GR 72876; (January, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. 72876 ; January 18, 1991
FLORENCIO IGNAO, petitioner, vs. HON. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, JUAN IGNAO, substituted by his Legal Heirs, and ISIDRO IGNAO, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Florencio Ignao and his uncles, respondents Juan and Isidro Ignao, were co-owners of a 534-square meter parcel of land. A prior action for partition resulted in a decision allotting 133.5 square meters to the respondents and the remainder to Florencio, but no actual partition was effected. Florencio later filed a complaint for recovery of possession, alleging the respondents’ houses encroached upon his allotted share. A survey confirmed the encroachment, showing the houses occupied 101 square meters of Florencio’s land.
The trial court ruled the respondents were builders in good faith, as their possession before partition was not in bad faith. Applying Article 448 of the Civil Code, the court, however, did not grant Florencio the choice prescribed by law. Instead, citing the “workable solution” from Grana v. Court of Appeals, it directly ordered Florencio to sell the encroached-upon land to the respondents at a set price. The Intermediate Appellate Court affirmed this decision.
ISSUE
Whether the appellate court erred in depriving petitioner, as landowner, of his right to choose under Article 448 of the Civil Code between appropriating the encroaching structures or selling the land.
RULING
Yes. The Supreme Court modified the decision, upholding that the respondents were builders in good faith. The legal logic is anchored on the clear and mandatory provision of Article 448, which grants the right of choice solely to the owner of the land. The owner may either appropriate the improvement after indemnifying the builder, or oblige the builder to pay the price of the land. This right is personal to the landowner and cannot be supplanted by the court’s discretion.
The lower courts contravened this explicit legal mandate by peremptorily adopting the “workable solution” from Grana and ordering the sale of the land, thereby stripping Florencio of his statutory option. The Court emphasized that while Grana discussed alternative solutions, the fundamental rule remains that the choice belongs to the landowner, not the builder or the court. Consequently, Florencio must be allowed to exercise his option. The case was remanded with instructions for Florencio to choose within thirty days, after which the corresponding obligations regarding indemnity, sale price, or reasonable rent would be determined.