Spouses Caezo v. Spouses Bautista (2010) Case Digest

Spouses Caezo v.
Spouses Bautista (2010)

GR No. 170189
FACTS:
The lot of the Spouses Caezo and the lot of the Spouses Bautista are
adjacent and are covered by their respective TCTs. The Spouses Caezo
started the construction of a building on their lot, and then they
discovered that their lot was encroached upon by the structures built
by the Spouses Bautista without their knowledge and consent. 3
surveys confirmed the fact of encroachment. Despite oral and written
demands, the Spouses Bautista failed and refused to remove the
structures encroaching on the Spouses Caezos lot. Attempts were
made to settle their dispute with the barangay lupon, but to no avail.
The Spouses Caezo filed with the RTC a complaint for the issuance of a
writ of demolition.
The RTC declared the Spouses Bautista in default for failure to file an
Answer within the extended period granted by the court. The Spouses
Caezo were allowed to present their evidence ex parte before an
appointed commissioner. Thereafter, RTC rendered its Decision in favor
of the Spouses Caezo. It ruled that the Spouses Bautista are
builders in bad faith because they refused to remove the structures
and respect the boundaries as established by the various surveyors
and there was no settlement reached in the Barangay Lupon. Thus, the
Spouses Caezo are entitled to an issuance of a writ of demolition with
damages.
The CA reversed the RTCs decision and ruled that 1) the Spouses
Caezo should have filed a suit for recovery of possession and
not for the issuance of a writ of demolition because the last
demand was made more than one year before the filing of the
complaint; 2) the Spouses Caezos complaint should be
dismissed because a writ of demolition can only be granted as an
effect of a final judgment or order; 3) The complaint lacked
sufficient basis to constitute a cause of action because the
Spouses Caezo failed to specify the assessed value of the encroached
portion of their property; 4) There should be a finding of
encroachment in the action for recovery of possession; and 5)
Encroachment was built in good faith.
ISSUE:
Whether the Spouses Caezo should have filed recovery of possession
and not writ of demolition
RULING:
NO. The present case is inaccurately captioned as an action for a Writ

of Demolition with Damages. It is actually an action to recover a parcel
of land or an accion reivindicatoria under Article 434 of the Civil Code,
which reads: In an action to recover, the property must be identified,
and the plaintiff must rely on the strength of his title and not on the
weakness of the defendants claim.
Accion reivindicatoria seeks the recovery of the ownership and
includes the jus utendi (right to use and enjoy) and the jus
fruendi (right to the fruits) brought in the proper regional trial
court. Accion reivindicatoria is an action whereby plaintif
alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks the recover
of its full possession.
In order that an action for recovery of title may prosper, it is
indispensable that the party who prosecutes it must fully prove, not
only his ownership of the thing claimed but also the identity of the
property. However, if the plaintiff has already proved his right of
ownership over a tract of land, and the defendant is occupying without
right of any part of such tract, it is not necessary for plaintiff to
establish the precise location and extent of the portions occupied by
the defendant within the plaintiffs property.
The Spouses Caezo were able to establish their ownership of the
encroached property. Aside from testimonial evidence, they were also
able to present documentary and object evidence, which consisted of
photographs, TCT, and a relocation survey plan.
The relocation survey plan showed that the Spouses Bautistas
property encroached upon that of the Spouses Caezo and that the
Spouses Bautistas property was encroached upon by another
landowner. Elegio Caezo testified that the defendants wanted him to
get the portion Spouses Bautista had encroached on from Lot 15
beause Lot 15 also encroached on their lot.
The testimony and the relocation survey plan both show that the
Spouses Bautista were aware of the encroachment upon their lot by
the owner of Lot 15 and thus they made a corresponding
encroachment upon the lot of the Spouses Caezo. This awareness of
the two encroachments made the spouses Bautista builders in bad
faith. The Spouses Caezo are entitled to the issuance of a writ of
demolition in their favor and against the Spouses Bautista, in
accordance with Article 450 of the Civil Code, which reads: The owner
of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad
faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or
sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition
at the expense of the person who built, planted, or sowed; or he may

compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the
sower the proper rent.
Wherefore, petition is GRANTED. A writ of demolition of the
encroaching structures should be issued against and at the expense of
the Spouses Bautista upon the finality of this judgment.

Spouses Caezo v. Spouses Bautista (2010) Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Caezo v. Spouses Bautista (2010) Case Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Caezo v. Spouses Bautista (2010) Case Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Spouses Caezo v.

Spouses Bautista (2010)

NO. The present case is inaccurately captioned as an action for a Writ

at the expense of the person who built, planted, or sowed; or he may

You might also like