GR L 7376; (May, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7376 May 31, 1955
FRANCISCO MARIANO, petitioner, vs. APOLONIO DE LOS SANTOS and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
The action was commenced by Apolonio de los Santos in the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga to recover possession of a piece of land, identified as lot No. 270 of the Lamitan (Basilan) Cadastre. De los Santos had been in possession of the land for many years prior to the last world war, applied for it as a homestead (HA No. 9520), and his application was approved on February 16, 1937. The defendant, Francisco Mariano, entered the land in 1934 under an agreement with de los Santos to work on it. Initially, Mariano planted coconut trees for the benefit of de los Santos, in exchange for the right to harvest minor crops for himself. Due to a dispute in 1937, Mariano left but returned in 1939 under a new agreement: he would no longer plant coconuts or benefit from existing trees, and would give de los Santos a share of minor crops (1/4 of corn, 1/5 of palay, 1/4 of sugarcane). Mariano failed to give de los Santos his share of the crops. In 1944, Mariano promised in writing to vacate the land by April but did not; instead, he planted more coconut and other trees. Mariano claimed he was entitled to compensation for improvements (700 coconut trees, 90 coffee trees, etc.) and argued the court lacked jurisdiction as the land was part of the public domain. The trial court ordered Mariano to surrender possession, denying both damages to de los Santos and compensation for improvements to Mariano. The Court of Appeals affirmed this judgment.
ISSUE
1. Whether the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter given the land was part of the public domain under a homestead application.
2. Whether Mariano, as a possessor or planter, was entitled to compensation for the improvements he introduced on the land under Articles 361 and 453 of the old Civil Code.
RULING
1. On Jurisdiction: The Supreme Court held that de los Santos, holding the land under an approved homestead application since 1937, was legally in possession as required by the Public Land Act. As such, he was entitled to be respected in that possession and could avail of legal remedies to regain it if deprived. The court had jurisdiction over the action for recovery of possession.
2. On Compensation for Improvements: The Supreme Court affirmed the findings of the Court of Appeals that Mariano was not a possessor or planter in good faith. He planted trees under specific agreements: initially for de los Santos’ benefit in exchange for minor crops, and later in violation of the 1939 agreement by not sharing crops and planting big trees without permission. Having already obtained the consideration for his labor (the benefit of minor crops), he was not entitled to further compensation. Even assuming compensation was due, it was offset by the benefits he derived from the land for over eight years without giving de los Santos his share. The judgment ordering Mariano to surrender possession without compensation was affirmed.