Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sabido v. IAC (G.R. No. 73418, September 20, 1988)

    Uploaded by

    Lorie Jean Udarbe
    166 views2 pages
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of two parcels of land, Lot B and Lot D. The petitioners filed a case to quiet title as the registered owners. A private respondent, Dominador Sta. Ana, was occupying a portion of Lot B and claimed he purchased that land from another. However, the court found that the land Sta. Ana purchased was physically separated from Lot B by a river. As such, Sta. Ana was found to be in privity with the petitioners regarding ownership of Lot B. The court held that since Sta. Ana was not a possessor in good faith, he must remove all improvements on Lot B at his own expense without any right to reimbursement or retention of the improvements.

    Original Description:

    Case digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of two parcels of land, Lot B and Lot D. The petitioners filed a case to quiet title as the registered owners. A private respondent, Dominador Sta. Ana, was occupying a portion of Lot B and claimed he purchased that land from another. However, the court found that the land Sta. Ana purchased was physically separated from Lot B by a river. As such, Sta. Ana was found to be in privity with the petitioners regarding ownership of Lot B. The court held that since Sta. Ana was not a possessor in good faith, he must remove all improvements on Lot B at his own expense without any right to reimbursement or retention of the improvements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    166 views2 pages

    Sabido v. IAC (G.R. No. 73418, September 20, 1988)

    Uploaded by

    Lorie Jean Udarbe
    This case involves a dispute over ownership of two parcels of land, Lot B and Lot D. The petitioners filed a case to quiet title as the registered owners. A private respondent, Dominador Sta. Ana, was occupying a portion of Lot B and claimed he purchased that land from another. However, the court found that the land Sta. Ana purchased was physically separated from Lot B by a river. As such, Sta. Ana was found to be in privity with the petitioners regarding ownership of Lot B. The court held that since Sta. Ana was not a possessor in good faith, he must remove all improvements on Lot B at his own expense without any right to reimbursement or retention of the improvements.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    G.R. No.

    73418, September 20, 1988


    PELICULA SABIDO and MAXIMO RANCES, petitioners,
    vs.
    THE HONORABLE INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and DOMINADOR STA. ANA, respondents.
    GUTIERREZ, JR., J.:

    FACTS:
    An action of quieting of title was filed by spouses Dasal and Pecunio against petitioners over two parcels
    of lot known as Lot B and D. Petitioners are held as owners of said lots. The provincial Sheriff found out
    that 3 persons are occupying portions of Lot B, and one of them was private respondent Sta. Ana.

    Respondent claimed that he is the owner of a bigger area which Lot B is a part. That he bought such
    from Prudencio Lagarto and the other 2 persons were his tenants.

    An order of demolition was issued against respondent but was set aside. Thereafter, respondent was
    ordered to vacate the land because there is no proof that the land he purchased form Lagarto covers a
    portion of Lot B. In fact, what was sold was bounded on the south by Tigman river and therefore, could
    not have extended to Lot "B" which was separated by the Tigman river and mangrove swamps from the
    portion he purchased.

    The trial court held that there is a privity between the private respondent and spouses Dasal and
    Pecunio to the ownership of Lot C. That the private road and the Lot B are both owned by petitioners
    and ordered respondent to remove the entire balcony and the northern portion of the main house.
    Private respondent appealed to the IAC. IAC then has given private respondent the alternative choice of
    retention.

    ISSUE: WON respondent acted in good faith.

    HELD: NO.
    Being adjudged in privy with the spouses Dasals, he cannot avail himself of the rights granted to a
    builder in good faith. Therefore, must remove all his useful improvements over Lot "B" at his own
    expense and if the same have already been removed, he cannot be entitled to the right of retention or
    to any reimbursement.

    In Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewarage System v. Court of Appeals, Article 449 of the Civil Code of
    the Philippines provides that "he who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses
    what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity." As a builder in bad faith, NAWASA lost
    whatever useful improvements it had made without right to indemnity.

    Under Art. 547, only a possessor in good faith shall be refunded for useful expenses with the right of
    retention until reimbursed.

    Article 547 thereof, only a possessor in good faith may remove useful improvements if this can be done
    without damage to the principal thing and if the person who recovers the possession does not exercise
    the option of reimbursing the useful expenses. The right given a possessor in bad faith to remove
    improvements applies only to improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure, provided the thing
    suffers no injury thereby and the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value
    they have at the time he enters into possession (Article 549)

    You might also like