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