GR L 2812; (October, 1906) (Digest)
G.R. No. L‑2812 (October 18, 1906)
FACTS
– The dispute concerns Lot 521, Calle Real, Malate, Manila, and the house standing thereon.
– Plaintiff‑appellee Longinos Javier, as judicial administrator of the estate of his father Manuel Javier, asserted ownership of the land.
– Defendants‑appellants Segundo Javier, his wife Isabel Hernández, and Manuel Ramon Javier occupied the land and erected a house, claiming ownership and a good‑faith right to retain the house and collect rentals.
– The trial court held that the land belongs to the estate (plaintiff) while the house is owned by the defendants; it ordered the plaintiff to regain possession of the land, permitting the defendants a reasonable time to remove the house.
ISSUE
1. Whether a judicial administrator may institute an action for recovery of possession of real property belonging to the decedent’s estate.
2. Whether the defendants are “possessor in good faith” under Art. 433‑451 of the Civil Code, thereby exempt from rent liability and entitled to reimbursement for improvements under Art. 453.
3. Whether a “community of property” arises from the defendants’ ownership of the house and the plaintiff’s ownership of the land, obligating the plaintiff to pay for the house.
RULING
– The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court.
– (1) An administrator has statutory authority to sue for possession of estate assets (cf. Alfonso v. Natividad, secs. 702‑704, CPC).
– (2) The defendants are not possessor in good faith; they expressly acknowledged that the land belonged to the estate, disqualifying them from the rent‑exemption provisions of Arts 451‑453. Consequently, they are liable for rentals accruing only from the date of demand (April 24 1904) and are not entitled to reimbursement for the house’s construction.
– (3) No community of property exists; ownership of the house by the defendants and of the land by the plaintiff does not create a co‑ownership relationship under Title III, Book II of the Civil Code. The burden of proof to show consensual improvement (Art. 397) was not met.
– The judgment ordering possession to the plaintiff and allowing removal of the house stands; costs are imposed on the appellants.
Thus, the lower court’s decision is upheld, and the appellants bear the costs of this appeal.