51 Spouses Benitez v. Court of Appeals PDF
51 Spouses Benitez v. Court of Appeals PDF
51 Spouses Benitez v. Court of Appeals PDF
SYLLABUS
DECISION
PANGANIBAN J :
PANGANIBAN, p
1. The amount of P930.00 a month starting July 17, 1989 until they
finally vacate the subject premises;
3. Cost of suit."
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Pasig, Branch 167, a rmed said decision. 4
The RTC said: 5
"The controversy in this case is not an encroachment or overlapping of two
(2) adjacent properties owned by the parties. It is a case where a part of the house
of the defendants is constructed on a portion of the property of the plaintiffs. So
that as new owner of the real property, who has a right to the full enjoyment and
possession of the entire parcel covered by Transfer Certi cate of Title No. 41961,
plaintiffs have the right to demand that defendants remove the portion of the
house standing on plaintiff's realty. . . ."
cda
SO ORDERED."
"4) Since petitioners are not builders in good faith, they cannot
demand that respondents sell the disputed portion; what the law provides is that
the builders in bad faith can be ordered to dismantle said structure at their own
expense. In the interim period that petitioners' structure remains, they should pay
reasonable rent until they remove the structure."
SO ORDERED."
That petitioners occupied the land prior to private respondents' purchase thereof
does not negate the latter's case for ejectment. Prior possession is not always a condition
sine qua non in ejectment. 9 This is one of the distinctions between forcible entry and
unlawful detainer. In forcible entry, the plaintiff is deprived of physical possession of his
land or building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; thus, he must
allege and prove prior possession. But in unlawful detainer, the defendant unlawfully
withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right thereto under any
contract, express or implied. In such a case, prior physical possession is not required. 1 0
Possession can also be acquired, not only by material occupation, but also by the
fact that a thing is subject to the action of one's will or by the proper acts and legal
formalities established for acquiring such right. 1 1 Possession of land can be acquired
upon the execution of the deed of sale thereof by its vendor. Actual or physical occupation
is not always necessary.
In the case before us, considering that private respondents are unlawfully deprived
of possession of the encroached land and that the action for the recovery of possession
thereof was made within the one- year reglementary period, ejectment is the proper
remedy. 1 2 The MeTC of San Juan had jurisdiction.
In addition, after voluntarily submitting themselves to its proceedings, petitioners
are estopped from assailing the jurisdiction of the MeTC. 1 3 This Court will not allow
petitioners to attack the jurisdiction of the trial court after receiving a decision adverse to
their position.
Second Issue: Compensation For Occupancy
Petitioners erroneously construed the order of the MeTC to pay private respondents
Nine Hundred Pesos (P930.00) a month starting July 17, 1989 until they (petitioners)
nally vacate the subject premises as "rentals". Technically, such award is not rental, but
damages. Damages are recoverable in ejectment cases under Section 8, Rule 70 of the
Revised Rules of Court. 1 4 These damages arise from the loss of the use and occupation
of the property, and not the damages which private respondents may have suffered but
which have no direct relation to their loss of material possession. 15 Damages in the
context of Section 8, Rule 70 is limited to "rent" or "fair rental value" for the use and
occupation of the property. 16
There is no question that petitioners bene ted from their occupation of a portion of
private respondents' property. Such benefit justifies the award of the damages of this kind.
Nemo cum alterius, detrimenti locupletari potest. No one shall enrich himself at the
expense of another.
Third Issue: Option To Sell Belongs To Owner
Article 448 of the Civil Code 1 7 is unequivocal that the option to sell the land on
which another in good faith builds, plants or sows on, belongs to the landowner.
The option is to sell, not to buy, and it is the landowner's choice. Not even a
declaration of the builder, planter, or sower's bad faith shifts this option to him per Article
450 of the Civil Code. 1 8 This advantage in Article 448 is accorded the landowner because
"his right is older, and because, by the principle of accession, he is entitled to the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
ownership of the accessory thing." 1 9 There can be no pre-emptive right to buy even as a
compromise, as this prerogative belongs solely to the landowner. No compulsion can be
legally forced on him, contrary to what petitioners asks from this Court. Such an order
would certainly be invalid and illegal. Thus, the lower courts were correct in rejecting the
petitioners' offer to buy the encroached land.
Fourth Issue: A Review of Factual Findings Is Unwarranted
Petitioners ask this Court to review the alleged error of the respondent Court in
appreciating bad faith on their part. According to them, this is contradictory to the fact
that private respondents acquired their lot and discovered the encroachment after
petitioners bought their house. After careful deliberation on this issue, this Court nds this
petition for review inadequate as it failed to show convincingly a reversible error on the
part of the respondent Court in this regard. Thus, for very good reasons, this Court has
consistently and emphatically declared that review of the factual ndings of the Court of
Appeals is not a function that is normally undertaken in petitions for review under Rule 45
of the Rules of Court. Such ndings, as a general rule, are binding and conclusive. 20 The
jurisdiction of this Court is limited to reviewing errors of law unless there is a showing that
the ndings complained of are totally devoid of support in the records or that they are so
glaringly erroneous as to constitute reversible error. 21
Even respondent Court has taken note of the inadequacy of the petition before it, as
it wryly said: 22
"The Petition for Review is not certainly a manifestation of clarity nor an
example of a well-organized summation of petitioners' cause of action. . . .
A careful scrutiny of the above issues discloses that they are mere
repetitions in a rehashed form of the same issues with the same supporting
arguments raised by petitioners when they appealed from the decision of the
(MeTC) to the RTC. . . ."
Footnotes
6. CA Rollo, p. 13.
7. Rollo, p. 27.
8. Ibid.
9. Pharma Industries Inc., vs. Pajarillaga, 100 SCRA 339, 345, October 17, 1980.
10. Sumulong vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 372, 382-383, May 10, 1994 and Javelosa
vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 124292, promulgated on December 10, 1996, p. 10.
11. Pharma Industries Inc., vs. Pajarillaga, op cit.
12. Del Castillo vs. Aguinaldo, 212 SCRA 169, 173-174, August 5, 1992.
13. Tejones vs. Gironello, 159 SCRA 100, 104, March 21, 1988 and Romualdez vs. Regional
Trial Court, Br. 7, Tacloban City, 226 SCRA 408, 414, September 14, 1993.
14. Rule 70, Section 8 provides:
15. Hualam Construction and Dev't. Corp. vs. Court of Appeals, 214 SCRA 612, 624-625,
October 16, 1992 and Araos vs. Court of Appeals, 232 SCRA 770, 776, June 2, 1994.
16. Ibid. and De Guzman vs. Court of Appeals, 195 SCRA 715, 721, April 8, 1991.
17. Article 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or
planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or
planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige
the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the
proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay
reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or
trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in
case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
18. Article 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or
sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing
be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the
person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the
price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.
21. Meneses vs. Court of Appeals, 246 SCRA 162, 171, July 14, 1995; The Municipality of
Candijay, Bohol vs. Court of Appeals, 251 SCRA 530, 534, December 28, 1995; and
Tañedo vs. Court of Appeals, 252 SCRA 80, 91, January 22, 1996.
22. Rollo, p. 26.