Scribd
Upload
1K views1 page

Builders in Good Faith: G.R. 211170 Case

The parcel of land originally owned by Eusebio Espinoza was divided among his heirs and portions were conveyed to respondents through fictitious deeds of sale in 1972 and 1977. Petitioners filed a case to annul the titles, which was successful. Respondents then claimed reimbursement for building a house on the land in good faith. The Court ruled respondents were builders in good faith as they asserted title and were unaware of any title flaws. Bad faith must be clearly proven. The owner has the option to buy improvements after paying indemnity or require payment for the land. The case was remanded to determine current land value and properly apply the Civil Code articles.

Uploaded by

Kristine Bernadette Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views1 page

Builders in Good Faith: G.R. 211170 Case

The parcel of land originally owned by Eusebio Espinoza was divided among his heirs and portions were conveyed to respondents through fictitious deeds of sale in 1972 and 1977. Petitioners filed a case to annul the titles, which was successful. Respondents then claimed reimbursement for building a house on the land in good faith. The Court ruled respondents were builders in good faith as they asserted title and were unaware of any title flaws. Bad faith must be clearly proven. The owner has the option to buy improvements after paying indemnity or require payment for the land. The case was remanded to determine current land value and properly apply the Civil Code articles.

Uploaded by

Kristine Bernadette Cruz
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
  • Procedural History: Describes the legal procedural history of the case, including initial actions and court decisions.
  • FACTS: Provides background information on the case, detailing the division of land among heirs and related legal actions.

Sps. Maximo Espinoza and Winifreda De Vera vs.

Antonio Mayandoc
and Erlinda Cayabyab Mayandoc
G.R. No. 211170 July 03, 2017
Peralta, J.

FACTS:
A parcel of land originally owned by Eusebio Espinoza was divided among his heirs: Pastora Espinoza,
Domingo Espinoza and Pablo Espinoza.

On May 25, 1972, a fictitious deed of sale was executed by petitioner Maximo’s father, Domingo
Espinoza, conveying the three-fourth (3/4) share in the estate in favor of respondent Erlinda Cayabyab
Mayandoc's parents under TCT No. 28397.

On July 9, 1977, a fictitious deed of sale was executed by Nemesio Cayabyab, Candida Cruz, petitioners-
spouses Maximo Espinoza and Winifreda De Vera and Leopoldo Espinoza over the land in favor of
respondents- spouses Antonio and Erlinda Mayandoc under TCT No. 37403.

As a result of the foregoing, petitioners filed an action for annulment of document with prayer for the
nullification of TCT No. 37403 before the RTC and a Decision was rendered in favor of the petitioners.
Respondents appealed, but the CA affirmed the RTC.

Respondents filed a complaint for reimbursement for useful expenses alleging that the house in question
was built on the disputed land in good faith. However, petitioners argued that respondents can never be
considered as builders in good faith because the latter were aware that the deeds of sale over the land in
question were fictitious and, therefore, null and void.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the respondents were builders in good faith.

HELD:
Yes. To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a person asserts title to the land on which he
builds, i.e., that he be a possessor in the concept of owner, and that he be unaware that there exists in his
title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. Bad faith should be established by clear and
convincing evidence since the law always presumes good faith. Anyone who claims that someone is in
bad faith has the duty to prove such. In this case, petitioners were not able to prove that respondents were
in bad faith in constructing the house on the subject land.

Furthermore, Article 448 of the Civil Code must be applied when the builder believes that he is the owner
of the land or that by some title he has the right to build thereon, or that, at least, he has a claim of title
thereto. 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

Thus, this case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings to assess the current fair market of the
land and to determine other matters necessary for the proper application of Article 448, in relation to
Articles 546 and 548 of the New Civil Code.

Sps. Maximo Espinoza and Winifreda De Vera vs. Antonio Mayandoc and Erlinda Cayabyab Mayandoc G.R. No. 211170 July 03, 2017

You might also like