LEONILA SARMIENTO, PETITIONER, VS. HON. ENRIQUE A. AGANA, DISTRICT JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF RIZAL, SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, BRANCH XXVIII, PASAY CITY, AND SPOUSES ERN…

This Petition for Certiorari questions a March 29, 1979
Decision rendered by the then Court of First Instance of Pasay City.
The Decision was one made on memoranda, pursuant to the provisions of RA
6031, and it modified, on October 17, 1977, a judgment of the then
Municipal Court of Parañaque, Rizal, in an Ejectment suit instituted by
herein petitioner Leonila SARMIENTO against private respondends, the
spouses ERNESTO Valentino and Rebecca Lorenzo. For the facts,
therefore, we have to look to the evidence presented by the parties at
the original level.

It appears that while ERNESTO was still courting his wife, the latter’s
mother had told him the couple could build a RESIDENTIAL HOUSE on a lot
of 145 sq. ms., being Lot D of a subdivision in Parañaque (the LAND, for
short). In 1967, ERNESTO did construct a RESIDENTIAL HOUSE on the LAND
at a cost of P8,000.00 to P10,000.00. It was probably assumed that the
wife’s mother was the owner of the LAND and that, eventually, it would
somehow be transferred to the spouses.

It subsequently turned out that the LAND had been titled in the name of
Mr. & Mrs. Jose C. Santos, Jr. who, on September 7, 1974, sold the
same to petitioner SARMIENTO. The following January 6, 1975, SARMIENTO
asked ERNESTO and wife to vacate and, on April 21, 1975, filed an
Ejectment suit against them. In the evidentiary hearings before the
Municipal Court, SARMIENTO submitted the deed of sale of the LAND in her
favor, which showed the price to be P15,000.00. On the other hand,
ERNESTO testified that the then cost of the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE would be
from P30,000.00 to P40,000.00. The figures were not questioned by
SARMIENTO.

The Municipal Court found that private respondents had built the
RESIDENTIAL HOUSE in good faith, and, disregarding the testimony of
ERNESTO, that it had a value of P20,000.00. It then ordered ERNESTO and
wife to vacate the LAND after SARMIENTO has paid them the mentioned sum
of P20,000.00.

The Ejectment suit was elevated to the Court of First Instance of Pasay
where, after the submission of memoranda, said Court rendered a
modifying Decision under Article 448 of the Civil Code. SARMIENTO was
required, within 60 days, to exercise the option to reimburse ERNESTO
and wife the sum of P40,000.00 as the value of the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, or
the option to allow them to purchase the LAND for P25,000.00.
SARMIENTO did not exercise any of the two options within the indicated
period, and ERNESTO was then allowed to deposit the sum of P25,000.00
with the Court as the purchase price for the LAND. This is the hub of
the controversy. SARMIENTO then instituted the instant Certiorari proceedings.

We agree that ERNESTO and wife were builders in good faith in view of
the peculiar circumstances under which they had constructed the
RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. As far as they knew, the LAND was owned by ERNESTO’s
mother-in-law who, having stated they could build on the property,
could reasonably be expected to later on give them the LAND.

In regards to builders in good faith, Article 448 of the Code provides:

“ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been build, 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.” (Paragraphing
supplied)

The value of the LAND, purchased for P15,000.00 on September 7, 1974,
could not have been very much more than that amount during the following
January when ERNESTO and wife were asked to vacate. However, ERNESTO
and wife have not questioned the P25,000.00 valuation determined by the
Court of First Instance.

In regards to the valuation of the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, the only evidence
presented was the testimony of ERNESTO that its worth at the time of the
trial should be from P30,000.00 to P40,000.00. The Municipal Court
chose to assess its value at P20,000.00, or below the minimum testified
by ERNESTO, while the Court of First Instance chose the maximum of
P40,000.00. In the latter case, it cannot be said that the Court of
First Instance had abused its discretion.

The challenged decision of respondent Court, based on valuations of
P25,000.00 for the LAND and P40,000.00 for the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, cannot
be viewed as not supported by the evidence. The provision for the
exercise by petitioner SARMIENTO of either the option to indemnify
private respondents in the amount of P40,000.00, or the option to allow
private respondents to purchase the LAND at P25,000.00, in our opinion,
was a correct decision.

“The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned
by another, is entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is
paid the value of his building, under article 453 (now Article 546).
The owner of the land, upon the other hand, has the option, under
article 361 (now Article 448), either to pay for the building or to sell
his land to the owner of the building. But he cannot, as respondents here did, refuse both to pay for the building and to sell the land and
compel the owner of the building to remove it from the land where it is
erected. He is entitled to such remotion only when, after having
chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same.
(underscoring ours)

“We hold, therefore, that the order of Judge Natividad compelling
defendants-petitioners to remove their buildings from the land belonging
to plaintiffs-respondents only because the latter chose neither to pay
for such buildings nor to sell the land, is null and void, for it amends
substantially the judgment sought to be executed and is, furthermore,
offensive to articles 361 (now Article 448) and 453 (now Article 546) of
the Civil Code.” (Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605, 608 [1946]).

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby ordered dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Plana, Relova, Gutierrez, Jr., and De la Fuente, JJ., concur.