Property Case Digest

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.

Facts:

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 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 plaintiff Hilario, as the legal owners of the whole property but conceding to defendants, Ignacio, 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 plaintiff, Hilario, 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 defendant, Ignacio, should be ordered to remove the structure at their own expense and to restore plaintiff in the possession of said lot.

Issue:

W/N Plaintiff, Hilario, can validly opt not to buy the house nor sell the land, but instead order the removal of those structures that Ignacio built in good faith.

Ruling:

No. 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.