8/11/2019 05. San Diego v Montesa (1962)

1/2

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-17985 September 29, 1962

GIL SN !IEGO "#$ RU%IN SN !IEGO,petitioners,

vs.T&E &ON. GUSTIN P. MONTES, '($)e, Co(rt o* %+rt I#t"#e o* (/""#, et"/.,respondents.

Isidro T. Almeda for petitioners.Jose P. Osorio for respondents.

RE0ES, '..L.,J.:

Presented before us in this petition for mandamusis the peculiar case of party-defendants insisting on, and prevailing party-plaintiffs resisting, the eecution of a finaland eecutory decision.

!o understand this peculiarity, "e "ill state briefly facts leading to the controversy.

After trial in Civil Case No. ##$ of the Court of %irst &nstance of Bulacan, on co'plaintof (ose, Maria and )rbano all surna'ed *de la Cru+*, to recover a parcel of land andda'ages fro' il an iego and Rufino an iego, the Court /0on. (esus 1. Pere+,presiding2 rendered a decision, the dispositive portion of "hich reads as follo"s3

&N 4&E5 6% !0E %6RE6&N, the Court hereby rendered considers

7udg'ent as follo"s3

/a2 eclaring the deed of sale, Ehibit 8, null and void9

/b2 6rdering the defendants and third-party plaintiffs to vacate the land in:uestion upon pay'ent to the' by the plaintiffs and third-party defendants,"ithin thirty /8$2 days after this decision has beco'e final, of the su' of!0REE !06)AN %&4E 0)NRE PE6 /P8,;$$.$$29

/c2 is'issing the counterclai' of the third-party defendants9 and

/d2 No pronounce'ent as to costs.

!he court found that the disputed portion of a parcel of land belonged to the plaintiffsthrough hereditary succession9 that the defendants built a house on the land in goodfaith, having ac:uired the land fro' Catalina Anastacio, 'other of the plaintiffs, bypurchase for P

8/11/2019 05. San Diego v Montesa (1962)

2/2

/82 !hat respondents have long suggested to petition that a co''issioner beappointed to assess the present fair 'ar>et value of the building, ta>ingdepreciation into account9 and

/?2 !hat the denial of the 'otion for eecution is 7ustified because it ispre'ature and has no legal basis.

5e find the petition 'eritorious. !he 7udg'ent affir'ed by the Court of Appeals, andno" final, eplicitly ordains the pay'ent by the respondents de la Cru+ of the a'ount

of P8,;$$.$$ *"ithin 8$ days after this decision beco'es final* to petitioners aniego. &f it also orders petitioners to vacate only upon the pay'ent, it did so inrecognition of the right of retention granted to possessor in good faith by Article ;? ofthe Civil Code of the Philippines. !his provision is epressly 'ade applicable tobuilders in good faith /Article ??@2. !he right of retention thus granted is 'erely asecurity for the enforce'ent of the possessor=s right to inde'nity for the i'prove'entco''ents 'ade by hi'. As a result, the possessor in good faith, in retaining the landand its i'prove'ents pending rei'burse'ent of his useful ependitures, is not boundpay any rental during the period of retention9 other"ise the value of his security "ouldbe i'paired /cf. !ufeis vs. Chunaco /C.A.2, 8 6.. ?;;2.

Nor'ally, of course, the lando"ner has the option to either appropriate thei'prove'ent or to sell the land to the possessor. !his option is no longer open to the

respondent lando"ners because the decision in the for'er suit li'its the' to the firstalternative by re:uiring t petitioner=s to vacate the land /and surrender the i'provedco''ents2 upon pay'ent of P8,;$$.$$. Evidently, the Courts of %irst &nstance and ofAppeals opined that the respondents suit to recover the property "as an eercise theirright to choose to appropriate the i'prove'ents and pay the inde'nity fied by la".!he respondents ac:uiesced in this vie", since they did not as> for a 'odification ofthe 7udg'ent, and allo"ed it to beco'e final. Conse:uently, they can no longer insiston selecting another alternative9 nor can they be heard no" to urge that the value ofthe inde'nity, set at P8,;$$.$$, is eorbitant for the sa'e reason that the 7udg'entfiing that a'ount is no longer sub7ect to alteration.

!he 7udg'ent ordering pay'ent to petitioners of P8,;$$.$$, by "ay of inde'nity,having beco'e final, and the 8$ days for its pay'ent having elapsed, the court of first

instance has the 'inisterial duty to order its eecution /ulueta vs. Paredes, Phil. ;9Buenaventura vs. arcia, #@ Phil. #;D9 A'or vs. (ugo,