8/11/2019 07. Ignacio v Hilario (1946)

1/2

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-175 April 30, 1946

DAMAN GNACO, !RANCSCO GNACO "#$ LUS GNACO,petitioners,

vs.ELAS %LARO "#$ &i' (i)* DONSA DRES, "#$ !ELPE NAT+DAD, $* o)!ir'/ #'/"#* o) P"#"'i#"#,respondents.

Leoncio R. Esliza for petitioners.Mauricio M. Monta for respondents.

MORAN, C.J.

This is a petition for certiorariarising from a case in the Court of irst !nstance ofPangasinan bet"een the herein respondents Elias #ilario and his "ife $ionisia $resas plaintiffs, and the herein petitioners $amian, rancisco and %uis, surnamed !gnacio,

as defendants, concerning the o"nership of a parcel of land, partl& rice'land and partl&residential. After the trial of the case, the lo"er court, presided over b& #on. Alfonsoeli(, rendered )udgment holding plaintiffs as the legal o"ners of the "hole propert&but conceding to defendants the o"nership of the houses and granaries built b& themon the residential portion "ith the rights of a possessor in good faith, in accordance"ith article *+ of the Civil Code. The dispositive part of the decision, hub of thiscontrovers&, follo"s-

herefore, )udgment is hereb& rendered declaring-

/0 That the plaintiffs are the o"ners of the "hole propert& described intransfer certificate of title No. 1231 /E(hibit A0 issued in their name, andentitled to the possession of the same4

/10 That the defendants are entitled to hold the position of the residential lotuntil after the& are paid the actual mar5et value of their houses and granarieserected thereon, unless the plaintiffs prefer to sell them said residential lot, in"hich case defendants shall pa& the plaintiffs the proportionate value of saidresidential lot ta5ing as a basis the price paid for the "hole land according toE(hibit B4 and

/*0 That upon defendant6s failure to purchase the residential lot in 7uestion,said defendants shall remove their houses and granaries after this decisionbecomes final and "ithin the period of si(t& /+80 da&s f rom the date that thecourt is informed in "riting of the attitude of the parties in this respect.

No pronouncement is made as to damages and costs.

9nce this decision becomes final, the plaintiffs and defendants ma& appearagain before this court for the purpose of determining their respective rightsunder article *+ of the Civil Code, if the& cannot come to an e(tra')udicialsettlement "ith regard to said rights.

:ubse7uentl&, in a motion filed in the same Court of irst !nstance but no" presidedover b& the herein respondent ;udge #on. elipe Natividad, the plaintiffs pra&ed for an

order of e(ecution alleging that since the& chose neither to pa& defendants for thebuildings nor to sell to them the residential lot, said defendants should be ordered toremove the structure at their o"n e(pense and to restore plaintiffs in the possession ofsaid lot. $efendants ob)ected to this motion "hich, after hearing, "as granted b& ;udgeNatividad. #ence, this petition b& defendants pra&ing for /a0 a restraint and annulmentof the order of e(ecution issued b& ;udge Natividad4 /b0 an order to compel plaintiffs topa& them the sum of P1,888 for the buildings, or sell to them the residential lot for P

8/11/2019 07. Ignacio v Hilario (1946)

2/2

e hold, therefore, that the order of ;udge Natividad compelling defendants'petitioners to remove their buildings from the land belonging to plaintiffs'respondentsonl& because the latter chose neither to pa& for such buildings not to sell the land, isnull and void, for it amends substantiall& the )udgment sought to be e(ecuted and is,furthermore, offensive to articles *+ and