• Ignacio v.

Hilario

Case abt property partition of relatives, where uncle’s house encroached on property of
petitioner, court ordered petitioner to sell the property encroached to the respondent, SC held that
decision is modified where petitioner has the right to choose option in acc with art 448.

• Ignao v. Intermidiate Appellate Court

Court ordered to choose an option or else house will be demolished, but no actual price of
property were stipulated, hence the judgement of the judge was void, needs to make another hearing to
distinguish of price to be sold. 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
and 453 of the Civil Code..

• Filipinas College Inc. v. Garcia Timbang,

• Manotok Realty, Inc. v. Tecson

Tecson was a builder of good faith which demanded to stay at the property while not having
been compensated, courts rendered in his favor, but SC stated art 448, land owner has the right of
option. Also good faith ceases to exist,that a person assert title to the land on which he builds; i.e., that
he be a possessor in concept of owner, and that he be unaware 'that there exists in his title or mode of
acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. also the improvements made were destroyed by fire hence
respondent has no choice but to vacate the property and return the same to the owner.

• Bernardo v. Bataclan 66 Phil.

Bataclan was entrusted/authorized by the owner to make improvements sine 1922, petitioner
chooses the option to sell land to respondent where respondent can’t buy the said land, the land was
put in an auction where the court ordered petitioner to pay the sum of 2k+ to the respondent for
improvements but decision eventually changed. Talks abt “forced ownership” , 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. 2k was not yet paid by the petitioner. The entitled payment serves as the rent of the
property he cannot pay, it cancels out the liabilities.

• Heirs of Ramon Durano, Sr. v. Uy

Facts: As far back as August 1970, a 128 hectare of land located in the barrios of Dunga and Cahumayhumayan,
Danao City. On December 27, 1973, the late Congressman Ramon Durano Sr. together with his son Ramon Durano
III, and the latter’s wide Elizabeth Hotchkins-Durano, instituted an action for damages against spouses Angeles
Sepulveda Uy and Emigdio Beng Sing Uy, Spouses Faustino Alatan and Valeriana Garro, Spouses Rufino Lavador
and Aurelia Mata, Silvestre Ramos, Hermogenes Tito, Teotimo Gonzales, Primitiva Garro, Julian Garro, Ismael
Garro, Bienvido Castro, Glicerio Alcala, Felemon Lavador, Candelario Lumantao, Garino Quimbo, Justino Tito,
Marcelino Gonzales, Salvador Duyday, Venancia Repaso, Leodegracia Gonzales, Jose dela Calzada, Restituta
Gonzales, and Cosme Ramos before branch XVII of the then Court of First Instance of Cebu, Danao City.. Herein
respondents are the possessors of the subject parcel of land which they are cultivating, it was used to be owned by
CEPCO who later sold the same to Durano & Co. On September 15, 1990, Durano & Co sold the disputed property
to petitioner Ramon Durano III, who procured the registration of these lands in his name under TCT no. T-103 and
T-104. The different parts of the entire land was bulldozed by the petitioner’s company resulting to the destruction
of plants and other products that were placed by the respondents. Hence, a claim for damages was lodged against
herein petitioner. The respondents presented tax declaration covering the different areas of the parcel of land that is
titled in each of them as proof that they are entitled for the said damages.

Issue: Whether or not the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate entity can be applied in order to make Durano &
Co liable for damages.

Held: Yes. The court of appeals applied the well-recognized principle of piercing the corporate veil, i.e. the law will
regard the act of the corporation as the ac of its individual stockholders, when it is shown that the corporation was
used merely as an alter ego by those persons in the commission of fraud or other illegal acts.

That the test in determining the applicability of the doctrine of piercing the veil of corporate fiction is as follows:

1. Control, not mere majority or complete stock control, but complete domination, not only of finances but of
policy and business practice in respect to the transaction attacked so that the corporate entity as to this
transaction had at the time no separate mind, will or existence of its own.
2. Such control must, have been used by the defendant to commit fraud or wrong, to perpetrate the violation
of statutory or other positive legal duty, on dishonest and unjust acts in contravention of plaintiff’s legal
right; and
3. The aforesaid control and breach of duty must proximately cause the injury or unjust loss complained of.

The absence of any one of these elements prevents the piercing the corporate veil. In applying the instrumentality or
alter ego doctrine, the courts are concerned with reality not form, with how the corporation operated and the
individual defendants relationship to that operation.

• Ballatan v. Court of Appeals

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the third-party complaint
against AIA. The claim that the discrepancy in the lot areas was due to AIA's fault was not proved. The
Court likewise ruled that all the parties herein are presumed to have acted in good faith. Their rights
must therefore be determined in accordance with Article 448 of the Civil Code. Article 448 has been
applied to improvements or portions of improvements built by mistaken belief on land belonging to the
adjoining owner. Thus, petitioners, as owners of Lot No. 24, may choose to purchase the improvement
made by respondents Go on their land, or sell to respondents Go the subject portion. If buying the
improvement is impractical as it may render the Go's house useless, then petitioners may sell to
respondents Go that portion of Lot No. 24 on which their improvement stands. If the Go's are unwilling
or unable to buy the lot, then they must vacate the land and, until they vacate, they must pay rent to
petitioners. Petitioners, however, cannot compel respondents Go to buy the land if its value is
considerably more than the portion of their house constructed thereon. If the value of the land is much
more than the Go's improvement, then respondents Go must pay reasonable rent. If they do not agree
on the terms of the lease, then they may go to Court to fix the same. In the event that petitioners elect
to sell to respondents Go the subject portion of their lot, the price must be fixed at the prevailing market
value at the time of payment. The Court likewise held that Article 448 of the Civil Code applies to
respondents Go as owners and possessors of their land and respondent Li Ching Yao as builder of the
improvement that encroached on thirty-seven (37) square meters of respondents Go's land.\

- Petitioner filed a case against respondents the trial court ruled in favor petition ordering
respondents to demolish their improvements and pay petitioner Ballatan actual damages,
attorney's fees and the costs of the suit. It dismissed the third-party complaint against: (1)
AIA after finding that the lots sold to the parties were in accordance with the technical
description and verification plan covered by their respective titles; (2) Jose N. Quedding,
there being no privity of relation between him and respondents Go and his erroneous
survey having been made at the instance of AIA, not the parties; and (3) Li Ching Yao for
failure to prove that he committed any wrong in the subject encroachment. 8 The court
made the following disposition
- Respondent filed a case in CA rendering liable third party which is AIA, SC held that
respondent was in good faith, negligence does not negate good faith as they
wholeheartedly stayed true to the description of land under their jurisdiction, 448 to be
applied. Hence petitioner has the right to choose an option, + 3 rd party held liable for
damages

• Spouses Fuentes v. Roca,

• Communities Cagayan, Inc. v. Spouses Nanol,

• Angeles v. Pascual,

• Sulo sa Nayon, Inc., v. Nayong Pilipino Foundation,

• Spouses Narvaez v. Spouses Alciso,

• Department of Education v. Tuliao,