214 Phil.

101

FIRST DIVISION
[ G.R. No. L-57288. April 30, 1984 ]
LEONILA SARMIENTO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ENRIQUE A. AGANA,
DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, SEVENTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT, BRANCH XXVIII, PASAY CITY, AND SPOUSES
ERNESTO VALENTINO AND REBECCA LORENZO-VALENTINO,
RESPONDENTS.
DECISION

MELENCIO-HERRERA, J.:

This Petition for Certiorari questions a March 29, 1979 Decision rendered by the then Court of
First Instance of Pasay City. The Decision was one made on memoranda, pursuant to the
provisions of RA 6031, and it modified, on October 17, 1977, a judgment of the then Municipal
Court of Parañaque, Rizal, in an Ejectment suit instituted by herein petitioner Leonila
SARMIENTO against private respondends, the spouses ERNESTO Valentino and Rebecca
Lorenzo. For the facts, therefore, we have to look to the evidence presented by the parties at the
original level.

It appears that while ERNESTO was still courting his wife, the latter's mother had told him the
couple could build a RESIDENTIAL HOUSE on a lot of 145 sq. ms., being Lot D of a
subdivision in Parañaque (the LAND, for short). In 1967, ERNESTO did construct a
RESIDENTIAL HOUSE on the LAND at a cost of P8,000.00 to P10,000.00. It was probably
assumed that the wife's mother was the owner of the LAND and that, eventually, it would
somehow be transferred to the spouses.

It subsequently turned out that the LAND had been titled in the name of Mr. & Mrs. Jose C.
Santos, Jr. who, on September 7, 1974, sold the same to petitioner SARMIENTO. The following
January 6, 1975, SARMIENTO asked ERNESTO and wife to vacate and, on April 21, 1975,
filed an Ejectment suit against them. In the evidentiary hearings before the Municipal Court,
SARMIENTO submitted the deed of sale of the LAND in her favor, which showed the price to
be P15,000.00. On the other hand, ERNESTO testified that the then cost of the RESIDENTIAL
HOUSE would be from P30,000.00 to P40,000.00. The figures were not questioned by
SARMIENTO.

The Municipal Court found that private respondents had built the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE in
good faith, and, disregarding the testimony of ERNESTO, that it had a value of P20,000.00. It
then ordered ERNESTO and wife to vacate the LAND after SARMIENTO has paid them the
mentioned sum of P20,000.00.
The Ejectment suit was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Pasay where, after the
submission of memoranda, said Court rendered a modifying Decision under Article 448 of the
Civil Code. SARMIENTO was required, within 60 days, to exercise the option to reimburse
ERNESTO and wife the sum of P40,000.00 as the value of the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, or the
option to allow them to purchase the LAND for P25,000.00. SARMIENTO did not exercise any
of the two options within the indicated period, and ERNESTO was then allowed to deposit the
sum of P25,000.00 with the Court as the purchase price for the LAND. This is the hub of the
controversy. SARMIENTO then instituted the instant Certiorari proceedings.

We agree that ERNESTO and wife were builders in good faith in view of the peculiar
circumstances under which they had constructed the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. As far as they
knew, the LAND was owned by ERNESTO's mother-in-law who, having stated they could build
on the property, could reasonably be expected to later on give them the LAND.

In regards to builders in good faith, Article 448 of the Code provides:

"ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been build, 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 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." (Paragraphing supplied)

The value of the LAND, purchased for P15,000.00 on September 7, 1974, could not have been
very much more than that amount during the following January when ERNESTO and wife were
asked to vacate. However, ERNESTO and wife have not questioned the P25,000.00 valuation
determined by the Court of First Instance.

In regards to the valuation of the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, the only evidence presented was the
testimony of ERNESTO that its worth at the time of the trial should be from P30,000.00 to
P40,000.00. The Municipal Court chose to assess its value at P20,000.00, or below the
minimum testified by ERNESTO, while the Court of First Instance chose the maximum of
P40,000.00. In the latter case, it cannot be said that the Court of First Instance had abused its
discretion.

The challenged decision of respondent Court, based on valuations of P25,000.00 for the LAND
and P40,000.00 for the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, cannot be viewed as not supported by the
evidence. The provision for the exercise by petitioner SARMIENTO of either the option to
indemnify private respondents in the amount of P40,000.00, or the option to allow private
respondents to purchase the LAND at P25,000.00, in our opinion, was a correct decision.

"The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by another, is
entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the value of his building,
 under article 453 (now Article 546). The owner of the land, upon the other hand, has
the option, under article 361 (now Article 448), either to pay for the building or to
sell his land to the owner of the building. But he cannot, as respondents here did,
refuse both to pay for the building and to sell the land and compel the owner of the
building to remove it from the land where it is erected. He is entitled to such
remotion only when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay
for the same. (underscoring ours)

"We hold, therefore, that the order of Judge Natividad compelling defendants-
petitioners to remove their buildings from the land belonging to plaintiffs-
respondents only because the latter chose neither to pay for such buildings nor to sell
the land, is null and void, for it amends substantially the judgment sought to be
executed and is, furthermore, offensive to articles 361 (now Article 448) and 453
(now Article 546) of the Civil Code." (Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605, 608 [1946]).

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby ordered dismissed, without pronouncement
as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.

Source: Supreme Court E-Library | Date created: November 26, 2014