MANOTOK REALTY INC vs TECSON

No. L-47475, August 19, 1988

Petitioner Manotok Realty filed for recovery of possession and damages
against the private respondent for the judgment in favor of the
respondent declaring Nilo Madlangawa as builder or possessor in good
faith and shall remain in the subject Lot denying the writ of execution
and denied the petitioners motion to avail of its option to appropriate
the improvement made on its property.
CA affirmed the lower courts decision.
Petitioner filed the present petition for mandamus alleging that the
respondent judge committed grace abuse of discretion in denying his
motion to exercise option ad for execution of judgment that the
exercise of option belongs to the owner of the property who is the
petitioner and that upon finality of judgment, the prevailing party is
entitled, as a matter of right, to its execution which is only ministerial
act on the part of the respondent judge.
The respondent judge alleged that the case has already become moot
and academic for two reasons:
1. fire gutted not only the house of the private responded but the
majority of the houses in Tambunting Estate
2. as a result of the said fire, MM Gov Imelda MArcis has placed
disputed area under her Zonal Improvement Project allowing the
victims to put up new structures on the premises, and subject
matter has been extinguished by fire.
Petitioner argues that since the judgment of the trial court has become
final, it is entitled to the execution of the sme and that moreover, since
the house of the respondent was gutted by fire, the execution of the
decision would now involve the delivery of possession of the disputed
area by the private respondent to the petitioner.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondent judge erred in denying the motion to
avail the petitioners option to appropriate the improvement made on
the property.
HELD:

The petition was granted and the respondent judge was ordered to
immediately issue a writ of execution ordering private respondent to
vacate the disputed premises and deliver possession of the same to
the petitioner.
ANALYSIS:
When the decision of the trial court became final and executor, it
became incumbent upon the respondent judge to issue the necessary
writ for the execution of the same. There is , therefore, no basis for the
respondent judge to deny the petitioners motion to avail of its option
to appropriate the improvements made on its property.
To be deemed a builer in good faith, it is essential that a person assert
title to the land on which je builds (that he be a possessor in concept of
an owner) and that he be unaware that there exist in his title or mode
of acqisitio any flaw which invalidates it.
CONCLUSION:
Neither can the respondent judge deny the issuance of a writ of
execution because the private respondent was adjudged a builder in
good faith or on the ground of peculiar circumstances which
supervened after the institution of this case, the introduction of certain
major repairs and of other substantial improvements, because the
option given by the law either to retain the premises and pay for the
improvements thereon or to sell the said premises to the builder in
good faith belongs to the owner of the property.