Ballatan vs. CA

2. Ballatan vs.
Court of Appeals move their improvements and since the

G.R. no. 125683, March 2, 1999 latter wasn’t answering the petitioner filed
accion publiciana in court. Go’s filed their
Good faith is always presumed, and upon “Answer with Third-Party Complaint”
him who alleges bad faith on the part of a impleading as third party defendants
possessor rests the burden of proof. respondents Li Ching Yao, the AIA and
Engineer Quedding.
The instant case arose from a dispute over
forty-two (42) square meters of residential RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner ordering
land belonging to petitioners. The parties respondent Go to demolish their
herein are owners of adjacent lots located at improvements and pay damages to
Block No. 3, Poinsettia Street, Araneta Petitioner but dismissing the third-party
University Village, Malabon, Metro Manila. complaint. CA affirmed the dismissal of the
third party-complaint as to AIA but
Eden Ballatan, petitioner, owns Lot no. 24. reinstated the the complaint against Yao and
While Lot no. 25 and 26 was owned by the Engineer Jose Quedding. CA also
Gonzalo Go, Sr. the father of respondent affirmed the demolition and damages
Winston Go. And Li Ching Yao owns Lot awarded to petitioner and added that Yao
no. 27. should also pay respondent for his
encroachment of respondent Go’s property.
When Ballatan constructed her house in her Jose Quedding was also ordered to pay
lot, she noticed that the concrete fence and attorney’s fees for his negligence which
side pathway of the adjoining house of caused the problem in the present case.
respondent Winston Go encroached on the
entire length of the eastern side of her ISSUE: WON the RTC is correct in
property. She was informed by her awarding damages to the Petitioner.
contractor of this discrepancy, who then told
respondent Go of the same. Respondent, HELD:
however, claims that his house was built
within the parameters of his father’s lot; and The RTC was incorrect in awarding
that this lot was surveyed by engineer Jose damages to the petitioner. The parties in the
Quedding, the authorized surveyor of present case are builders in good faith.
Araneta Institute of Agriculture (AIA). Therefore the applicable provision of law is
Art. 448 of the Civil Code.
Petitioner called the attention of AIA on the
matter and so the latter authorized another Under the law in case of builder of good
survey of the land by Engineer Quedding. faith, the owner of the land on which
The latter then did the survey twice, he anything has been built, sown or planted in
found that Lot No. 24 lost approximately 25 good faith shall have the right to appropriate
square meters on its eastern boundary, that as his own the building, planting or sowing,
Lot No. 25, although found to have after payment to the builder, planter or
encroached on Lot No. 24, did not lose nor sower of the necessary and useful expenses,
gain any area; that Lot No. 26 lost some and in the proper case, expenses for pure
three (3) square meters which, however, luxury or mere pleasure. The owner of the
were gained by Lot No. 27 on its western land may also oblige the builder, planter or
boundary. In short, Lots Nos. 25, 26 and 27 sower to purchase and pay the price of the
moved westward to the eastern boundary of land. If the owner chooses to sell his land,
Lot No. 24. the builder, planter or sower must purchase
the land, otherwise the owner may remove
On the basis of such Ballatan made written the improvements thereon. The builder,
demands to the respondent to dismantle and planter or sower, however, is not obliged to
purchase the land if its value is considerably
more than the building, planting or sowing.
In such case, the builder, planter or sower
must pay rent to the owner of the land. If the
parties cannot come to terms over the
conditions of the lease, the court must fix
the terms thereof. The right to choose
between appropriating the improvement or
selling the land on which the improvement
of the builder, planter or sower stands, is
given to the owner of the land

Ballatan vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ballatan vs. CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Ballatan vs. CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2. Ballatan vs.

Court of Appeals move their improvements and since the

You might also like