ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 139534. September 20, 1999]

SPS. VASQUEZ vs. THERESA DE LUNA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 20 1999.

G.R. No. 139534 (Spouses Armando and Teresita Vasquez vs. Theresa de Luna, represented by Marina S. De Luna.)

Respondent Theresa de Luna, represented by Marina S. De Luna, filed an action for reconveyance of real property against petitioner spouses Armando and Teresita Vasquez. Subject of the suit was Lot 19, Block 56-C, Phase III F-2, Kaunlaran Village, Kalookan City. It appears that there was a previous dispute as to whether the property was owned by Malabon Realty Development Corporation (MARDECO), from which petitioners purchased the property, or the National Housing Authority (NHA), which awarded to respondent the property. The controversy was resolved in favor of the NHA.

The parties entered into the following stipulation of facts:

. . .

2) . . . that plaintiff Theresa de Luna is the owner of Lot 19, Blk. 56, Phase III F-2 located at Kaunlaran Village, Caloocan City being occupied by defendants sps. Armando and Teresita Vasquez;

3) . . . that the defendants have constructed a house thereon without the consent of the plaintiff;

4) . . . that the defendants knew as early as 1989 that the lot in question is under litigation between the National Housing Authority (NHA) and the Malabon Realty Development Corp. (MARDECO); and

5) . . . that the defendants were eventually informed by the National Housing Authority (NHA) about the outcome of the controversy that the NHA wont he case.

On September 25, 1995, the RTC rendered its decision declaring respondent as the lawful owner of the subject property and ordering petitioners to return possession thereof to respondent and to pay respondent starting March, 1992, P1,000.00 as compensation for their use and occupancy of the premises; P20,000.00 as moral damages; P25,000.00 as attorney's fees, and costs.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision with the modification that respondent is declared entitled to the rights under Art. 450 of the Civil Code which provides:

The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.

Petitioners moved for a reconsideration, but their motion was denied. They then moved for extension of time to file a petition for review on certiorari which they have since filed.

After due consideration of the foregoing facts, the Court RESOLVED to GRANT the motion for extension of time to file petition and to DENY the petition for failure to establish that the Court of Appeals committed reversible error.

First. Petitioners contend that when they purchased the property in question in 1987, they believed that the land was owned by the Malabon Realty Development Corporation (MARDECO).

The contention has no merit. As pointed out by the Court of Appeals, petitioner Armando Vasquez himself admitted that at the time he bought the property, he could not determine whether the lot belongs to MARDECO or the NHA.

Second. Petitioners also contend that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the award of moral damages considering that respondent herself did not testify but only her attorney-in-fact Marina S. De Luna and the lack of justification of the award in the body of the trial court's decision.

The contention likewise has no merit.

The award of moral damages is based on the finding of the trial court that petitioners were possessors in bad faith. Under Article 451 of the Civil Code, a landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter, or sower in bad faith.

The petition should be denied on the additional ground that the verification thereof was made by petitioners on September 2, 1999 whereas the petition itself was dated September 3, 1999. The petition, therefore, should be treated as an unsigned pleading which, pursuant to Rule 7, ��3-4 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is without legal effect.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE