Property Case Digest - Possession

MARTIN MENDOZA and NATALIO ENRIQUEZ, plaintiffs-appellees, v. MANUEL DE GUZMAN, defendant-appellant. MAX B. SOLIS, intervenor-appellant. [G.R. No. L-28721; October 5, 1928] EN BANC Facts:
A judgment on a previous case1 which was ins6tuted on November 6, 1916 for recovery of a certain piece of land led by Leandra Solis and her husband Bernardo Solis was rendered in favour of Mendoza. Said case was remanded to the court of origin which is the CFI at Sariaya, Tayabas and put Mendoza de facto in possession of the property. In the cadastral proceedings, the CFI adjudicated the above men6oned land in favour of pe66oners pro indivso and de Guzman with the right to reten6on un6l the laKer is indemnied for the improvements already exis6ng on the land. By virtue of the judgment, de Guzman moved for a writ of possession which the court granted on June 25, 1924. From December 16, 1916 un6l June 25, 1924, Mendoza was in possession of the land, thereaRer de Guzman was in dominion of the land. Being unable to agree as to the amount for the improvements of the land the pe66oners requested the CFI to (a) x the value of the necessary and useful expenses incurred by de Guzman in introducing the improvements; (b) require the de Guzman to render an accoun6ng of the fruits received by him and order that the value of the fruits be applied to the payment of the necessary and useful expenses; and (c) decree the res6tu6on of the possession to the plain6s. In answer, de Guzman asked for 6,000.00. During the pendency of the case, Bernardo Solis a.k.a Max B. Solis intervened alleging that de Guzman in considera6on of 5,000.00 transferred all his rights in the improvements except for 200 coconut trees. The CFI held (1) that in accordance with the provisions of ar6cles 435 and 454 in rela6on with ar6cle 361 of the Civil Code, the value of the "indemniza6on" to be paid to the defendant should be xed according to the necessary and useful expenses incurred by him in introducing "las plantaciones en cues6on"; (2) that the plain6s as the owner of the property have the right to make their own "las plantaciones hechas por el demandado" upon payment in the form indicated in No. 1, the defendant having the right to retain the land un6l the expenditures have been refunded; (3) that the defendant is obliged to render a detail and just account of the fruits and other prots received by him from the property for their due applica6on; and (4) that the value of the fruits received by the defendant should rst be applied to the payment of the "indemnizacion," and in that it exceeds the value of the "indemnizacion," the excess shall be returned to the plain6s. September 23, 1927, the amount that the plain6s were required to pay to the respondents exceeded the amount that the laKer were to pay the former, the defendant and intervenor were ordered to deliver the land and its improvement as soon as the plain6s have paid the dierence, without special pronouncement as to costs.

Issue:
Whether or not the excess of the indemnica6on should be returned to the pe66oners.

Held:
The Court goes into the discussion of what is necessary expenses. As described by Spanish commentators, necessary expenses are those made for the preserva6on of the thing; as those without which the thing would deteriorate or be lost; as those that augment the income of the things upon which they are expanded. Among the necessary expenditures are those incurred for cul6va6on, produc6on, upkeep, etc. The Court resolved the issue which held that once the owner elects to appropriate the improvements, the builder, planter, or sower cannot exactly be considered a possessor in good faith. Hence, whatever fruits he receives during the pendency of reten6on must be deducted from whatever indemnity is due to him; and in case it exceeds the value of the indemnity, the excess shall be returned to the owner of the land.

1 G. R. No. 14033, Espinosa and Solis vs. Mendoza, promulgated August 23, 1919, not reported.

Page 1 of 1