Case Digest: Spouses Belvis vs. Spouses Erola, Study notes of Civil Law

Download Case Digest: Spouses Belvis vs. Spouses Erola and more Study notes Civil Law in PDF only on Docsity! DOCTRINE: In exceptional cases, the Court has applied Article 448 to instances where a builder, planter, or sower introduces improvements on titled land if with the knowledge and consent of the owner. SPS. JULIAN BELVIS, SR., AND CECILIA BELVIS, SPS. JULIAN E. BELVIS, JR., AND JOCELYN BELVIS, SPS. JULIAN E. BELVIS III AND ELSA BELVIS, AND JOUAN E. BELVIS, PETITIONERS, v. SPS. CONRADO V. EROLA AND MARILYN EROLA, AS REPRESENTED BY MAUREEN* FRIAS, RESPONDENTS. G.R. No. 239727 July 24, 2019 CAGUIOA, J. FACTS: The instant case stems from a complaint for unlawful detainer filed by respondents. Respondents alleged that they are owners of Lot 597 a 29,772 sq. m. situated in Barangay Malag-it, Pontevedra, Capiz. Subject property is covered by TCT No. T-26108 and a tax declaration, both in the name of respondent Conrado V. Erola, who allegedly purchased the same. As the parties were close relatives, i.e., petitioner Cecilia Erola-Bevis being the sister of respondent Conrado, respondents allegedly allowed petitioners to possess the lot, subject to the condition that they would vacate the same upon demand. On July 2, 2012, respondents sent petitioners a letter requiring the latter to vacate the property. Petitioners, however, refused to comply. After unsuccessful barangay conciliation proceedings, respondents filed the instant complaint. On the other hand, petitioners claimed that in 1979, the subject property was purchased by the late Rosario V. Erola, the mother of petitioner Cecilia and respondent Conrado. Conrado, however, allegedly succeeded in registering the property solely in his name. Hence, an implied trust was allegedly created over the undivided hereditary share of petitioner Cecilia. For over 34 years, petitioners alleged that they possessed and cultivated the lot in the concept of an owner, believing in good faith that they were co- owners of the subject lot. In the course of their possession, petitioners allegedly introduced various improvements thereon by planting bamboos, nipa palms and coconut trees, and by constructing fishponds. The MCTC granted the complaint. The MCTC reasoned that petitioners failed to present any evidence to prove that the property was purchased by the late Rosario and that it was registered solely in the name of respondent Conrado in trust for his co-heir and sister, petitioner Cecilia. The MCTC further held that petitioners were not builders in good faith as their possession of the lot was by mere tolerance, which was subject to an implied promise to vacate the same upon demand. Hence, respondents had the better right to possess the subject property. In denying the appeal, the RTC held that petitioners could not be deemed builders in good faith as they were aware that the property was registered in the name of respondent Conrado. Hence, they knew that there was a flaw in their supposed title when the improvements were made. The CA denied the petition of petitioners and found that the evidence convincingly showed that petitioners' occupation of the subject property was by mere tolerance of respondents. Hence, petitioners had no right to retain possession of the property under Article 448 as they were aware that their tolerated possession could be terminated at any time. The CA thus concluded that the petitioners could not have built improvements on the subject lot in the concept of owner. ISSUES: Whether or not petitioners are builders in good faith under Article 448 and thus have a right to retain the subject lot until payment of necessary useful and luxurious expenses. HELD: Yes. While petitioners cannot be deemed to be builders in good faith, it being undisputed that the land in question is titled land in the name of respondents, the CA and the lower courts overlooked the fact that petitioners constructed improvements on the subject lot with the knowledge and consent of respondents. In exceptional cases, the Court has applied Article 448 to instances where a builder, planter, or sower introduces improvements on titled land if with the knowledge and consent of the owner. In the instant case, respondents judicially admitted in their Complaint that "being close relatives of the plaintiffs, the defendants sought the permission and consent of the plaintiffs to possess lot 597 as they do not have any property or house to stay'' and that the plaintiffs agreed but with a condition that in case the plaintiffs will be needing the property, the defendants will vacate the lot. While respondents may have merely tolerated petitioners' possession, respondents never denied having knowledge of the fact that petitioners possessed, cultivated and constructed various permanent improvements on the subject lot for over 34 years. As such, the Court finds that respondents likewise acted in bad faith under Article 453 of the Civil Code, which provides: ART. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith. It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. Pursuant to the aforementioned article, the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as though both acted in good faith. Therefore, Article 448 in relation to Articles 546 and 548 of the Civil Code applies. Under Article 448 in relation to Articles 546 and 548, respondents as landowners have the following options: 1) they may appropriate the improvements, after payment of indemnity representing the value of the improvements introduced and the necessary,