CASE # 6

b. Accession Continua > i. Accession Industrial > Article 448

Florencio Ignao vs Intermediate Appellate Court,
Juan Ignao (substituted by his legal heirs), and Isidro Ignao
January 18, 1991; C.J. Fernan

Baltazar Ignao was the original owner of the disputed land in this case. The land has an
area of 534 square meters and is situated in Barrio Tabon, Municipality of Kawit, Cavite. Baltazar
had two marriages in which he had a total of 8 children. In his first marriage, he had 4 (1)
Justo, the father of petitioner Florencio; (2) Leon; (3 and 4) Juan and Isidro (private respondents).
In his second marriage, he also had 4 (they were not named). When Baltazar died, the land was
to be divided to his 8 children wherein each has a 1/8 share. Justo acquired 6/8 of the land
1/8 for his own share; 1/8 from Leon which he bought for P500 and 4/8 from the children in
Baltazars second marriage who waived their share in favor of Justo. Before the action for
partition was effected, petitioner Florencio already sold 134 sq. m. of his share to a certain Victa
for P5,000. In the case at bar, it is evident that petitioner and the private respondents are co-
owners. On February 6, 1975, Petitioner filed a petition for partition (granted) with CFI Cavite
but no actual partition was effected. On July 17, 1978, petitioner instituted a complaint for
recovery of possession of real property against private respondents wherein he alleged that
private respondents exceeded their share of 133.5 sq. m. (they built their houses)
previously allotted to them by the trial court. The lower court conducted an ocular inspection
and found out that private respondents did exceed the area. The parties agreed to hire a geodetic
engineer to conduct a survey to determine the exact area occupied by the private respondents
and found out that it totaled to 101 sq. m. (59 sq. m. Isidro; 42 sq. m. Juan). The trial court had
considered the action for partition and held that private respondents were builders and good
faith and should not be held to pay for damages. It further stated, that pursuant to Art. 448,
NCC, Florencio had two choices: either (1) to appropriate that part of the house standing on his
land after payment of indemnity; or (2) oblige his Uncles Juan and Isidro to pay the price of the
land. The court a quo applied the ruling in Grana vs C.A., wherein the Supreme Court had
advanced a workable solution and ordered petitioner to sell to Juan and Isidro those
portions of his land occupied by the latter (second choice in 448). On August 27, 1985,
petitioner appealed to the I.A.C. but it merely affirmed the decision of the trial court.

WHETHER ARTICLE 448, NCC SHOULD BE APPLIED TO A BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH ON A

PROPERTY HELD IN COMMON?
YES. Prior to partition, all the co-owners hold the property in common dominion but at
the same time each is an owner of a share which is abstract and undetermined until partition is
effected. In Spouses del Campo vs Abesia, the Court stated that Article 448 should apply, even if
the land in question is co-owned, if good faith has been established (See provision). When the
co-ownership is terminated by a partition and it appears that the house of an erstwhile co-
owner which was however made in good faith, then the provisions of Art. 448 should apply
to determine the respective rights of the parties.

WHETHER THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN APPLYING THE WORKABLE SOLUTION

CONTEMPLATED IN GRANA VS C.A.?
Yes. The ruling contravened the explicit provisions of Art. 448. The law is clear and
unambiguous when it confers the right of choice upon the landowner and not upon the
builder and the courts.

Decision Appealed is Modified: Petitioner is directed to exercise his option to either appropriate
as his own the portions of the houses of Juan and Isidro occupying his land upon payment of
indemnity (in accordance with Articles 546 and 548), or sell to private respondents the 101 sq.
m. occupied by them at a price agreed upon. Private respondents may choose to buy (if value of
the land exceeds the value of the portion of the houses) or pay reasonable rent. In case of
disagreement, the rate of rental and other terms of lease may be agreed upon by the parties.