Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Case Digest Ignacio Vs Hilario

This case concerns a dispute over ownership of land between the Hilario family and the Ignacio family. The lower court ruled that the Hilarios owned the land, but the Ignacios owned the buildings they built in good faith. The Hilarios then asked the court to order the Ignacios to remove the buildings, but did not offer to pay for the buildings or sell the land. The Supreme Court ruled that the Hilarios could not refuse both options given by law - they must either pay for the buildings or sell the land, and cannot compel removal of the buildings. The order forcing removal went against statutes giving the good faith builders rights and did not properly execute the original judgment.

Uploaded by

Divina Gracia Hinlo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Case Digest Ignacio Vs Hilario

This case concerns a dispute over ownership of land between the Hilario family and the Ignacio family. The lower court ruled that the Hilarios owned the land, but the Ignacios owned the buildings they built in good faith. The Hilarios then asked the court to order the Ignacios to remove the buildings, but did not offer to pay for the buildings or sell the land. The Supreme Court ruled that the Hilarios could not refuse both options given by law - they must either pay for the buildings or sell the land, and cannot compel removal of the buildings. The order forcing removal went against statutes giving the good faith builders rights and did not properly execute the original judgment.

Uploaded by

Divina Gracia Hinlo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

IGNACIO vs. ELIAS HILARIO, G.R. No.

L-174,   April 30, 1946

Facts:

This is a petition for certiorari arising from a case in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan
between the herein respondents, Elias Hilario and his wife Dionisia Dres as plaintiffs, and the
herein petitioners Damian, Francisco and Luis, surnamed Ignacio, as defendants, concerning
the ownership of a parcel of land, partly rice-land and partly residential. After the trial of the
case, the lower court, presided over by Hon. Alfonso Felix, rendered judgment holding plaintiffs
as the legal owners of the whole property but conceding to defendants the ownership of the
houses and granaries built by them on the residential portion with the rights of a possessor in
good faith, in accordance with article 361 of the Civil Code (now Article 448 in the Civil Code).

Subsequently, in a motion filed in the same Court of First Instance but now presided over by the
herein respondent Judge Hon. Felipe Natividad, the Hilarios prayed for an order of execution
alleging that since they chose neither to pay the Ignacios for the buildings nor to sell to them the
residential lot, the Ignacios should be ordered to remove the structure at their own expense and
to restore Hilarios in the possession of said lot. The Ignacios objected to this motion which, after
hearing, was granted by Judge Natividad. Hence, this petition by the Ignacios praying for (a) a
restraint and annulment of the order of execution issued by Judge Natividad; (b) an order to
compel the Hilarios to pay for the buildings, or sell to them the residential lot.

Issue: Whether the Hilarios refusal to pay for the building or sell his land to the Ignacio is
proper.

Ruling:

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. The
owner of the land, upon the other hand, has the option, under article 361, either to pay for the
building or to sell his land to the owner of the building. But he cannot 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.

The Supreme Court held that the order of Judge Natividad compelling Ignacios to remove their
buildings from the land belonging to Hilarios only because the latter chose neither to pay for
such buildings not 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 and 453 of the Civil Code.

ART. 361. The owner of land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good
faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the work, sowing or planting, after the
payment of the indemnity stated in articles 453 and 454, or to oblige the one who built or
planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent.

Thus the judgment rendered by Judge Felix has never become final, it having left matters to be
settled for its completion in a subsequent proceeding, matters which remained unsettled up to
the time the petition is filed in the instant case.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

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

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy