Digest: Felices v. Iriola

Digest: Felices v. Iriola

G.R. No. L-11269. February 28, 1958

 

Facts:

 

Silverio Felices was the grantee of a homestead of over eight hectares located in barrio Curry, Municipality of Pili, Province of Camarines Sur, under Homestead Patent No. V-2117 dated January 26, 1949, and by virtue of which he was issued Original Certificate of Title No. 104 over said property.

 

Subsequently, appellee conveyed in conditional sale to defendant and appellant Mamerto Iriola a portion of his homestead of more than four hectares, for the consideration of P1,700. The conveyance expressly stipulates that the sale was subject to the provisions of Sec. 119 of Act 141, as amended, and to the prohibitions spread on the vendor's patent; and that after the lapse of five years or as soon as may be allowed by law, the vendor or his successors would execute in vendee's favor a deed of absolute sale over the land in question.

 

Two years after the sale, appellee tried to recover the land in question from appellant, but the latter refused to allow it unless he was paid the amount of P2,000 as the alleged value of improvements he had introduced on the property.

 

Issue:

 

Whether or not appellant may recover or be reimbursed the value of his improvements on the land in question.

 

Ruling:

 

No. The rule of Art. 453 of the Civil Code invoked by appellant cannot be applied to the instant case for the reason that the lower court found, and appellant admits, that the improvements in question were made on the premises only after appellee had tried to recover the land in question from appellant, and even during the pendency of this action in the court below. After appellant had refused to restore the land to the appellee, to the extent that the latter even had to resort to the present action to recover his property, appellee could no longer be regarded as having impliedly assented or conformed to the improvements thereafter made by appellant on the premises. Upon the other hand, appellant, recognizing as he does appellee's right to get back his property, continued to act in bad faith when he made improvements on the land in question after he had already been asked extra-judicially and judicially, to surrender and return its possession to appellee; and as a penalty for such bad faith, he must forfeit his improvements without any right to reimbursement therefor. "He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses that is built, planted, or sown without right to indemnity"