Title: AGUEDA DE VERA VS COURT OF APPEALS and RICARDO RAMOS
Reference: G.R. No. 97761. April 14, 1999.
Doctrine:
A possessor in good faith is one who is unaware that there exists a flaw which invalidates
his acquisition of the thing. Good faith consists in the possessor’s belief that the person from
whom he received a thing was the owner of the same and could convey his title. It consists in an
honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, and is the
opposite of fraud. Since good faith is a state of. the mind, and is not a visible, tangible fact that
can be seen or touched, it can only be determined by outward acts and proven conduct. It implies
freedom from knowledge and circumstances which ought to put a person on inquiry
Facts:
Private Respondent Ricardo Ramos filed a complaint against Agueda de Vera for recovery
of property and damages alleging that That the plaintiff is the legal and absolute owner of a certain
parcel of land, his title thereto being evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. P-5619 of the
Register of Deeds of Isabela; That the defendants are occupying portion of the property, wherein
they have constructed a house of strong and permanent materials this year 1983 after removing
their previous building of light materials in January or February of 1970; That the plaintiff has
demanded that the defendants remove their improvement thereon and vacate the said portion,
but the defendants have refused and failed, without any just or lawful cause to do so. Ramos’
claim was that he was granted a Homestead Patent and OCT after he fully complied with the
cultivation and residence requirements of the public land act. De Vera et al claim they have been
in possession of 70 sqm of land since the late1950s, before Ramos filed his Homestead Patent
Their possession was through their predecessor in interest, Teodoro de la Cruz (Husband of de
Vera) by virtue of a valid title (Miscellaneous Sales Application). They honestly believed that the
other portions formed part of the lot with an area of 70 square meters covered by their
Miscellaneous Sales Application They claim that Ramos' knowledge that they had been
occupying the portions for several years prior to his filing of the application for a homestead patent,
opens to question the validity of his homestead patent and the title derived therefrom.
A protracted litigation between Ramos and the defendants ensued and The case
eventually reached this Court which, on January 27, 1981, came out with a decision upholding
the validity of Ramos' title. On April 27, 1981, Ramos wrote De Veras reminding them that their
house is on his titled property, and asking them to buy the portion occupied by them or to lease
the same on a yearly or monthly basis; otherwise, Ramos would be constrained to take proper
legal action against them. But the letter of private respondent was ignored by petitioners.
Issue:
Whether or not De Vera et al were possessors and builders in bad faith
Ruling:
Yes.
Article 526 of the New Civil Code provides: He is deemed a possessor in good faith who
is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.He is
deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing. Mistake
upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith. A possessor in good
faith is one who is unaware that there exists a flaw which invalidates his acquisition of the thing.
Good faith consists in the possessor’s belief that the person from whom he received a thing was
the owner of the same and could convey his title. It consists in an honest intention to abstain from
taking any unconscientious advantage of another, and is the opposite of fraud.
In the case at bar, De Vera was already informed by Ramos prior to the construction that
the land they were possessing and occupying is within his titled property. Ramos gave Agueda
de Vera the option to either pay him the value of the property or lease the same on a yearly or
monthly basis. The Parties failed to reach a compromise agreement. Despite this, De Veras still
constructed a house of strong materials in 1983, after dismantling their previous building of light
materials. The outward acts and proven conduct indicate bad faith of petitioners as possessor
and builder.
Take Note:
Article 449 provides that He who builds ... in bad faith on the land of another, losses what
is built, without right to indemnity.
Article 450 provides that The owner of the land on which anything has been built, ... in bad
faith may demand the demolition of the work, ... in order to replace things in their former condition
at the expense of the person who built, ...; or he may compel the builder ... to pay the price of the
land, ...
Under the aforecited Articles 449 and 450, the landowner has three alternative rights,
either:
1. to appropriate what has been built without any obligation to pay indemnity therefor; or
2. to demand the builder to remove what he had built; or
3. to compel the builder to pay the value of the land.
In any event, he (landowner) is entitled to be indemnified by the builder in bad faith, pursuant to
Article 451
