Alviola V CA
Uploaded by
batusay575Alviola V CA
Uploaded by
batusay575Alviola v. CA FACTS: Victoria Tinagan bought two parcels of land in 195 . She and her son Agustin too!
possession of the said land thereafter. So"eti"e in 19# $ petitioners occupied portions of the land whereat the% built a copra dr%er and put up a store wherein the% engaged in the business of bu%ing and selling copra. &n 19'5$ Victoria and Agustin died$ the latter survived b% his wife and children who are the private respondents in the instant case. The private respondents filed a co"plaint for recover% of possession against the petitioners as!ing the (egional Trial Court of )egros &riental that the% be declared the absolute owners of the said parcels of land and that petitioners be ordered vacate the sa"e$ to re"ove their copra dr%er and store$ to pa% actual da"ages *in the for" of rentals+$ "oral and punitive da"ages$ litigation e,penses and attorne%-s fees. The trial court ruled in favour of the private respondents$ hence this petition. The petitioners put up the defense that the contested parcels of land are public lands$ "a!ing the" .ualif% to beco"e beneficiaries of the co"prehensive agrarian refor" progra" and rightful possessors of the land in virtue of their occupation of the sa"e for / %ears. The petitioners also contend that the copra dr%er and the store are per"anent structures as the% are "ade of hollow bloc!s and ce"ent. 0rivate respondents on the other hand offer overwhel"ing evidence of their ownership and possession of the land and contended that the% "erel% tolerated the petitioner1s occupation of the disputed propert%. 2SS34: 5&) the petitioners have ownership over the portions of land where the copra dr%er and store are located. 6478: )o. The petitioners1 defense that the said parcels of land are public lands is rebutted b% the 0rivate respondents- ta, declarations and receipts of pa%"ent of real estate ta,es$ as well as other related docu"ents which prove their ownership of the disputed properties. The record further discloses that Victoria S. Tinagan and her son$ Agustin Tinagan$ too! possession of the said properties in 195 $ introduced i"prove"ents thereon$ and for "ore than 9 %ears$ have been in open$ continuous$ e,clusive and notorious occupation thereof in the concept of owners. The Court brushed as an afterthought the petitioners1 later defense that the portions where the copra dr%er and store are located were ceded to the" b% Victoria in e,change for a prior debt since it was not supported b% an% docu"ent pointing to Victoria transferring the ownership of the said portion and the lac! of declaration on the part of the petitioners. The Court also ruled that though the petitioners were in occupation of the portions of land in .uestion for / %ears$ the% were able to do so out of the tolerance of the private respondents and thus$ their posture that the% have ac.uired the propert% b% :occupation: for / %ears does not have an% factual or legal foundation.
As correctl% ruled b% the respondent court$ there was bad faith on the part of the petitioners when the% constructed the copra dr%er and store on the disputed portions since the% were full% aware that the parcels of land belonged to Victoria Tinagan. But there was likewise bad faith on the part of the private respondents, having !nowledge of the arrange"ent between petitioners and Victoria Tinagan relative to the construction of the copra dr%er and store. Thus$ for purposes of inde"nit%$ Article 99; of the )ew Civil Code should be applied. 32 However, the copra dryer and the store, as determined by the trial court and respondent court, are transferable in nature. Thus, it would not fall within the coverage of Article !. As the noted civil law authorit%$ Senator Arturo Tolentino$ aptl% e,plains: :To fall within the provision of this Article$ the construction "ust be of per"anent character$ attached to the soil with an idea of perpetuit%< but if it is of a transitor% character or is transferable$ there is no accession$ and the builder "ust re"ove the construction. The proper re"ed% of the landowner is an action to e=ect the builder fro" the land.: 33 The private respondents- action for recover% of possession was the suitable solution to e=ect petitioners fro" the pre"ises. 0etition dis"issed.
