365 Phil. 170
PURISIMA, J.:
"xxxIn their Answer,[7] the herein petitioners theorized, inter alia, that they have been in possession not only of 22 square meters but 70 square meters of land through their predecessor-in-interest, Teodoro de la Cruz (husband of defendant-appellant Agueda De Vera and father of the rest of the defendants-appellants) and subsequently by themselves, as owners, before 1956; that said 70 square meter area occupied by them is a portion of Lot 7005, Cad 211, over which their predecessor-in-interest, Teodoro de la Cruz, had, during his lifetime, a pending Miscellaneous Sales Application which was given due course and favorably recommended by the District Land Officer for Isabela to the Director of Lands; that Teodoro de la Cruz also declared the said land for taxation purposes and after his death, by his heirs, and that plaintiff-appellee's cause of action is already barred by prescription and/or laches.
2. That the plaintiff is the legal and absolute owner of a certain parcel of land known as Lot 2, H-4-617, and particularly described as follows:`Bounded on the NE., by Road; on the SW, by Provincial Road; and on the W., by National Road. containing an area of 3,670 square meters, more or less.'his title thereto being evidenced by Original Certificate of Title No. P-5619 of the Register of Deeds of Isabela;
3. That the defendants are occupying a triangular portion of the above-described property containing an area of 22 square meters, more or less, and which is bounded as follows:`On the NE., by the Road; on the SE., by Lot 3841-B of the subdivision plan, Psd 2-02-013907'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;
4. 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, to the present time; xxx"
"III. RESULT OF THE RELOCATION SURVEYOn October 24, 1984, the private respondent sent in his Opposition[9] to the aforesaid Report, branding the same as erroneous. On March 4, 1985, after the filing of private respondent's Reply[10] to petitioners' Rejoinder,[11] the court of origin issued an Order,[12] holding thus:
Attached herewith, which is made part of this report, is a Relocation Survey Plan No. 2-02-000160 duly approved by the Regional Director, Region II, Bureau of Lands, Tuguegarao, Cagayan, showing the result of the relocation survey, to wit:
1. Area bounded by black lines designated as Lot 9841-A, Psd-2-02-013907 a portion of Lot 7004, Cad. 211 with an area of 22 Sq. Meters represents the land being covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-133705 of the Plaintiff Ricardo Ramos;
x x x
4. Areas designated as portions `A,' `B' and `C,' represents the land in question between the parties in Civil Case No. Br. II-1861, which portions are respectively described, to wit:
a. Portion `A' with an area of 51 Square Meters, which is a portion of Lot 7005, Cad. 211, represents the land being claimed by the defendants Agueda de Vera, Et al, said area allegedly being covered by Miscellaneous Sales Application of their predecessor-in-interest the late Teodoro dela Cruz;
b. Portion `B' with an area of 5 Square Meters, represents that part of Lot 9841-B, Psd-2-02-013905 of Ricardo Ramos, being occupied by the house of defendants Agueda de Vera, Et al;
c. Portion `C' with an area of 18 Square Meters, represents that part of Lot 9841-B, Psd-2-02-013907 of Ricardo Ramos, being occupied by the house of defendants, Agueda de Vera, Et al;
5. Portion `A' being a part of Lot 7005, Cad. 211, is separate and distinct from the 22 Square Meters lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-133705 of the plaintiff Ricardo Ramos, said 22 Sq. Meters lot being a part of Lot 7004, Cad. 211;
x x x
7. That the adjoining boundary of Lot 9841-A, Psd-2-02-013907 on the Northwest, which appears as National Road in Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-133705 is erroneous, considering that there is still a gap (designated as Portion `A' in the attached Relocation Plan) between said Lot 9841-A and that of the 60 meters National Road-right-of-way;
x x x"
"Since the purpose of the appointment of the Court Commissioner is to determine whether or not the area occupied by the defendants is within the titled property of the plaintiff, the relocation of the land in question became imperative. As a matter of fact, the record shows that both parties agreed to said relocation (See order of November 15, 1983). It must be noticed that the report of the Commissioner is adverse to the plaintiff as the former's findings show that only a portion of 22 square meters of the plaintiff's lot is occupied by the defendants and that between the National Road and the plaintiff's property is an area of 51 square meters (portion A) which the Commissioner found to be part of Lot 7005, Cad. 211.After trial on the merits, or on August 2, 1988, to be precise, the same trial court promulgated its Decision,[13] the decretal portion of which is to the following effect:
Inasmuch as the plaintiff was given the full opportunity to check the accurateness of Commissioner's Report and there being no proof adduced by him that the same is erroneous, except the blue print plan of the subdivision survey Psd-2-02-013907, the execution of which, the defendants had no participation whatsoever, the Court has no other alternative but to reject the plaintiff's objection to said report.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations and finding no error in the report of the Commissioner, the Court hereby approves the same.
SO ORDERED."(Underline supplied)
"WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is hereby rendered:Not satisfied with the judgment below, petitioners elevated the case to the Court of Appeals, arguing, among others, that: (1) the trial court erred in not dismissing the complaint on the ground of laches; (2) the trial court erred in holding that defendants-appellants are possessors in bad faith and (3) that defendants-appellants cannot be made liable to plaintiff-appellee for rental payments for the use of the disputed property, for attorney's fees and the costs of suit.
(1) DECLARING the plaintiff the owner of all lands adjoining Lot 9841-A in the West up to the National Road, and ORDERING the defendants, their agents, representatives, or any person or persons acting on their authority, to vacate the same and to deliver the possession thereof to the plaintiff;
(2) ORDERING the defedants (sic) to remove, at their expense, all improvements they have constructed or erected thereon within thirty (30) days from the finality of this decision;
(3) ORDERING the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff a monthly rent of P273.70 from April 27, 1981, and an additional P724.70 a month from receipt of this decision until the possession of saidland (sic) is delivered to the plaintiff;
(4) ORDERING the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff the sum of P5,000.00 as attorney's fees; and
(5) ORDERING the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the costs.
SO ORDERED."
"CONFORMABLY TO THE FOREGOING, the judgment appealed from is hereby MODIFIED, dismissing plaintiff-appellee's complaint as regards Portion "A", consequently deleting the monthly rents decreed by the lower court in favor of plaintiff-appellee as regards said portion, and is AFFIRMED in all other respects.Undaunted, petitioners have come to this Court via the present petition; contending that:
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED."
"THE DECISION DATED 13 MARCH 1991 (ANNEX `A') RENDERED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION BY RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, INSOFAR AS IT AFFIRMS THE DECISION DATED 02 AUGUST 1988 OF THE LOWER COURT, WAS PASSED ON A QUESTION OF SUBSTANCE IN A WAY NOT IN ACCORD WITH LAW AND WITH THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT, CONSIDERING THAT:The pivotal issue for determination here is: whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in adjudging the herein petitioners as possessors and builders in bad faith of Portions "B" and "C" of the property under controversy.I.
LACHES CAN DEFEAT THE TITLE OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT OVER THE PROPERTIES DESCRIBED BY RESPONDENT HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AS PORTIONS "B" AND "C" OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY CONSIDERING THAT SAID PRIVATE RESPONDENT HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE PRESENCE OF THE PETITIONERS ON SAID PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY EVEN BEFORE HE APPLIED IN 1947 FOR A HOMESTEAD PATENT THEREFOR.II.
PETITIONERS WERE NOT POSSESSORS IN BAD FAITH OF PORTIONS "B" AND "C" OF THE DISPUTED PROPERTY: THUS, THEY CANNOT BE MADE LIABLE TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT FOR THEIR USE THEREOF."
"xxx It is inequitous for Us to consider said 23 year period, on which plaintiff-appellee's ownership over said portions still hanged as a big question, as part of plaintiff-appellee's alleged delay in enforcing his rights where the pendency of said question precisely crippled his actions. Sans said 23 year period, plaintiff-appellee, far from being neglectful, has been vigilant over his rights, as evidenced by his letter (1981) and the ultimate filing of the instant complaint (1983)."[21]Furthermore, the question of laches is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, and we find no fact or circumstance of such substance as to disturb the lower court's finding on this point. Thus, from the foregoing, laches cannot defeat private respondent's ownership and recovery of possession of Portions "B" and "C."
"Article 526 - 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.In his Commentaries and Jurisprudence on the Civil Code of the Philippines, Vol. II, 1993 ed., Dr. Arturo Tolentino opines:
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."
"In distinguishing good faith and bad faith possession, the Code refers to the manner of acquisition in general. 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. xxx" [22]Records disclose that prior to the construction in 1983 of petitioners' house on the land under controversy (Portions "B" and "C"), a demand letter dated April 27, 1981 was sent by private respondent to the petitioners, informing them that the land they were possessing and occupying is within his (private respondent's) titled property.
"Article 449 - He who builds ... in bad faith on the land of another, losses what is built, ... without right to indemnity."Under the aforecited Articles 449 and 450, the landowner has three alternative rights, either:
xxx xxx xxx
"Article 450 - 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, ..."
- and -
"Article 451 - In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder..."
In any event, he (landowner) is entitled to be indemnified by the builder in bad faith, pursuant to Article 451 supra.
- to appropriate what has been built without any obligation to pay indemnity therefor; or
- to demand the builder to remove what he had built; or
- to compel the builder to pay the value of the land.