Calapan Lumber Co. v. Community Sawmill Co., G.R. No. L-16351, June 30, 1964

Calapan Lumber Co. v. Community Sawmill Co., G.R. No.
L-16351, June 30, 1964
DOCTRINE: The right of a builder in good faith on a private land cannot be invoked and applied to the
road in question, because public interest is involved and the people living in that part of the province are
entitled to use the road.
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 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.
FACTS: This is an action for injunction, prohibition against defendant public officers, compensatory,
exemplary and nominal damages, attorney's fees and costs.
Biga-Communal-Goob (from Km. 12.38 to 15.88) was constructed during the period from 1950 to 1952 by
the plaintiff at its exclusive expense with the knowledge and consent of the Provincial Board of Oriental
Mindoro. Personnel of the Office of the District Engineer surveyed the lay-out of the road to be
constructed, also at the expense of the plaintiff. Before the actual construction of the road in question the
plaintiff secured and used road-right-of-way agreements, executed in favor of the plaintiff by the owners
of the several portions of land traversed by said road. Up to the present the plaintiff has been
contributing to the repair and maintenance of the said road such as stones, gravel, sand and lumber at its
own expense. The Road has been used by the public without any restriction with the written consent of
the plaintiff as embodied in Resolutions Nos. 222 and 119, with the exception of logging and lumber
concerns who might use the road with the permission of the plaintiff.
The road that was cleared, built and maintained by the private lumber company is being sued for
injunction as it is being declared as a public road (provincial toll road).
ISSUES:
1. WON the Provincial Board can declare the road for the private use of the Appellee through
Resolutions No. 222 and 199.
2. WON the road built and maintained by a private entity make it a private property.
3. WON there was valid conversion of the road into a provincial toll road through Resolution No.
186.
RULING:
1. Resolutions Nos. 222 and 119, adopted by the Provincial Board of Oriental Mindoro quoted
above, mere ultra vires, the Revised Administrative Code do not authorize the Provincial Board of
Oriental Mindoro to pass and adopt said resolutions.
2. The fact that the survey, lay-out and actual construction of the unfinished part of the road
were done at the appellee's expense, does not convert said road after construction into a private
road, for it does not appear that the parts of the land where the road was laid out and
constructed belong to or are owned by the appellee. The right of a builder in good faith on a
private land cannot be invoked and applied to the road in question, because public interest is
involved and the people living in that part of the province are entitled to use the road.
3. Resolution No. 186 above quoted converting the road in question into toll road contravenes
section 2131 of the Revised Administrative Code, because in the case of road, the
recommendation of the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and the authorization of
the president of the Philippines had to be secured and such recommendation and authorization
had not been obtained.
DISPOSITIVE: The road involved in this case cannot be declared private property, and for that reason the
Provincial Board of Oriental Mindoro may elect between paying the appellee the total cost of the
construction of the road together with lawful interest from the date of actual disbursement by the
appellee to the date of payment by the Province of Oriental Mindoro within a reasonable period not to
exceed one year from the date this judgment shall become final; or upon securing the recommendation of
the Secretary of Public Works and Communications and authorization of the President of the Philippines
to designate such road a toll road, to raise the necessary fund to reimburse the appellee of the total cost
of construction of the road, together with lawful interest from the date of actual disbursement by the
appellee to the date of payment by the Province of Oriental Mindoro, and the latter is ordered to refund
the amount paid for tolls by, the appellee during the enforcement of Resolution No. 186 which, as above
stated, was unauthorized. The judgment appealed from making final the preliminary writ of injunction
and ordering the appellants to pay the appellee the sum of P10,000 as attorney's fees, are reversed and
set aside. The rest of the judgment appealed from not inconsistent with this opinion is affirmed, without
pronouncement as to costs.

Calapan Lumber Co. v. Community Sawmill Co., G.R. No. L-16351, June 30, 1964

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calapan Lumber Co. v. Community Sawmill Co., G.R. No. L-16351, June 30, 1964

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Calapan Lumber Co. v. Community Sawmill Co., G.R. No. L-16351, June 30, 1964

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Calapan Lumber Co. v. Community Sawmill Co., G.R. No.

L-16351, June 30, 1964

You might also like