Scribd
Upload
110 views1 page

Sabido Vs IAC

The case involves a dispute over ownership of Lots B and C between the Spouses Sabido and Spouses Dasal. The lower court initially ruled in favor of the Spouses Dasal. During the execution of the writ, it was discovered that Dominador Sta. Ana was occupying a portion of Lot B along with tenants. Sta. Ana claimed that he purchased the lot in good faith. However, it was proven that the lot he claimed was different and that he was aware of the ongoing litigation over the property due to his relationship with the Spouses Dasal. Both the RTC and CA ultimately ruled in favor of the Spouses Sabido, but the CA granted Sta. Ana the option to remove improvements or make an offer

Uploaded by

Leo Tumagan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
110 views1 page

Sabido Vs IAC

The case involves a dispute over ownership of Lots B and C between the Spouses Sabido and Spouses Dasal. The lower court initially ruled in favor of the Spouses Dasal. During the execution of the writ, it was discovered that Dominador Sta. Ana was occupying a portion of Lot B along with tenants. Sta. Ana claimed that he purchased the lot in good faith. However, it was proven that the lot he claimed was different and that he was aware of the ongoing litigation over the property due to his relationship with the Spouses Dasal. Both the RTC and CA ultimately ruled in favor of the Spouses Sabido, but the CA granted Sta. Ana the option to remove improvements or make an offer

Uploaded by

Leo Tumagan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

SABIDO vs IAC

Spouses Dasal and Pecunio filed a case for queiting of title against herein respondents Spouses
Sabido and Rances for the subject Lots B and C.

The Lower Court ruled in favor of Spouses Dasal. The sheriff then executed the Writ of Execution
as ordered by then Presiding Judge Sunga. During the execution of the writ, the sheriff learned
that a certain Dominador Sta. Ana was occupying a portion of lot B together with two other
persons (tenants of Sta. Ana).

Third party Sta. Ana was given an opportunity to present evidences to prove his ownership upon
Lot B which according to him he purchased in good faith. Subsequently, it was proved that the
lot he claims was different from that of the subject Lot B.

Furthermore, it was established that Sta. Ana has a relationship with the Spouses Dasal which
should alerted him that the subject lot was under litigation and that he was also present during
the ocular inspection made in which he fails to invoke his right upon the issuance of the decision
of the ownnership of the subject Lot B which estabilshed bad faith on his part.

The RTC and CA ruled in favor of Spouses Sabido. However, part of the decision of the Appellate
Court grants Sta.Ana an option to either remove his improvements or make an offer to the
lawful owners to pay for the price of the lot where his improvements were introduced.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Appellate Court erred in granting Sta. Ana the right to exercise the
option.

RULING: Yes, the Appellate Court erred in granting such right to Sta. Ana.

The right to exercise the option is only given to a builder in good faith (previous discussions).
The only option for a possessor in bad faith is only granted with regards to improvements for
pure luxury or mere pleasure. Provided, two conditions must be satisfied. (1) removal will not
cause damage to the principal thing (2) the lawful owner does not prefer to retain them by
paying the reasonable price.

In the case, Sta. Ana being a possessor in bad faith has no option but to vacate the lot.

You might also like