The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring him as the rightful owner of the disputed 124-square-meter portion of land. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling but removed the awards of attorney's fees, damages, and expenses to the respondent. The petitioner bank appealed to the Supreme Court claiming it was a builder in good faith. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, finding that the petitioner was aware prior to acquisition that part of the building encroached on the respondent's land, and thus did not meet the standard of good faith required.
The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring him as the rightful owner of the disputed 124-square-meter portion of land. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling but removed the awards of attorney's fees, damages, and expenses to the respondent. The petitioner bank appealed to the Supreme Court claiming it was a builder in good faith. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, finding that the petitioner was aware prior to acquisition that part of the building encroached on the respondent's land, and thus did not meet the standard of good faith required.
The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring him as the rightful owner of the disputed 124-square-meter portion of land. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling but removed the awards of attorney's fees, damages, and expenses to the respondent. The petitioner bank appealed to the Supreme Court claiming it was a builder in good faith. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings, finding that the petitioner was aware prior to acquisition that part of the building encroached on the respondent's land, and thus did not meet the standard of good faith required.
FIRST DIVISION The trial court decided the case in favor of respondent
declaring him to be the rightful owner of the disputed
[G.R. No. 149295, September 23, 2003] 124-square-meter portion of the lot and ordering PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, petitioner, petitioner to surrender possession of the property to vs. respondent and to cause, at its expense, the removal of GENEROSO DE JESUS, represented by his Attorney-in- any improvement thereon. Fact, CHRISTIAN DE JESUS, respondent. The Court of Appeals, on appeal, sustained the trial DECISION court but it ordered to be deleted the award to VITUG, J.: respondent of attorney’s fees, as well as moral and Petitioner Philippine National Bank disputes the exemplary damages, and litigation expenses. decision handed down by the Court of Appeals promulgated on 23 March 2001 in CA-G.R. CV No. Petitioner went to this Court, via a petition for review, 56001, entitled Generoso De Jesus, represented by his after the appellate court had denied the banks motion Attorney-in-Fact, Christian De Jesus, versus Philippine for reconsideration, here now contending that – National Bank. The assailed decision has affirmed the judgment rendered by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 1. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW IN 44, of Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, declaring ADJUDGING PNB A BUILDER IN BAD FAITH OVER THE respondent Generoso de Jesus as being the true and ENCROACHED PROPERTY IN QUESTION; lawful owner of the 124-square-meter portion of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T- 2. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN LAW IN 17197 and ordering petitioner bank to vacate the NOT APPLYING IN FAVOR OF PNB THE PROVISION OF premises, to deliver possession thereof to respondent, ARTICLE 448 OF THE CIVIL CODE AND THE RULING IN and to remove the improvement thereon. TECNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORP. VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. No. 108894, February 10, It would appear that on 10 June 1995, respondent filed 1997, 268 SCRA 7. a complaint against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of Occidental Mindoro for recovery of ownership The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals have and possession, with damages, over the questioned both rejected the idea that petitioner can be considered property. In his complaint, respondent stated that he a builder in good faith. In the context that such term is had acquired a parcel of land situated in Mamburao, used in particular reference to Article 448, et seq., of Occidental Mindoro, with an area of 1,144 square the Civil Code, a builder in good faith is one who, not meters covered by TCT No. T-17197, and that on 26 being the owner of the land, builds on that land March 1993, he had caused a verification survey of the believing himself to be its owner and unaware of any property and discovered that the northern portion of defect in his title or mode of acquisition. the lot was being encroached upon by a building of petitioner to the extent of 124 square meters. Despite The various provisions of the Civil Code, pertinent to the two letters of demand sent by respondent, petitioner subject, read: failed and refused to vacate the area. Article 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown, or planted in good faith, shall Petitioner, in its answer, asserted that when it acquired have the right to appropriate as his own the works, the lot and the building sometime in 1981 from then sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity Mayor Bienvenido Ignacio, the encroachment already provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the was in existence and to remedy the situation, Mayor one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, Ignacio offered to sell the area in question (which then and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the also belonged to Ignacio) to petitioner at P100.00 per builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if square meter which offer the latter claimed to have its value is considerably more than that of the building accepted. The sale, however, did not materialize when, or trees. In such a case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if without the knowledge and consent of petitioner, the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate Mayor Ignacio later mortgaged the lot to the the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties Development Bank of the Philippines. 1 shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of petitioner would fall much too short from its claim of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. good faith. Evidently, petitioner was quite aware, and Article 449. He who builds, plants, or sows in bad faith indeed advised, prior to its acquisition of the land and on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or building from Ignacio that a part of the building sold to sown without right to indemnity. it stood on the land not covered by the land conveyed to it. Article 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may Equally significant is the fact that the building, demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting constructed on the land by Ignacio, has in actuality been or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in part of the property transferred to petitioner. Article their former condition at the expense of the person 448, of the Civil Code refers to a piece of land whose who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the ownership is claimed by two or more parties, one of builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the whom has built some works (or sown or planted sower the proper rent. something) and not to a case where the owner of the land is the builder, sower, or planter who then later A builder in good faith can, under the foregoing loses ownership of the land by sale or otherwise for, provisions, compel the landowner to make a choice elsewise stated, where the true owner himself is the between appropriating the building by paying the builder of works on his own land, the issue of good faith proper indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the or bad faith is entirely irrelevant. price of the land. The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule that accords with the principle of In fine, petitioner is not in a valid position to invoke the accession, i.e., that the accessory follows the principal provisions of Article 448 of the Civil Code. The Court and not the other way around. Even as the option lies commiserates with petitioner in its present with the landowner, the grant to him, nevertheless, is predicament; upon the other hand, respondent, too, is preclusive. He much choose one. He cannot, for entitled to his rights under the law, particularly after instance, compel the owner of the building to instead having long been deprived of the enjoyment of his remove it from the land. In order, however, that the property. Nevertheless, the Court expresses hope that builder can invoke that accruing benefit and enjoy his the parties will still be able to come up with an corresponding right to demand that a choice be made arrangement that can be mutually suitable and by the landowner, he should be able to prove good faith acceptable to them. on his part. WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA- Good faith, here understood, is an intangible and G.R. CV No. 56001 is AFFIRMED. No costs. abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory SO ORDERED. definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares- honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of Santiago, and Carpio, JJ., concur. design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable Azcuna, J., on sick leave. advantage. An individual personal good faith is a concept of his own mind and, therefore, may not conclusively be determined by his protestations alone. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry. 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.
Given the findings of both the trial court and the
appellate court, it should be evident enough that 2
Comparative Data of Childhood and Adolescence Molestation in Heterosexual and Homosexual Persons (2001) by Marie E. Tomeo, Donald I. Templer, Susan Anderson & Debra Kotler