G.R. No. 157150 ; September 21, 2011
PEDRO ANGELES, Represented by ADELINA T. ANGELES, Attorney-in-Fact, Petitioner, vs. ESTELITA B. PASCUAL, MARIA THERESA PASCUAL, NERISSA PASCUAL, IMELDA PASCUAL, MA. LAARNI PASCUAL and EDWIN PASCUAL, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Pedro Angeles and the predecessor-in-interest of respondents, Regidor Pascual, were registered owners of adjacent parcels of land (Lot 5 and Lot 4, respectively) in Cabanatuan City. Each built a house on his lot, believing the boundaries were proper. The encroachment issue arose when Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company, after a foreclosure sale of the adjacent Lot 3, conducted a relocation survey and discovered Pascual’s house encroached on Lot 3, leading to Pascual’s ejection. Pascual then caused a relocation survey of his own Lot 4, which revealed that Angeles’ house occupied 252 square meters of the 318-square-meter Lot 4, leaving Pascual with only about 66 square meters. Pascual demanded rentals or removal of the encroachment, and upon Angeles’ refusal, sued for recovery of possession and damages. At trial, Pascual presented geodetic engineer Clarito Fajardo, who conducted the actual relocation survey and testified that Angeles’ house was on Lot 4. Angeles presented geodetic engineer Juan Fernandez, who prepared a sketch plan based solely on “table work” (i.e., reviewing title descriptions without a site survey) and who recommended an actual relocation survey. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Pascual, ordering Angeles to remove his house from the encroached area. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the finding of encroachment but modified the RTC’s decision by applying Article 448 of the Civil Code, giving Pascual the option to either buy the portion of Angeles’ house on his land or sell the encroached land to Angeles.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the testimony and relocation plan of geodetic engineer Fajardo over the survey plan prepared by engineer Fernandez.
2. Whether the options laid down by the Court of Appeals under Article 448 of the Civil Code were proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision.
1. On the factual issue of encroachment, the Supreme Court held that it is not a trier of facts. The petition raised questions of fact concerning the probative value of the opposing survey evidence, which are not reviewable in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. The findings of fact by the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, are conclusive upon the Court, especially as none of the recognized exceptions to the rule on factual review were present. The CA correctly upheld the RTC’s preference for the testimony and actual relocation survey of Fajardo, who conducted an on-site survey, over the “table work” sketch plan of Fernandez.
2. On the application of Article 448 of the Civil Code, the Supreme Court found no error. The CA’s modification of the RTC decision was proper, as the law provides the landowner with specific options (to appropriate the improvement after payment of indemnity, or to oblige the builder to pay the price of the land) when a builder in good faith builds on land belonging to another. The CA’s order for Pascual to exercise his option within 30 days, with the purchase price at prevailing market value, and the subsequent directives in case of inability to agree, were in accordance with established jurisprudence.