Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. v. CA

9/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 5

Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. Court of
Appeals
*
G.R. No. 108894. February 10, 1997.
TECNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING

CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS
(FORMER SPECIAL SEVENTEENTH DIVISION) and
EDUARDO UY, respondents.
Civil Law; Property; Unless one is versed in the science of

surveying, “no one can determine the precise extent or location of
his property by merely examining his paper title.”—We disagree
with respondent Court. The two cases it relied upon do not
support its main pronouncement that a registered owner of land
has presumptive knowledge of the metes and bounds of its own
land, and is therefore in bad faith if he mistakenly builds on an
adjoining land. Aside from the fact that those cases had factual
moorings radically different from those obtaining here, there is
nothing in those cases which would suggest, however remotely,
that bad faith is imputable to a registered owner of land when a
part of his building encroaches upon a neighbor’s land, simply
because he is supposedly presumed to know the boundaries of his
land as described in his certificate of title. No such doctrinal
statement could have been made in those cases because such
issue was not before the Supreme Court. Quite the contrary, we
have rejected such a theory in Co Tao vs. Chico, where we held
that unless one is versed in the science of surveying, “no one can
determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely
examining his paper title.”
Same; Same; Good faith consists in the belief of the builder
that the land he is building on is his, and his ignorance of any
defect or flaw in his title.—There is no question that when
petitioner purchased the land from Pariz Industries, the buildings
and other structures were already in existence. The record is not
clear as to who actually built those structures, but it may well be
assumed that petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Pariz
Industries, did so. Article 527 of the Civil Code presumes good
faith, and since no proof exists to show that the encroachment
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001744c26871fb3a4f319003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/22
over a narrow, needle-shaped portion of private respondent’s land

was done in bad faith by the builder of the encroaching
structures, the latter should be presumed to have built them in
good faith. It is presumed that possession continues to
____________________________
* THIRD DIVISION.
6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals
be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired, until

the contrary is proved. Good faith consists in the belief of the
builder that the land he is building on is his, and his ignorance of
any defect or flaw in his title. Hence, such good faith, by law,
passed on to Pariz’s successor, petitioner in this case. Further,
“(w)here one derives title to property from another, the act,
declaration, or omission of the latter, while holding the title, in
relation to the property, is evidence against the former.” And
possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character
except in case and from the moment facts exist which show that
the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the thing
improperly or wrongfully. The good faith ceases from the moment
defects in the title are made known to the possessor, by
extraneous evidence or by suit for recovery of the property by the
true owner.
Same; Same; Same; The builder, if sued by the aggrieved
landowner for recovery of possession, could have invoked the
provisions of Art. 448 of the Civil Code.—Recall that the
encroachment in the present case was caused by a very slight
deviation of the erected wall (as fence) which was supposed to run
in a straight line from point 9 to point 1 of petitioner’s lot. It was
an error which, in the context of the attendant facts, was
consistent with good faith. Consequently, the builder, if sued by
the aggrieved landowner for recovery of possession, could have
invoke the provisions of Art. 448 of the Civil Code.
Same; Same; Same; Builder can compel landowner to make a
choice between the two options: (1) to appropriate the building by
paying the indemnity required by law, or (2) sell the land to the
builder.—The obvious benefit to the builder under this article is
that, instead of being outrightly ejected from the land, he can
compel the landowner to make a choice between the two options:

(1) to appropriate the building by paying the indemnity required
by law, or (2) sell the land to the builder. The landowner cannot
refuse to exercise either option and compel instead the owner of
the building to remove it from the land.
Same; Same; Same; Petitioner is deemed to have stepped into
the shoes of the seller in regard to all rights of ownership over the
immovable sold, including the right to compel the private
respondent to exercise either of the two options provided under
Article 448 of the Civil Code.—Upon delivery of the property by
Pariz Industries, as seller, to the petitioner, as buyer, the latter
acquired ownership of
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 7
the property. Consequently and as earlier discussed, petitioner is

deemed to have stepped into the shoes of the seller in regard to all
rights of ownership over the immovable sold, including the right
to compel the private respondent to exercise either of the two
options provided under Article 448 of the Civil Code.
Same; Same; Same; The supervening awareness of the
encroachment by petitioner does not militate against its right to
claim the status of a builder in good faith.—In the context of the
established facts, we hold that petitioner did not lose its rights
under Article 448 of the Civil Code on the basis merely of the fact
that some years after acquiring the property in good faith, it
learned about—and aptly recognized—the right of private
respondent to a portion of the land occupied by its building. The
supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner does
not militate against its right to claim the status of a builder in
good faith. In fact, a judicious reading of said Article 448 will
readily show that the landowner’s exercise of his option can only
take place after the builder shall have come to know of the
intrusion—in short, when both parties shall have become aware of
it. Only then will the occasion for exercising the option arise, for it
is only then that both parties will have been aware that a problem
exists in regard to their property rights.
Same; Same; Same; The settlement may have recognized the
ownership of private respondent but such admission cannot be
equated with bad faith.—From the foregoing, it is clear that
petitioner agreed only to the demolition of a portion of the wall
separating the adjoining properties of the parties—i.e. “up to the
back of the building housing the machineries.” But that portion of

the fence which served as the wall housing the electroplating
machineries was not to be demolished. Rather, it was to “be
subject to negotiation by herein parties.” The settlement may
have recognized the ownership of private respondent but such
admission cannot be equated with bad faith. Petitioner was only
trying to avoid a litigation, one reason for entering into an
amicable settlement.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

De Jesus, Paguio & Manimtim for petitioner.

Appeals
M.R. Pamaran Law Offices and Acebes, Del Carmen,

Cinco & Cordova for private respondent.
PANGANIBAN, J.:
The parties in this case are owners of adjoining lots in

Parañaque, Metro Manila. It was discovered in a survey
that a portion of a building of petitioner, which was
presumably constructed by its predecessor-in-interest,
encroached on a portion of the lot owned by private
respondent. What are the rights and obligations of the
parties? Is petitioner considered a builder in bad faith
because, as held by respondent Court, he is “presumed to
know the metes and bounds of his property as described in
his certificate of title?” Does petitioner succeed into the
good faith or bad faith of his predecessor-in-interest which
presumably constructed the building?
These are the1
questions raised in the petition for review
of the Decision dated August2
28, 1992, in CA-G.R. CV 3No.
28293 of respondent Court where the disposition reads:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional

Trial Court is hereby reversed and set aside and another one
entered—
1. Dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action;

2. Ordering Tecnogas to pay the sum of P2,000.00 per month
as reasonable rental from October 4, 1979 until appellee
vacates the land;

3. To remove the structures and surrounding walls on the
encroached area;
4. Ordering appellee to pay the value of the land occupied by
the two-storey building;
5. Ordering appellee to pay the sum of P20,000.00 for and as
attorney’s fees;
____________________________
1 Rollo, pp. 10-17.

2 Special Seventeenth Division composed of J. Antonio M. Martinez,
ponente, and JJ. Serafin V.C. Guingona and Salome A. Montoya,
concurring.
3 Rollo, pp. 16-17.
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 9

Appeals
6. Costs against appellee.”
Acting on the motions for reconsideration of both petitioner

and private respondent, respondent Court ordered the
deletion of paragraph 4 of the dispositive portion in 4
an
Amended Decision dated February 9, 1993, as follows:
“WHEREFORE, premises considered, our decision of August 28,

1992 is hereby modified deleting paragraph 4 of the dispositive
portion of our decision which reads:
‘4. Ordering appellee to pay the value of the land occupied by

the two-storey building.’
The motion for reconsideration of appellee is hereby DENIED

for lack of merit.”
The foregoing Amended Decision is also challenged in the

instant petition.
The Facts
The facts are not disputed. Respondent Court merely

reproduced
5
the factual findings of the trial court, as
follows:
“That plaintiff (herein petitioner) which is a corporation duly

organized and existing under and by virtue of Philippine laws is
the registered owner of a parcel of land situated in Barrio San
Dionisio, Parañaque, Metro Manila known as Lot 4331-A (should
be 4531-A) of Lot 4531 of the Cadastral Survey of Parañaque,
Metro Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 409316
of the Registry of Deeds of the Province of Rizal; that said land
was purchased by plaintiff from Pariz Industries, Inc. in 1970,
together with all the buildings and improvements including the
wall existing thereon; that the defendant (herein private
respondent) is the registered owner of a parcel of land known as
Lot No. 4531-B of Lot 4531 of the Cadastral Survey of Parañaque,
LRC (GLRO) Rec. No. 19645 covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title No. 279838, of the Registry of Deeds for the Province of
Rizal; that said land which adjoins plaintiff’s land was purchased
by defendant from a certain Enrile Antonio
____________________________
4 Ibid., pp. 20-21.

5 Ibid., pp. 11-12.
10

also in 1970; that in 1971, defendant purchased another lot also

adjoining plaintiff’s land from a certain Miguel Rodriguez and the
same was registered in defendant’s name under Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 31390, of the Registry of Deeds for the
Province of Rizal; that portions of the buildings and wall bought
by plaintiff together with the land from Pariz Industries are
occupying a portion of defendant’s adjoining land; that upon
learning of the encroachment or occupation by its buildings and
wall of a portion of defendant’s land, plaintiff offered to buy from
defendant that particular portion of defendant’s land occupied by
portions of its buildings and wall with an area of 770 square
meters, more or less, but defendant, however, refused the offer. In
1973, the parties entered into a private agreement before a
certain Col. Rosales in Malacañang, wherein plaintiff agreed to
demolish the wall at the back portion of its land thus giving to
defendant possession of a portion of his land previously enclosed
by plaintiff’s wall; that defendant later filed a complaint before
the office of Municipal Engineer of Parañaque, Metro Manila as
well as before the Office of the Provincial Fiscal of Rizal against
plaintiff in connection with the encroachment or occupation by
plaintiff’s buildings and walls of a portion of its land but said
complaint did not prosper; that defendant dug or caused to be dug

a canal along plaintiff’s wall, a portion of which collapsed in June,
1980, and led to the filing by plaintiff of the supplemental
complaint in the above-entitled case and a separate criminal
complaint for malicious mischief against defendant and his wife
which ultimately resulted into the conviction in court of
defendant’s wife for the crime of malicious mischief; that while
trial of the case was in progress, plaintiff filed in Court a formal
proposal for settlement of the case but said proposal, however,
was ignored by defendant.”
6
After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court of Pasay
City, Branch 117, in Civil Case No. PQ-7631-P, rendered a
decision dated December 4, 1989 in favor of petitioner 7who
was the plaintiff therein. The dispositive portion reads:
“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff

and against defendant and ordering the latter to sell to plaintiff
that portion of land owned by him and occupied by portions of
plain-
____________________________
6 Presided by Judge Leonardo M. Rivera.

7 Rollo, p. 10.
11
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 11

tiff’s buildings and wall at the price of P2,000.00 per square meter
and to pay the former:
1. The sum of P44,000.00 to compensate for the losses in

materials and properties incurred by plaintiff through
thievery as a result of the destruction of its wall;
2. The sum of P7,500.00 as and by way of attorney’s fees; and
3. The costs of this suit.”
Appeal was duly interposed with respondent Court, which

as previously stated, reversed and set aside the decision of
the Regional Trial Court and rendered the assailed
Decision and Amended Decision. Hence, this recourse
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
The Issues
8
The petition raises the following issues:
“(A)
Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding

the petitioner a builder in bad faith because it is ‘presumed to
know the metes and bounds of his property.’
(B)
Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals erred when it

usedthe amicable settlement between the petitioner and the
privaterespondent, where both parties agreed to the demolition of
the rearportion of the fence, as estoppel amounting to recognition
by petitioner of respondent’s right over his property including the
portionsof the land where the other structures and the building
stand, whichwere not included in the settlement.
(C)
Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals erred in

ordering the removal of the ‘structures and surrounding walls on
the encroached area’ and in withdrawing its earlier ruling in its
August 28, 1992 decision for the petitioner ‘to pay for the value of
the land
____________________________
8 Ibid., pp. 106-107.
12

occupied’ by the building, only because the private respondent has

‘manifested its choice to demolish’ it despite the absence of
compulsory sale where the builder fails to pay for the land, and
which ‘choice’ private respondent deliberately deleted from its
September 1, 1980 answer to the supplemental complaint in the
Regional Trial Court.”
In its Memorandum, petitioner poses the following issues:
“A.
The time when to determine the good faith of the builder under
Article 448 of the New Civil Code, is reckoned during the period
when it was actually being built; and in a case where no evidence
was presented nor introduced as to the good faith or bad faith of
the builder at that time, as in this case, he must be presumed 9to
be a ‘builder in good faith,’ since ‘bad faith cannot be presumed.’
B.
In a specific ‘boundary overlap situation’ which involves a

builder in good faith, as in this case, it is now well settled that the
lot owner, who builds on the adjacent lot is not charged with
‘constructive notice’ of the technical metes and bounds contained
in their torrens titles to 10determine the exact and precise extent of
his boundary perimeter.
C.
The respondent court’s citation of the twin cases of Tuason &

Co. v. Lumanlan and Tuason & Co. v. Macalindong is not the
‘judicial authority’ for a boundary dispute situation between
adjacent torrens titled lot owners, as the facts of the present case
do not fall within
11
nor square with the involved principle of a
dissimilar case.
D.
Quite contrary to respondent Uy’s reasoning, petitioner

Tecnogas continues to be a builder in good faith, even if it
subsequently
____________________________
9 Ibid., p. 392.
10 Ibid., p. 399.
11 Ibid., p. 402.
13
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 13

built/repaired the walls/other permanent structures thereon while

the case a quo was pending and even while 12
respondent sent the
petitioner many letters/filed cases thereon.
D.(E.)
The amicable settlement between the parties should be

interpreted as a contract and enforced only in accordance with its
explicit terms, and not over and beyond that agreed upon; because
the courts13 do not have the power to create a contract nor expand
its scope.
E.(F.)
As a general rule, although the landowner has the option to

choose between: (1) ‘buying the building built in good faith,’ or (2)
‘selling the portion of his land on which stands the building’ under
Article 448 of the Civil Code; the first option is not absolute,
because an exception thereto, once it would be impractical for the
landowner to choose to exercise the first alternative, i.e. buy that
portion of the house standing on his land, for the whole building
might be rendered useless. The workable solution is for him to
select the second alternative, namely, to sell to the builder that
part of14 his land on which was constructed a portion of the
house.”
Private respondent, on the other hand, argues 15

that the
petition is “suffering from the following flaws:
1. It did not give the exact citations of cases decided

by the Honorable Supreme Court that allegedly
contradicts the ruling of the Hon. Court of Appeals
based on the doctrine laid down in Tuason vs.
Lumanlan case citing also Tuason vs. Macalindong
case (Supra).
2. Assuming that the doctrine in the alleged Co Tao
vs. Chico case is contradictory to the doctrine in
Tuason vs. Lumanlan and Tuason vs. Macalindong,
the two cases being more current, the same should
prevail.”
____________________________
12 Ibid., p. 410.
13 Ibid., p. 416.
14 Ibid., p. 423.
15 Ibid., p. 247.
14

Appeals
Further, private respondent contends that the following

“unmistakably” point to the bad faith of petitioner: (1)
private respondent’s purchase of the two lots, “was ahead of
the purchase by petitioner of the building and lot from
Pariz Industries”; (2) the declaration of the General
Manager of Tecnogas that the sale between petitioner and
Pariz Industries “was not registered” because of some
problems with China Banking Corporation; and (3) the
Deed of Sale in favor of petitioner was16
registered in its
name only in “the month of May 1973.”
The Court’s Ruling
The petition should be granted.
Good Faith or Bad Faith
Respondent Court, citing the 17

cases of J.M. Tuason & Co.,
Inc. vs. Vda. de Lumanlan
18
and J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc.
vs. Macalindong, ruled that petitioner “cannot be
considered in good faith” because as a land owner, it is
“presumed to know the metes and bounds of his own
property, specially if the same are reflected in a properly
issued certificate of title. One who erroneously builds on
the adjoining lot should be considered a builder in (b)ad
(f)aith, there being presumptive knowledge of the 19
Torrens
title, the area, and the extent of the boundaries.”
We disagree with respondent Court. The two cases it
relied upon do not support its main pronouncement that a
registered owner of land has presumptive knowledge of the
metes and bounds of its own land, and is therefore in bad
faith if he mistakenly builds on an adjoining land. Aside
from the fact that those cases had factual moorings
radically different from those obtaining here, there is
nothing in those cases which would suggest, however
remotely, that bad faith is imputable
____________________________
16 Ibid., pp. 253-255.

17 23 SCRA 230, April 26, 1968.
18 6 SCRA 938, December 29, 1962.
19 Rollo, p. 14.
15
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 15

Appeals
to a registered owner of land when a part of his building

encroaches upon a neighbor’s land, simply because he is
supposedly presumed to know the boundaries of his land as
described in his certificate of title. No such doctrinal
statement could have been made in those cases because
such issue was not before the Supreme Court. Quite the
contrary, we have rejected such a theory in Co Tao vs.
20
20
Chico, where we held that unless one is versed in the
science of surveying, “no one can determine the precise
extent or location of his property by merely examining his
paper title.”
There is no question that when petitioner purchased the
land from Pariz Industries, the buildings and other
structures were already in existence. The record is not
clear as to who actually built those structures, but it may
well be assumed that petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest,
Pariz Industries, did so. Article 527 of the Civil Code
presumes good faith, and since no proof exists to show that
the encroachment over a narrow, needle-shaped portion of
private respondent’s land was done in bad faith by the
builder of the encroaching structures, the 21latter should be
presumed to have built them in good faith. It is presumed
that possession continues to be enjoyed in the same
character
22
in which it was acquired, until the contrary is
proved. Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that
the land he is building on23 is his, and his ignorance of any
defect or flaw in his title. Hence, such good faith, by law,
passed on to Pariz’s successor, petitioner in this
____________________________
20 83 Phil. 543 (1949).

21 U.S. vs. Rapiñan, 1 Phil. 294, 296 (1902); City of Manila vs. del
Rosario, 5 Phil. 227, 231 (1905); Gabriel, et al. vs. Bartolome, et al., 7 Phil.
699, 706 (1907); Sideco vs. Pascua, 13 Phil. 342, 344 (1909); Arriola vs.
Gomez De la Serna, 14 Phil. 627, 629 (1909); Cea vs. Villanueva, 18 Phil.
538, 542 (1911); Bondad vs. Bondad, 34 Phil. 232, 233 (1916); Serra vs.
National Bank, 45 Phil. 907 (1924); Escritor vs. Intermediate Appellate
Court, 155 SCRA 577, 583, November 12, 1987.
22 Article 529 of the Civil Code.
23 Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253
SCRA 10, 18, February 1, 1996.
16

Appeals
case. Further, “(w)here one derives title to property from

another, the act, declaration, or omission of the latter,
while holding the title, in 24relation to the property, is
evidence against the former.” And possession acquired in
good faith does not lose this character except in case and
from the moment facts exist which show that the possessor
is not unaware
25
that he possesses the thing improperly or
wrongfully. The good faith ceases from the moment
defects in the title are made known to the possessor, by
extraneous evidence26
or by suit for recovery of the property
by the true owner.
Recall that the encroachment in the present case was
caused by a very slight deviation of the erected wall (as
fence) which was supposed to run in a straight line from
point 9 to point 1 of petitioner’s lot. It was an error which,
in the context of the attendant facts, was consistent with
good faith. Consequently, the builder, if sued by the
aggrieved landowner for recovery of possession, could have
invoked the provisions of Art. 448 of the Civil Code, which
reads:
“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.”
The obvious benefit to the builder under this article is that,

instead of being outrightly ejected from the land, he can
com-
____________________________
24 Robleza vs. Court of Appeals, 174 SCRA 354, 365, June 28, 1989
citing Section 28, Rule 130, Rules of Court.
25 Article 528 of the Civil Code.
26 Ortiz vs. Kayanan, 92 SCRA 146, 159, July 30, 1979 citing Article
528, Civil Code.
17
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 17

Appeals
pel the landowner to make a choice between the two

options: (1) to appropriate the building by paying the
indemnity required by law, or (2) sell the land to the

builder. The landowner cannot refuse to exercise either
option and compel instead27
the owner of the building to
remove it from the land.
The question, however, is whether the same benefit can
be invoked by petitioner who, as earlier stated, is not the
builder of the offending structures but possesses them as
buyer.
We answer such question in the affirmative.
In the first place, there is no sufficient showing that
petitioner was aware of the encroachment at the time it
acquired the property from Pariz Industries. We agree with
the trial court that various factors in evidence adequately
show petitioner’s lack of awareness thereof. In any case,
contrary proof has not overthrown the presumption of good
faith under Article 527 of the Civil Code, as already stated,
taken together with the disputable presumptions of the law
on evidence. These presumptions state, under Section 3(a)
of Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, that the person is
innocent of a crime or wrong; and under Section 3(ff) of
Rule 131, that the law has been obeyed. In fact, private
respondent Eduardo Uy himself was unaware of such
intrusion into his property until after 1971 when he hired a
surveyor, following his purchase of another adjoining lot, to
survey all his newly acquired lots. Upon being apprised of
the encroachment, petitioner immediately offered to buy
the area occupied by its building—a species of conduct
consistent with good faith.
In the second place, upon delivery of the property by
Pariz Industries, as seller, to the petitioner, as buyer, the
latter acquired ownership of the property. Consequently
and as earlier discussed, petitioner is deemed to have
stepped into the shoes of the seller in regard to all rights of
ownership over the immovable sold, including the right to
compel the private respondent to exercise either of the two
options provided under Article 448 of the Civil Code.
____________________________
27 Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605 (1946); Sarmiento vs. Agana, 129
SCRA 122, April 30, 1984.
18

Appeals
Estoppel
Respondent Court ruled that the amicable settlement

entered into between petitioner and private respondent
estops the former from questioning the private
respondent’s “right” over the disputed property. It held that
by undertaking to demolish the fence under said
settlement, petitioner recognized private respondent’s right
over the property, and “cannot later on compel” private
respondent “to sell to it the land
28
since” private respondent
“is under no obligation to sell.” We do not agree. Petitioner
cannot be held in estoppel for entering into the 29
amicable
settlement, the pertinent portions of which read:
“That the parties hereto have agreed that the rear portion of the
fence that separates the property of the complainant and
respondent shall be demolished up to the back of the building
housing the machineries which demolision (sic) shall be
undertaken by the complainant at anytime.
That the fence which serve(s) as a wall housing the
electroplating machineries shall not be demolished in the mean
time which portion shall be subject to negotiation by herein
parties.”
From the foregoing, it is clear that petitioner agreed only to

the demolition of a portion of the wall separating the
adjoining properties of the parties—i.e. “up to the back of
the building housing the machineries.” But that portion of
the fence which served as the wall housing the
electroplating machineries was not to be demolished.
Rather, it was to “be subject to negotiation by herein
parties.” The settlement may have recognized the
ownership of private respondent but such admission cannot
be equated with bad faith. Petitioner was only trying to
avoid a litigation, one reason for entering into an amicable
settlement. 30
As was ruled in Osmeña vs. Commission on Audit,
____________________________
28 Rollo, p. 14.
29 Original Records, p. 179.
30 238 SCRA 463, 470-471, November 29, 1994.
19
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 19

Appeals
“A compromise is a bilateral act or transaction that is expressly

acknowledged as a juridical agreement by the Civil Code and is
therein dealt with in some detail. ‘A compromise,’ declares Article
2208 of said Code, ‘is a contract whereby the parties, by making
reciprocal concessions, avoid a litigation or put an end to one
already commenced.’
x x x x x x x x x
The Civil Code not only defines and authorizes compromises, it
in fact encourages them in civil actions. Art. 2029 states that ‘The
Court shall endeavor to persuade the litigants in a civil case to
agree upon some fair compromise.’ x x x.”
In the context of the established facts, we hold that

petitioner did not lose its rights under Article 448 of the
Civil Code on the basis merely of the fact that some years
after acquiring the property in good faith, it learned about
—and aptly recognized—the right of private respondent to
a portion of the land occupied by its building. The
supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner
does not militate against its right to claim the status of a
builder in good faith. In fact, a judicious reading of said
Article 448 will readily show that the landowner’s exercise
of his option can only take place after the builder shall
have come to know of the intrusion—in short, when both
parties shall have become aware of it. Only then will the
occasion for exercising the option arise, for it is only then
that both parties will have been aware that a problem
exists in regard to their property rights.
Options of Private Respondent
What then is the applicable provision in this case which

private respondent
31
may invoke as his remedy: Article 448
or Article 450 of the Civil Code?
____________________________
31 Article 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,
planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or
that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their
former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed;
or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and
the sower the proper rent.
20

Appeals
In view of the good faith of both petitioner and private

respondent, their rights and obligations are to be governed
by Art. 448. The essential fairness of this codal provision
has been pointed out by Mme. Justice Ameurfina Melencio-
Herrera, citing Manresa and
32
applicable precedents, in the
case of Depra vs. Dumlao, to wit:
“Where the builder, planter or 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
impracticality of creating a state of forced co-ownership, the law
has provided a just 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. It is the owner of the land
who is authorized 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 213; Bernardo vs.
Bataclan, 37 Off. Gaz. 1382; Co Tao vs. Chan Chico, G.R. No.
49167, April 30, 1949; Article applied; see Cabral, et al. vs. Ibanez
[S.C.] 52 Off. Gaz. 217; Marfori vs. Velasco, [C.A.] 52 Off. Gaz.
2050).”
The private respondent’s insistence on the removal of the

encroaching structures as the proper remedy, which
respondent Court sustained in its assailed Decisions, is
thus legally flawed. This is not one of the remedies
bestowed upon him by law. It would be available only if
and when he chooses to compel the petitioner to buy the
land at
33
a reasonable price but the latter fails to pay such
price. This has not taken place.
____________________________
32 136 SCRA 475, 483, May 16, 1985.

33 Ignacio vs. Hilario, supra. In Sarmiento vs. Agana 129 SCRA 122,
126, April 30, 1984), it was held that:
“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
21
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 21

Appeals
Hence, his options are limited to: (1) appropriating the

encroaching portion of petitioner’s building after payment
of proper indemnity, or (2) obliging the latter to buy the lot
occupied by the structure. He cannot exercise a remedy of
his own liking.
Neither is petitioner’s
34
prayer that private respondent be
ordered to sell the land the proper remedy. While that was
dubbed as the “more workable solution”35 in Grana and
Torralba vs. The Court of Appeals, et al., it was not the
relief granted in that case as the landowners were directed
to exercise “within 30 days from this decision their option
to either buy the portion of the petitioners’ house on their
land or sell to said
36
petitioners the portion of their land on
which it stands.” Moreover, in Grana and Torralba, the
area involved was only 87 37square meters while this case
involves 52038square meters. In line with the case of Depra
vs. Dumlao, this case will have to be remanded to the trial
court for further proceedings to fully implement the
mandate of Art. 448. It is a rule of procedure for the
Supreme Court to strive to settle the entire controversy in
a single proceeding leaving 39
no root or branch to bear the
seeds of future litigation.
____________________________
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.”
34 Rollo, pp. 423-426.

35 109 Phil. 260, 264 (1960).
36 At p. 265.
37 In view of the compromise agreement, the encroaching wall was torn
down. As explained in private respondent’s Memorandum, the area
encroached by petitioner’s building is only 520 square meters, no longer
the original 770 referred to in the statement of facts narrated by the two
lower courts. (Rollo, p. 467).
38 Supra.
39 Heirs of Crisanta Y. Gabriel-Almoradie vs. Court of Appeals, 229
SCRA 15, 29, January 4, 1994.
22

Appeals
Petitioner, however, must also pay the rent for the property
occupied by its building as prescribed by respondent Court
from October 4, 1979, but only up to the date private
respondent serves notice of its option upon petitioner and
the trial court; that is, if such option is for private
respondent to appropriate the encroaching structure. In
such event, petitioner would have a right 40
of retention
which negates the obligation to pay rent. The rent should
however continue if the option chosen is compulsory sale,
but only up to the actual transfer of ownership.
The award of attorney’s fees by respondent Court
against petitioner is unwarranted since the action appears
to have been filed in good faith.41 Besides, there should be no
penalty on the right to litigate.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is
hereby GRANTED and the assailed Decision and the
Amended Decision are REVERSED and SET42 ASIDE. In
accordance with the case of Depra vs. Dumlao, this case is
REMANDED to the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City,
Branch 117, for further
43
proceedings consistent with
Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, as follows:
The trial court shall determine:
____________________________
40 Grana vs. Court of Appeals, supra.

41 Castillo vs. Court of Appeals, 205 SCRA 529, 537, January 27, 1992,
citing Ilocos Norte Electric Company vs. Court of Appeals, 179 SCRA 5,
November 6, 1989 and Espiritu vs. Court of Appeals, 137 SCRA 50, June
19, 1985.
42 Supra, at pp. 483-486.
43 Article 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor;
but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been
reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith
with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the
possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of
paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason
thereof.
23
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 23

Appeals
a) the present fair price of private respondent’s 520

square-meter area of land;
b) the increase in value (“plus value”) which the said
area of 520 square meters may have acquired by
reason of the existence of the portion of the building
on the area;
c) the fair market value of the encroaching portion of
the building; and
d) whether the value of said area of land is
considerably more than the fair market value of the
portion of the building thereon.
2. After said amounts shall have been determined by

competent evidence, the regional trial court shall render
judgment as follows:
a) The private respondent shall be granted a period of

fifteen (15) days within which to exercise his option
under the law (Article 448, Civil Code), whether to
appropriate the portion of the building as his own
by paying to petitioner its fair market value, or to
oblige petitioner to pay the price of said area. The
amounts to be respectively paid by petitioner and
private respondent, in accordance with the option
thus exercised by written notice of the other party
and to the court, shall be paid by the obligor within
fifteen (15) days from such notice of the option by
tendering the amount to the trial court in favor of
the party entitled to receive it;
b) If private respondent exercises the option to oblige
petitioner to pay the price of the land but the latter
rejects such purchase because, as found by the trial
court, the value of the land is considerably more
than that of the portion of the building, petitioner
shall give written notice of such rejection to private
respondent and to the trial court within fifteen (15)
days from notice of private respondent’s option to
sell the land. In that event, the parties shall be
given a period of fifteen (15) days from such notice
of rejection within which to agree upon the terms of
the lease, and give the trial court formal written
notice of the agreement and its provisos. If no
agreement is reached by the parties, the trial court,
within fifteen (15) days from and after the

termination of the said period fixed for negotiation,
shall then fix the terms of the lease provided that
the monthly rental to be fixed by the Court shall
not be less than two thousand pesos (P2,000.00) per
month, payable within the first five (5) days of each
calendar month. The period for the forced lease
shall not be more than two (2) years, counted from
the finality of the
24

Appeals
judgment, considering the long period of time since 1970

that petitioner has occupied the subject area. The rental
thus fixed shall be increased by ten percent (10%) for the
second year of the forced lease. Petitioner shall not make
any further constructions or improvements on the building.
Upon expiration of the two-year period, or upon default by
petitioner in the payment of rentals for two (2) consecutive
months, private respondent shall be entitled to terminate
the forced lease, to recover his land, and to have the portion
of the building removed by petitioner or at latter’s expense.
The rentals herein provided shall be tendered by petitioner
to the trial court for payment to private respondent, and
such tender shall constitute evidence of whether or not
compliance was made within the period fixed by the said
court.
c) In any event, petitioner shall pay private

respondent an amount computed at two thousand
pesos (P2,000.00) per month as reasonable
compensation for the occupancy of private
respondent’s land for the period counted from
October 4, 1979, up to the date private respondent
serves notice of its option to appropriate the
encroaching structures, otherwise up to the actual
transfer of ownership to petitioner or, in case a
forced lease has to be imposed, up to the
commencement date of the forced lease referred to
in the preceding paragraph;
d) The periods to be fixed by the trial court in its
decision shall be non-extendible, and upon failure of
the party obliged to tender to the trial court the
amount due to the obligee, the party entitled to

such payment shall be entitled to an order of
execution for the enforcement of payment of the
amount due and for compliance with such other
acts as may be required by the prestation due the
obligee.
No costs.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa (C.J., Chairman), Davide, Jr., Melo and

Francisco, JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment reversed and set aside. Case

remanded to court a quo for further proceedings.
Note.—Article 448 of the Civil Code does not apply to a

case where the owner of the land is the builder, sower or
25
VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 25

Carlos vs. Court of Appeals
planter who then later loses ownership of the land by sale

or donation. (Pecson vs. Court of Appeals, 244 SCRA 407
[1995])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. v. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. v. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 268

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 5

TECNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING

Civil Law; Property; Unless one is versed in the science of

over a narrow, needle-shaped portion of private respondent’s land

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

be enjoyed in the same character in which it was acquired, until

compel the landowner to make a choice between the two options:

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 7

Tecnogas Philippines Manufacturing Corp. vs. Court of Appeals

the property. Consequently and as earlier discussed, petitioner is

back of the building housing the machineries.” But that portion of

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

M.R. Pamaran Law Offices and Acebes, Del Carmen,

The parties in this case are owners of adjoining lots in

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Decision of the Regional

1. Dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action;

vacates the land;

1 Rollo, pp. 10-17.

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 9

6. Costs against appellee.”

Acting on the motions for reconsideration of both petitioner

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, our decision of August 28,

‘4. Ordering appellee to pay the value of the land occupied by

The motion for reconsideration of appellee is hereby DENIED

The foregoing Amended Decision is also challenged in the

The facts are not disputed. Respondent Court merely

“That plaintiff (herein petitioner) which is a corporation duly

4 Ibid., pp. 20-21.

10 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

also in 1970; that in 1971, defendant purchased another lot also

complaint did not prosper; that defendant dug or caused to be dug

“WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of plaintiff

6 Presided by Judge Leonardo M. Rivera.

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 11

1. The sum of P44,000.00 to compensate for the losses in

Appeal was duly interposed with respondent Court, which

Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals erred in holding

Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals erred when it

Whether or not the respondent Court of Appeals erred in

8 Ibid., pp. 106-107.

12 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

occupied’ by the building, only because the private respondent has

In its Memorandum, petitioner poses the following issues:

In a specific ‘boundary overlap situation’ which involves a

The respondent court’s citation of the twin cases of Tuason &

Quite contrary to respondent Uy’s reasoning, petitioner

VOL. 268, FEBRUARY 10, 1997 13

built/repaired the walls/other permanent structures thereon while

The amicable settlement between the parties should be

As a general rule, although the landowner has the option to

Private respondent, on the other hand, argues 15

1. It did not give the exact citations of cases decided

14 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Further, private respondent contends that the following

The Court’s Ruling