PACITA R. BUENCONSEJO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE, VS. ANGIE LUCIANO, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
ANTONIO-VALENZUELA, J.:
(“assailed Decision) issued by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 160,
Pasig City (San Juan Station; “RTC”), in a civil case for recovery of
ownership and possession of real property, and damages, docketed as
Civil Case Number 70009.
The facts are as follows: On 05 June 2006, Pacita R. Buenconsejo (“plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo”) filed the Complaint[3]
for recovery of ownership and possession of real property, and damages,
against Angie Luciano (“defendant-appellant Luciano”) before the RTC.
The Complaint alleged: plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo was the
registered co-owner of a parcel of land with an area of 857 square
meters, located at No. 129 F. Manalo Street, Barangay Maytuna, San Juan,
Metro Manila covered under Transfer Certificate of Title Number 3204-R,
and Tax Declaration Number 96-07513 (“subject property”);
plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo was the same person as Paz S. Roque whose
name appears as one of the co-owners in TCT No. 3204-R;
plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo was known as “Carmen Paz S. Roque” before
she married Julian Buenconsejo (“Julian”) in 1955; sometime in October
2002, defendant-appellant Luciano constructed a 3-storey residential
house on the southeastern portion of the subject property, through
strategy and stealth, and against plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo’s
express objection; plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo made oral and written
demands upon defendant-appellant Luciano to vacate and surrender
possession of the subject property, but the latter did not heed the
demands; on 25 October 2002, plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo advised
defendant-appellant Luciano that the construction was illegal, and hence
he should discontinued with it.
The Complaint prayed that:
defendant-appellant Luciano and all person claiming rights under her be
ordered to vacate the subject property; the 3-storey residential house
be demolished; defendant-appellant Luciano be ordered to pay P 10,000.00
per month, from October 2002 up to the time she surrenders possession
of the subject property, as reasonable compensation; defendant-appellant
Luciano be ordered to pay P 100,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and costs of
suit; other just and equitable relief be granted.
On 05 July 2004, defendant-appellant Luciano filed the Answer[4],
which alleged: defendant-appellant Luciano’s parents had been in
possession of the lot situated at 136 (not number “129”) F. Manalo
Street, San Juan, Metro Manila (“Lot No. 136”) since 1975;
defendant-appellant Luciano inherited the right of possession from her
parents; defendant-appellant Luciano was in actual, lawful and peaceful
possession of Lot 136; Lot 136 was a government lot; the RTC had no
jurisdiction over the action, because by alleging the employment of
“strategy and stealth,” the Complaint alleged elements of forcible entry
and not recovery of ownership and possession.
By way of compulsory counterclaim, defendant-appellant Luciano
prayed for the award of P 50,000.00 as actual, moral and exemplary
damages, and P 50,000.00 as attorney’s fees.
Referral to the Philippine Mediation was futile.
Trial ensued.
The following persons testified for plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo:
plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo; Elizabeth T. Asis (“Asis”); and Julian.
The evidence for plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo is summarized,
thus: plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo and Carmen Paz S. Roque were one
and the same person (as per the Certificate of Birth[5], Diploma[6], Marriage Contract[7], Power of Attorney dated 25 January 1990[8], and Affidavit dated 16 June 1999[9]);
plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo and Remedios S. Roque (“Remedios”) were
the registered co-owners of the subject property under TCT No. 3204-R[10]; plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo and Remedios declared the subject property for taxation purposes[11]; plaintiff-appellee paid real property tax due on the subject property for the year 2007[12]; the 3-storey residential building was constructed within the subject property (as per Relocation Survey Plan[13], Structural Survey Report[14], Structural Plan[15], and photographs of the subject property[16]);
defendant-appellant Luciano was advised that the construction of the
residential building was illegal, and a demand was made upon her to
cease and desist from the construction.[17]
The following persons testified for defendant-appellant Luciano:
defendant-appellant Luciano; and Myrna Magallano (“Magallano”).
The evidence for defendant-appellant Luciano is summarized,
thus: defendant-appellant Luciano’s family had been residents of 136 F.
Manalo Street, San Juan City since the 1970s; Magallano and her husband,
defendant-appellant Luciano’s parents, had been in possession of Lot
136 since 1974, when they built a semi-concrete house on it; in 2002,
Magallano and her husband transferred the possession of Lot 136 to their
eldest child, defendant-appellant Luciano; in the same year,
defendant-appellant Luciano built the 3-storey residential building[18]
on Lot 136; the subject property (i.e., 129 F. Manalo Street) was
situated near the Lot 136 occupied by defendant-appellant Luciano;
defendant-appellant Luciano did not know plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo
until the filing of the civil action; defendant-appellant Luciano
suffered shock, sleepless nights, and stress when she received the
letter informing her that plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo was the owner
of Lot 136.[19]
On 12 August 2011, the RTC issued the assailed Decision. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision read:
WHEREFORE, defendant and all persons claiming rights under her
are hereby ordered as follows: (1.) to vacate the premises known as No.
136 F. Manalo Street, Barangay Maytunas, San Juan, Metro Manila and
surrender possession thereof to plaintiff; (2.) to pay plaintiff
reasonable compensation for her occupancy of the premises in the sum of
P5,000.00 a month, counted from the filing of the complaint up to the
time she surrenders possession thereof to plaintiff with interest at the
legal rate; and (3.) to pay plaintiff P20,000.00 as and by way of
attorney’s fees, plus the cost of this suit.SO ORDERED.[20]
Thus, this appeal, with the following assignment of error:
THE TRIAL COURT GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT APPLYING ARTICLE
448 OF THE NEW CIVIL CODE, NOTWITHSTANDING THE DEFENDANT-APPELLANT’S
GOOD FAITH.[21]
The issue is whether the RTC erred in issuing the assailed
Decision, insofar as it found defendant-appellant Luciano a builder in
bad faith.
The Brief for the Defendant-Appellant[22]
answers in the affirmative. The RTC erred in issuing the assailed
Decision, insofar as it found defendant-appellant Luciano a builder in
bad faith. It thrusts: in 1974, defendant-appellant Luciano’s parents
started occupying the subject property in good faith, believing it was
government property; her parents built a house on the subject property,
and resided there with their family for almost 20 years;
defendant-appellant Luciano’s parents maintained open, public, adverse,
continuous, and uninterrupted possession in the concept of owners; in
2002, defendant-appellant Luciano’s parents transferred the possession
of the subject property and the house to her; in the same year,
defendant-appellant Luciano started the gradual renovation of the house;
plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo made demands upon defendant-appellant
Luciano to cease the renovations, but the latter did not accede to the
demands; defendant-appellant Luciano did not desist from renovating, as
she was not among the named defendants in the ejectment suits that
plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo filed, and she strongly believed the
subject property was government property; defendant-appellant Luciano
was a builder in good faith; plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo should
exercise the option to sell the subject property or appropriate the
improvements.
The Brief for Plaintiff-Appellee[23]
answers in the negative. The RTC did not err in issuing the assailed
Decision, insofar as it found defendant-appellant Luciano a builder in
bad faith. It parries: plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo was the
registered owner of the subject property under TCT No. 3204-R; she also
declared the subject property for taxation purposes, and paid for real
property taxes; as registered owner, plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo had
the rights to the possession, enjoyment, and recovery of the subject
property; plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo may make demands to vacate upon
defendant-appellant Luciano; defendant-appellant Luciano was a builder
in bad faith; during the construction of defendant-appellant Luciano’s
house, plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo warned her to desist because the
construction encroached upon the subject property; despite
plaintiff-appellee Buenconsejo’s warnings, defendant-appellant Luciano
continued and finished the construction; Articles 449, 450, and 452 of
the New Civil Code were applicable; defendant-appellant Luciano’s claim
that she believed the subject property to be government property was an
admission that she knew she did not own the subject property, and a
badge of bad faith; defendant-appellant Luciano was not entitled to
reimbursement.
THE COURT’S RULING
We rule in the negative. The RTC did not err in issuing the
assailed Decision, insofar as it found defendant-appellant Luciano a
builder in bad faith.
Defendant-appellant Luciano argues that she was a builder in good faith, thus Article 448 of the New Civil Code is applicable.
We disagree. Defendant-appellant Luciano was not a builder in good faith, thus, Article 448 of the New Civil Code[24] is not applicable.
A builder in good faith (who is entitled to the rights
identified in Article 448 of the New Civil Code) is one who builds with
the belief that the land he is building on is his, or that by some title
one has the right to build thereon, and is ignorant of any defect or
flaw in his title.[25]
In this case, defendant-appellant Luciano cannot be considered
a builder in good faith. First: defendant-appellant Luciano admitted
that she believed the subject property to be owned by the government.
Her admission shows that prior to the construction of the 3-storey
residential building, she knew that her parents did not own Lot 136,
thus could not transfer any real right to her. Second:
defendant-appellant Luciano admitted receipt of plaintiff-appellee
Buenconsejo’s advise that the latter owned the subject property, and
demand to cease the construction. From this, it is clear that
defendant-appellant Luciano was made aware of an adverse claim on the
subject property. Despite such advise, defendant-appellant Luciano
continued the construction.
It is clear therefore that:
defendant-appellant Luciano had no title upon which to base her claim of
ownership over the portion of the subject property that she occupies;
she knew (was not ignorant) of an adverse claim on the subject property,
yet continued her construction absent any clarification. Thus,
defendant-appellant Luciano is not a builder in good faith.
We DISMISS the appeal, and AFFIRM the
Decision dated 12 August 2011 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 160,
Pasig City (San Juan Station), in Civil Case Number 70009.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Veloso (Chairperson) and Lantion, JJ., concur.
[1] CA Rollo, p. 48.
[2] Records, p. 236.
[3] Records, p. 02.
[4] Records, p. 19.
[5] Exhibit “J,” Records, p. 133.
[6] Exhibit “N,” Records, p. 137.
[7] Exhibit “O,” Records, p. 138.
[8] Exhibits “I” and “I-1,” Records, pp. 131-132.
[9] Exhibit “H,” Records, p. 131.
[10] Exhibit “A,” Records, p. 121.
[11] Tax Declaration No. 96-07513, Exhibit “B,” Records, p. 122.
[12] Official Receipt No. 7116446, Exhibit “C,” Records, p. 123.
[13] Exhibits “D” and “D-1,” Records, p. 124.
[14] Exhibits “E” and “E-1,” Records, p. 125.
[15] Exhibit “F,” Records, p. 127.
[16] Exhibits “G” to “G-11,” “1” and “1-a,” Records, pp. 128-129.
[17] Exhibits “K” and “K-1,” Records, p. 134.
[18] Supra, at note 16.
[19] T.S.N.s dated 29 June 2009 and 09 November 2009.
[20] Supra, at note 2.
[21] Supra, at note 1.
[22] Id.
[23] CA Rollo, p. 88.
[24] Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,
sown or planted in good faith, shall
have the right to appropriate as
his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity
provided for in Articles 546 and
548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the
land, and the one who sowed, the
proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy
the land if its value is
considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he
shall pay
reasonable rent, if the owner of
the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after
proper
indemnity. The parties shall
agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court
shall fix the terms thereof.
(361a)
[25] Rosales v. Castelltort, et
al., G.R. No. 157044, 05 October 2005, citing Macasaet v. Macasaet, 439
SCRA 625, 644 (2004); Orquiola
v. Court of Appeals, 386 SCRA 301, 310 (2002); Evadel Realty and
Development Corporation v.
Soriano, 357 SCRA 395, 403 (2001); Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing
Corporation v. Court of Appeals,
268 SCRA 5, 15 (1997); Pleasantville Development Corporation v.
Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10,
18 (1996).