Pecson v. Ca (Batch 3)

PEDRO P. PECSON v.
CA and SPOUSES JUAN NUGUID and ERLINDA Issue:

NUGUID (G.R. No. 115814. May 26, 1995)
1. WON Articles 448 and 546 of the NCC apply in the case at bar.
Facts:
2. WON the cost of construction (made in 1965) is the correct amount of
Petitioner Pedro P. Pecson was the owner of a commercial lot located in reimbursement to be made to petitioner as builder in good faith.
Kamias Street, Quezon City, on which he built a four-door two-storey
apartment building. For his failure to pay realty the lot was sold at public 3. WON trial court also erred in ordering the petitioner to pay monthly rentals
auction by the City Treasurer of Quezon City to Mamerto Nepomuceno who equal to the aggregate rentals paid by the lessees of the apartment building.
in turn sold it to the private respondents, the spouses Juan Nuguid and Erlinda
Held:
Tan-Nuguid.
1. Yes. Where the true owner himself is the builder of works on his own land,
The private respondents filed with the trial court a motion for delivery of
the issue of good faith or bad faith is entirely irrelevant. Thus in strict point of
possession of the lot and the apartment building, citing Article 546 of the Civil
law, Article 448 is not opposite to the case at bar. Nevertheless, we believe
Code. The trial court held that: 1) The payment of P53,000.00 as
that the provision therein on indemnity may be applied by analogy
reimbursement for the construction cost, movant Juan Nuguid is hereby
considering that the primary intent of Article 448 is to avoid a state of forced
entitled to immediate issuance of a writ of possession over the lot and
co-ownership and that the parties, including the two courts below, in the main
improvements thereon; 2) The movant having been declared as the
agree that Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code are applicable and
uncontested owner of the lot in question as per Entry of Judgment of the
indemnity for the improvements may be paid although they differ as to the
Supreme Court dated June 23, 1993, the plaintiff should pay rent to the basis of the indemnity.
movant of no less than P21,000.00 per month from said date as this is the
very same amount paid monthly by the tenants occupying the lot. And 3) The 2. No. The objective of Article 546 of the Civil Code is to administer justice
amount of P53,000.00 due from the movant is hereby offset against the between the parties involved in such a way that neither one nor the other may
amount of rents collected by the plaintiff from June 23, 1993, to September enrich himself of that which does not belong to him. it is therefore the current
23, 1993 market value of the improvements which should be made the basis of
reimbursement. A contrary ruling would unjustly enrich the private
Upon petition for certiorari, the appellate court affirmed in part the order of the
respondents who would otherwise be allowed to acquire a highly valued
trial court citing Articles 448 of the Civil Code. It further held that while it
income-yielding four-unit apartment building for a measly amount.
appears that private respondents have not yet indemnified petitioner with the
Consequently, the parties should therefore be allowed to adduce evidence on
cost of the improvements, since Annex I shows that the Deputy Sheriff has
the present market value of the apartment building upon which the trial court
enforced the Writ of Possession and the premises have been turned over to
should base its finding as to the amount of reimbursement to be paid by the
the possession of private respondents, the quest of petitioner that he be
landowner.
restored in possession of the premises is rendered moot and academic,
although it is but fair and just that private respondents pay petitioner the 3. Yes. Since the private respondents have opted to appropriate the apartment
construction cost of P53,000.00; and that petitioner be ordered to account for building, the petitioner is thus entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the
any and all fruits of the improvements received by him starting on June 23, apartment building, until he is paid the proper indemnity, as well as of the
1993, with the amount of P53,000.00 to be offset therefrom. portion of the lot where the building has been constructed. This is so because
the right to retain the improvements while the corresponding indemnity is not
paid implies the tenancy or possession in fact of the land in which it is built,
planted or sown. The petitioner not having been so paid, he was entitled to
retain ownership of the building and, necessarily, the income therefrom.

Pecson v. Ca (Batch 3)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pecson v. Ca (Batch 3)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pecson v. Ca (Batch 3)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PEDRO P. PECSON v.

CA and SPOUSES JUAN NUGUID and ERLINDA Issue:

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.