Aquino vs.

Aguilar

G.R. No. 182754 (448) June 29, 2015

Sereno, C.J.

FACTS:

Teresa Vela Aquino (Teresa) and her husband, Crispin Aquino, are the owners of a house and lot located

at No. 6948, Rosal Street, Guadalupe wherein Teresa's sister, Josefina Vela Aguilar; Josefina's spouse Eusebio;

and their family stayed since 1981, with the consent and approval of the petitioners who were then residing ath

the United States. While in possession of the property, respondents demolished a previously constructed house

in the property and built a three-story building where they occupied half of its third floor.

Petitioners sent a letter to the respondents on September 22, 2003 informing them that they need to

vacate the property as an immediate family member needed to use the premises within ten days but

respondents failed to comply, prompting petitioners to file a Complaint for ejectment in the barangay. An

amicable settlement which was attempted proved unsuccessful, therefore spouses Aquino filed a complaint on

November 19, 2003 in the MeTC of Makati City praying that respondents be ordered to (a) vacate the portion of

the building they were then occupying; and (b) pay petitioner a reasonable amount for the use and enjoyment

of the premises from the time the formal demand to vacate was made. The defendants answered in their

Counter claim that they had contributed to the improvement of the property and the construction of the

building, both in terms of money and management/supervision services with the approval of the petitioners,

alleging that they are co-owners of the building and builders of good faith and are entitled to reimbursements of

the current value of their contribution.

The MeTC ruled in favor of petitioners, stating that they had the right to enjoy possession of the

property as the registered owners thereof. The MeTC also declared that respondents were builders in bad faith

who were not entitled to recover their purported expenses for the construction of the building.  It emphasized
that their occupation of the property was by mere tolerance of petitioners and, as such, could be terminated at

any time. The court further noted that in a letter dated 15 July 1983, petitioners had already asked respondents

to refrain from constructing improvements on the property because it was intended to be sold. In their

Memorandum on Appeal before the RTC, respondents assailed the MeTC's finding that petitioners, as the

registered owners of the land, were also the owners of the improvement constructed thereon, and they

maintained their position as builders of good faith however the RTC ruled otherwise as it was found out that the

petitioners had informed respondents of their intention to dispose of the property in as early as 1983. The RTC

concluded that petitioners never consented to the construction of any form of structure on the property.

Respondents then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals re-iterating their ownership of one-half

of the third floor of the building on the property having spent personal funds and insisted that they are builders

of good faith. However, the Court of Appeals affirmed the conclusion of the lower courts with modifications. The

CA remanded to the court of origin to determine the cost of necessary expenses incurred by petitioners and the

cost of useful improvements as provided for by Article 1678 and 546 of the Civil Code. Respondents no longer

appealed the decision but petitioners elevated the matter to this Court through the instant Petition for

Review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not respondents are actually builders of good faith as provided for by Article 448 of the Civil

Code.

RULING:

In the instant case, the Spouses Aguilar cannot be considered as builders in good faith on account of

their admission that the subject lot belonged to the Spouses Aquino when they constructed the building. At the

onset, petitioners were aware of a flaw in their title and a limit to their right to possess the property. By law, one
is considered in good faith if he is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which

invalidates it. Respondents are deemed to have acquiesced to the foregoing findings when they failed to appeal

the CA Decision. In this case, there is absolutely no evidence of any lease contract between the parties. In fact,

respondents themselves never alleged that they were lessees of the lot or the building in question. Quite the

opposite, they insisted that they were co-owners of the building and builders in good faith under Article 448 of

the Civil Code. For that reason, respondents argue that it was erroneous for the CA to consider them as lessees

and to determine their rights in accordance with Article 1678 and thus the Calubayan case does not apply. The

Court finds no reason to depart from the conclusions of the trial courts. Respondents were evidently prohibited

by petitioners from building improvements on the land because the latter had every intention of selling it. That

this sale did not materialize is irrelevant. What is crucial is that petitioners left respondents clear instructions not

to build on the land. Pursuant to Article 452 of the Civil Code, a builder in bad faith is entitled to recoup the

necessary expenses incurred for the preservation of the land. The CA correctly ruled that respondents in this

case are similarly entitled to this reimbursement. However, being builders in bad faith, they do not have the

right of retention over the premises. Thus petition is partly granted and this case is REMANDED to the court of

origin for the determination of the necessary expenses of preservation of the land, if any, incurred by

respondent spouses Eusebio and Josefina Aguilar while they were in possession of the property, which expenses

shall be reimbursed to them by petitioner spouses Crispin and Teresa Aquino. Respondents and all persons

claiming rights under them are ordered, upon finality of this Decision without awaiting the resolution of the

matter of necessary expenses by the trial court, to immediately VACATE the subject property and DELIVER its

peaceful possession to petitioners. Respondents are likewise ordered to PAY petitioners ₱7,000 as monthly

rental plus interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum, to be computed from 22 October 2003 until the finality

of this Decision.
 Caldito v. Obado

G.R. No. 181596 January 30, 2017

Reyes, J.

FACTS:

A complaint of quieting of ownership over a parcel of land covering the eastern portion of a certain Lot

No. 1633 which covers 272.33 square meters in Barangay No. 5, Sarrat , Ilocos Norte was filed by the Spouses

Jenestor and Filomena Caldtio against Isagani and Geron Obado. On record, the lot was declared for purposes of

taxation by Felipe Obado in 1921 and upon his death was occupied by Paterno Obado whom he treated like his

own son and continued the payment of the realty taxes. In 1995, a certain Antonio Ballesteros executed an

Affidavit of Ownership stating his claim over the subject parcel of land claiming that the lot was co-owned by

Felipe with his five siblings. After the execution of the affidavit Antonio and his wife sold the parcel of land to

petitioners evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale for P70,000 and they then declared the subject land for

taxation purposes.

Petitioners in 2002 attempted to build a house on the parcel of land but was prevented by responded

from doing such and even failed to make an amicable settlement in the barangay, hence the filing of this

complaint for quieting of ownership before the RTC. The respondents claimed that the parcel of land was

inherited by their father Paterno from the original owner Felipe and they have been paying the real property

taxes for the entire property and have lived and possessed the entire property since 1969, pointing out that the

petitioners are buyers in bad faith. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners and dismissed

the claim of ownership of the respondents. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the trial

court and set aside the RTC decision for failure of the petitioners to prove the title of the spouses Ballesteros
and for being unable to give evidence that Felipe co-owned this subject parcel of land with his siblings. The CA

also pointed out that Antonio Ballesteros should have been called to the witness stand as a Deed of Absolute

Sale is not a sufficient and convincing evidence. On the contrary, respondents enjoy a legal assumption od just

title in their favor since they are in possession of the entire Lot No. 1633. The petitioners moved for

reconsideration but was denied, hence this petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners were able to prove ownership over the subject parcel of land.

RULING:

The Court finds the petition without merit.

The Court concurs with the disquisition of the CA that the petitioners failed to: (1) prove the title of their

immediate predecessors-in-interest, the Spouses Ballesteros; and (2) present evidence supporting the claim that

Lot No. 1633 was co-owned by Felipe and his siblings, Eladia, Estanislao, Maria, Severino and Tomasa. Also, the

Court finds that the RTC mistakenly relied upon the Affidavit of Ownership, executed by Antonio, to conclude

that the petitioners were possessors in good faith and with just title who acquired the subject parcel of land

through a valid deed of sale. The petitioners' complaint styled as being for the "quieting of ownership" is in fact

an action for quieting of title, anchoring their cause of action upon a Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of

Ownership executed by Antonio while respondents countered they have inherited this parcel of land from their

father Paterno and that they have been in possession of the same for more than 30 years in the concept of an

owner.

In this case, the petitioners' cause of action relates to an action to quiet title which has two

indispensable requisites, namely: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in

the real property subject of the action; and (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be
casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its  prima facie appearance of

validity or legal efficacy.

From the foregoing provisions, it is clear that the petitioners' cause of action must necessarily fail mainly in view

of the absence of the first requisite since the petitioners were not able to prove equitable title or ownership

over the subject parcel of land.

Although tax declarations may not be conclusive as evidence of ownership, they prove to be good

measure of possession in the instant case for no one in their right mind would pay for taxes for a property they

do not own. The petitioners cannot benefit from the deed of sale executed by the Spouses Ballesteros in their

favor, to support their claim of possession in good faith and with just title since the Spouses Ballesteros have no

right to sell the parcel of land in the first place.

The petition is denied and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
 Tabuso vs. CA

G.R. No. 108558 June 21, 2001

Panganiban J.

FACTS:

This is a case involving a declaration of ownership filed in the RTC of Naval Leyte involving an

unregistered parcel of land in Antipolo with an area of 3, 267 meters. Plaintiff claims to be the successor in

interest as granddaughter of one Andrea Elaba, daughter of Maria and Ignacio Montes the former bearing the

name in the tax declaration of the property in question issued in 1912. She also claims that the house on the

property in the possession of the defendants was constructed by his father. On the other hands, defendants

claimed that the land in question was originally owned by Maria Montes and was donated to Isabel Elaba

through an ancient document in September 24, 1923 which she in turn sold to Esteban Abad in May 5, 1948. Tax

declarations were superseded by numerous certificates until the last one in 1982 which was in the name of

Esteban Abad. Isabel Elaba, Esteban and Nemesio Abad paid the land taxes from 1947-1982, and the land tenant

Valentin Poblete was under a lease contract with Nemesio Abad as one of the heirs.

On the basis of the foregoing evidence, the court dismissed the complaint and declared the defendant

the lawful owners of the land in question. The trial court concluded that there was abundant proof of private

respondents’ ownership of the lot in question as against the scanty evidence offered by petitioners. Petitioner is

not found to be a compulsory heir of Ignatio Montes and the trial court also gave credit to the testimony of Atty.

Jose Gonzales, private counsel of respondents and witness presented by petitioners who narrated that he owns

a land adjacent to the property in question and that the subject land has been in the possession of the

respondents.
 Petitioners appealed and the Court of Appeals held that after a careful review of the records as to the

question of ownership, they agreed with the trial court that the preponderance of evidence supports the claim

of the ownership of the respondents. Petitioner’s question on the validity of the document of donation executed

by Maria Montes in 1923 has been barred by laches and the issue is being raised for the first time on appeal

which is not allowed.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioners are entitled of ownership of the subject parcel of land in question.

RULING:

After a careful examination of the issues involved, the evidence adduced, and the arguments or

issues raised by both parties, this Court rules that the totality of the evidence presented leans heavily in favor of

herein private Respondents. The Court agrees with the Court of Appeals that respondents were able to establish

themselves as owners of the lot in question for more than 60 years in an open, continuous and uninterrupted

possession. Both the trial and the appellate courts were likewise correct in giving weight to the testimony of

Atty. Jose Gonzales. He testified that being, the owner of the adjacent land, he had personal knowledge of the

simple fact that the land in question was owned by private respondents, who were in actual, open and

continuous possession thereof. Significantly, while he was private respondents counsel, he was presented by

petitioners themselves. Having done so, they are bound by his testimony, even if it is hostile. As held in Caniza v.

Court of Appeals, an owner’s act of allowing another to occupy his house rent-free does not create a permanent

and indefeasible right of possession in the latter’s favor.

It must be stressed that possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. Ownership exists when a

thing pertaining to one person is completely subjected to his will in a manner not prohibited by law and

consistent with the rights of others. Ownership confers certain rights to the owner, one of which is the right to
dispose of the thing by way of sale. On the other hand, possession is defined as the holding of a thing or the

enjoyment of a right. Literally, to possess means to actually and physically occupy a thing with or without right.

Possession may be had in one of two ways: possession in the concept of an owner and possession of a holder.

Possessors in the concept of owners may be the owners themselves or those who claim to be so. On the other

hand, those who possess as mere holders acknowledge in another a superior right which he believes to be

ownership, whether his belief be right or wrong.

It is settled that great weight, and even finality, is given to the factual conclusions of the Court of

Appeals which affirm those of the trial courts. Only where it is shown that such findings are whimsical,

capricious, and arbitrary can they be overturned. On this end, the petition is found to be devoid of merit.