FELICIANO MARTIN VS.
PRUDENCIO MARTIN, LUISA DE LA CRUZ, and IGNACIO DE LA
CRUZ
G.R. No. L-12439 | 1959-05-22
PROPERTY; RIGHT OF BUILDER IN GOOD FAITH; OPTION OF LAND OWNER. The owner of a
land by purchase where a house was constructed by a builder in good faith is given the choice, either to
pay for the value of the house, or require the builder to pay for the value of the land.
FACTS:
This is an appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeals, declaring intervenor-appellee therein Ignacio
de la Cruz, owner of the two parcels of land subject of the action, with the obligation of paying
petitioner Feliciano Martin a redemption price of P600, and ordering Feliciano Martin to deliver the
lands to said intervenor-appellee upon payment by the latter of the said sum of P600.
On September 12, 1919 Jose Balagui and DoroteaBalagui, brother and sister, sold the two parcels of land
subject of the action, to Feliciano Martin and Florentino Martin for P1,200. On April 17. 1923, Jose
Balagui brought an action in the Justice of the Peace Court of Solsona, Ilocos Norte, against Feliciano and
Florentino Martin for damages arising from failure of the Martins to comply with some conditions agreed
upon in the sale. The said action was terminated by a compromise agreement between Feliciano Martin,
Florentino Martin and Isidro Martin, on the one hand, and the above-named spouses, on the other,
submitted to and approved by the court.
The Court of Appeal found the compromise agreement valid and binding as it was shown that petitioner
Feliciano Martin did in fact signed it. The court also found that the intention of the parties in the
execution of the compromise was to transform the original sale made in favor of Feliciano and Florentino
Martin on September 12, 1919, into an equitable mortgage, as contended by the spouses and their
transferees, the defendant Prudencio Martin and intervenor Ignacio de la Cruz. The court also found that
on January 8, 1946, Jose Balagui sold the parcels of land in question to Ignacio de la Cruz for the sum
P2,500, with the understanding that the purchaser would redeem the lands from Feliciano Martin and
Florentino Martin by paying to them the sum of P1,200. .
Petitioner assails the failure of the Court of Appeals to make a finding on the rights and obligations of the
petitioner, with respect to the houses built on the lands in good faith by the petitioner Feliciano Martin
and his son-in-law and his daughter. According to the evidence, the house of Feliciano Martin was valued
at P3,000, and that of his son-in-law and daughter, P2,000.
ISSUE:
WON the Court of Appeals failing to make a specific pronouncement on the rights and obligations of the
parties with respect to the said houses.
RULING: YES
There is no claim nor even a suggestion that the building of the houses had been made by Feliciano
Martin and his son-in-law and daughter in bad faith. That said two buildings actually exist and that one of
them is valued at P3,000 and the other, at P2,000, is not denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is
silent on the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to the said houses.
The Court of Appeals found that the houses were built after October 31,1930, after Feliciano Martin had
returned the amount of P600 that Florentino Martin had contributed to the purchase money. At the time
of the construction, therefore, the petitioner had already become the rightful possessor of the land,
having, besides, declared them for tax purposes. No claim is made by any of the parties respondents that
the construction of the houses had been made in bad faith. The compromise agreement did not specify
within what period of time Feliciano Martin was to enjoy the possession and use of the lands in question.
Neither has there been any evidence submitted to show that the building of the houses was prohibited by
the original owners of the land or by the subsequent purchaser. A portion of the land was residential, so
its use could only be enjoyed by the building of a house thereon. So the court must find as a fact that the
building of the houses was made in good faith and in the exercise of the rights granted to Feliciano Martin
by the compromise agreement. The law applicable to petitioner is Article 361 of the Spanish Civil Code,
which provides as"Art. 361. The owner of land on which anything has been built, sown, or planted, in good
faith, shall be entitled to appropriate the thing so built, sown, or planted, upon paying the indemnification
mentioned in Articles 453 and 454, or to compel the person who has built or planted to pay him the value
of the land, and the person who sowed thereon to pay the proper rent therefor."
Based on the said provision, intervenorIgnacio de la Cruz, who had become the owner by purchase of the
lands in question, should be given, as he is hereby given, the choice either to pay for the value of the
houses, or require the petitioner herein to pay for the value of the land.
The Court of Appeals found that the value of the houses constructed about 29 years ago, were P3,000 and
P2,000. The Court take judicial notice of the fact that the said houses must have depreciated. On the other
hand, the Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that the value of real estate has greatly increased
since 29 years ago. As no evidence was submitted as to the actual value of the said houses, it seems that it
is only just that said values be previously determined before the choice for the purchase thereof by the
owner of the land, the intervenor-appellee, can be exercised by the latter.
