VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLANT, VS. CATALINO BATACLAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. TORIBIO TEODORO, PURCHASER AND APPELLEE.

This
is an appeal taken by both the plaintiff and the defendant from the
order of September 26, 1935, hereinbelow referred to, of the Court of
First Instance of Cavite in Civil Case No. 2423.

There is no
controversy as to the facts. By a contract of sale executed on July 17,
1920, the plaintiff herein acquired from Pastor Samonte and others
ownership of a parcel of land of about 90 hectares situated in sitio
Balayunan, Silang, Cavite. To secure possession of the land from the
vendors the said plaintiff, on July 20, 1929, instituted Civil Case No,
1935 in the Court of First Instance of Cavite. The trial court found
for the plaintiff in a decision which was affirmed by this Supreme
Court on appeal (G. R. No. 33017).^[1]
When plaintiff entered upon the premises, however, he found the
defendant herein, Catalino Bataclan, who appears to have been
authorized by former owners, as far back as 1922, to clear the land and
make improvements thereon. As Bataclan was not a party in Case No.
1935, plaintiff, on June 11, 1931, instituted against him, in the Court
of First Instance of Cavite, Civil Case No. 2428. In this case,
plaintiff was declared owner but the defendant was held to be a
possessor in good faith, entitled to reimbursement in the total sum of
P1,642, for work done and improvements made. The dispositive part of
the decision reads:

“Por las
consideraciones expuestas, se declara al demandante Vicente Santo
Domingo Bernardo dueno con derecho a la posesion del terreno que se
describe en la demanda, y al demandado Catalino Bataclan con derecho a
que el demandante le pague la suma de P1,642 por gastos utiles hechos
de buena fe en el terreno, y por el cerco y ponos de coco y abaca
existentes en el mismo, y con derecho, ademas a retener la posesion del
terreno hasta que se le pague dicha cantidad. Al demandante puede
optar, en el plazo de treinta dias, a partir de la fecha en que fuere
notificado de la presente, por pagar esa suma al demandado, haciendo
asi suyos el cerco y todas las plantaciones existentes en el terreno, u
obligar al demandado a pagarle el precio del terreno, a razon de
trescientos pesos la hectarea. En el caso de que el demandante optara
por que el demandado le pagara el precio del terreno, el demandado
efectuara el pago en el plazo conveniente por las partes o que sera
fijado por el Juzgado. Sin costas.”

Both parties appealed to this court (G. R. No. 87319).^[1]
The decision appealed from was modified by allowing the defendant to
recover compensation amounting to P2,212 and by reducing the price at
which the plaintiff could require the defendant to purchase the land in
question from P300 to P200 per hectare. Plaintiff was given by this
court 30 days from the date when the decision became final within which
to exercise his option, either to sell the land to the defendant or to
buy the improvements from him. On January 9, 1934, the plaintiff
manifested to the lower court his desire “to require the defendant to
pay him the value of the land at the rate of P200 per hectare or a
total price of P18,000 for the whole tract of land.” The defendant
informed the lower court that he was unable to pay for the land and, on
January 24, 1934, an order was issued giving the plaintiff 30 days
within which to pay the defendant the sum of P2,212 stating that, in
the event of failure to make such payment, the land would be ordered
sold at public auction “Para hacer pago al demandante de la suma de
P2,212 y el remanente despues de deducidos los gastos legales de la
venta en publica subasta sera entregado al demandante.” On
February 21, 1934, plaintiff moved to reconsider the foregoing order so
that he would have preference over the defendant in the order of
payment. The motion was denied on March 1, 1934 but on March 16
following the court below, motu proprio, modified its order of January 24, “en
el sentido de que el demandante tiene derecho preference al importe del
terreno no se vendiere en publica subasta, a razon de P200 por hectarea
y el remanente, si acaso lo hubiere se entregara at demandado en pago
de la cantidad de P2,212 por la limpieza del terreno y las mejoras
introducidas en el mismo por el citado demandado.” On April 24,
1934, the court below, at the instance of the plaintiff and without
objection on the part of the defendant, ordered the sale of the land in
question at public auction. The land was sold on April 5, 1935 to
Toribio Teodoro, the highest bidder, for P8,000. In the certificate of
sale issued to said purchaser on the very day of sale, it was stated
that the period of redemption of the land sold was to expire on April
5, 1936. Upon petition of Toribio Teodoro the court below ordered the
provincial sheriff to issue another certificate not qualified by any
equity of redemption. This was complied with by the sheriff on July 30,
1935. On September 18, 1935, Teodoro moved that ha be placed in
possession of the land purchased by him. The motion was granted by
order of September 26, 1935, the dispositive part of which is as
follows:

“Por tanto, se ordena al Sheriff
Provincial de Cavite ponga a Toribio Teodoro en posesion del terreno
comprado por el en subasta publica y por el cual se le expidio
certificado de venta definitiva, reservando al demandado su derecho de
ejercitar una accion ordinaria para reclamar del demandante la cantidad
de P2,212 a que tiene derecho por la limpieza y mejoras del terreno y
cuya suma, en justicia y equidad, debe ser descontada y deducida de la
suma de P8,000 que ya ha recibido el demandante.”

The Civil Code confirms certain time-honored principles of the law of
property. One of these is the principle of accession whereby the owner
of property acquires not only that which it produces but that which is
united to it either naturally or artificially. (Art. 353.) Whatever is
built, planted or sown on the land of another, and the improvements or
repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land (art. 358).
Where, however, the planter, builder, of sower has acted in good faith,
a conflict of rights arises between the owners and it becomes necessary
to protect the owner of the improvements without causing injustice to
the owner of the land. In view of the impracticability of creating what
Manresa calls a state of “forced coownership” (vol. 3, 4th ed., p.
213), the law has provided a just and equitable solution by giving the
owner of the land the option to acquire the improvements after payment
of the proper indemnity or to oblige the builder or planter to pay for
the land and the sower to pay the proper rent (art 361). It is the
owner of the land who is allowed to exercise the option because his
right is older and because, by the principle of accession, he is
entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing (3 Manresa, 4th ed.,
p. 213). In the case before us, the plaintiff, as owner of the land,
chose to require the defendant, as owner of the improvements, to pay
for the land.

The defendant dates that he is a possessor in
good faith and that the amount of P2,212 to which he is entitled has
not yet been paid to him. Therefore, he says, he has a right to retain
the land in accordance with the provisions of article 453 of the Civil
Code. We do not doubt the validity of the premises stated. “Considera la ley tan sagrada y legitima la deuda, que, hasta que sea pagada, no consiente que la cosa se restituya al vencedor.”
(4 Manresa. 4th ed., p., 304.) We find, however, that the defendant has
lost his right of retention. In obedience to the decision of this court
in G. R. No. 37319, the plaintiff expressed his desire to require the
defendant to pay for the value of the lard. The said defendant could
have become owner of both land and improvements and continued in
possession thereof. But he said he could not pay and the land was sold
at public auction to Toribio Teodoro. The law, as we have already said,
requires no more than that the owner of the land should choose between
indemnifying the owner of the improvements or requiring the latter to
pay for the land. When he failed to pay for the land, the defendant
herein lost his right of retention.

The sale at public
auction having been asked by the plaintiff himself (p. 22, bill of
exceptions) and the purchase price of P8,000 received by him from
Toribio Teodoro, we find no reason to justify a rupture of the
situation thus created between them, the defendant-appellant not being
entitled, after all, to recover from the plaintiff the sum of P2,212.

The judgment of the lower court is accordingly modified by eliminating
therefrom the reservation made in favor of the defendant-appellant to
recover from the plaintiff the sum of P2,212. In all other respects,
the same is affirmed, without pronouncement regarding costs. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Villa-Real, Imperial, and Diaz, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Promulgated December 6, 1980, not reported.

[1] Promulgated December 2, 1933 (59 Phil., 903).