TUATIS VS. SPOUSES ELISEO AND VISMINDA ESCOL

TUATIS VS. SPOUSES ELISEO AND VISMINDA ESCOL

G.R. No. 175399               October 27, 2009

FACTS:

Visminda Escol, the seller and Ophelia Tuatis, the buyer entered into a Deed of Sale by Installments, the subject matter of which is a parcel of land in Sindangan. It provided that upon the failure of the buyer to pay the remaining balance within the time stipulated, he shall return the land to the seller, and the seller shall return all the amounts paid by the buyer. Tuatis took possession of the land and constructed a residential building. Tuatis asserted that she paid Visminda the remaining balance of P3000 in the presence of one Erik Selda and thereafter requested Visminda to sign the absolute deed of sale. Visminda refused contending that the purchase price has not been fully paid. The RTC dismissed Tuatis’s complaint and also ruled that Tuatis constructed the building in bad faith for she had knowledge of the fact that Visminda is still the absolute owner of the land and there was also bad faith on the part of Visminda since she allowed the construction of the building without opposition on her part. The rights of the parties must, therefore, be determined as if they both had acted in bad faith. Their rights in such cases are governed by Article 448 of the Civil Code. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal by Tuatis which resulted to the finality of the appealed decision. Visminda filed a writ of execution. Tuatis then moved that the RTC issue an order allowing her to buy the subject property and maintained that she has the right to choose between being indemnified for the value of her building or buying from Visminda the parcel of land. During the pendency of the motion, the writ of execution was enforced. Tuatis filed with the CA a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus but the same was denied hence this petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Tuatis is entitled to exercise the options granted in Art. 448 of the Civil Code.

RULING:

No, Tuatis is not entitled to exercise the options granted in Article 448 of the Civil Code.

Article 448 provides that the owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.

According to the provision, the landowner can choose between appropriating the building by paying the proper indemnity for the same, as provided for in Articles 546 and 548 of the Civil Code; or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land, unless its value is considerably more than that of the structures, in which case the builder in good faith shall pay reasonable rent.

Under the first option, Visminda may appropriate for herself the building on the subject property after indemnifying Tuatis for the necessary and useful expenses the latter incurred for said building, as provided in Article 546 of the Civil Code. Until Visminda appropriately indemnifies Tuatis for the building constructed by the latter, Tuatis may retain possession of the building and the subject property.

Under the second option, Visminda may choose not to appropriate the building and, instead, oblige Tuatis to pay the present or current fair value of the land.The P10,000.00 price of the subject property, as stated in the Deed of Sale on Installment executed in November 1989, shall no longer apply, since Visminda will be obliging Tuatis to pay for the price of the land in the exercise of Visminda’s rights under Article 448 of the Civil Code, and not under the said Deed. Tuatis’ obligation will then be statutory, and not contractual, arising only when Visminda has chosen her option under Article 448 of the Civil Code

Still under the second option, if the present or current value of the land, the subject property herein, turns out to be considerably more than that of the building built thereon, Tuatis cannot be obliged to pay for the subject property, but she must pay Visminda reasonable rent for the same. Visminda and Tuatis must agree on the terms of the lease; otherwise, the court will fix the terms.

The Court highlights that the options under Article 448 are available to Visminda, as the owner of the subject property. There is no basis for Tuatis’ demand that, since the value of the building she constructed is considerably higher than the subject property, she may choose between buying the subject property from Visminda and selling the building to Visminda for P502,073.00. Again, the choice of options is for Visminda, not Tuatis, to make. And, depending on Visminda’s choice, Tuatis’ rights as a builder under Article 448 are limited to the following: (a) under the first option, a right to retain the building and subject property until Visminda pays proper indemnity; and (b) under the second option, a right not to be obliged to pay for the price of the subject property, if it is considerably higher than the value of the building, in which case, she can only be obliged to pay reasonable rent for the same.

The rule that the choice under Article 448 of the Civil Code belongs to the owner of the land is in accord with the principle of accession, i.e., that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around. Even as the option lies with the landowner, the grant to him, nevertheless, is preclusive. The landowner cannot refuse to exercise either option and compel instead the owner of the building to remove it from the land.

The raison d’etre for this provision has been enunciated thus: Where the builder, planter or sower has acted in good faith, a conflict of rights arises between the owners, and it becomes necessary to protect the owner of the improvements without causing injustice to the owner of the land. In view of the impracticability of creating a state of forced co-ownership, the law has provided a just solution by giving the owner of the land the option to acquire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity, or to oblige the builder or planter to pay for the land and the sower the proper rent. He cannot refuse to exercise either option. It is the owner of the land who is authorized to exercise the option, because his right is older, and because, by the principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing.

 Visminda’s Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution cannot be deemed as an expression of her choice to recover possession of the subject property under the first option, since the options under Article 448 of the Civil Code and their respective consequences were also not clearly presented to her by the 19 April 1999 Decision of the RTC. She must then be given the opportunity to make a choice between the options available to her after being duly informed herein of her rights and obligations under both.