Ochoa vs. Apeta

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 5

VOL.

533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007


235
Ochoa vs. Apeta
G.R. No. 146259. September 13, 2007.*
FLORENTINO, TROADIO and PEDRO, all surnamed OCHOA, petitioners, vs. MAURO
APETA and APOLONIA ALMAZAN, respondents.
Appeals; It is a well-established principle that in an appeal via a petition for review on
certiorari, only questions of law may be raised; Exceptions.On petitioners claim that they are
the owners of Lot No. 1580, it is a well-established principle that in an appeal via a petition for
review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised. Here, the issue posed by petitioners
requires us to weigh anew the evidence submitted by the parties already passed upon by the
Court of Appeals. It is basic that this Court is not a trier of facts. Thus, it may not review the
findings of the Court of Appeals except, among others: (a) when its factual findings and those of
the trial court are contradictory; (b) when its inference is manifestly mistaken or absurd; (c)
when its judgment is premised on its misapprehension of the facts; and (d) when it failed to
resolve relevant facts which, if properly considered, would justify a modification or reversal of
the decision of the appellate court. The issue raised by petitioners that they are the actual
owners of Lot No. 1580 is factual in nature and requires a review of the pieces of evidence
presented by the parties. Thus, we can no longer pass upon and evaluate the lower courts
finding that based on the evidence presented before them, specifically the result of the resurvey
conducted by Engr. Romulo Unciano, respondents are the true and lawful owners of Lot
1580.
Actions; Prescription; Land Titles; No title to registered land in derogation to that of the
registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.Anent petitioners
second contention that respondents action has been barred by prescription, suffice it to state
that no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. Neither can prescription be allowed against the hereditary
successors of the registered owner, because they step into the shoes of the decedent and are
merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest.
_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.
236

236
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ochoa vs. Apeta
Builders in Good Faith; Words and Phrases; The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in
the validity of ones right, ignorance of a superior claim and absence of intention to overreach
another.Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or
statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of
malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. It implies
honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the
holder upon inquiry. The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of ones
right, ignorance of a superior claim and absence of intention to overreach another. Applied to
possession, one is considered in good faith if he is not aware that there exists in his title or mode
of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. Using the above parameters, we are convinced that
petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest were in good faith when they built their houses
and apartment building on Lot No. 1580 since they were convinced it was covered by their TCT
No. T-40624.
PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Orioste & Lim Offices for petitioners.
Santos V. Pampolina, Jr. for respondents.
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.:

Challenged in this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, as amended, are the Decision1 dated September 8, 2000 and Resolution2 dated
November 20, 2000 of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. CV No. 56109.
_______________

1 Penned by Associate Justice Martin S. Villarama and concurred in by Associate Justice Salome
A. Montoya (retired) and Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr. (retired member of the Supreme
Court), Rollo, pp. 38-42.
2 Id., p. 44.
237

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
237
Ochoa vs. Apeta
The facts are:
Since 1910, the above-named petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest have been occupying
Lot No. 1580 consisting of 886 square meters situated in Malaban, Bian, Laguna. The lot is
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T40624 of the Registry of Deeds of that
province. They built their houses and apartment building thereon.
Sometime in May 10, 1982, Mauro Apeta and Apolonia Almazan, respondents, found that they
are the true owners of Lot No. 1580 being occupied by petitioners.
On January 22, 1988, respondents filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 24, Bian,
Laguna a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against petitioners, docketed as
Civil Case No. B-2777. Respondents alleged in the main that they are the lawful owners of Lot
No. 1580 covered by Certificate of Title No. RT-599 (10731) issued by the Registry of Deeds of
Laguna.
In their answer to the complaint, petitioners specifically denied the allegations in the complaint,
contending that they are the owners of Lot No. 1580 as shown by TCT No. T-40624 issued by the
Registry of Deeds of Laguna.
During the proceedings before the RTC, upon agreement of the parties, the trial judge
commissioned Engr. Romulo Unciano of the Bureau of Lands of Region IV to conduct a
resurvey of the disputed property. The result of the resurvey (approved by the Bureau of
Lands) shows that Lot No. 1580, occupied by petitioners, was registered in the name of
Margarita Almada, respondents predecessor-in-interest; and that the lot covered by TCT No. T-
40624 is not Lot No. 1580, but Lot No. 1581 registered in the name of Servillano Ochoa,
petitioners predecessor-in-interest. This lot has been occupied by Isidro Jasmin.
On March 24, 1995, the trial court rendered a Decision in favor of respondents, thus:
238

238
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ochoa vs. Apeta
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and
against the defendants as follows:
1. Declaring plaintiffs as the true and lawful owners of Lot 1580 of the Bian Estate Subdivision
covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-599 (10731) and declaring the defendants
without right whatsoever to continue in possession thereof.
2. Ordering the defendants and all those acting in their behalf to deliver peacefully the physical
possession of Lot 1580 to the plaintiffs and to remove their houses and apartment building
thereon.
3. Ordering the defendants to pay, jointly and severally to plaintiffs the amount of P30,000 as
and for attorneys fees and litigation expenses.
SO ORDERED.3
On appeal, the Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated September 8, 2000, affirmed the
judgment of the RTC.
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied by the appellate court in its
Resolution4 dated November 20, 2000.
Hence, the instant petition.
Petitioners contend that Lot No. 1580 belongs to them and that respondents action is barred by
prescription.
Petitioners contention lacks merit.
On petitioners claim that they are the owners of Lot No. 1580, it is a well-established principle
that in an appeal via a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised.
Here, the issue posed by petitioners requires us to weigh anew the evidence submitted by the
parties already passed upon by the Court of Appeals. It is basic that this Court is not a trier of
facts. Thus, it may not review the findings of the Court of Appeals except, among others: (a)
when its factual findings and those of the trial court are contradic-
_______________

3 Id., p. 38.
4 Id., p. 44.
239

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
239
Ochoa vs. Apeta
tory; (b) when its inference is manifestly mistaken or absurd; (c) when its judgment is premised
on its misapprehension of the facts; and (d) when it failed to resolve relevant facts which, if
properly considered, would justify a modification or reversal of the decision of the appellate
court.5 The issue raised by petitioners that they are the actual owners of Lot No. 1580 is factual
in nature and requires a review of the pieces of evidence presented by the parties. Thus, we can
no longer pass upon and evaluate the lower courts finding that based on the evidence
presented before them, specifically the result of the resurvey conducted by Engr. Romulo
Unciano, respondents are the true and lawful owners of Lot 1580.
Anent petitioners second contention that respondents action has been barred by prescription,
suffice it to state that no title to registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner
shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.6 Neither can prescription be allowed
against the hereditary successors of the registered owner, because they step into the shoes of the
decedent and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor-in-interest.7
Verily, the Court of Appeals did not err when it ruled that respondents are the true and lawful
owners of Lot No. 1580. Hence, they should now be placed in possession thereof.
Parenthetically, considering that petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest have built their
houses and apartment building on Lot No. 1580, should respondents be allowed
_______________

5 Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109849, February 29, 1997, 268 SCRA 703, citing Cordial
v. Miranda, G.R. No. 135495, December 14, 2000, 348 SCRA 158; Cabataje v. Puduman, G.R. No.
134712, August 13, 2004, 436 SCRA 423.
6 Section 47 of P.D. 1529 or the Property Registration Decree; Alcantara-Daus v. De Leon, G.R.
No. 149750, June 16, 2003, 404 SCRA 74, citing Jose v. Court of Appeals, 192 SCRA 735 (1990)
and Ferrer-Lopez v. Court of Appeals, 150 SCRA 393 (1987).
7 Bailon-Carilao v. Court of Appeals, No. L-35767, April 15, 1988, 160 SCRA 738.
240

240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Ochoa vs. Apeta
to take possession of those improvements? In order to settle this matter, we should determine
whether petitioners were builders in good faith.
Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory
definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and
the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. It implies honesty of
intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon
inquiry.8 The essence of good faith lies in an honest belief in the validity of ones right,
ignorance of a superior claim and absence of intention to overreach another.9 Applied to
possession, one is considered in good faith if he is not aware that there exists in his title or mode
of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.10
Using the above parameters, we are convinced that petitioners and their predecessors-in-
interest were in good faith when they built their houses and apartment building on Lot No.
1580 since they were convinced it was covered by their TCT No. T-40624.
The following provisions of the Civil Code are relevant:
Article 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good
faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after
payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or
planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the
builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of
the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not
choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon
the terms
_______________

8 Philippine National Bank v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 149295, September 23, 2003, 411 SCRA 557.
9 Id., citing Bernardo v. Bernardo, 95 Phil. 202, and Negrete v. Court of First Instance of
Marinduque, 48 SCRA 113 (1972).
10 Article 526 of the Civil Code.
241

VOL. 533, SEPTEMBER 13, 2007
241
Ochoa vs. Apeta
of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
Article 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in
good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of
retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the
amount of the expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have acquired
by reason thereof.
Article 548. Expense for pure luxury or mere pleasure shall not be refunded to the possessor in
good faith; but he may remove the ornaments with which he has embellished the principal
thing if it suffers no injury thereby, and if his successors in the possession do not prefer to
refund the amount expended.
Under the foregoing provisions, the landowner can make a choiceeither by appropriating the
building by paying the proper indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land.
The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule that accords with the principle of accession
that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around. He must choose only
one.
Following the above provisions, respondents, as owners of Lot No. 1580, may choose between
appropriating as their own the houses and apartment building constructed thereon by
petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest by paying the proper indemnity or value; or
obliging petitioners to pay the price of Lot No. 1580 which is not more than that of the
improvements.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 56109 are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION in the sense that
respondents have the option to pay for the houses and apartment building constructed by
petitioners and their predecessors-in-interest on Lot No. 1580; or to oblige petitioners to pay the
price of the lot in an amount not more than the value of the said improvements.
242

242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Pagtalunan vs. Dela Cruz Vda. de Manzano
SO ORDERED.
Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Corona, Azcuna and Garcia, JJ., concur.
Petition denied, assailed decision and resolution affirmed with modification.
Notes.In the event that the owner elects to sell to the builder, planter or sower the land on
which the improvement stands, the price must be fixed at the prevailing market value at the
time of payment. (Ballatan vs. Court of Appeals, 304 SCRA 34 [1999])
What validly transfers or conveys a persons interest in real property is the registration of the
deed. (Valdevieso vs. Damalerio, 451 SCRA 664 [2005])
o0o

Copyright 2014 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved. [Ochoa vs. Apeta, 533 SCRA
235(2007)]

You might also like