GR L 3495; (December, 1906) (Digest)
March 5, 2026GR L 1935; (November, 1906) (Digest)
March 5, 2026G.R. No. L‑2017
November 24, 1906
—
FACTS
– The Municipality of Oas (plaintiff) asserted ownership over a tract of land it claimed formed part of the town’s public square.
– Bartolome Roa (defendant) contended he owned the same parcel, having purchased it in 1894 from José Castillo, who allegedly bought it verbally from Juan Roco (himself a buyer from Juana Ricarte and Juana Riquiza in 1876).
– Historical records showed:
1832 land bought by the parish priest for the pueblo’s benefit.
27 Feb 1892 principalĂa minutes stating the land belonged to the pueblo; signed by Roa.
31 May 1893 resolution (also signed by Roa) prohibiting reconstruction of a building on the land because the owner was the pueblo.
– Roa later erected a substantial building on the premises after acquiring the deed of information (Jan 19 1895; recorded Mar 28 1895).
– The trial court ruled in favor of the municipality; Roa appealed via a bill of exceptions, arguing (1) ownership by purchase, (2) prescription, and (3) that his admissions were not conclusive.
ISSUE
1. Whether the land in dispute is part of the public square (municipal patrimony) or privately owned by Roa.
2. What legal consequences follow when both the builder (Roa) and the municipal owner acted in bad faith, under Articles 361, 364 of the Civil Code.
RULING
– The Court held that the evidence establishing the land as municipal property (historical resolutions, the 1892 and 1893 admissions signed by Roa, and long‑standing municipal use since 1852) outweighs the unsubstantiated purchase claim.
– Roa’s signed admissions are admissible as his own admissions; they do not conclusively bar his defense but create a presumption of municipal ownership that the defendant failed to overcome.
– Prescription does not bar the municipality: Roa was not a good‑faith holder; he knew in 1894 that the grantor did not own the land.
– Both parties acted in bad faith (Roa building knowing the land was not his; the municipality allowing possession for eight years). Under Art. 364, rights are determined as if both were in good faith. Consequently, Art. 361 applies: the municipal owner may appropriate the building after indemnifying the builder, or compel the builder to pay the value of the land and reasonable rent.
– The judgment of the lower court was modified:
1. The Municipality of Oas is declared the owner of the land.
2. The municipality may purchase the building from Roa or sell the land to him, subject to indemnity under Arts. 453‑454.
3. Roa is ordered to pay the costs of both proceedings.
Thus, the land remains municipal patrimony; the builder’s structure is subject to acquisition or compensation as provided by the Civil Code.*