Ignacio v. Hilario

EN BANC
[G.R. No. L-175. April 30, 1946.]
DAMIAN IGNACIO, FRANCISCO IGNACIO and LUIS IGNACIO ,

petitioners, vs . ELIAS HILARIO and his wife DIONISIA DRES, and
FELIPE NATIVIDAD, Judge of First Instance of Pangasinan ,
respondents.
Leoncio R. Esliza for petitioners.

Mauricio M. Monta for respondent.
SYLLABUS
1. PROPERTY; IMPROVEMENTS; RIGHT AND OBLIGATIONS OF OWNERS OF

LAND AND OF OWNER OF IMPROVEMENTS. — The owner of the building erected in
good faith on a land owned by another, is entitled to retain the possession of the land
until he is paid the value of his building, under article 453 of the Civil Code. The owner of
the land, upon the other hand, has the option, under article 361, either to pay for the
building or to sell his land to the owner of the building. But he cannot, as respondents
here did, refuse both to pay for the building and to sell the land and compel the owner
of the building to remove it from the land where it is erected. He is entitled to such
remotion only when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for
the same.
2. JUDGMENTS; ADDITIONS TO FINAL JUDGMENTS; SHERIFF NOT
AUTHORIZED TO SETTLE MATTERS INVOLVING EXERCISE OF JUDICIAL DISCRETION;
CASE AT BAR. — The trial court's decision de ning rightly the rights of both parties
under articles 361 and 453 of the Civil Code, fails to determine the value of the
buildings and of the lot where they are erected as well as the periods of time within
which the option may be exercised and payment should be made, these particulars
having been left for determination apparently after the judgment has become nal. This
procedure is erroneous, for after the judgment has become nal, no additions can be
made thereto and nothing can be done therewith except its execution. And execution
cannot be had, the sheriff being ignorant as to how, for how much, and within what time
may be the option be exercised, and certainly no authority is vested in him to settle
these matters which involve exercise of judicial discretion. Thus the appealed judgment
has never become nal, it having left matters to be settled for its completion in a
subsequent proceeding, matters which remained unsettled up to the time the petition is
filed in the instant case.
DECISION
MORAN , C.J : p
This is a petition for certiorari arising from a case in the Court of First Instance of
Pangasinan between the herein respondents Elias Hilario and his wife Dionisia Dres as
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
plaintiffs, and the herein petitioners Damian, Francisco and Luis surnamed Ignacio, as
defendants, concerning the ownership of a parcel of land, partly rice-land and partly
residential. After the trial of the case, the lower court, presided over by Hon. Alfonso
Felix, rendered judgment holding plaintiffs as the legal owners of the whole property
but conceding to defendants the ownership of the houses and granaries built by them
on the residential portion with the rights of a possessor in good faith, in accordance
with article 361 of the Civil Code. The dispositive part of the decision , hub of this
controversy, follows:
"Wherefore, judgment is hereby rendered declaring:
"(1) That the plaintiffs are the owners of the whole property described
in transfer certi cate of title No. 12872 (Exhibit A) issued in their name, and
entitled to the possession of the same;
"(2) That the defendants are entitled to hold the possession of the
residential lot until after they are paid the actual market value of their houses and
granaries erected thereon, unless the plaintiffs prefer to sell them said residential
lot, in which case defendants shall pay the plaintiffs the proportionate value of
said residential lot taking as a basis the price paid for the whole land according to
Exhibit B; and
"(3) That upon defendant's failure to purchase the residential lot in
question, said defendants shall remove their houses and granaries after this
decision becomes nal and within the periods of sixty (60) days from the date
that the court is informed in writing of the attitude of the parties in this respect.
"No pronouncement is made as to damages and costs.
"Once this decision becomes nal, the plaintiffs and defendants may
appear again before this court for the purpose of determining their respective
rights under article 361 of the Civil Code, if they cannot come to an extra-judicial
settlement with regard to said rights."
Subsequently, in a motion led in the same Court of First Instance but now
presided over by the herein respondent Judge Hon. Felipe Natividad, the plaintiffs
prayed for an order of execution alleging that since they chose neither to pay
defendants for the buildings nor to sell to them the residential lot, said defendants
should be ordered to remove the structure at their own expense and to restore
plaintiffs in the possession of said lot. Defendants objected to this motion which, after
hearing, was granted by Judge Natividad. Hence, this petition by defendants praying for
(a) a restraint and annulment of the order of execution issued by Judge Natividad; (b )
an order to compel plaintiffs to pay them the sum of P2,000 for the buildings, or sell to
them the residential lot for P45; or (c) a rehearing of the case for a determination of the
rights of the parties upon failure of extra-judicial settlement.
The judgment rendered by Judge Felix is founded on articles 361 and 453 of the
Civil Code which are as follows:
"ART. 361. The owner of land on which anything has been built, sown
or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the work,
sowing or planting, after the payment of the indemnity stated in articles 453 and
454, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the
one who sowed, the proper rent.
"ART. 453. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor;
but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until such expenses are
made good to him.
"Useful expenses shall be refunded 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 paying the increase
in value which the thing may have acquired in consequence thereof."
The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by another, is
entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the value of his building,
under article 453. The owner of the land, upon the other hand, has the option, under
article 361, either to pay for the building or to sell his land to the owner of the building.
But he cannot, as respondents here did, refuse both to pay for the building and to sell
the land and compel the owner of the building to remove it from the land where it is
erected. He is entitled to such remotion only when, after having chosen to sell his land,
the other party fails to pay for the same. But this is not the case before us.
We hold, therefore, that the order of Judge Natividad compelling defendants-
petitioners to remove their buildings from the land belonging to plaintiffs-respondents
only because the latter chose neither to pay for such buildings nor to sell the land, is null
and void, for it amends substantially the judgment sought to be executed and is,
furthermore, offensive to articles 361 and 453 of the Civil Code.
There is. however, in the decision of Judge Felix a question of procedure which
calls for clari cation, to avoid uncertainty and delay in the disposition of cases. In that
decision, the rights of both parties are well de ned under articles 361 and 453 of the
Civil Code, but it fails to determine the value of the buildings and of the lot where they
are erected as well as the periods of time within which the option may be exercised and
payment should be made, these particulars having been left for determination
apparently after the judgment has become nal. This procedure is erroneous, for after
the judgment has become nal, no additions can be made thereto and nothing can be
done therewith except its execution. And execution cannot be had, the sheriff being
ignorant as to how, for how much, and within what time may the option be exercised,
and certainty no authority is vested in him to settle these matters which involve
exercise of judicial discretion. Thus the judgment rendered by Judge Felix has never
become nal, it having left matters to be settled for its completion in a subsequent
proceeding, matters which remained unsettled up to the time the petition is led in the
instant case.
For all the foregoing, the writ of execution issued by Judge Natividad is hereby
set aside and the lower court ordered to hold a hearing in the principal case wherein it
must determine the prices of the buildings and of the residential lot where they are
erected, as well as the period of time within which the plaintiffs-respondents may
exercise their option either to pay for the buildings or to sell their land, and, in the last
instance, the period of time within which the defendants-petitioners may pay for the
land, all these periods to be counted from the date the judgment becomes executory or
unappealable. After such hearing, the court shall render a nal judgment according to
the evidence presented by the parties.
The costs shall be paid by plaintiffs-respondents.
Ozaeta, Paras, Jaranilla, Feria, De Joya, Pablo, Perfecto, Hilado, Bengzon, and
Briones, JJ., concur.

Ignacio v. Hilario

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ignacio v. Hilario

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

Ignacio v. Hilario

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-175. April 30, 1946.]

DAMIAN IGNACIO, FRANCISCO IGNACIO and LUIS IGNACIO ,

Leoncio R. Esliza for petitioners.

1. PROPERTY; IMPROVEMENTS; RIGHT AND OBLIGATIONS OF OWNERS OF

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like