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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 102 views

    Mantok Vs Tecson

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    This case involves a dispute over possession of a property between Manotok Realty, Inc. and private respondent Nilo Madlangawa. The trial court originally found Madlangawa to be a builder in good faith and ordered Manotok Realty to pay him P7,500 before regaining possession. When the decision became final, Manotok Realty filed a motion to exercise its option to appropriate improvements and satisfy the judgment, which the respondent judge denied. The Supreme Court held that the trial court decision was already final, so the respondent judge had no basis to deny the motion and should have issued a writ for its execution. Additionally, Madlangawa's good faith ceased after the complaint was filed, so subsequent improvements

    Copyright:

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

    Mantok Vs Tecson

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    102 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over possession of a property between Manotok Realty, Inc. and private respondent Nilo Madlangawa. The trial court originally found Madlangawa to be a builder in good faith and ordered Manotok Realty to pay him P7,500 before regaining possession. When the decision became final, Manotok Realty filed a motion to exercise its option to appropriate improvements and satisfy the judgment, which the respondent judge denied. The Supreme Court held that the trial court decision was already final, so the respondent judge had no basis to deny the motion and should have issued a writ for its execution. Additionally, Madlangawa's good faith ceased after the complaint was filed, so subsequent improvements

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Mantok vs Tecson

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over possession of a property between Manotok Realty, Inc. and private respondent Nilo Madlangawa. The trial court originally found Madlangawa to be a builder in good faith and ordered Manotok Realty to pay him P7,500 before regaining possession. When the decision became final, Manotok Realty filed a motion to exercise its option to appropriate improvements and satisfy the judgment, which the respondent judge denied. The Supreme Court held that the trial court decision was already final, so the respondent judge had no basis to deny the motion and should have issued a writ for its execution. Additionally, Madlangawa's good faith ceased after the complaint was filed, so subsequent improvements

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    102 views1 page

    Mantok Vs Tecson

    Uploaded by

    Val Sanchez
    This case involves a dispute over possession of a property between Manotok Realty, Inc. and private respondent Nilo Madlangawa. The trial court originally found Madlangawa to be a builder in good faith and ordered Manotok Realty to pay him P7,500 before regaining possession. When the decision became final, Manotok Realty filed a motion to exercise its option to appropriate improvements and satisfy the judgment, which the respondent judge denied. The Supreme Court held that the trial court decision was already final, so the respondent judge had no basis to deny the motion and should have issued a writ for its execution. Additionally, Madlangawa's good faith ceased after the complaint was filed, so subsequent improvements

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    MANOTOK REALTY, INC. vs TECSON, G.R. No.

    L-47475 August 19, 1988


    Facts:
    In a complaint filed by the petitioner for recovery of possession and damages against the
    private respondent, the then Court of First Instance of Manila rendered judgment declaring
    the defendant Nilo Madlangawa as a builder or possessor in good faith; and ordering the
    plaintiff to recognize the right of said defendant to remain in Lot No. 345, Block 1, of the
    Clara Tambunting Subdivision until after he shall have been reimbursed by the plaintiff the
    sum of P7,500.00, without pronouncement as to costs. Not satisfied with the trial court’s
    decision, the petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals and upon affirmance by the latter of
    the decision below, the petitioner elevated its case to this Court which dismissed the case for
    lack of merit. The petitioner filed with the trial court, presided over by respondent Judge
    Jose H. Tecson, a motion for the approval of petitioner’s exercise of option and for
    satisfaction of judgment, praying that the court issue an order: a) approving the exercise of
    petitioner’s option to appropriate the improvements introduced by the private respondent on
    the property; b) thereafter, private respondent be ordered to deliver possession of the
    property in question to the petitioner.
    After a denial of its motion for reconsideration, the petitioner filed the present petition for
    mandamus alleging that the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in denying
    his motion to exercise option and for execution of judgment on the grounds that under
    Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, the exercise of option belongs to the owner of the
    property, who is the petitioner herein, and that upon finality of judgment, the prevailing
    party is entitled, as a matter of right, to its execution which is only a ministerial act on the
    part of the respondent judge.
    Issue
    Should the motion for the approval of the exercise of option be granted?
    Held:
    Yes. When the decision of the trial court became final and executory, it became incumbent
    upon the respondent judge to issue the necessary writ for the execution of the same. There
    is, therefore, no basis for the respondent judge to deny the petitioner’s motion to avail of its
    option to appropriate the improvements made on its property. To be deemed a builder in good
    faith, it is essential that a person assert title to the land on which he builds; i.e., that he be a
    possessor in the concept of owner and that he be unaware ‘that there exists in his title or
    mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. The private respondent’s good faith ceased
    after the filing of the complaint below by the petitioner. Thus, the repairs and improvements
    introduced by the said respondents after the complaint was filed cannot be considered to
    have been built in good faith, much less, justify the denial of the petitioner’s exercise of
    option. Since the improvements have been gutted by fire, and therefore, the basis for private
    respondent’s right to retain the premises has already been extinguished without the fault of
    the petitioner, there is no other recourse for the private respondent but to vacate the
    premises and deliver the same to herein petitioner.

    You might also like