Automat Realty and Development Corporation

AUTOMAT REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LITO CECILIA
AND LEONOR LIM, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MARCIANO DELA CRUZ, SR.

AND OFELIA DELA CRUZ, Respondents.:
G.R. No. 192026
October 01, 2014
Digested by: Lascuña, Rose Ann A.

Topic: Builder, Planter and Sower
Automat is the registered owner of two parcels of land located in Barangay Malitlit, Sta.
Rosa, Laguna, covered by TCT Nos. T-210027 and T-209077. Leonor Lim was the real
estate broker behind Automat’s purchase of the property.
The land was not occupied in 1990 when it was purchased by Automat. Ofelia dela Cruz
volunteered her services to Lim as caretaker to prevent informal settlers from entering the
property. Automat agreed, through its authorized administrator, Lim, on the condition
that the caretaker would voluntarily vacate the premises upon Automat’s demand.
Spouses’ family stayed in the property as rent-paying tenants. They cultivated and
improved the land. They shared the produced palay with Automat through its authorized
agent, Lito Cecilia. He also remitted the rentals paid by respondent Ofelia Dela Cruz to
Lim in Makati and to Automat's office in Quezon City.ed
When Automat asked the spouses to vacate the premises, the spouses refused to vacate
unless they were paid compensation. They claimed “they were agricultural tenants [who]
enjoyed security of tenure under the law.”
Whether or not the spouses are considered as builders, planters, or sowers in good
faith.
Suggested Answer:
Builder, planter, sower
In the alternative, if the facts can show that the proper case involves the Civil Code
provisions on builders, planters, and sowers, respondent spouses may be considered as
builders, planters, or sowers in good faith, provided such is proven before the proper
court.
Article 448 of the Civil Code provides that if the landowner opts to “appropriate as his
own the works, sowing or planting,” he must pay indemnity to the builder, planter, or
sower in good faith in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Code:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
ART. 448. 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.
. . . .
ART. 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.
. . . .
Art. 548. Expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the
possessor in good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with which he has embellished
the principal thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his successor in the possession
does not prefer to refund the amount expended. (Emphasis supplied)
Article 448 of the Civil Code on builders, planters, and sowers in good faith applies when
these parties have a claim of title over the property. 90 This court has expanded this
limited definition in jurisprudence:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
This Court has ruled that this provision covers only cases in which the builders, sowers or
planters believe themselves to be owners of the land or, at least, to have a claim of title
thereto. It does not apply when the interest is merely that of a holder, such as a mere
tenant, agent or usufructuary. From these pronouncements, good faith is identified by the
belief that the land is owned; or that — by some title — one has the right to build, plant,
or sow thereon.
However, in some special cases, this Court has used Article 448 by recognizing good
faith beyond this limited definition. Thus, in Del Campo v. Abesia, this provision was
applied to whose house — despite having been built at the time he was still co-owner —
overlapped with the land of another. This article was also applied to cases wherein a
builder had constructed improvements with the consent of the owner. The Court
ruled that the law deemed the builder to be in good faith. In Sarmiento v. Agana, the
builders were found to be in good faith despite their reliance on the consent of another,
whom they had mistakenly believed to be the owner of the land.

Automat Realty and Development Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Automat Realty and Development Corporation

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

Automat Realty and Development Corporation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AUTOMAT REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, LITO CECILIA

AND LEONOR LIM, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES MARCIANO DELA CRUZ, SR.

Digested by: Lascuña, Rose Ann A.

Builder, planter, sower

You might also like