Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 315 views

    Rosales Vs Castelltort

    Uploaded by

    reylaxa
    Rodolfo and Lily Rosales owned a 315 square meter lot covered by a land title. Miguel Castelltort began constructing a house on their lot without their consent, believing it was the neighboring Lot 16 that he had purchased. It was later discovered this was due to an error by the surveying engineer. The court ruled that (1) Castelltort was initially a builder in good faith until he was notified by the landowners of the error, and (2) as such, the landowners have the option under Article 448 of the Civil Code to either take ownership of the house after paying indemnity, or require Castelltort to buy the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Rosales Vs Castelltort

    Uploaded by

    reylaxa
    315 views3 pages
    Rodolfo and Lily Rosales owned a 315 square meter lot covered by a land title. Miguel Castelltort began constructing a house on their lot without their consent, believing it was the neighboring Lot 16 that he had purchased. It was later discovered this was due to an error by the surveying engineer. The court ruled that (1) Castelltort was initially a builder in good faith until he was notified by the landowners of the error, and (2) as such, the landowners have the option under Article 448 of the Civil Code to either take ownership of the house after paying indemnity, or require Castelltort to buy the land.

    Original Description:

    case

    Original Title

    Rosales vs Castelltort

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Rodolfo and Lily Rosales owned a 315 square meter lot covered by a land title. Miguel Castelltort began constructing a house on their lot without their consent, believing it was the neighboring Lot 16 that he had purchased. It was later discovered this was due to an error by the surveying engineer. The court ruled that (1) Castelltort was initially a builder in good faith until he was notified by the landowners of the error, and (2) as such, the landowners have the option under Article 448 of the Civil Code to either take ownership of the house after paying indemnity, or require Castelltort to buy the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    315 views3 pages

    Rosales Vs Castelltort

    Uploaded by

    reylaxa
    Rodolfo and Lily Rosales owned a 315 square meter lot covered by a land title. Miguel Castelltort began constructing a house on their lot without their consent, believing it was the neighboring Lot 16 that he had purchased. It was later discovered this was due to an error by the surveying engineer. The court ruled that (1) Castelltort was initially a builder in good faith until he was notified by the landowners of the error, and (2) as such, the landowners have the option under Article 448 of the Civil Code to either take ownership of the house after paying indemnity, or require Castelltort to buy the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    G.R. No.

    157044 October 5, 2005

    RODOLFO V. ROSALES, (represented by his heirs, Rodolfo, Jr., Romeo Allan, Lillian
    Rhodora, Roy Victor, Roger Lyle and Alexander Nicolai, all surnamed Rosales) and LILY
    ROSQUETA-ROSALES, Petitioners
    vs.
    MIGUEL CASTELLTORT, JUDITH CASTELLTORT, and LINA LOPEZ-VILLEGAS,
    assisted by her Attorney-in-Fact, Rene Villegas, Respondents.

    FACTS

    Spouses-petitioners Rodolfo V. Rosales and Lily Rosqueta-Rosales (petitioners) are the


    registered owners of a parcel of land with an area of approximately 315 square meters, covered
    by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 368564 and designated as Lot 17, Block 1 of
    Subdivision Plan LRC Psd-55244 situated in Los Baos, Laguna.
    On August 16, 1995, petitioners discovered that a house was being constructed on their lot,
    without their knowledge and consent, by respondent Miguel Castelltort (Castelltort).
    It turned out that respondents Castelltort and his wife Judith had purchased a lot, Lot 16 of the
    same Subdivision Plan, from respondent Lina Lopez-Villegas (Lina) through her son-attorney-infact Rene Villegas (Villegas) but that after a survey thereof by geodetic engineer Augusto Rivera,
    he pointed to Lot 17 as the Lot 16 the Castelltorts purchased.
    Petitioners filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages.
    To the complaint, the Castelltorts claimed in their Answer with Counterclaim that they were
    builders in good faith.
    Lina soon filed a Motion for Intervention.
    In her Answer to the complaint, Lina alleged that the Castelltorts acted in good faith in
    constructing the house on petitioners lot as they in fact consulted her before commencing any
    construction thereon, they having relied on the technical description of the lot sold to them, Lot
    16, which was verified by her officially designated geodetic engineer.

    ISSUE
    Whether or not Miguel Castelltort is a builder in good faith.
    HELD:
    A builder in good faith is one who builds with the belief that the land he is building on is his, or
    that by some title one has the right to build thereon, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his
    title.
    Article 527 of the Civil Code provides that good faith is always presumed, and upon him who
    alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof.
    The records indicate that at the time Castelltort began constructing his house on petitioners lot,
    he believed that it was the Lot 16 he bought and delivered to him by Villegas. The confusion in
    the identification of Lot 16 was eventually traced to the error committed by geodetic engineer
    Augusto Riveras employees in placing stone monuments on petitioners property, instead of on
    Lot 16, the lot sold to Castelltort, based on the survey made by the engineer in 1992.
    As correctly found by the CA, both parties having acted in good faith at least until August 21,
    1995, the applicable provision in this case is Article 448 of the Civil Code which reads:

    Art. 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 of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall
    fix the terms thereof.

    The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule that accords with the principle of accession,
    i.e., that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around. Even as the option lies
    with the landowner, the grant to him, nevertheless, is preclusive.

    The landowner cannot refuse to exercise either option and compel instead the owner of the
    building to remove it from the land.

    Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this character except in the case and from the
    moment facts exist which show that the possessor is not unaware that he possesses the thing
    improperly or wrongfully. The good faith ceases or is legally interrupted from the moment
    defects in the title are made known to the possessor, by extraneous evidence or by suit for
    recovery of the property by the true owner.

    In the case at bar, Castelltorts good faith ceased on August 21, 1995 when petitioners personally
    apprised him of their title over the questioned lot.

    Considering that appellants had ceased as builders in good faith at the time that appellant Miguel
    was notified of appellees lawful title over the disputed property, the payment of reasonable rent
    should accordingly commence at that time since he can no longer avail of the rights provided
    under the law for builders in good faith.

    You might also like