Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 59 views

    Bernardo V Bataclan (1938)

    Uploaded by

    Zan Billones
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling on a land ownership dispute between Vicente Sto. Domingo Bernardo and Catalino Bataclan. The court ruled that: 1) Bernardo, as the legal owner of the land, had the right to require Bataclan, who had made improvements to the land in good faith, to purchase the land. 2) When Bataclan said he could not pay for the land, the court ordered it sold at public auction. It was purchased by Toribio Teodoro. 3) The court modified the lower court's ruling by eliminating Bataclan's right to recover the amount owed for his improvements from Bernardo,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bernardo V Bataclan (1938)

    Uploaded by

    Zan Billones
    59 views2 pages
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling on a land ownership dispute between Vicente Sto. Domingo Bernardo and Catalino Bataclan. The court ruled that: 1) Bernardo, as the legal owner of the land, had the right to require Bataclan, who had made improvements to the land in good faith, to purchase the land. 2) When Bataclan said he could not pay for the land, the court ordered it sold at public auction. It was purchased by Toribio Teodoro. 3) The court modified the lower court's ruling by eliminating Bataclan's right to recover the amount owed for his improvements from Bernardo,

    Original Description:

    hrtdh

    Original Title

    03. Bernardo v Bataclan (1938)

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling on a land ownership dispute between Vicente Sto. Domingo Bernardo and Catalino Bataclan. The court ruled that: 1) Bernardo, as the legal owner of the land, had the right to require Bataclan, who had made improvements to the land in good faith, to purchase the land. 2) When Bataclan said he could not pay for the land, the court ordered it sold at public auction. It was purchased by Toribio Teodoro. 3) The court modified the lower court's ruling by eliminating Bataclan's right to recover the amount owed for his improvements from Bernardo,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    59 views2 pages

    Bernardo V Bataclan (1938)

    Uploaded by

    Zan Billones
    This document is a Supreme Court of the Philippines ruling on a land ownership dispute between Vicente Sto. Domingo Bernardo and Catalino Bataclan. The court ruled that: 1) Bernardo, as the legal owner of the land, had the right to require Bataclan, who had made improvements to the land in good faith, to purchase the land. 2) When Bataclan said he could not pay for the land, the court ordered it sold at public auction. It was purchased by Toribio Teodoro. 3) The court modified the lower court's ruling by eliminating Bataclan's right to recover the amount owed for his improvements from Bernardo,

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Republic of the Philippines

    SUPREME COURT
    Manila
    EN BANC
    G.R. No. L-44606 November 28, 1938
    VCENTE STO. !OMNGO "ERN#R!O, plaintiff-appellant,
    vs.
    C#T#LNO "#T#CL#N, defendant-appellant.
    TOR"O TEO!ORO, purchaser-appellee.
    Pedro de Leon for plaintiff-appellant.
    Angel H. Mojica and Francisco Lavides for defendant appellant.
    Jose Y. Garde for appellee.

    L#UREL, J.:
    This is an appeal taken b both the plaintiff and the defendant fro! the order of
    "epte!ber #$, %&'(, hereinabove referred to, of the Court of )irst *nstance of Cavite in
    Civil Case No. #+#,.
    There is no controvers as to the facts. B a contract of sale e-ecuted fro! Pastor
    "a!onte and others o.nership of a parcel of land of about &/ hectares situated in sitio
    Balaunan, "ilan0, Cavite. To secure possession of the land fro! the vendors the said
    plaintiff, on 1ul #/, %&#&, instituted Civil Case No. %&'( in the Court of )irst *nstance
    of Cavite. The trial court found for the plaintiff in a decision .hich .as affir!ed b this
    "upre!e Court on appeal 23.R. No. ''/%45.
    %
    6hen plaintiff entered upon the
    pre!ises, ho.ever, he found the defendant herein, Catalino Bataclan, .ho appears to
    have been authori7ed b for!er o.ners, as far back as %&##, to clear the land and
    !ake i!prove!ents thereon. As Bataclan .as not a part in Case No. %&'(, plaintiff,
    on 1une %%, %&'%, instituted a0ainst hi!, in the Court of )irst *nstance of Cavite, Civil
    Case No. #+#,. *n this case, plaintiff .as declared o.ner but the defendant .as held
    to be a possessor in 0ood faith, entitled to rei!burse!ent in the total su! of P%,$+#,
    for .ork done and i!prove!ents !ade. The dispositive part of the decision reads8
    Por las consideraciones e-puestas, se declara al de!andante 9icente "anto
    :o!in0o Bernardo due;o con derecho a la posesion del terreno <ue se
    describe en la de!anda, al de!andado Catalino Bataclan con derecho a
    <ue del de!andante le pa0ue la su!a de P%,$+# por 0astos utiles hechos de
    buena fe en el terreno, por el cerco ponos de coco abaca e-istentes en
    el !is!o, con derecho, ade!as a retener la posesion del terreno hasta <ue
    se le pa0ue dicha cantidad. Al de!andante puede optar, en el pla7o de
    treinta dias, a partir de la fecha en <ue fuere notificado de la presente, por
    pa0ar esa su!a al de!andado, haciendo asi suos el cerco todas las
    plantaciones e-istentes en el terreno, u obli0ar al de!andado a pa0arle el
    precio terreno, a ra7on de trescientos pesos la hectarea. En el caso de <ue el
    de!andante optara por <ue el de!andado le pa0ara el precio del terreno, el
    de!andado efectuara el pa0o en el pla7o convenientes por las partes o <ue
    sera fi=ado por el 1u70ado. "in costas.
    Both parties appealed to this court 23. R. No. '4'%&5.
    #
    The decision appealed fro!
    .as !odified b allo.in0 the defendant to recover co!pensation a!ountin0 to P#,#%#
    and b reducin0 the price at .hich the plaintiff could re<uire the defendant to purchase
    the land in <uestion fro! P'// to P#// per hectare. Plaintiff .as 0iven b this court '/
    das fro! the date .hen the decision beca!e final .ithin .hich to e-ercise his option,
    either to sell the land to the defendant or to bu the i!prove!ents fro! hi!. >n
    1anuar &, %&'+, the plaintiff !anifested to the lo.er court his desire ?to re<uire the
    defendant to pa hi! the value of the land at the rate of P#// per hectare or a total
    price of P%,,/// for the .hole tract of land.? The defendant infor!ed the lo.er court
    that he .as unable to pa the land and, on 1anuar #+, %&'+, an order .as issued
    0ivin0 the plaintiff '/ das .ithin .hich to pa the defendant the su! of P#,#%# statin0
    that, in the event of failure to !ake such pa!ent, the land .ould be ordered sold at
    public auction ?Para hacer pago al demandante de la suma de P!" # el remanente
    despues de deducidos los gastos legales de la venta en pu$lica su$asta sera
    entregado al demandante.? >n )ebruar #%, %&'+, plaintiff !oved to reconsider the
    fore0oin0 order so that he .ould have preference over the defendant in the order of
    pa!ent. The !otion .as denied on March %, %&'+ but on March %$ follo.in0 the
    court belo., motu proprio !odified its order of 1anuar #+, ?en el sentido de %ue el
    demandante tiene derecho preferente al importe del terreno no se vendiere en pu$lica
    su$asta! a ra&on de P'' por hectares # el remanente! si acaso lo hu$iere se
    entregara al demandado en pago de la cantidad de P!" por la limpie&a del terreno
    # las mejoras introducidas en el mismo por el citado demandado.? >n April #+, %&'+,
    the court belo., at the instance of the plaintiff and .ithout ob=ection on the part of the
    defendant, ordered the sale of the land in <uestion at public auction. The land .as sold
    on April (, %&'( to Toribio Teodoro, the hi0hest bidder, for P,,///. *n the certificate of
    sale issued to said purchaser on the ver da of sale, it .as stated that the period of
    rede!ption of the land sold .as to e-pire on April (, %&'$. @pon petition of Toribio
    Teodoro the court belo. ordered the provincial sheriff to issue another certificate not
    <ualified b an e<uit of rede!ption. This .as co!plied .ith b the sheriff on 1ul '/,
    %&'(. >n "epte!ber %,, %&'(, Teodoro !oved that he be placed in possession of the
    land purchased b hi!. The !otion .as 0ranted b order of "epte!ber #$, %&'(, the
    dispositive part of .hich is as follo.s8
    Por tanto, se ordena al "heriff Provincial de Cavite pon0a a Toribio Teodoro
    en posesion del terreno co!prado por el en subasta publica por el cual se
    le e-pidio certificado de venta definitiva, reservando al de!andado su
    derecho de e=ercitar una accion ordinaria para recla!ar del de!andante la
    cantidad de P#,#%# a <ue tiene derecho por la li!pie7a !e=oras del terreno
    cua su!a, en =usticia e<uidad, debe ser descontada deducida de la
    su!a de P,,/// <ue a ha recibido el de!andante.
    1
    The Civil Code confir!s certain ti!e-honored principles of the la. of propert. >ne of
    these is the principle of accession .hereb the o.ner of propert ac<uires not onl
    that .hich it produces but that .hich is united to it either naturall or artificiall. 2Art.
    '('.5 6hatever is built, planted or so.n on the land of another, and the i!prove!ents
    or repairs !ade thereon, belon0 to the o.ner of the land 2art. '(,5. 6here, ho.ever,
    the planter, builder, or so.er has acted in 0ood faith, a conflict of ri0hts arises bet.een
    the o.ners and it beco!es necessar to protect the o.ner of the i!prove!ents
    .ithout causin0 in=ustice to the o.ner of the land. *n vie. of the i!practicabilit of
    creatin0 .hat Manresa calls a state of ?forced coo.nership? 2vol. ', +th ed., p. #%'5,
    the la. has provided a =ust and e<uitable solution b 0ivin0 the o.ner of the land the
    option to ac<uire the i!prove!ents after pa!ent of the proper inde!nit or to obli0e
    the builder or planter to pa for the land and the so.er to pa the proper rent 2art. '$%5.
    *t is the o.ner of the land .ho is allo.ed to e-ercise the option because his ri0ht is
    older and because, b the principle of accession, he is entitled to the o.nership of the
    accessor thin0 2' Manresa, +th ed., p. #%'5. *n the case before us, the plaintiff, as
    o.ner of the land, chose to re<uire the defendant, as o.ner of the i!prove!ents, to
    pa for the land.
    The defendant states that he is a possessor in 0ood faith and that the a!ount of
    P#,#%# to .hich he is entitled has not et been paid to hi!. Therefore, he sas, he has
    a ri0ht to retain the land in accordance .ith the provisions of article +(' of the Civil
    Code. 6e do not doubt the validit of the pre!ises stated. ?(onsidera la le# tan
    saarada # legitima la deuda! %ue! hasta %ue sea pagada! no consiente %ue la cosa se
    restitu#a all vencedor.? 2+ Manresa, +th ed, p., '/+.5 6e find, ho.ever, that the
    defendant has lost his ri0ht of retention. *n obedience to the decision of this court in
    3.R. No. '4'%&, the plaintiff e-pressed his desire to re<uire the defendant to pa for
    the value of the land. The said defendant could have beco!e o.ner of both land and
    i!prove!ents and continued in possession thereof. But he said he could not pa and
    the land .as sold at public auction to Toribio Teodoro. The la., as .e have alread
    said, re<uires no !ore than that the o.ner of the land should choose bet.een
    inde!nifin0 the o.ner of the i!prove!ents or re<uirin0 the latter to pa for the land.
    6hen he failed to pa for the land, the defendant herein lost his ri0ht of retention.
    The sale at public auction havin0 been asked b the plaintiff hi!self 2p. ##, bill of
    e-ceptions5 and the purchase price of P,,/// received b hi! fro! Toribio Teodoro,
    .e find no reason to =ustif a rapture of the situation thus created bet.een the!, the
    defendant-appellant not bein0 entitled, after all, to recover fro! the plaintiff the su! of
    P#,#%#. la)phi".net
    The =ud0!ent of the lo.er court is accordin0l !odified b eli!inatin0 therefro! the
    reservation !ade in favor of the defendant-appellant to recover fro! the plaintiff the
    su! of P#,#%#. *n all the respects, the sa!e is affir!ed, .ithout pronounce!ent
    re0ardin0 costs. "o ordered.
    Avance*a! (.J.! +illa-,eal! -mperial and .ia&! JJ.! concur.
    2

    You might also like