Case Digest (G.R. No. 150666)
Facts:
Luciano Briones and Nelly Briones v. Jose Macabagdal, Fe D. Macabagdal and Vergon Realty Investments Corporation, G.R. No. 150666, August 03, 2010, Supreme Court Third Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Respondent-spouses Jose and Fe Macabagdal purchased Lot No. 2-R (325 sq. m.) in Vergonville Subdivision No. 10, Las Piñas City, covered by TCT No. 62181. Petitioners Luciano and Nelly Briones owned the adjoining Lot No. 2-S. In 1984, after obtaining a building permit and what they understood to be Vergon’s approval, petitioners constructed a house on what later proved to be Lot No. 2-R. Vergon’s manager subsequently informed petitioners of the error; respondent-spouses then demanded demolition and vacation, which petitioners refused.
Respondent-spouses filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Makati City, Branch 135. Petitioners defended, asserting they were buyers in good faith and impleaded Vergon Realty Investments Corporation (Vergon) as third-party defendant, invoking warranty against eviction and claiming indemnity. The RTC found the house indisputably on Lot No. 2-R and rendered judgment ordering petitioners to demolish and vacate or, alternatively, to pay the prevailing price of the lot (fixed not less than P1,500.00/sq. m.), plus awards of moral damages (P50,000), attorney’s fees (P30,000), and costs; it dismissed defendants’ counterclaims and third‑party complaints in large part.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 48109 (Velasco, J.) affirmed the RTC, holding the house was built on Lot No. 2-R and rejecting application of warranty against eviction and the defense of good-faith purchaser to justify wrongful occupation. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration before the CA was denied. Petitioners then filed a petition for review on cert...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Under Rule 45, may this Court re-examine the factual findings of the RTC and CA concerning the location of the improvements?
- Did the trial court err in ordering petitioners to demolish the house or pay for the land instead of applying the remedies for a builder in good faith under Article 448 of the Civil Code?
- Are petitioners entitled to indemnity from Vergon for the mistaken pointing out of the lot (tort liability)?
- Were the awards of moral damages to respondent-spouses and compensatory damages...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)