cannot be obliged to pay for the portion of defendants house that entered into the 30 sqm lot, AND

Defendant cannot be obliged

to pay for the price of the 5 sqm their house occupied. Why? The RTC believed the rules of co-ownership should govern, and not
that of accession.

RTC then assigned the full 30sqm to Plaintiff and ordered Defendants to demolish the 5sqm part of their house encroaching the
30sqm lot of the Plaintiffs. Defendants where aghast at having to axe the family home, hence they appealed.

CA affirmed the decision. So we have the SC coming to the rescue.

ISSUE:
w/n the rules of accession applies (and not coownership) on property that used to be co-owned, but was subdivided.

HELD:
The rule of accession applies because co-ownership was terminated upon the partitioning of the lot. Art 448 therefore governs.
The house of Defendant overlapped that of Plaintiff, but this was built on good faith. Hence, the plaintiffs have the right to
choose one of two options
cannot be obliged to pay for the portion of defendants house that entered into the 30 sqm lot, AND Defendant cannot be obliged
to pay for the price of the 5 sqm their house occupied. Why? The RTC believed the rules of co-ownership should govern, and not
that of accession.

RTC then assigned the full 30sqm to Plaintiff and ordered Defendants to demolish the 5sqm part of their house encroaching the
30sqm lot of the Plaintiffs. Defendants where aghast at having to axe the family home, hence they appealed.

CA affirmed the decision. So we have the SC coming to the rescue.

ISSUE:
w/n the rules of accession applies (and not coownership) on property that used to be co-owned, but was subdivided.

HELD:
The rule of accession applies because co-ownership was terminated upon the partitioning of the lot. Art 448 therefore governs.
The house of Defendant overlapped that of Plaintiff, but this was built on good faith. Hence, the plaintiffs have the right to
choose one of two options
cannot be obliged to pay for the portion of defendants house that entered into the 30 sqm lot, AND Defendant cannot be obliged
to pay for the price of the 5 sqm their house occupied. Why? The RTC believed the rules of co-ownership should govern, and not
that of accession.

RTC then assigned the full 30sqm to Plaintiff and ordered Defendants to demolish the 5sqm part of their house encroaching the
30sqm lot of the Plaintiffs. Defendants where aghast at having to axe the family home, hence they appealed.

CA affirmed the decision. So we have the SC coming to the rescue.

ISSUE:
w/n the rules of accession applies (and not coownership) on property that used to be co-owned, but was subdivided.

HELD:
The rule of accession applies because co-ownership was terminated upon the partitioning of the lot. Art 448 therefore governs.
The house of Defendant overlapped that of Plaintiff, but this was built on good faith. Hence, the plaintiffs have the right to
choose one of two options