FRANCISCO MARIANO, PETITIONER VS. APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS AND THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RESPONDENT.

Mariano versus De los Santos

The Case

This is an action for recovery of possession of a parcel of land, indemnity for its use, and damages, brought by Apolonio de los Santos against Francisco Mariano and his son-in-law Pantaleon Francisco in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga. The case matters because it fixes two rules every Bar candidate must carry: a homestead applicant who holds land under an approved application is legally in possession and may be protected in that possession even before a patent is issued, and a planter who violates the very agreement under which he was allowed to plant is not a possessor or planter in good faith and earns no right of retention or compensation for his improvements.

Procedural History

Apolonio de los Santos commenced the action in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga to recover possession of the land, indemnity for its use, and damages and costs. The defendants moved to dismiss on the ground that the land formed part of the public domain and fell within the exclusive control of the Director of Lands, and in the alternative prayed that should possession be adjudged to the plaintiff, the plaintiff be ordered to pay Francisco Mariano nine thousand pesos for the improvements. After trial, the trial court ordered Francisco Mariano to surrender possession of the land and its improvements to the plaintiff and to pay costs, but denied the plaintiff damages and denied Mariano compensation for improvements. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. The case then reached the Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari by way of appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Facts

The land in dispute, identified as lot number 270 of the Lamitan, Basilan cadastre, had been in the possession of the plaintiff for many years before the last world war. He applied for it as a homestead, and his application was approved on February 16, 1937. About the year 1934, before that approval, Francisco Mariano entered into an agreement with the plaintiff to work on the land. Under that first agreement, Mariano would plant coconut trees for the use and benefit of the plaintiff, and in consideration he could gather nuts for seedling and for his own use from the trees already there, while all the products of minor crops such as corn, palay, and sugarcane would be his.

After a dispute in 1937 over the manner the coconuts were being planted, Mariano stopped working and left. In 1939, at the behest of his wife, he returned and agreed to new conditions: he would no longer plant coconuts nor benefit from the nuts of the trees on the land, and from all minor crops he would give the plaintiff one fourth of the corn crop, one fifth of the palay crop, and one fourth of the sugarcane crop. He and his son-in-law then planted palay, corn, and sugarcane, but Mariano never gave the plaintiff his share despite letters demanding it. In 1944, when the plaintiff complained to the chief of police, Mariano signed a document promising to vacate the land in April of that year or pay damages, yet he did not comply and instead planted more coconut and other trees.

Mariano filed with the Bureau of Lands a claim for four thousand pesos representing the value of his improvements. The Director of Lands ordered the plaintiff to amend his homestead application by excluding the portion improved by Mariano and ordered Mariano to file his own homestead application for that portion, which he did. On appeal, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources annulled that decision and advised the parties to go to court, since Mariano was not claiming the land but only the improvements. The Court of Appeals found that Mariano had planted seven hundred coconut trees, of which two hundred fifty were already bearing, ninety bearing coffee trees and twenty-four younger ones, five marang trees, two orange trees, and one lanson tree.

Issues

• Whether or not the plaintiff, holding the land only under an approved homestead application and without a patent, may eject the defendant and be protected in his possession.
• Whether or not the defendant Mariano is entitled to compensation for the improvements he introduced, or to retain the premises until paid, as a planter or possessor in good faith.

Applicable Provisions

Article 446 of the old Civil Code, now Article 539 of the new Civil Code, provides:

Every possessor has a right to be respected in his possession; and should he be disturbed therein he shall be protected in or restored to said possession by the means established by the laws of procedure.

This is the basis for protecting the plaintiff's possession under his approved homestead application even without a patent.

Articles 361 and 453 of the old Civil Code, invoked by Mariano, guarantee to a planter or possessor in good faith the right to retain the premises until the value of the improvements introduced by him is paid. The Court denied their application because Mariano was not a possessor or planter in good faith.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that even supposing the plaintiff had not yet been issued a patent for his homestead, the fact is that he holds the land under a homestead application approved in 1937. His possession is permitted, and in fact required, by the Public Land Act, for he has to improve the land within a certain period or lose his preferential right to it. Being legally in possession, he is entitled to be respected in that possession and, when deprived of it, may avail of the means established by the laws of procedure to regain it.

On the second issue, the Court held that Mariano is not entitled to compensation. The trees were planted under specific conditions. Under the first agreement, the trees were planted for the use and benefit of the plaintiff, in consideration of which Mariano was made beneficiary of all the minor crops. Under the later agreement, he was not supposed to plant any big trees but only minor crops, of which he was to give the plaintiff his share. He never did, and on top of that he refused to vacate the land, continued to enjoy its produce, and planted big trees in disregard of the agreement. These circumstances could not be considered those of a possessor or planter in good faith. Having already obtained the consideration for his labor, he is clearly not entitled to any further compensation. The Court added that even supposing he was entitled to some compensation, it is sufficiently offset by the benefits he already obtained from the land.

Doctrine

A homestead applicant holding land under an approved application is legally in possession and is entitled to be respected in that possession under Article 446 of the old Civil Code, now Article 539 of the new Civil Code, even before a patent is issued, because the Public Land Act permits and in fact requires him to improve the land within a certain period or lose his preferential right.

The right of retention and compensation for improvements under Articles 361 and 453 of the old Civil Code belongs only to a planter or possessor in good faith. One who plants in violation of the very agreement under which he was allowed to enter and work the land, who withholds the owner's agreed share of the crops, who refuses to vacate despite his promise, and who continues to enjoy the produce while planting big trees in disregard of the agreement, is not a possessor or planter in good faith and earns no compensation.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from, with costs against the appellant Francisco Mariano, so that the plaintiff Apolonio de los Santos won possession of the land and its improvements without any obligation to pay compensation.

Remember This

Memorize this line: an approved homestead applicant is legally in possession even without a patent, and a planter who violates the agreement under which he planted is not a possessor in good faith and gets no compensation or right of retention. Examiners use this case on the possessory rights of homestead applicants before patent, and on the good faith requirement for the right of retention and compensation for improvements under the old Civil Code articles on possession.