Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Sarmiento Vs Agana Proerty Digest

Ernesto constructed a residential house on land that he believed belonged to his mother-in-law. However, the land was actually owned by Mr. and Mrs. Jose C. Santo Jr., who later sold the land to Sarmiento. Sarmiento filed an ejectment suit against Ernesto and his wife. The court found that Ernesto constructed the house in good faith. Under the Civil Code, the owner of land has the option to either pay for improvements made in good faith or sell the land, but cannot refuse both. Therefore, Sarmiento could not refuse to pay for the house or give the option to purchase, and the order for Ernesto to remove the house was invalid.

Uploaded by

Jener James
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Sarmiento Vs Agana Proerty Digest

Ernesto constructed a residential house on land that he believed belonged to his mother-in-law. However, the land was actually owned by Mr. and Mrs. Jose C. Santo Jr., who later sold the land to Sarmiento. Sarmiento filed an ejectment suit against Ernesto and his wife. The court found that Ernesto constructed the house in good faith. Under the Civil Code, the owner of land has the option to either pay for improvements made in good faith or sell the land, but cannot refuse both. Therefore, Sarmiento could not refuse to pay for the house or give the option to purchase, and the order for Ernesto to remove the house was invalid.

Uploaded by

Jener James
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Property Topic art.448 Sarmiento vs.

Agana 129 scra 122 Facts: ERNESTO was still courting his wife, the latter's mother had told him the couple could build a RESIDENTIAL HOUSE whom Ernesto did construct a RESIDENTIAL HOUSE on the LAND at a cost of P8,000.00 to P10,000.00 who probably assumed that the wife's mother was the owner of the LAND and that, it would be transferred to the spouses. Subsequently turned out that the LAND had been titled in the name of Mr. & Mrs. Jose C. Santo, Jr. who, sold the same to petitioner SARMIENTO. SARMIENTO filed an Ejectment suit against them. In the evidentiary hearings before the Municipal Court, SARMIENTO submitted the deed of sale of the LAND in her favor, which showed the price to be P15,000.00. On the other hand, ERNESTO testified that the then cost of the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE would be from P30,000.00 to P40,000.00.Sarmiento refuse to pay and give option to buy the property. Issue: 1.Whether or not Ernesto was in good faith. 2.Whether or not Sarmiento could exercise both refusal to pay the spouses and give option to purchase. Held: 1.Yes. We agree that ERNESTO and wife were builders in good faith in view of the peculiar circumstances under which they had constructed the RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. As far as they knew, the LAND was owned by ERNESTO's mother-in-law who, having stated they could build on the property, could reasonably be expected to later on give them the LAND. In regards to builders in good faith, Article 448 of the Code provides:t. hqw ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or
planted in good faith,shall have the rightto appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent.However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.

2.No. The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by another, is entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the value of his building, under article 453 (now Article 546). The owner, of the land. upon, the other hand, has the option, under article 361 (now Article 448), either to pay for the building or to sell his land to the owner of the building. But he cannot, as respondents here did, refuse both to pay for the building and to sell the land and compel the owner of the building to remove it from the land where it is erected. He is entitled to such remotion only when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same. We hold, therefore, that the order of Judge Natividad compelling defendants-petitioners to remove their buildings from the land belonging to plaintiffs-respondents only because the latter chose neither to pay for such buildings nor to sell the land, is null and void, for it amends substantially the judgment sought to be executed and is, furthermore, offensive to articles 361 (now Article 448) and 453 (now Article 546) of the Civil Code. (Ignacio vs. Hilario, 76 Phil. 605, 608 [1946]). Disposition: WHEREFORE, the Petition for Certiorari is hereby ordered dismissed, without pronouncement as to costs. Prepared by: Jener Barrameda

You might also like