PAULA MARTINEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. VICTORINO BAGANUS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.

Paula Martinez was, from December 1, 1890, the owner of a town lot situate in
a barrio of the municipality of Balayan, Province of Batangas, description
whereof is not necessary, as the property has been well identified. She was the
owner through purchase from the spouses Martin Magahis and Severina Dignasan for
the price of P70, as is recorded in the instrument executed therefor, which is
in every way valid. Jose Mojica, son of Paula Martinez, sold said lot to
Victorino Baganus for the same price, P70, on March 15, 1909, as is likewise
recorded in the instrument executed therefor, also in every way valid.

On May 22, 1913, Paula Martinez sought recovery of ownership and possession
of the lot, previously requesting that the sale thereof made by Jose Mojica to
Victorino Baganus be declared null and void.

The defendant Baganus alleged that he bought the lot from Jose Mojica with
the consent of the latter’s mother, Paula Martinez, in the belief that it
belonged to Jose Mojica and that the money with which the latter had bought it
had been earned by Jose when he was the patron of a sailboat; that he had paid
to Paula Martinez a deposit of P30 in advance and agreed to pay the P40 balance
when the instrument of sale had been executed, as was later done; that confiding
in good faith in the validity and efficacy of his acquisition, he had made
necessary and useful improvements on the lot, having built a house and a
carriage shop thereon, graded it, and planted fruit trees, all which had cost
him over P1,000.

Jose Mojica, 40 years of age, confirmed the sale he had made to Baganus for
the price of P70, having received P30 in advance and P40 later when the sale was
put on record; but he says that he made the condition that if his mother did not
agree to the sale he might take back the land and would return the money
received; and that in fact his mother did not agree to it. Upon being asked why
his mother had not for four years exercised the right of action she was now
exercising in the face of Baganus’ refusal to, return the land, he replied that
he did not know why his mother had not done so immediately; that he had always
been a farmer, and never the patron of any sailboat; that Baganus resided near
the lot under consideration.

Concepcion Mojica, 36 years of age, another child of Paula Martinez, confirms
the sale of the lot made by her brother Jose. She says that her mother ceased to
possess the lot four years ago, and two years ago she, the witness, talked with
a lawyer in order to find some way to arrange the matter or to repurchase the
land, in view of the fact that her mother was not in accord with the sale made
by her brother.

Filomena Tolentino was presented as a witness to testify that Jose Mojica
made the condition that the sale should not be carried out if his mother did not
agree to it; but this witness, who says she was a pupil of Jose Mojica’s in
1911, likewise says that before 1911 she had been in Mojica’s house and heard a
conversation between Mojica and Baganus before and after the signing of the
instrument of purchase (which was in 1909). To each of them she ascribed words
that suit the case.

Maria Alicante was also presented as a witness to prove that Paula Martinez
had paid a certain married couple as if to say that this was not the money of
any patron of a sailboat.

Victorino Baganus affirms that he arranged the sale with Paula Martinez and
paid her in advance P30. He said that the value of the improvements were: For
construction of the house, P1,000; for the warehouse, P80; and for the fruit
trees planted, P300, although they had not yet borne fruit. The only thing
impugned is the planting of the trees; counsel for the plaintiff only
acknowledged the grading of the land or lot in question.

This case was tried by the justice of the peace of the capital of Batangas,
by delegation from the Court of First Instance of the province. He decided it by
declaring null and void and of no force or effect the sale made by Jose Mojica
to Victorino Baganus and sentenced the latter to return the lot claimed to Paula
Martinez, to remove at his own expense the buildings and plants he had placed
thereon, and to pay the costs; without prejudice to the right of action he had
against Jose Mojiea, which was reserved, on the ground of ejectment.

The defendant assigned as errors to the judgment:

(1) Trial of this case by the justice of the peace who decided it when he
lacked jurisdiction and competency therefor; (2) declaration .that the lot in
litigation belongs to Paula Martinez; (3) declaration that the defendant
acquired the land in bad faith; and (4) the order for the defendant to return
the lot claimed and to remove the buildings and plants he had placed
thereon.

There is no ground for sustaining the first, second, and third assignments of
error. The justice of the peace delegated was completely vested with the
necessary competency and jurisdiction. The subject matter of the litigation,
since the price of the sale did not exceed W0, and the value of the improvements
claimed only amounts altogether to P1,380, the total of these sums is within the
provisions of section 1 of Act No. 2131. It is evident, and this was not
impugned at the trial, that the lot in litigation is the property of the
plaintiff; and the defendant acquired it in bad faith, for he himself says that
he dealt with the plaintiff, but consented that one who was not the owner of the
thing sold should appear as the vendor.

The fourth assignment of error is sustained. Even though the defendant built
and planted in bad faith, the plaintiff also acted in bad faith:

“Bad faith On the part of the owner is understood whenever the act (of
building or planting) has been executed in his presence with his knowledge and
tolerance and without objection.” (Civil Code, art. 364 par.
2.)

Concepcion Mojica, plaintiff’s daughter, two years after the sale made the
proposition, in talking with a lawyer for the purpose, that the land be
repurchased .All were present and were living in the barrio, the mother and her
two children.

“When there has been bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built,
sowed, or planted on another’s land, but also on the part of the owner thereof,
the rights of each shall be the same as if both had acted in good faith.” (Civil
Code, art. 364, par. 1.)

“The owner of the land on which building, sowing, or planting is done in good
faith shall have the right to appropriate as his own the work, sowing, Or
planting after the indemnity mentioned in articles 453 and 454, or, to oblige
the person who has built or planted, to pay to him the value of the land. * *
*.” (Civil Code, art. 361.)

Articles 453 and 454 mentioned concede the right of retention to the
possessor in good faith (as the defendant now is) who may have made necessary
and useful improvements on another’s property.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed in so far as the sale of the lot
claimed is thereby declared null and void and of no force and effect, with the
costs in first instance; and there is reserved to the defendant his right of
action against Jose Mojica to warrant the sale; but it is reversed in so far as
it orders the defendant to deliver to the plaintiff the lot claimed in the
complaint and to remove therefrom at his own expense the buildings and sowings
(plantings, not sowings) he placed thereon.

In lieu thereof, we hold that the plaintiff should recover the lot under
consideration, first indemnifying the defendant for the value of the buildings
and plantings he has placed thereon, with the right on his part to retain it
until she has reimbursed him for said necessary and useful improvements; or in
the contrary case, for the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the price of the
land, making himself the legitimate owner thereof; without special finding as to
the costs in this instance. So ordered.

Torres, Johnson, Carson, Moreland, Trent, and Araullo, JJ.,
concur.