Spouses ISMAEL and TERESITA MACASAET, petitioners,

vs.
Spouses VICENTE and ROSARIO MACASAET, respondents.
The present case involves a dispute between parents and children. The children were
invited by the parents to occupy the latters two lots, out of parental love and a desire to
foster family solidarity. Unfortunately, an unresolved conflict terminated this situation.
Out of pique, the parents asked them to vacate the premises. Thus, the children lost
their right to remain on the property. They have the right, however, to be indemnified for
the useful improvements that they constructed thereon in good faith and with the
consent of the parents. In short, rticle !!" of the #ivil #ode applies.
The Case
$efore us is a %etition for &eview
'
under &ule !( of the &ules of #ourt, assailing the
)arch **, *++* ,ecision
*
and the -une *., *++* &esolution
/
of the #ourt of ppeals
0#1 in #23& 4% 5os. (.*+( 6 (.!.7. The challenged ,ecision disposed as follows8
9:;<&<=O&<, the assailed ,ecision is ==I&)<, with the following
)O,I=I#TIO548
>'. ?icente and &osario should reimburse Ismael and Teresita one2half of
the value of the useful improvements introduced in the premises prior to
demand, which is equivalent to %!7(,+++.++. In case the former refuse to
reimburse the said amount, the latter may remove the improvements,
even though the land may suffer damage thereby. They shall not,
however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased than is
necessary.
>*. The award of attorneys fees is ,<@<T<,.
>/. The records of these consolidated cases are &<)5,<, to the #ourt
of origin for further proceedings to determine the option to be taken by
?icente and &osario and to implement the same with dispatch.9
!
The assailed &esolution denied petitioners )otion for &econsideration.
The Facts
Petitioners Ismael and Teresita

Macasaet and Respondents Vicente and Rosario

Macasaet are !irst"de#ree relati$es% Ismael is the son o! respondents, and Teresita
is his &i!e%
'
On ,ecember '+, 'AA7, the parents filed with the )unicipal Trial #ourt in #ities 0)T##1
of @ipa #ity an eBectment suit against the children.
7
Respondents alle#ed that the(
&ere the o&ners o! t&o )*+ parcels o! land co$ered ,( Trans!er Certi!icate o! Title
)TCT+ Nos% T"-.*/ and T"/01/2/, situated at 3ana(",ana(, Lipa Cit(4 that ,( &a(
o! a $er,al lease a#reement, Ismael and Teresita occupied these lots in March
/55* and used them as their residence and the situs o! their construction
,usiness4 and that despite repeated demands, petitioners !ailed to pa( the a#reed
rental o! P00 per &ee6%
"
Ismael and Teresita denied the e7istence o! an( $er,al lease a#reement% The(
claimed that respondents had in$ited them to construct their residence and
,usiness on the su,8ect lots in order that the( could all li$e near one other,
emplo( Mari$ic )the sister o! Ismael+, and help in resol$in# the pro,lems o! the
!amil(%
5
The( added that it &as the polic( o! respondents to allot the land the(
o&ned as an ad$ance #rant o! inheritance in !a$or o! their children% Thus, the(
contended that the lot co$ered ,( TCT No% T"/01/2/ had ,een allotted to Ismael
as ad$ance inheritance% On the other hand, the lot co$ered ,( TCT No% T"-.*/
&as alle#edl( #i$en to petitioners as pa(ment !or construction materials used in
the reno$ation o! respondents9 house%
/0
The MTCC
//
ruled in !a$or o! respondents and ordered petitioners to $acate the
premises% It opined that Ismael and Teresita had occupied the lots, not ,( $irtue
o! a $er,al lease a#reement, ,ut ,( tolerance o! Vicente and Rosario%
/*
As their
sta( &as ,( mere tolerance, petitioners &ere necessaril( ,ound ,( an implied
promise to $acate the lots upon demand%
/1
The )T## dismissed their contention
that one lot had been allotted as an advance inheritance, on the ground that
successional rights were inchoate. )oreover, it disbelieved petitioners allegation that
the other parcel had been given as payment for construction materials.
'!
On appeal, the re#ional trial court
/
)RTC+ upheld the !indin#s o! the MTCC%
:o&e$er, the RTC allo&ed respondents to appropriate the ,uildin# and other
impro$ements introduced ,( petitioners, a!ter pa(ment o! the indemnit( pro$ided
!or ,( Article 22. in relation to Articles 2' and 2. o! the Ci$il Code%
/'
It added
that respondents could o,li#e petitioners to purchase the land, unless its $alue
&as considera,l( more than the ,uildin#% In the latter situation, petitioners
should pa( rent i! respondents &ould not choose to appropriate the ,uildin#%
/-
Upon denial of their individual )otions for &econsideration, the parties filed with the #
separate %etitions for &eview, which were later consolidated.
'"
Rulin# o! the Court o! Appeals
The CA sustained the !indin# o! the t&o lo&er courts that Ismael and Teresita had
,een occup(in# the su,8ect lots onl( ,( the tolerance o! Vicente and
Rosario%
/5
Thus, possession o! the su,8ect lots ,( petitioners ,ecame ille#al upon
their receipt o! respondents9 letter to $acate it.
*+
#iting #alubayan v. %ascual,
*'
the # further ruled that petitioners status was
analogous to that of a lessee or a tenant whose term of lease had eCpired, but whose
occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner.
**
#onsequently, in ascertaining the right
of petitioners to be reimbursed for the improvements they had introduced on
respondents properties,
*/
the appellate court applied the #ivil #odes provisions on
lease. The # modified the &T# ,ecision by declaring that rticle !!" of the #ivil #ode
was inapplicable. The # opined that under rticle '.7" of the same #ode, Ismael and
Teresita had the right to be reimbursed for one half of the value of the improvements
made.
*!
5ot satisfied with the #s ruling, petitioners brought this recourse to this #ourt.
*(
The Issues
%etitioners raise the following issues for our consideration8
9'. a1 :hether or not 4ection '7D,E &ule 7+ of the &ules of #ourt on -udgment
should apply in the rendition of the decision in this caseF
b1 :hether or not the #omplaint should have been dismissedF
c1 :hether or not damages including attorneys fees should have been
awarded to herein petitionersF
9*. a1 :hether or not the rule on appearance of parties during the %retrial should
apply on appearance of parties during %reliminary #onference in an unlawful
detainer suitF
b1 :hether or not the case of %hilippine %ryce ssurance #orporation vs.
#ourt of ppeals 0*/+ 4#& '.!1 is applicable to appearance of parties in
an unlawful detainer suitF
;1% <hether or not Article /'-. o! the Ci$il Code should appl( to the case
on the matters o! impro$ements, or is it Article 22- o! the Ci$il Code in
relation to the Article 21 and 22 thereo! that should appl(, i! e$er to appl(
the Ci$il Code4
9!. :hether or not the D,Eecision of the #ourt of ppeals is supported by
evidence, appropriate laws, rules and BurisprudenceF
9(. :hether or not ssisting -udge 5orberto )ercado of the )T## @ipa #ity
should be held accountable in rendering the )T## D,EecisionF
9.. :hether or not tty. 3lenn )endoGa and tty. ndrew @inatoc of the same
DlEaw office should be held accountable for pursuing the DeEBectment caseD.E9
*.
The Court9s Rulin#
The %etition is partly meritorious.
First Issue=
Ejectment
:ho is entitled to the physical or material possession of the premisesH t the outset, we
stress that this is the main issue in eBectment proceedings.
*7
In the present case,
petitioners failed to Bustify their right to retain possession of the subBect lots, which
respondents own. 4ince possession is one of the attributes of ownership,
*"
respondents
clearly are entitled to physical or material possession.
Allegations of the Complaint
Petitioners alle#e that they cannot be eBected from the lots, because respondents
based their #omplaint regarding the nonpayment of rentals on a verbal lease
agreement, which the latter failed to prove.
*A
%etitioners contend that the lower courts
erred in using another ground 0tolerance of possession1 to eBect them.
In actions for unlawful detainer, possession that was originally lawful becomes unlawful
upon the eCpiration or termination of the defendants right to possess, arising from an
eCpress or implied contract.
/+
In other words, the plaintiffs cause of action comes from
the eCpiration or termination of the defendants right to continue possession.
/'
The case
resulting therefrom must be filed within one year from the date of the last demand.
To sho& a cause o! action in an unla&!ul detainer, an alle#ation that the
de!endant is ille#all( &ithholdin# possession !rom the plainti!! is su!!icient. The
complaint may lie even if it does not employ the terminology of the law, provided the
said pleading is couched in a language adequately stating that the withholding of
possession or the refusal to vacate has become unlawful.
/*
It is equally settled that the
Burisdiction of the court, as well as the nature of the action, is determined from the
averments of the complaint.
//
In the present case, the Complaint alle#ed that despite demands, petitioners
;re!used to pa( the accrued rentals and >to? $acate the leased premises%;
12
It
pra(ed that 8ud#ment ,e rendered ;>o?rderin# >petitioners? and all those claimin#
ri#hts under them to $acate the properties 7 7 7 and remo$e the structures 7 7 7
constructed thereon%;
1
E!!ecti$el( then, respondents a$erred that petitioners9
ori#inal la&!ul occupation o! the su,8ect lots had ,ecome unla&!ul%
The MTCC !ound su!!icient cause to e8ect petitioners% <hile it dis,elie$ed the
e7istence o! a $er,al lease a#reement, it ne$ertheless concluded that petitioners9
occupation o! the su,8ect lots &as ,( mere tolerance o! respondents% 3asin# its
conclusion on the !act that the parties &ere close relati$es, the )T## ruled thus8
9C C C DTEhe parties herein are first degree relatives. $ecause of this relationship,
this #ourt takes Budicial notice of the love, care, concern and protection imbued
upon the parents towards their DchildrenE, i.e., in the instant case, the love, care,
concern and protection of the DrespondentsE to the DpetitionersE. :ith this in mind,
this #ourt is inclined to believe the position of the DpetitionersE that there was no
such verbal lease agreement between the parties herein that took place in 'AA*.
C C C.
9=rom the allegations of the DpetitionersE, this #ourt is convinced that their stay
and occupancy of the subBect premises was by mere tolerance of the
DrespondentsE, and not by virtue of a verbal lease agreement between them.9
/.
:a$in# !ound a cause o! action !or unla&!ul detainer, the MTCC )as &ell as the
RTC and the CA+ did not err in orderin# the e8ectment o! petitioners as pra(ed !or
,( respondents% There &as no $iolation o! Section /- o! Rule -0
1-
o! the Rules o!
Court% As earlier e7plained, unla&!ul detainer &as su!!icientl( alle#ed in the
Complaint and dul( pro$en durin# the trial% Si#ni!icantl(, the issue o! &hether
there &as enou#h #round to e8ect petitioners &as raised durin# the preliminar(
con!erence%
1.
Not Merely Tolerated Possession
Petitioners dispute the lower courts finding that they occupied the subBect lots on the
basis of mere tolerance. They argue that their occupation was not under such condition,
since respondents had invited, offered and persuaded them to use those properties.
/A
This Court has consistentl( held that those &ho occup( the land o! another at the
latter9s tolerance or permission, &ithout an( contract ,et&een them, are
necessaril( ,ound ,( an implied promise that the occupants &ill $acate the
propert( upon demand%
20
summary action for eBectment is the proper remedy to
enforce this implied obligation.
!'
The unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession
is to be counted from the date of the demand to vacate.
!*
Toleration is de!ined as ;the act or practice o! permittin# or endurin# somethin#
not &holl( appro$ed o!.9
!/
4arona v. ?illegas
!!
described what tolerated acts means,
in this language8
9%rofessor rturo ). Tolentino states that acts merely tolerated are >those which
by reason of neighborliness or familiarity, the owner of property allows his
neighbor or another person to do on the propertyF they are generally those
particular services or benefits which ones property can give to another without
material inBury or preBudice to the owner, who permits them out of friendship or
courtesy. C C C. nd, Tolentino continues, even though >this is continued for a
long time, no right will be acquired by prescription.9 C C C. =urther eCpounding on
the concept, Tolentino writes8 >There is tacit consent of the possessor to the acts
which are merely tolerated. Thus, not every case of knowledge and silence on
the part of the possessor can be considered mere tolerance. $y virtue of
tolerance that is considered as an authoriGation, permission or license, acts of
possession are realiGed or performed. The question reduces itself to the
eCistence or non2eCistence of the permission.9
!(
<e hold that the !acts o! the present case rule out the !indin# o! possession ,(
mere tolerance% Petitioners &ere a,le to esta,lish that respondents had in$ited
them to occup( the su,8ect lots in order that the( could all li$e near one other
and help in resol$in# !amil( pro,lems%
2'
3( occup(in# those lots, petitioners
demonstrated their acceptance o! the in$itation% :ence, there &as a meetin# o!
minds, and an a#reement re#ardin# possession o! the lots impliedl( arose
,et&een the parties%
The occupanc( o! the su,8ect lots ,( petitioners &as not merel( ;somethin# not
&holl( appro$ed o!; ,( respondents% Neither did it arise !rom &hat Tolentino
re!ers to as ;nei#h,orliness or !amiliarit(%; In point o! !act, their possession &as
upon the in$itation o! and &ith the complete appro$al o! respondents, &ho
desired that their children &ould occup( the premises% It arose !rom !amilial lo$e
and a desire !or !amil( solidarit(, &hich are ,asic Filipino traits%
Right to Use the Lots Terminated
That Ismael and Teresita had a ri#ht to occup( the lots is there!ore clear% The
issue is the duration o! possession% In the a,sence o! a stipulation on this point,
Article //5- o! the Ci$il Code allo&s the courts to !i7 the duration or the period%
9rticle ''A7. If the obligation does not fiC a period, but from its nature and the
circumstances it can be inferred that a period was intended, the courts may fiC
the duration thereof.
9The courts shall also fiC the duration of the period when it depends upon the will
of the debtor.
9In every case the courts shall determine such period as may under the
circumstances have been probably contemplated by the parties. Once fiCed by
the courts, the period cannot be changed by them.9
Article //5-, ho&e$er, applies to a situation in &hich the parties intended a
period% Such @uali!ication cannot ,e in!erred !rom the !acts o! the present case%
To repeat, &hen Vicente and Rosario in$ited their children to use the lots, the( did
so out o! parental lo$e and a desire !or solidarit( e7pected !rom Filipino parents%
No period &as intended ,( the parties% Their mere !ailure to !i7 the duration o!
their a#reement does not necessaril( 8usti!( or authoriAe the courts to do so%
2-
3ased on respondents9 reasons !or #ratuitousl( allo&in# petitioners to use the
lots, it can ,e sa!el( concluded that the a#reement su,sisted as lon# as the
parents and the children mutuall( ,ene!ited !rom the arran#ement% E!!ecti$el(,
there is a resolutor( condition in such an a#reement%
2.
Thus, &hen a chan#e in
the condition e7istin# ,et&een the parties occurs "" li6e a chan#e o! o&nership,
necessit(, death o! either part( or unresol$ed con!lict or animosit( "" the
a#reement ma( ,e deemed terminated% :a$in# ,een ,ased on parental lo$e, the
a#reement &ould end upon the dissipation o! the a!!ection%
:hen persistent conflict and animosity overtook the love and solidarity between the
parents and the children, the purpose of the agreement ceased.
25
Thus, petitioners no
lon#er had an( cause !or continued possession o! the lots% Their ri#ht to use the
properties ,ecame untena,le% It ceased upon their receipt o! the notice to $acate%
And ,ecause the( re!used to heed the demand, e8ectment &as the proper remed(
a#ainst them% Their possession, &hich &as ori#inall( la&!ul, ,ecame unla&!ul
&hen the reason there!or "" lo$e and solidarit( "" ceased to e7ist ,et&een them%
No Right to Retain Possession
%etitioners have not given this #ourt adequate reasons to reverse the lower courts
dismissal of their contention that @ots T27"(*' and T2'+/'!', respectively, were
allegedly allotted to them as part of their inheritance and given in consideration for past
debts.
The ri#ht o! petitioners to inherit !rom their parents is merel( inchoate and is
$ested onl( upon the latters9 demise% Indisputa,l(, ri#hts o! succession are
transmitted onl( !rom the moment o! death o! the decedent%
0
Assumin# that there
&as an ;allotment; o! inheritance, o&nership nonetheless remained &ith
respondents% Moreo$er, an intention to con!er title to certain persons in the !uture
is not inconsistent &ith the o&ners9 ta6in# ,ac6 possession in the meantime !or
an( reason deemed su!!icient%
/
Other than their sel!"ser$in# testimonies and their
a!!ida$its, petitioners o!!ered no credi,le e$idence to support their outlandish
claim o! inheritance ;allocation%;
:e also agree with the lower courts that petitioners failed to prove the allegation that,
through a dation in payment, @ot T27"(*' had been transferred to the latter as payment
for respondents debts.
(*
The evidence presented by petitioners related only to the
alleged indebtedness of the parents arising from the latters purported purchases and
advances.
1
There &as no su!!icient proo! that respondents had entered into a
contract o! dation to settle the alle#ed de,t% %etitioners even stated that there was a
disagreement in the accounting of the purported debt,
(!
a fact that disproves a meeting
of the minds with the parents.
%etitioners also admitted that a portion of the alleged debt is the subBect matter of a
collection case against respondents 0#ivil #ase 5o. +(A!2A.1.
((
Thus, the formers
allegation that the indebtedness has been paid through a dation cannot be given
credence, inconsistent as it is with their action to recover the same debt.
,espite their protestations, petitioners recogniGed the right of the parents to recover the
premises when they admitted in their %osition %aper filed with the )T## that
respondents had a title to the lots.
9The DrespondentsE want to get their property because the title is theirs, the
DpetitionersE do not obBect but what is due the DpetitionersE including the reparation
for the tarnish of their dignity and honor must be given the DpetitionersE for the
benefits of their children before the premises will be turned over.9
(.
s a rule, the right of ownership carries with it the right of possession.
Second Issue=
Appearance at the Preliminary Conference
4ection " of &ule 7+ of the &ules of #ourt requires the appearance of the plaintiff and
the defendant during the preliminary conference. On the basis of this provision,
petitioners claim that the )T## should have dismissed the case upon the failure of
respondents to attend the conference. ;owever, petitioners do not dispute that an
attorney2in2fact with a written authoriGation from respondents appeared during the
preliminary conference.
(7
The issue then is whether the rules on eBectment allow a
representative to substitute for a partys personal appearance.
Unless inconsistent with &ule 7+, the provisions of &ule '" on pretrial applies to the
preliminary conference.
("
Under 4ection ! of this &ule, the nonappearance of a party
may be eCcused by the showing of a valid causeF or by the appearance of a
representative, who has been fully authoriGed in writing to enter into an amicable
settlement, to submit to alternative modes of dispute resolution, and to enter into
stipulations or admissions of facts and of documents.
(A
4ection ! of &ule '" may supplement 4ection " of &ule 7+. Thus, the spirit behind the
eCception to personal appearance under the rules on pretrial is applicable to the
preliminary conference. If there are valid reasons or if a representative has a 9special
authority,9 a partys appearance may be waived. s petitioners are challenging only the
applicability of the rules on pretrial to the rule on preliminary conference, the written
authoriGation from respondents can indeed be readily considered as a 9special
authoriGation.9
Third Issue=
Rights of a Builder in Good Faith
As applied to the present case, accession re!ers to the ri#ht o! the o&ner to
e$er(thin# that is incorporated or attached to the propert(%
'0
Accession industrial
"" ,uildin#, plantin# and so&in# on an immo$a,le "" is #o$erned ,( Articles 22 to
2' o! the Ci$il Code%
Articles ! and "#!$ of the Ci%il Code &napplica'le
To ,uttress their claim o! reim,ursement !or the impro$ements introduced on the
propert(, petitioners cite Article 22-%
'/
The( alle#e that the CA erred in appl(in#
Article /'-., since the( had no lease a#reement &ith respondents%
<e clari!(% Article 22- is not applica,le, ,ecause it relates to the rules that appl(
&hen the o&ner o! the propert( uses the materials o! another% It does not re!er to
the instance &hen a possessor ,uilds on the propert( o! another, &hich is the
!actual milieu here%
In view of the unique factual setting of the instant case, the contention of petitioners
regarding the inapplicability of rticle '.7" deserves attention. The # applied the
provisions on lease, because it found their possession by mere tolerance comparable
with that of a lessee, per the pronouncement in #alubayan v. %ascual,
.*
from which we
quote8
9C C C. It has been held that a person who occupies the land of another at the
latters tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is
necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing
which a summary action for eBectment is the proper remedy against them. The
status of defendant is analogous to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of
lease has eCpired but whose occupancy continued by tolerance of the owner. In
such a case, the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession is to be
counted from the date of the demand to vacate.9
./
0<mphasis in the original.1
As e7plained earlier, Ismael and Teresita9s possession o! the t&o lots &as not ,(
mere tolerance, a circumstance that ne#ates the applica,ilit( o! Calu,a(an%
Article $ Applica'le
On the other hand, &hen a person ,uilds in #ood !aith on the land o! another, the
applica,le pro$ision is Article 22., which reads8
.!
9rticle !!". The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or
planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works,
sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in rticles (!.
and (!", or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and
the one who sowed, the proper rent. ;owever, the builder or planter cannot be
obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building
or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does
not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties
shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court
shall fiC the terms thereof.9
This Court has ruled that this pro$ision co$ers onl( cases in &hich the ,uilders,
so&ers or planters ,elie$e themsel$es to ,e o&ners o! the land or, at least, to
ha$e a claim o! title thereto%
'
It does not appl( &hen the interest is merel( that o!
a holder, such as a mere tenant, a#ent or usu!ructuar(%
''
From these
pronouncements, #ood !aith is identi!ied ,( the ,elie! that the land is o&ned4 or
that "" ,( some title "" one has the ri#ht to ,uild, plant, or so& thereon%
'-
:o&e$er, in some special cases, this Court has used Article 22. ,( reco#niAin#
#ood !aith ,e(ond this limited de!inition. Thus, in ,el #ampo v. besia,
."
this
provision was applied to one whose house 22 despite having been built at the time he
was still co2owner 22 overlapped with the land of another.
.A
This article was also applied
to cases wherein a builder had constructed improvements with the consent of the
owner. The #ourt ruled that the law deemed the builder to be in good faith.
7+
In
Sarmiento $% A#ana,
-/
the ,uilders &ere !ound to ,e in #ood !aith despite their
reliance on the consent o! another, &hom the( had mista6enl( ,elie$ed to ,e the
o&ner o! the land%
-*
3ased on the a!orecited special cases, Article 22. applies to the present !actual
milieu% The esta,lished !acts o! this case sho& that respondents !ull( consented
to the impro$ements introduced ,( petitioners% In !act, ,ecause the children
occupied the lots upon their in$itation, the parents certainl( 6ne& and appro$ed
o! the construction o! the impro$ements introduced thereon%
-1
Thus, petitioners
ma( ,e deemed to ha$e ,een in #ood !aith &hen the( ,uilt the structures on
those lots%
The instant case is factually similar to -avier v. -avier.
7!
In that case, this #ourt deemed
the son to be in good faith for building the improvement 0the house1 with the knowledge
and consent of his father, to whom belonged the land upon which it was built. Thus,
rticle !!"
7(
was applied.
Rule on Useful ()penses
The structures ,uilt ,( petitioners &ere ;use!ul; impro$ements, ,ecause the(
au#mented the $alue or income o! the ,are lots%
-'
Thus, the indemnit( to ,e paid
,( respondents under Article 22. is pro$ided !or ,( Article 2', which we quote8
9rt. (!.. 5ecessary eCpenses shall be refunded to every possessorF but only
the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed
therefor.
9Useful eCpenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the
same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in the possession
having the option of refunding the amount of the eCpenses or of paying the
increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof.9
Conse@uentl(, respondents ha$e the ri#ht to appropriate "" as their o&n "" the
,uildin# and other impro$ements on the su,8ect lots, ,ut onl( a!ter )/+ re!undin#
the e7penses o! petitioners or )*+ pa(in# the increase in $alue ac@uired ,( the
properties ,( reason thereo!% The( ha$e the option to o,li#e petitioners to pa( the
price o! the land, unless its $alue is considera,l( more than that o! the structures
"" in &hich case, petitioners shall pa( reasona,le rent%
In accordance with ,epra v. ,umlao,
77
this case must be remanded to the trial court to
determine matters necessary for the proper application of rticle !!" in relation to
rticle (!.. 4uch matters include the option that respondents would take and the
amount of indemnity that they would pay, should they decide to appropriate the
improvements on the lots. :e disagree with the #s computation of useful eCpenses,
which were based only on petitioners bare allegations in their nswer.
7"
Rulin# on Impro$ement Busti!ied
:hile, ordinarily, the Burisdiction of the )T## on eBectment proceedings is limited to the
issue of physical or material possession of the property in question, this #ourt finds it
necessary to abbreviate the issue on the improvements in relation to rticle !!"% First,
the determination o! the parties9 ri#ht to those impro$ements is intimatel(
connected &ith the MTCC proceedin#s in the li#ht o! the e8ectment o! petitioners%
Second, there is no dispute that &hile the( constructed the impro$ements,
respondents o&ned the land% Third, ,oth parties raised no o,8ection &hen the
RTC and the CA ruled accordin#l( on this matter%
<quitable considerations compel us to settle this point immediately, pro hoc vice, to
avoid needless delay. $oth parties have already been heard on this issueF to dillydally or
equivocate would not serve the cause of substantial Bustice.
*ther &ssues Raised
3iven the foregoing rulings, it is no longer necessary to address petitioners allegation
that the )T## Budge and respondents lawyers should be respectively held personally
accountable for the ,ecision and for filing the case.
7A
The insinuation of petitioners that
the lawyers manipulated the issuance of a false barangay certification is
unavailing.
"+
Their contention that respondents did not attend the barangay conciliation
proceedings was based solely on hearsay, which has little or no probative value.
"'
<:EREFORE, the assailed ,ecision and &esolution of the #ourt of ppeals
are AFFIRMEC with the following MOCIFICATIONS8
'. The portion requiring 4pouses ?icente and &osario )acasaet to reimburse
one half of the value of the useful improvements, amounting to %!7(,+++, and
the right of 4pouses Ismael and Teresita )acasaet to remove those
improvements 0if the former refuses to reimburse1 is CELETEC.
*. The case is REMANCEC to the court of origin for further proceedings to
determine the facts essential to the proper application of rticles !!" and (!. of
the #ivil #ode, specifically to the following matters8
a. 4pouses ?icente and &osario )acasaets option to appropriate 22 as
their own 22 the improvements on the lots, after paying the indemnity, as
provided under rticle (!. in relation to rticle !!" of the #ivil #odeF or in
requiring 4pouses Ismael and &osita )acasaet to pay for the value of the
lots, unless it is considerably more than that of the improvements, in which
case petitioners shall pay reasonable rent based upon the terms provided
under the #ivil #ode
b. The value of the useful eCpenses incurred by 4pouses Ismael and
&osita )acasaet in the construction of the improvements on the lots
c. The increase in value acquired by the lots by reason of the useful
improvements
d. 4pouses ?icente and &osario )acasaets choice of type of indemnity to
be paid 0whether b or c1
e. :hether the value of the lots is considerably more than that of the
improvements built thereon
5o pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORCEREC%