Case Digest (G.R. No. 115814)
Facts:
Pedro P. Pecson v. Court of Appeals, Spouses Juan Nuguid and Erlinda Nuguid, G.R. No. 115814. May 26, 1995, the Supreme Court First Division, Davide, Jr., J., writing for the Court.Petitioner Pedro P. Pecson owned a commercial lot on Kamias Street, Quezon City, upon which he had constructed a four-door, two-storey apartment building. For nonpayment of realty taxes totaling P12,000.00, the lot was sold at public auction to Mamerto Nepomuceno, who subsequently conveyed the lot on 12 October 1983 to respondents Juan Nuguid and Erlinda Tan-Nuguid for P103,000.00.
Petitioner filed Civil Case No. Q-41470 in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City to annul the auction sale. In its decision dated 8 February 1989 the RTC dismissed the complaint but initially treated the question whether the sale included the apartment building as “not a subject of the . . . litigation”; on reconsideration the RTC held there was no legal basis to say the building was included in the sale. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. CV No. 2931). On 30 April 1992 the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in toto and agreed that the auction and subsequent conveyance described only the land (Lot No. 21-A, Blk. K-34) with no mention of the building thereon. This Court denied a subsequent petition to review and entered judgment on 23 June 1993.
In November 1993 the private respondents moved in the RTC for delivery of possession of “the lot and the apartment building,” invoking Article 546 of the Civil Code. On 15 November 1993 the trial court granted the motion: it ordered the movant to reimburse petitioner P53,000.00 (the construction cost petitioner admitted he spent), directed issuance of a writ of possession placing respondent Juan Nuguid in immediate possession of the lot and improvements, and ordered that petitioner pay rent to the movant of at least P21,000.00 per month from 23 June 1993, and that P53,000.00 be offset against rents collected by petitioner from June 23 to September 23, 1993. A writ of possession was issued on 18 November 1993 and executed.
Petitioner filed a special civil action for certiorari and prohibition in the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 32679) to annul the RTC order. In its decision of 7 June 1994 the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, holding private respondents should pay petitioner the construction cost of P53,000.00 and that petitioner must account for...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Does Article 448 of the Civil Code apply where the builder of improvements was the former owner who later lost ownership, and if Article 448 (or Article 546) applies, should indemnity for useful improvements be measured by the original cost of construction or by their current market value?
- Is the builder-in-good-faith (petitioner) entitled to retain possession and the income (rents) from the improvements until indemnity is paid, or may the landowner demand rents and offset them against ind...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)