Case Digest: Spouses Caezo vs.

Spouses Bautista Digest

G.R. NO. 170189: September 1, 2010
SPOUSES ELEGIO CAEZO AND DOLIA CAEZO, Petitioners, v. SPOUSES APOLINARIO
AND CONSORCIA L. BAUTISTA, Respondents
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
Spouses Elegio and Dolia Caezo (appellees) are the registered owners of a parcel of land with
an area of 186 square meters, covered by TCT No. 32911. Whereas, Spouses Apolinario and
Consorcia Bautista (appellants) are the registered owners of a parcel of land, containing an area
of 181 square meters, covered by TCT No. 31727. Both parcels of land are located at Coronado
Heights, Barangka Ibaba, Mandaluyong City and registered with the Registry of Deeds of
Mandaluyong City. Appellants lot is adjacent to that of appellees.
Sometime in 1995, appellees started the construction of a building on their lot. During the
construction, appellees discovered that their lot was encroached upon by the structures built by
appellants without appellees knowledge and consent.
Three surveys were conducted which confirmed the fact of encroachment. However, despite
oral and written demands, appellants failed and refused to remove the structures encroaching
appellees lot.
Spouses Caezo filed their complaint for the issuance of a writ of demolition with damages on
13 April 2000. In an Order dated 15 August 2000, the trial court declared the spouses Bautista in
default for failure to answer within the reglementary period. The trial court promulgated its
Decision in favor of the spouses Caezo. The trial court found that the spouses Bautista built
structures encroaching on the land owned by the spouses Caezo. The spouses Bautista also
refused to remove the structures and respect the boundaries as established by the various
surveyors. A referral to the Barangay Lupon failed to settle the controversy amicably. The trial
court thus ruled that the spouses Bautista are builders in bad faith, such that spouses Caezo
are entitled to an issuance of a writ of demolition with damages.
On appeal, the appellate court rendered its Decision which reversed the Trial Courts Decision.
The appellate court ruled that since the last demand was made on 27 March 2000, or more than
a year before the filing of the complaint, the spouses Caezo should have filed a suit for
recovery of possession and not for the issuance of a writ of demolition. A writ of demolition can
be granted only as an effect of a final judgment or order, hence the spouses Caezos complaint
should be dismissed. The spouses Caezo failed to specify the assessed value of the
encroached portion of their property. Because of this failure, the complaint lacked sufficient
basis to constitute a cause of action. Finally, the appellate court ruled that should there be a
finding of encroachment in the action for recovery of possession and that the encroachment was
built in good faith, the market value of the encroached portion should be proved to determine
the appropriate indemnity.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioners should have filed recovery of possession and not writ
of demolition

HELD:
PROPERTY LAW
The present case, while inaccurately captioned as an action for a Writ of Demolition with
Damages is in reality an action to recover a parcel of land or an accion reivindicatoria under
Article 434 of the Civil Code. Accion reivindicatoria seeks the recovery of ownership and
includes the jus utendi and the jus fruendi brought in the proper regional trial court. Accion
reivindicatoria is an action whereby plaintiff alleges ownership over a parcel of land and seeks
recovery of its full possession.
The spouses Caezo were able to establish their ownership of the encroached property. Aside
from testimonial evidence, the spouses Caezo were also able to present documentary and
object evidence which consisted of photographs, transfer certificates of title, and a relocation
survey plan.
The relocation survey plan also corroborated Elegio Caezos testimony on the reason for the
spouses Bautistas attitude regarding the encroached property. The relocation survey plan
showed that the spouses Bautistas property encroached upon that of the spouses Caezo by
0.97 centimeters, while the spouses Bautistas property was encroached upon by 1.01
centimeters by another landowner.
The testimony and the relocation survey plan both show that the spouses Bautista were aware
of the encroachment upon their lot by the owner of Lot 15 and thus they made a corresponding
encroachment upon the lot of the spouses Caezo. This awareness of the two encroachments
made the spouses Bautista builders in bad faith. The spouses Caezo are entitled to the
issuance of a writ of demolition in their favor and against the spouses Bautista, in accordance
with Article 450 of the Civil Code.