GR 44606; (November, 1938) (Digest)
G.R. No. 44606 ; November 28, 1938
VICENTE STO. DOMINGO BERNARDO, plaintiff-appellant, vs. CATALINO BATACLAN, defendant-appellant. TORIBIO TEODORO, purchaser-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiff Vicente Sto. Domingo Bernardo was declared the owner of a parcel of land. Defendant Catalino Bataclan was found to be a possessor in good faith on said land, entitled to reimbursement for useful improvements amounting to P2,212. The Supreme Court, in a prior decision (G.R. No. 37319), gave the plaintiff-owner the option under Article 361 of the Civil Code to either: (1) pay the defendant for the improvements, or (2) require the defendant to pay for the land at P200 per hectare. The plaintiff opted to require the defendant to pay for the land. The defendant, however, informed the court he was unable to pay. Consequently, the land was sold at public auction upon the plaintiff’s instance, and was purchased by Toribio Teodoro for P8,000. The plaintiff received the proceeds. The lower court, in ordering Teodoro placed in possession, reserved the defendant’s right to recover the P2,212 from the plaintiff. Both plaintiff and defendant appealed.
ISSUE
Did the defendant, as a possessor in good faith, retain the right to recover the value of his improvements from the plaintiff after the land was sold at public auction and the plaintiff received the proceeds?
RULING
No. The defendant lost his right of retention and his right to recover the sum from the plaintiff. The law grants the owner of the land the option to settle the conflict of rights. The plaintiff validly exercised his option by requiring the defendant to pay for the land. When the defendant failed to pay, the land was correctly sold at public auction. The plaintiff, having asked for the sale and received the purchase price, cannot now be required to pay the defendant for the improvements. The defendant’s right of retention under Article 453 of the Civil Code is predicated on the non-payment of the indemnity, but this right was extinguished when he failed to avail of the option to purchase the land and the property was sold to a third party. The lower court’s order was modified by eliminating the reservation allowing the defendant to recover P2,212 from the plaintiff.
AI Generated by Armztrong.