MAMERTA CABRAL, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HONORABLE FIDEL IBAÑEZ, ETC, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.

On April 30, 1948, Judge Emilio Peña of the Court of First Instance of Manila
rendered in Civil Case No. 2731 of that court a decision which in substance is
to the following effect:

The plaintiffs Geronima Zabala assisted by her husband Justiniano Bernardo
filed a complaint in which’ she prayed that the defendants, Fernando, Mamerta,
and Francisco all surnamed Cabral, petitioners herein, be required to execute a
deed of sale covering a portion of land having an area of 14 square meters or to
pay damages in the sum of P10,500. The facts as stated by Judge Peña are: in
November, 1946, the plaintiffs obtained a building permit from the City Engineer
to construct a house at 1005 Fulgueras Street, Tondo, Manila, and began the
building of said house. However, in January, 1947, a surveyor of the United
States Army made a relocation and found that the house of the plaintiffs was
partly occupying a portion of the defendants’ property of 14 square meters in
area. The plaintiffs made efforts to purchase from the defendants, petitioners
herein, said 14 square meters. The transaction fell off because the consent of
the co-owner Mamerta, sister of Fernando, could not be obtained. However, the
plaintiffs advanced the sum of P560 which was received by defendant Fernando
Cabral. Judge Peña dismissed the complaint and directed the plaintiffs to remove
that part of their. house which occupied a portion of 14 square meters of the
lot of the defendants and ordered the plaintiffs to pay a rental of P5 per month
from December, 1946 until the said portion is vacated, and ordering Fernanda
Cabral to return to the plaintiffs the sum of P560.

The Court of Appeals on August 17, 1950, rendered a decision affirming that
of Judge Peña.

The defendants Mamerta Cabral, et al., petitioners herein, filed a petition
with this Court to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. This Court on
October 2, 1950, passed the following resolution:

“The petition for certiorari in L—4151, Geronima Zabala, et al., vs.
Fernando Cabral, et al., is dismissed. The only question submitted to and
decided by the Court of Appeals is whether or not the plaintiffs, the
respondents herein, have the right to occupy the lot (in question) 14 square
meters in area because defendant Fernando Cabral could not bind his co-heirs by
the. issuance of Exhibit E. The Court of Appeals in deciding the case held that,
according to the evidence, Exhibit E does not represent the true intention of
the parties or, it is not a real promise to sell but a receipt of the amount of
660 pesos handed to said Fernando Cabral to facilitate in convincing his
co-heirs to accede to the desire of plaintiffs-appellants to buy the land in
question. We cannot now review this finding of fact of the Court of Appeals. The
question of accession of good or bad faith of the builders of the house on said
lot was not raised in the court below, and, fdr that reason, the Court of
Appeals did not make any finding on that question.”

Relying on the last sentence of the above resolution which says the question
of good or bad faith of the builders of the house on said lot was not raised in
the court below, and for that reason, the Court of Appeals did not make any
finding on that question, a complaint was filed by the plaintiffs Geronima
Zabala, et al., in Civil Case No. 12463 in order to determine whether they had
possession in good faith of the 14 square meters area. The parties submitted a
stipulation of facts, paragraph 4 of which reads as follows:

“That the construction of the building of the plaintiffs was begun in
November, 1946 and when the lot was relocated during the period January 2 to 7,
1947, the plaintiffs’ building was almost finished;”

Judge Ibañez in his decision of March 19,1953, regarding the good faith of
the plaintiffs Zabala, et al., made the following finding:

“From the facts agreed upon by the parties, and from other facts not disputed
by them in their pleadings, the court concludes that,the herein plaintiffs
Geronima Zabala and her husband Justino Bernardo, constructed their house in the
belief that it was entirely within the area of their own land without knowing at
that time that part of their house was occupying a 14-square meter portion of
tho adjoining lot belonging to the defendants, and that the defendants Bernardo
M. Cabral and Mamerta M. Cabral were likewise unaware of the fact that portion
of plaintiffs’ house was extending and occupying a portion of their lot with an
area of 14 square meters, The parties came to know of the fact that part of
plaintiffs’ house was occupying part of defendants’ land when the construction
of plaintiffs’ house was about to be finished, after a relocation of the
monuments of the two properties had been made by the U. S. Army through the
Bureau of Lands, according to their ‘Stipulation of Facts,’ dated August 17,
1951.

“The Court, therefore, concludes that the plaintiffs are builders in good
faith and the relative rights of the defendant Mamerta Cabral as owner of the
land and of the plaintiffs as owners of the building is governed by Article 361
of the Civil Code (Co Tao vs. Joaquin Chan Chico, 46 Off. Gaz. 5514).
Article 361 of the old Civil Code has been reproduced with an additional
provision in Article 448 of the new Civil Code, approved June 18,
1949.”

We do not find any reason for disturbing the above finding of Judge
Ibañez.

The dispositive part of his decision, is as follows:

“Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered giving the defendant Mamerta Cabral
as owner of the land the right to etect, either to purchase that portion of
plaintiffs’ house which protrudes into her land, or to sell to the plaintiffs
ithat portion of her land upon which the said portion of plaintiffs’ house is
built, without pronouncement as to costs. After the defendant Mamerta Cabral as
owner of the land shall have rnade the election as above provided “within a
period of thirty (30) days, thjs case will be reset for the admission of
evidence on the value of the improvement in case the defendant Mamerta Cabral
elects to buy the same, or the value of the land in case she elects to sell it.”

In view of the foregoing, the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 12463 of
the Court of First Instance of Manila is hereby affirmed, without costs. With
regard to the thirty days fixed by Judge Ibañez, it should be counted from the
time this decision becomes final.

This case is returned to the court below in accordance with this decision for
further proceedings. It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista Angelo, Labrador,
Concepcion, and Reyes, J. B. L., JJ., concur.