KASILAG VS ROQUE

FACTS:
The respondents, children and heirs of the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio, commenced the aforesaid civil case to
the end that they recover from the petitioner the possession of the land and its improvements granted by way of
homestead to Emiliana Ambrosio under patent No. 16074 issued on January 11, 1931, with certificate of title
No. 325 that the petitioner pay to them the sum of P650 being the approximate value of the fruits which he
received from the land; that the petitioner sign all the necessary documents to transfer the land and its
possession to the respondents; that he petitioner be restrained, during the pendency of the case, from conveying
or encumbering the land and its improvements; that the registrar of deeds of Bataan cancel certificate of title
No. 325 and issue in lieu thereof another in favor of the respondents, and that the petitioner pay the costs of
suit.

The petitioner denied in his answer all the material allegations of the complaint and by way of special defense
alleged that he was in possession of the land and that he was receiving the fruits thereof by virtue of a
mortgage contract, entered into between him and the deceased Emiliana Ambrosio on May 16, 1932, which
was duly ratified by a notary public;
One year after the execution of the aforequoted deed, that is, in 1933, it came to pass that Emiliana Ambrosio
was unable to pay the stipulated interests as well as the tax on the land and its improvements. For this reason,
she and the petitioner entered into another verbal contract whereby she conveyed to the latter the possession of
the land on condition that the latter would not collect the interest on the loan, would attend to the payment of
the land tax, would benefit by the fruits of the land, and would introduce improvements thereon. By virtue of
this verbal contract, the petitioner entered upon the possession of the land, gathered the products thereof, did
not collect the interest on the loan, introduced improvements upon the land valued at P5,000, according to him
and on May 22, 1934 the tax declaration was transferred in his name and on March 6, 1936 the assessed value
of the land was increased from P1,020 to P2,180.

ISSUE:
whether the petitioner should be deemed a possessor in good faith

RULINGS:
According to this author, gross and inexcusable ignorance of law may not be the basis of good faith, but
possible, excusable ignorance may be such basis. It is a fact that the petitioner is not conversant with the laws
because he is not a lawyer. In accepting the mortgage of the improvements he proceeded on the well-grounded
belief that he was not violating the prohibition regarding the alienation of the land. In taking possession thereof
and in consenting to receive its fruits, he did not know, as clearly as a jurist does, that the possession and
enjoyment of the fruits are attributes of the contract of antichresis and that the latter, as a lien, was prohibited
by section 116. These considerations again bring us to the conclusion that, as to the petitioner, his ignorance of
the provisions of section 116 is excusable and may, therefore, be the basis of his good faith. We do not give
much importance to the change of the tax declaration, which consisted in making the petitioner appear as the
owner of the land, because such an act may only be considered as a sequel to the change of possession and
enjoyment of the fruits by the petitioner, to about which we have stated that the petitioner's ignorance of the
law is possible and excusable. We, therefore, hold that the petitioner acted in good faith in taking possession of
the land and enjoying its fruits.