Digest: Grana v. CA

Digest: Grana v. CA
109 Phil. 260, G.R. No. L-12486, August 31, 1960

Facts:

 Petitioners Leonor Grana and Julieta Torralba were sued by respondents Aurora Bongato and Jardenio Sanchez for the recovery of 87 square meters of residential land.

After trial, the court rendered judgment declaring the respondents owners of the land in controversy and ordered petitioners to vacate and deliver it to respondents and to pay a monthly rental of P10.00 from the filing of the complaint until they actually vacate the same. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals (CA).

Although without any legal and valid claim over the land in question, petitioners, were found by the CA to have constructed a portion of their house thereon in good faith.

Issue:

Whether the CA may validly order the petitioners to vacate the land, deliver it to respondents, and pay a monthly rental of P10.00 from the filing of the complaint until they actually vacate the same

Ruling:

No. The CA erred in ordering petitioners to pay monthly rentals of P10.00 from the date of filing of the complaint until they actually vacate said land. Such ruling contravened the explicit provisions of Article 448 to the effect that “(t)he owner of the land…shall have the right to appropriate…or to oblige the one who built…to pay the price of the land”. The law is clear and unambiguous when it confers the right of choice upon the landowner and not upon the builder and the courts.

A builder in good faith may not be required to pay rentals. He has a right to retain the land on which he has built in good faith until he is reimbursed the expenses incurred by him. Under Article 361 of the old Civil Code (Article 448 of the new), the owner of the land on which anything has been built in good faith shall have the right to appropriate as his own the building, after payment to the builder of necessary and useful expenses, and in the proper case, expenses for pure luxury or mere pleasure, or to oblige the builder to pay the price of the land.

Respondents, as owners of the land, have the choice of either appropriating the portion of petitioners' house which is on their land upon payment of the proper indemnity to petitioners, or selling to petitioners that part of their land on which stands the improvement. It may be pointed out that it would be impractical for respondents to choose to exercise the first alternative, i.e., buy that portion of the house standing on their land, for in that event the whole building might be rendered useless. The more workable solution, it would seem, is for respondents to sell to petitioners that part of their land on which was constructed a portion of the latter's house. If petitioners are unwilling or unable to buy, then they must vacate the land and must pay rentals until they do so. Of course, respondents cannot oblige petitioners to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the aforementioned portion of the house. If such be the case, then petitioners must pay reasonable rent. The parties must come to an agreement as to the conditions of the lease, and should they fail to do so, then the court shall fix the same.

The appealed decision was therefore modified in the sense that respondents were directed to exercise within 30 days from the decision their option to either buy the portion of the petitioners' house on their land or sell to said petitioners the portion of their land on which it stands. If respondents choose to sell the land and petitioners are unwilling or unable to buy, then they must vacate the same and must pay reasonable rent of P10.00 monthly from the time respondents made their choice up to the time they actually vacate the premises. But if the value of the land is considerably more than the value of the improvement, then petitioners may elect to rent the land, in which case the parties shall agree upon the terms of a lease. Should they disagree, the court of origin was instructed to intervene and fix the terms thereof. Petitioners shall pay reasonable rent of P10.00 monthly from the moment respondents exercised their option up to the time the parties agree on the terms of the lease or until the court fixes such terms.