Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Manotok Realty v. Tecson
Manotok Realty v. Tecson
Tecson ○ as a result of the said fire, then First Lady and Metro Manila Gov.
G.R. No. L-47475; August 19, 1988 Imelda Marcos has placed disputed area under her Zonal
GUTIERREZ, JR., J. Improvement Project allowing the victims to put up new structures
By: Galvez on the premises, and subject matter has been extinguished by fire.
____________________________________________________________________ ● CA: affirmed the lower court’s decision.
Petitioner: M ANOTOK REALTY, INC. ● Thus, petitioner company filed the present petition for mandamus alleging
Respondent: THE HONORABLE JOSE H. TECSON, Judge of the Court of First that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
Instance of Manila and NILO MADLANGAWA his motion to exercise option and for execution of judgment;
○ that the exercise of option belongs to the owner of the property who,
Doctrine: in this case, is the petitioner;
Neither can the respondent judge deny the issuance of a writ of execution because ○ that upon finality of judgment, the prevailing party is entitled, as a
the private respondent was adjudged a builder in good faith or on the ground of matter of right, to its execution which is only ministerial act on the
peculiar circumstances which supervened after the institution of this case, the part of the respondent judge; and
introduction of certain major repairs and of other substantial improvements, because ○ that since the judgment of the trial court has already become final, it
the option given by the law was either to retain the premises and pay for the is entitled to the execution of the same and that moreover, since the
improvements thereon or to sell the said premises to the builder in good faith house of the private respondent was gutted by fire, the execution of
belongs to the owner of the property. the decision would now involve the delivery of possession of the
____________________________________________________________________ disputed area by the private respondent to the petitioner.
FACTS:
● Petitioner Manotok Realty (company for brevity) filed a complaint against Note: On May 21, 1987, the Court rendered a decision in the Elisa Manotok case
private respondent Madlangawa for recovery of possession. (Manotok v. National Housing Authority, 150 SCRA 89) ruling that P.D. 1669 is
○ The court ruled against the company, declaring Madlangawa as a unconstitutional for being violative of the due process clause. Thus, the present
builder or possessor in good faith and ordering the company to petition has not been rendered moot and academic by the decision in said case.
recognize the right of Madlangawa to remain in company’s lot until
after he shall have been reimbursed by the company. Decision ISSUES:
became final and executory. 1. Whether the respondent judge erred in denying the motion to avail the
● The petitioner company then filed a motion for the approval of the petitioner’s option to appropriate the improvement made on the property.
company’s exercise of option and for satisfaction of judgment, praying that 2. Whether the destruction of improvement of a builder in good faith
the court issue an order: extinguishes his right to retain the premises until reimbursed.
○ (1) approving the exercise of the company’s option to appropriate
the improvements introduced by Madlangawa on the property; RULING:
○ (2) thereafter, Madlangawa be ordered to deliver possession of the
property in question to the company. Public respondent Judge 1. YES. When the decision of the trial court became final and executory, it
Tecson, denied it as well as its motion for reconsideration. became incumbent upon the respondent judge to issue the necessary writ
○ Hence, this petition for mandamus. for the execution of the same. There is, therefore, no basis for the
● Lower court: denied the motion; the case has already become moot and respondent judge to deny the petitioner’s motion to avail of its option to
academic for two reasons: appropriate the improvements made on its property.
○ fire gutted not only the house of the private responded but the ○ Neither can the respondent judge deny the issuance of a writ of
majority of the houses in Tambunting Estate execution because the private respondent was adjudged a builder in
good faith or on the ground of peculiar circumstances which
supervened after the institution of this case, the introduction of
certain major repairs and of other substantial improvements,
because the option given by the law was either to retain the
premises and pay for the improvements thereon or to sell the said
premises to the builder in good faith belongs to the owner of the
property.
○ Furthermore, to be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that
a person assert title to the land on which he builds (that he be a
possessor in concept of an owner) and that he be unaware that there
exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.
■ The private respondent's good faith ceased after the filing of
the complaint by the petitioner.
■ Thus, the repairs and improvements introduced by the said
respondents after the complaint was filed cannot be
considered to have been built in good faith, much less, justify
the denial of the petitioner's exercise of option.
2. YES. Since the improvements have been gutted by fire, and therefore, the
basis for private respondent's right to retain the premises has already been
extinguished without the fault of the petitioner, there is no other recourse for
the private respondent but to vacate the premises and deliver the same to
herein petitioner.
WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is GRANTED and the
respondent judge is hereby ordered co immediately issue a writ of execution ordering
the private respondent to vacate the disputed premises and deliver possession of the
same to the petitioner.