a. 4ot No. '*( in favor of Isabel 4o5ada, )arried to Isaac 4i)ense@

b. 4ot No. '*1 in favor of !atalina 4o5ada, )arried to Sotero Natividad@

c. 4ot No. '*! in favor of !atalina 4o5ada, )arried to Sotero Natividad@ Isabel 4o5ada, )arried toIsaac 4i)ense@ and Salud 4o5ada, )arried to <rancisco Ra)os, in e;ual parts@

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_152319_2009.html#fnt1














d. 4ot No. '*D in favor of Salud 4o5ada, )arried to <rancisco Ra)os@ and

e. 4ot No. '* in favor of Isabel 4o5ada, )arried to Isaac 4i)ense, and <elicidad 4o5ada, )arriedto -alicano !enteno.

17 virtue of the Deed of Donation eAecuted b7 Dal)acio 4o5ada, O!T No. 6+2, "hich "as re&istered inhis na)e, "as cancelled and, in lieu thereof, Transfer !ertificates of Title 8T!Ts9 bearin& Nos. #++#',#++#*, #++#, #++##, and #++#$ "ere issued in favor of the donees, eAcept T!T No. #++##, "hichre)ained in his na)e. These ne" T!Ts "ere annotated at the bac% of O!T No. 6+2. $

T!T No. #++#, "hich covered 4ot No. '*!, "as issued in the na)e of its coo"ners !atalina 4o5ada,)arried to Sotero Natividad@ Isabel 4o5ada, )arried to Isaac 4i)ense@ and Salud 4o5ada, )arried to<rancisco Ra)os. It covered an area of 2/.2+ s;uare )eters, )ore or less, "as bounded on the northeastb7 4ot No. '*(, on the south"est b7 !alle 1eata, and on the north"est b7 4ot No. '*D of the subdivisionplan. In '0*, respondents? predecessorininterest constructed their residential buildin& on 4ot No. '*D,ad>acent to 4ot No. '*!.

On Ma7 '2, '020, T!T No. 02//22 "as issued in the na)e of :oa;uin 4i)ense coverin& the ver7 sa)earea of 4ot No. '*!.

On October ', '0/', :oa;uin 4i)ense secured a buildin& per)it for the construction of a hollo" bloc% fenceon the boundar7 line bet"een his aforesaid propert7 and the ad>acent parcel of land located at *6$0 1eataStreet, Pandacan, Manila, desi&nated as 4ot No. '*D, "hich "as bein& occupied b7 respondents. Thefence, ho"ever, could not be constructed because a substantial portion of respondents? residential buildin&in 4ot No. '*D encroached upon portions of :oa;uin 4i)ense?s propert7 in 4ot No. '*!.

:oa;uin 4i)ense de)anded the re)oval of the encroached area@ ho"ever, respondent i&nored both oral

and "ritten de)ands. The parties failed to a)icabl7 settle the differences bet"een the) despite referral tothe baran&a7. Thus, on March 0, '0/, :oa;uin 4i)ense, dul7 represented b7 his (ttorne7in<act, Teofista4. Re7es, instituted a !o)plaint6 a&ainst respondents before the Re&ional Trial !ourt 8RT!9 of Manila,1ranch '$, for re)oval of obstruction and da)a&es.

:oa;uin 4i)ense pra7ed that the RT! issue an order directin& respondents, >ointl7 and severall7, to re)ovethe portion "hich ille&all7 encroached upon his propert7 on 4ot No. '*! and, li%e"ise, pra7ed for thepa7)ent of da)a&es, attorne7Bs fees and costs of suit.

Respondents, on the other hand, averred in their (ns"er/ that the7 "ere the survivin& heirs of <ranciscoRa)os,0 "ho, durin& his lifeti)e, "as )arried to Salud 4o5ada, one of the dau&hters of Dal)acio 4o5ada,

the ori&inal o"ner of 4ot No. '*. (fter subdividin& the said lot, Dal)acio 4o5ada donated 4ot No. '*! infavor of his dau&hters !atalina, )arried to Sotero Natividad@ Isabel, )arried to Isaac 4i)ense@ and Salud,)arried to <rancisco Ra)os. 1ein& the survivin& heirs of <rancisco Ra)os, respondents later beca)e coo"ners of 4ot No. '*!. 4ot No. '*! has served as ri&ht of "a7 or co))on alle7 of all the heirs ofDal)acio 4o5ada since '0* up to the present. (s a co))on alle7, it could not be closed or fenced b7:oa;uin 4i)ense "ithout causin& da)a&e and pre>udice to respondents.













(fter trial on the )erits, the RT! rendered a Decision'+ dated Septe)ber *', '00+ dis)issin& the co)plaintof :oa;uin 4i)ense. It ruled that an apparent ease)ent of ri&ht of "a7 eAisted in favor of respondents.Pertinent portions of the decision read as follo"s3

The !ourt finds that an apparent ease)ent of ri&ht of "a7 eAists in favor of the defendants under (rticle

2*# of the !ivil !ode. It cannot be denied that there is an alle7 "hich sho"s its eAistence. It is ad)itted thatthis alle7 "as established b7 the ori&inal o"ner of 4ot '* and that in dividin& his propert7, the alle7established b7 hi) continued to be used activel7 and passivel7 as such. ven "hen the division of thepropert7 occurred, the noneAistence of the ease)ent "as not eApressed in the correspondin& titles nor "ere the apparent si&n of the alle7 )ade to disappear before the issuance of said titles.

The !ourt also finds that "hen plaintiff ac;uired the lot 8'*!9 "hich for)s the alle7, he %ne" that said lotcould serve no other purpose than as an alle7. That is "h7 even after he ac;uired it in '020, the lotcontinued to be used b7 defendants and occupants of the other ad>oinin& lots as an alle7. The eAistence ofthe ease)ent of ri&ht of "a7 "as therefore %no"n to plaintiff "ho )ust respect the sa)e in spite of the factthat his transfer certificate of title does not )ention the lot of defendants as a)on& those listed therein as

entitled to such ri&ht of "a7. It is an established principle that actual notice or %no"led&e is as bindin& asre&istration.''

(&&rieved b7 said decision, :oa;uin 4i)ense filed a notice of appeal. The records of the case "eretrans)itted to the !ourt of (ppeals 8!(9. Durin& the pendenc7 of the appeal "ith the !(, :oa;uin 4i)ensedied in '000.'*

The !(, Seventh Division, in !(-.R. !V No. $/0, in its Decision' dated Dece)ber *+, *++' dis)issedthe appeal and affir)ed in toto the decision of the RT!.

<rustrated b7 this turn of events, petitioners, as survivin& heirs of :oa;uin 4i)ense, elevated the case to

this !ourt via a Petition for Revie" on Certiorar i

'#

raisin& the follo"in& issues3

'. DID TH HONOR(14 !O=RT O< (PP(4S !OMMIT ( -R(V (1=S O< DIS!RTION(MO=NTIN- TO 4(!C O< :=RISDI!TION, IN HO4DIN-, 4IC TH TRI(4 !O=RT DID, TH(TRSPONDNTS? 4OT '*D H(S (N (SMNT O< RI-HT O< (E OVR :O(F=IN4IMNS?S 4OT '*!G

*. DID TH HONOR(14 !O=RT O< (PP(4S !OMMIT ( -R(V (1=S O< DIS!RTION(MO=NTIN- TO 4(!C O< :=RISDI!TION, IN <(I4IN- TO HO4D, 4IC TH TRI(4 !O=RTDID, TH(T TH PROTR=DIN- PORTIONS O< RSPONDNTS? HO=S ON 4OT '*DTNDIN- INTO :O(F=IN 4IMNS?S 4OT '*! !ONSTIT=T ( N=IS(N! (ND, (S S=!H,

SHO=4D 1 RMOVDG

Petitioners aver that the !( erred in rulin& that since 4ot No. '*! "as covered b7 t"o T!T?s, i.e., T!TNos. #++# and 02//2, and there "as no evidence on record to sho" ho" :oa;uin 4i)ense "as able tosecure another title over an alread7 titled propert7, then one of these titles )ust be of dubious ori&in.(ccordin& to the !(, T!T No. 02//2, issued in the na)e of :oa;uin 4i)ense, "as spurious because the4o5ada sisters never disposed of the said propert7 covered b7 T!T No. #++#. The !( further ruled that acoo"nership eAisted over 4ot No. '*! bet"een petitioners and respondents. Petitioners countered that

















T!T No. 02//2, bein& the onl7 and best le&iti)ate proof of o"nership over 4ot No. '*!, )ust prevail overT!T No. #++#.

Respondents alle&e that it "as possible that T!T No. 02//2, in the na)e of :oa;uin 4i)ense, "asobtained thru fraud, )isrepresentation or falsification of docu)ents because the donees of said propert7

could not possibl7 eAecute an7 valid transfer of title to :oa;uin 4i)ense, as the7 "ere alread7 dead prior tothe issuance of T!T No. 02//2 in '020. Respondents further alle&e that petitioners failed to produce proofsubstantiatin& the issuance of T!T No. 02//2 in the na)e of :oa;uin 4i)ense.

(pparentl7, respondents are ;uestionin& the le&alit7 of T!T No. 02//2, an issue that this !ourt cannotpass upon in the present case. It is a rule that the validit7 of a torrens title cannot be assailedcollaterall7.'$ Section #/ of Presidential Decree 8PD9 No. '$*0 provides that3

aJ certificate of title shall not be sub>ect to collateral attac%. It cannot be altered, )odified, or cancelledeAcept in a direct proceedin& in accordance "ith la".

In the case at bar, the action filed before the RT! a&ainst respondents "as an action for re)oval ofobstruction and da)a&es. Respondents raised the defense that :oa;uin 4i)ense?s title could have beenobtained throu&h fraud and )isrepresentation in the trial proceedin&s before the RT!. Such defense is inthe nature of a collateral attac%, "hich is not allo"ed b7 la".

<urther, it has been held that a certificate of title, once re&istered, should not thereafter be i)pu&ned,altered, chan&ed, )odified, enlar&ed or di)inished, eAcept in a direct proceedin& per)itted b7 la".Other"ise, the reliance on re&istered titles "ould be lost. The title beca)e indefeasible and incontrovertibleafter the lapse of one 7ear fro) the ti)e of its re&istration and issuance. Section * of PD '$*0 providesthat Kupon the eApiration of said period of one 7ear, the decree of re&istration and the certificate of title shallbeco)e incontrovertible. (n7 person a&&rieved b7 such decree of re&istration in an7 case )a7 pursue his

re)ed7 b7 action for da)a&es a&ainst the applicant or other persons responsible for the fraud.K

'2

It has,therefore, beco)e an ancient rule that the issue on the validit7 of title, i.e., "hether or not it "asfraudulentl7 issued, can onl7 be raised in an action eApressl7 instituted for that purpose.'6 In the presentcase, T!T No. 02//2 "as re&istered in '020 and respondents never instituted an7 direct proceedin& oraction to assail :oa;uin 4i)ense?s title.

(dditionall7, an eAa)ination of T!T No. #++# "ould readil7 sho" that there is an annotation that it hasbeen"CANCELLED." '/ ( readin& of T!T No. 02//2 "ould also reveal that said title is a transfer fro) T!TNo. #//22'0and not T!T #++#. Thus, it is possible that there "as a series of transfers effected fro) T!TNo. #++# prior to the issuance of T!T No. 02//2. Hence, respondents? position that the issuance of T!TNo. 02//2 in the na)e of :oa;uin 4i)ense is i)possible, because the re&istered o"ners of T!T No. #++#

"ere alread7 dead prior to '020 and could not have transferred the propert7 to :oa;uin 4i)ense, cannot beta%en as proof that T!T No. 02//2 "as obtained throu&h fraud, )isrepresentation or falsification ofdocu)ents.

<indin&s of fact of the !(, althou&h &enerall7 dee)ed conclusive, )a7 ad)it revie" b7 this !ourt if the !(failed to notice certain relevant facts that, if properl7 considered, "ould >ustif7 a different conclusion, and ifthe >ud&)ent of the !( is pre)ised on a )isapprehension of facts. *+ (s "ith the present case, the !(?sobservation that T!T No. 02//2 is of dubious ori&in, as T!T No. #++# does not appear to have been


















disposed of b7 !atalina, Isabel and Salud 4o5ada, is i)proper and constitutes an indirect attac% on T!TNo. 02//2. (s "e see it, T!T No. 02//2, at present, is the best proof of :oa;uin 4i)enseBs o"nership over4ot No. '*!. Thus, the !( erred in rulin& that respondents and petitioners coo"ned 4ot No. '*!, as saidlot is no" re&istered eAclusivel7 in the na)e of :oa;uin 4i)ense.

Due to the fore&oin&, :oa;uin 4i)ense, as the re&istered o"ner of 4ot '*!, and his successorsininterest,)a7 enclose or fence his land or tene)ents b7 )eans of "alls, ditches, live or dead hed&es, or b7 an7other )eans "ithout detri)ent to servitudes constituted thereon.*'

Ho"ever, althou&h the o"ner of the propert7 has the ri&ht to enclose or fence his propert7, he )ust respectservitudes constituted thereon. The ;uestion no" is "hether respondents are entitled to an ease)ent ofri&ht of "a7.

Petitioners contend that respondents are not entitled to an ease)ent of ri&ht of "a7 over 4ot No. '*!,because their 4ot No. '*D is not dul7 annotated at the bac% of T!T No. 02//2 "hich "ould entitle the) toen>o7 the ease)ent, unli%e 4ot Nos. '*(', '*(*, '*(, '*(#, '*($, and '*(2. Respondents, on

the other hand, alle&e that the7 are entitled to an ease)ent of ri&ht of "a7 over 4ot No. '*!, "hich hasbeen continuousl7 used as an alle7 b7 the heirs of Dal)acio 4o5ada, the residents in the area and thepublic in &eneral fro) '0* up to the present. Since petitioners are full7 a"are of the lon& eAistence of thesaid alle7 or ease)ent of ri&ht of "a7, the7 are bound to respect the sa)e.

(s defined, an ease)ent is a real ri&ht on another?s propert7, corporeal and i))ovable, "hereb7 the o"nerof the latter )ust refrain fro) doin& or allo"in& so)ebod7 else to do or so)ethin& to be done on hispropert7, for the benefit of another person or tene)ent.**

ase)ents )a7 be continuous or discontinuous, apparent or nonapparent.

!ontinuous ease)ents are those the use of "hich is or )a7 be incessant, "ithout the intervention of an7act of )an. Discontinuous ease)ents are those "hich are used at intervals and depend upon the acts of)an. (pparent ease)ents are those "hich are )ade %no"n and are continuall7 %ept in vie" b7 eAternalsi&ns that reveal the use and en>o7)ent of the sa)e. Nonapparent ease)ents are those "hich sho" noeAternal indication of their eAistence.*

In the present case, the ease)ent of ri&ht of "a7 is discontinuous and apparent. It is discontinuous, as theuse depends upon the acts of respondents and other persons passin& throu&h the propert7. 1ein& an alle7that sho"s a per)anent path &oin& to and fro) 1eata Street, the sa)e is apparent.

1ein& a discontinuous and apparent ease)ent, the sa)e can be ac;uired onl7 b7 virtue of a title. *#

In the case at bar, T!T No. 02//2, issued in the na)e of :oa;uin 4i)ense, does not contain an7annotation that 4ot No. '*D "as &iven an ease)ent of ri&ht of "a7 over 4ot No. '*!. Ho"ever, :oa;uin4i)ense and his successorsininterests are full7 a"are that 4ot No. '*! has been continuousl7 used andutili5ed as an alle7 b7 respondents and residents in the area for a lon& period of ti)e.

:oa;uin 4i)ense?s (ttorne7in<act, Teofista 4. Re7es, testified that respondents and several otherresidents in the area have been usin& the alle7 to reach 1eata Street since '0*. Thus3











(tt7. Manuel 1. To)acru53

F3 Mrs. itness, b7 virtue of that Deed of Donation 7ou clai) that titles "ere issued to the childrenof Dal)acio 4o5ada na)el7 Salud 4o5ada, !atalina 4o5ada and Isabel 4o5ada, is that ri&htG

(3 Ees, sir.

F3 (nd after the said propert7 "as ad>udicated to his said children the latter constructed theirhouses on their lots.

(3 Ees, sir.

F3 (s a )atter of fact, the herein defendants have constructed their houses on the pre)ises allotedto the) since the 7ear '0*G

(3 Ees, sir, the7 "ere able to construct their house frontin& 1eata Street.

F3 (nd that house the7 have constructed on their lot in '0* is still eAistin& toda7G

(3 Ees, sir and the7 still used the alle7 in ;uestion and the7 are supposed to use 1eata Street butthe7 are not usin& 1eata Street.

F3 The7 are usin& the alle7G

(3 Ees, sir, the7 are usin& the alle7 and the7 do not pass throu&h 1eata Street.

F3 (nd the7 have been usin& the alle7 since '0* up to the presentG

(3 Ees, sir the7 have been usin& the alle7 since that ti)e. That "as their )ista%e and the7 shouldbe usin& 1eata Street because the7 are frontin& 1eata Strret.

F3 (s a )atter of fact, it is not onl7 herein defendants "ho have been usin& that alle7 since '0*up to the presentG

(3 Ees, sir the7 are usin& the alle7 up to no".

F3 (s a )atter of fact, in this picture )ar%ed as Ah. K!'K the alle7 is ver7 apparent. This is thealle7G

(3 Ees, sir.

F3 (nd there are houses on either side of this alle7G

(3 Ees, sir.

F3 (s a )atter of fact, all the residents on either side of the alle7 are passin& throu&h this alle7G



(3 Ees, sir, because the others have per)it to use this alle7 and the7 are no" allo"ed to use thealle7 but the Ra)os?s fa)il7 are no" notJ allo"ed to use this alle7.*$

In Mendoza v. Rosel ,*2 this !ourt held that3

Petitioners clai) that inas)uch as their transfer certificates of title do not )ention an7 lien or encu)branceon their lots, the7 are purchasers in &ood faith and for value, and as such have a ri&ht to de)and fro)respondents so)e pa7)ent for the use of the alle7. Ho"ever, the !ourt of (ppeals found, as a fact, that "hen respondents ac;uired the t"o lots "hich for) the alle7, the7 %ne" that said lots could serve no otherpurpose than as an alle7.The existence of the easement of right of way was therefore known to petitioners who must respect the same, in spite of the fact that their transfer certificates of title donot mention any burden or easement. It is an established principle that actual notice or knowledgeis as binding as registration.

ver7 bu7er of a re&istered land "ho ta%es a certificate of title for value and in &ood faith shall hold thesa)e free of all encu)brances eAcept those noted on said certificate. It has been held, ho"ever, that

K"here the part7 has %no"led&e of a prior eAistin& interest that "as unre&istered at the ti)e he ac;uired ari&ht to the sa)e land, his %no"led&e of that prior unre&istered interest has the effect of re&istration as tohi).K*6

In the case at bar, 4ot No. '*! has been used as an alle7 ever since it "as donated b7 Dal)acio 4o5adato his heirs. It is undisputed that prior to and after the re&istration of T!T No. 02//2, 4ot No. '*! hasserved as a ri&ht of "a7 in favor of respondents and the public in &eneral. e ;uote fro) the RT!?sdecision3

A A A It cannot be denied that there is an alle7 "hich sho"s its eAistence. It is ad)itted that this alle7 "asestablished b7 the ori&inal o"ner of 4ot '* and that in dividin& his propert7 the alle7 established b7 hi)

continued to be used activel7 and passivel7 as such. ven "hen the division of the propert7 occurred, thenoneAistence of the ease)ent "as not eApressed in the correspondin& titles nor "ere the apparent si&n ofthe alle7 )ade to disappear before the issuance of said titles.

The !ourt also finds that "hen plaintiff ac;uired the lot 8'*!9 "hich for)s the alle7, he %ne" that said lotcould serve no other purpose than as an alle7. That is "h7 even after he ac;uired it in '020 the lotcontinued to be used b7 defendants and occupants of the other ad>oinin& lots as an alle7. A A A */

Thus, petitioners are bound b7 the ease)ent of ri&ht of "a7 over 4ot No. '*!, even thou&h no re&istrationof the servitude has been )ade on T!T No. 02//2.

Ho"ever, respondentsB ri&ht to have access to the propert7 of petitioners does not include the ri&ht tocontinuall7 encroach upon the latterBs propert7. It is not disputed that portions of respondents? house on 4otNo. '*D encroach upon 4ot No. '*!. -eodetic n&ineer :ose (&res, :r. testified on the encroach)ent ofrespondents? house on 4ot No. '*!, "hich he surve7ed.*0 In order to settle the ri&hts of the parties relativeto the encroach)ent, e should deter)ine "hether respondents "ere builders in &ood faith.

-ood faith is an intan&ible and abstract ;ualit7 "ith no technical )eanin& or statutor7 definition@ and itenco)passes, a)on& other thin&s, an honest belief, the absence of )alice and the absence of a desi&n to














In Spouses Del !a)po v. (besia,# this provision "as applied to one "hose house, despite havin& beenbuilt at the ti)e he "as still coo"ner, overlapped "ith the land of another. In that case, this !ourt ruled3

The court a ;uo correctl7 held that (rticle ##/ of the !ivil !ode cannot appl7 "here a coo"ner builds,plants or so"s on the land o"ned in co))on for then he did not build, plant or so" upon the land that

eAclusivel7 belon&s to another but of "hich he is a coo"ner. The coo"ner is not a third person under thecircu)stances, and the situation is &overned b7 the rules of coo"nership.

Ho"ever, "hen, as in this case, the o"nership is ter)inated b7 the partition and it appears that the houseof defendants overlaps or occupies a portion of $ s;uare )eters of the land pertainin& to plaintiffs "hich thedefendants obviousl7 built in &ood faith, then the provisions of (rticle ##/ of the ne" !ivil !ode shouldappl7. A A A$

In other "ords, "hen the coo"nership is ter)inated b7 a partition, and it appears that the house of anerst"hile coo"ner has encroached upon a portion pertainin& to another coo"ner, but the encroach)ent "as in &ood faith, then the provisions of (rticle ##/ should appl7 to deter)ine the respective ri&hts of the

parties. In this case, the coo"nership "as ter)inated due to the transfer of the title of the "hole propert7 infavor of :oa;uin 4i)ense.

=nder the fore&oin& provision, petitioners have the ri&ht to appropriate said portion of the house ofrespondents upon pa7)ent of inde)nit7 to respondents, as provided for in (rticle $#2 of the !ivil !ode.Other"ise, petitioners )a7 obli&e respondents to pa7 the price of the land occupied b7 their house.Ho"ever, if the price as%ed for is considerabl7 )uch )ore than the value of the portion of the house ofrespondents built thereon, then the latter cannot be obli&ed to bu7 the land. Respondents shall then pa7 thereasonable rent to petitioners upon such ter)s and conditions that the7 )a7 a&ree. In case ofdisa&ree)ent, the trial court shall fiA the ter)s thereof. Of course, respondents )a7 de)olish or re)ovethe said portion of their house, at their o"n eApense, if the7 so decide.2

The choice belon&s to the o"ner of the land, a rule that accords "ith the principle of accession that theaccessor7 follo"s the principal and not the other "a7 around.6 ven as the option lies "ith the lando"ner,the &rant to hi), nevertheless, is preclusive. He )ust choose one. He cannot, for instance, co)pel theo"ner of the buildin& to instead re)ove it fro) the land./

The obvious benefit to the builder under this article is that, instead of bein& outri&htl7 e>ected fro) the land,he can co)pel the lando"ner to )a%e a choice bet"een t"o options3 8'9 to appropriate the buildin& b7pa7in& the inde)nit7 re;uired b7 la", or 8*9 to sell the land to the builder.0

The raison dBetre for this provision has been enunciated, thus3

here the builder, planter or so"er has acted in &ood faith, a conflict of ri&hts arises bet"een the o"ners,and it beco)es necessar7 to protect the o"ner of the i)prove)ents "ithout causin& in>ustice to the o"nerof the land. In vie" of the i)practicabilit7 of creatin& a state of forced coo"nership, the la" has provided a >ust solution b7 &ivin& the o"ner of the land the option to ac;uire the i)prove)ents after pa7)ent of theproper inde)nit7, or to obli&e the builder or planter to pa7 for the land and the so"er the proper rent. Hecannot refuse to eAercise either option. It is the o"ner of the land "ho is authori5ed to eAercise the option,
















because his ri&ht is older, and because, b7 the principle of accession, he is entitled to the o"nership of theaccessor7 thin&.#+J

In accordance "ith Depra v. Dumlao,#' this case )ust be re)anded to the trial court to deter)ine )attersnecessar7 for the proper application of (rticle ##/ in relation to (rticle $#2. Such )atters include the option

that petitioners "ould ta%e and the a)ount of inde)nit7 that the7 "ould pa7, should the7 decide toappropriate the i)prove)ents on the lots.

(nent the second issue, althou&h it )a7 see) that the portions encroachin& upon respondents? house canbe considered a nuisance, because it hinders petitioners? use of their propert7, it cannot si)pl7 be re)ovedat respondents? eApense, as pra7ed for b7 petitioner. This is because respondents built the sub>ectencroach)ent in &ood faith, and the la" affords the) certain ri&hts as discussed above.

HR<OR, the petition is ENIE, the Decision of the !ourt of (ppeals dated Dece)ber *+, *++' in!(-.R. !V No. $/0 is FFIRME "ith the follo"in& MOIFICTIONS(

'. No coo"nership eAists over 4ot No. '*!, covered b7 T!T No. 02//2, bet"een petitioners andrespondents.

*. The case is REMNE to the Re&ional Trial !ourt, 1ranch '$, Manila, for further proceedin&s "ithout further dela7 to deter)ine the facts essential to the proper application of (rticles ##/ and$#2 of the !ivil !ode.

SO ORERE.

IOSO M. PERLT(ssociate :ustice

!ON!=R3

LEONRO . "UISUMING

(ssociate :ustice

NTONIO T. CRPIO(ssociate :ustice

MINIT . CHICON4RIO(ssociate :ustice

ROERTO .

(ssociate :ustice

T T E S T T I O N

I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case "asassi&ned to the "riter of the opinion of the !ourtBs Division.








NTONIO T. CRPIO(ssociate :usticeThird Division, !hairperson

C E R T I F I C T I O N

Pursuant to Section ', (rticle VIII of the !onstitution and the Division !hairpersonBs (ttestation, I certif7that the conclusions in the above Decision "ere reached in consultation before the case "as assi&ned tothe "riter of the opinion of the !ourtBs Division.

RE7NTO S. PUNO!hief :ustice

Limense v. de Ramos

Documents

Transcript of Limense v. de Ramos