Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1946 > April 1946 Decisions > G.R. No. L-175 April 30, 1946 - DAMIAN IGNACIO v. ELIAS HILARIO, ET AL

076 Phil 605:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-175. April 30, 1946.]

DAMIAN IGNACIO, FRANCISCO IGNACIO and LUIS IGNACIO, Petitioners, v. ELIAS HILARIO and his wife DIONISIA DRES, and FELIPE NATIVIDAD, Judge of First Instance of Pangasinan, Respondents.

Leoncio R. Esliza, for Petitioners.

Mauricio M. Monta for Respondent.

SYLLABUS


1. PROPERTY; IMPROVEMENTS; RIGHT AND OBLIGATIONS OF OWNERS OF LAND AND OF OWNER OF IMPROVEMENTS. — 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 of the Civil Code. The owner of the land, upon the other hand, has the option, under article 361, 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.

2. JUDGMENTS; ADDITIONS TO FINAL JUDGMENTS; SHERIFF NOT AUTHORIZED TO SETTLE MATTERS INVOLVING EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION; CASE AT BAR. — The trial court’s decision defining rightly the rights of both parties under articles 361 and 453 of the Civil Code, fails to determine the value of the buildings and of the lot where they are erected as well as the periods of time within which the option may be exercised and payment should be made, these particulars having been left for determination apparently after the judgment has become final. This procedure is erroneous, for after the judgment has become final, no additions can be made thereto and nothing can be done therewith except its execution. And execution cannot be had, the sheriff being ignorant as to how, for how much, and within what time may be the option be exercised, and certainly no authority is vested in him to settle these matters which involve exercise of judicial discretion. Thus the appealed judgment has never become final, it having left matters to be settled for its completion in a subsequent proceeding, matters which remained unsettled up to the time the petition is filed in the instant case.


D E C I S I O N


MORAN, C.J. :


This is a petition for certiorari arising from a case in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan between the herein respondents Elias Hilario and his wife Dionisia Dres as plaintiffs, and the herein petitioners Damian, Francisco and Luis surnamed Ignacio, as defendants, concerning the ownership of a parcel of land, partly rice-land and partly residential. After the trial of the case, the lower court, presided over by Hon. Alfonso Felix, rendered judgment holding plaintiffs as the legal owners of the whole property but conceding to defendants the ownership of the houses and granaries built by them on the residential portion with the rights of a possessor in good faith, in accordance with article 361 of the Civil Code. The dispositive part of the decision , hub of this controversy, follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"(1) That the plaintiffs are the owners of the whole property described in transfer certificate of title No. 12872 (Exhibit A) issued in their name, and entitled to the possession of the same;

"(2) That the defendants are entitled to hold the possession of the residential lot until after they are paid the actual market value of their houses and granaries erected thereon, unless the plaintiffs prefer to sell them said residential lot, in which case defendants shall pay the plaintiffs the proportionate value of said residential lot taking as a basis the price paid for the whole land according to Exhibit B; and

"(3) That upon defendant’s failure to purchase the residential lot in question, said defendants shall remove their houses and granaries after this decision becomes final and within the periods of sixty (60) days from the date that the court is informed in writing of the attitude of the parties in this respect.

"No pronouncement is made as to damages and costs.

"Once this decision becomes final, the plaintiffs and defendants may appear again before this court for the purpose of determining their respective rights under article 361 of the Civil Code, if they cannot come to an extra-judicial settlement with regard to said rights."cralaw virtua1aw library

Subsequently, in a motion filed in the same Court of First Instance but now presided over by the herein respondent Judge Hon. Felipe Natividad, the plaintiffs prayed for an order of execution alleging that since they chose neither to pay defendants for the buildings nor to sell to them the residential lot, said defendants should be ordered to remove the structure at their own expense and to restore plaintiffs in the possession of said lot. Defendants objected to this motion which, after hearing, was granted by Judge Natividad. Hence, this petition by defendants praying for (a) a restraint and annulment of the order of execution issued by Judge Natividad; (b) an order to compel plaintiffs to pay them the sum of P2,000 for the buildings, or sell to them the residential lot for P45; or (c) a rehearing of the case for a determination of the rights of the parties upon failure of extra-judicial settlement.

The judgment rendered by Judge Felix is founded on articles 361 and 453 of the Civil Code which are as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"ART. 361. The owner of land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the work, sowing or planting, after the payment of the indemnity stated in articles 453 and 454, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent.

"ART. 453. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until such expenses are made good to him.

"Useful expenses shall be refunded to the possessor in good faith with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired in consequence thereof."cralaw virtua1aw library

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. The owner of the land, upon the other hand, has the option, under article 361, 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. But this is not the case before us.

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 and 453 of the Civil Code.

There is. however, in the decision of Judge Felix a question of procedure which calls for clarification, to avoid uncertainty and delay in the disposition of cases. In that decision, the rights of both parties are well defined under articles 361 and 453 of the Civil Code, but it fails to determine the value of the buildings and of the lot where they are erected as well as the periods of time within which the option may be exercised and payment should be made, these particulars having been left for determination apparently after the judgment has become final. This procedure is erroneous, for after the judgment has become final, no additions can be made thereto and nothing can be done therewith except its execution. And execution cannot be had, the sheriff being ignorant as to how, for how much, and within what time may the option be exercised, and certainty no authority is vested in him to settle these matters which involve exercise of judicial discretion. Thus the judgment rendered by Judge Felix has never become final, it having left matters to be settled for its completion in a subsequent proceeding, matters which remained unsettled up to the time the petition is filed in the instant case.

For all the foregoing, the writ of execution issued by Judge Natividad is hereby set aside and the lower court ordered to hold a hearing in the principal case wherein it must determine the prices of the buildings and of the residential lot where they are erected, as well as the period of time within which the plaintiffs-respondents may exercise their option either to pay for the buildings or to sell their land, and, in the last instance, the period of time within which the defendants-petitioners may pay for the land, all these periods to be counted from the date the judgment becomes executory or unappealable. After such hearing, the court shall render a final judgment according to the evidence presented by the parties.

The costs shall be paid by plaintiffs-respondents.

Ozaeta, Paras, Jaranilla, Feria, De Joya, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, and Briones, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






April-1946 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-110 April 3, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VALERIANO PAGKALIWANAGAN, ET AL

    076 Phil 457

  • Adm. Case No. 12 April 6, 1946 - JUSTO BAPTISTA v. CONSUELO CASTAÑEDA

    076 Phil 461

  • G.R. No. L-38 April 6, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SAMUEL M. TANCHOCO

    076 Phil 463

  • G.R. No. L-119 April 10, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELECIO GONZALES, ET AL.

    076 Phil 473

  • G.R. No. L-90 April 12, 1946 - SUSANO AMOR v. ELIZABETH KRUMMER, ET AL

    076 Phil 481

  • G.R. No. L-91 April 12, 1946 - SUSANO AMOR v. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ

    076 Phil 484

  • G.R. No. L-223 April 12, 1946 - SUSANO AMOR v. FRANCISCO GONZALEZ

    076 Phil 487

  • C.A. No. 50 April 13, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICASIO BARRAQUIA

    076 Phil 490

  • C.A. No. 9320 April 13, 1946 - TIMOTEO ARROYO v. ANDREA AZUR

    076 Phil 493

  • G.R. No. L-84 April 15, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LORETO PABELLA, ET AL.

    076 Phil 508

  • G.R. No. L-329 April 16, 1946 - VICENTE SOTTO v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

    076 Phil 516

  • G.R. No. L-265 April 24, 1946 - ONG SU HAN v. JOSE GUTIERREZ DAVID

    076 Phil 546

  • G.R. Nos. L-93 & L-94 April 25, 1946 - LUCIA GOMEZ, ET AL. v. NG FAT, ET AL.

    076 Phil 555

  • G.R. No. L-172 April 25, 1946.

    PEDRO ENRIQUEZ y MARCOSA BORJA v. JOSEFA DE MERLE y MERLE

    076 Phil 558

  • G.R. No. L-410 April 25, 1946 - MAMERTA REYES v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    076 Phil 561

  • C.A. No. 482 April 25, 1946 - PEDRO C. RELATIVO v. SINFOROSA CASTRO, ET AL.

    076 Phil 563

  • G.R. No. L-86 April 26, 1946 - FERNANDO REYES v. PELAGIO LOPEZ

    076 Phil 568

  • G.R. No. L-163 April 27, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. MAXIMO APLEGIDO

    076 Phil 571

  • Adm. Case No. 34 April 29, 1946 - ENGRACIO OBEJERA, ET AL v. IGA SY

    076 Phil 580

  • G.R. No. L-83 April 29, 1946 - MAGDALENA VDA. DE LOPEZ, ET AL v. DANIEL CABAIES

    076 Phil 588

  • Adm. Case No. 7411 April 29, 1946 - MANILA MOTOR CO. v. FIDELITY & SURETY CO. OF THE PHIL.

    076 Phil 591

  • G.R. No. L-50 April 30, 1946 - EL PUEBLO DE FILIPINAS v. LUZ JOSE DE MARTINEZ

    076 Phil 599

  • G.R. No. L-133 April 30, 1946 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FEDERICO S. DE LA CRUZ

    076 Phil 601

  • G.R. No. L-175 April 30, 1946 - DAMIAN IGNACIO v. ELIAS HILARIO, ET AL

    076 Phil 605

  • G.R. No. L-209 April 30, 1946 - G. VIOLA FERNANDO v. CRISANTO ARAGON

    076 Phil 609

  • G.R. No. L-351 April 30, 1946 - HANS J. SAMETH v. DIRECTOR OF PRISONS

    076 Phil 613

  • Adm. Case No. 490 April 30, 1946 - SABINA LEJARZO, ET AL. v. ROSARIO CIAR

    076 Phil 623