Javier vs. Javier

Property that was absolutely alienated by a decedent during his lifetime and subsequently acquired by an heir from the original vendee's successors does not form part of the decedent's estate; moreover, a house constructed by an heir in good faith on land belonging to the estate, with the knowledge and consent of the decedent-owner, belongs to the builder, subject to the rights of the landowner under Article 361 of the Civil Code to either appropriate the building after paying indemnity or compel the builder to pay the value of the land.

• The dispute concerns a house and lot included in the inventory of the estate of Manuel Javier and Perfecta Tagle, over which Segundo Javier (plaintiff) and Longinos Javier as administrator (defendant) claim ownership.
• The lot originally belonged to Manuel Javier but was sold absolutely to Ceferino Joven on September 11, 1862 for 350 pesos, as evidenced by a public instrument containing clear terms of transfer and not redemption.
• Defendant's witnesses (Gavina and Romualda Javier, sisters and coheirs) claimed that they, with their brother Martin, repurchased the lot from Ceferino Joven using their own funds, but this testimony contradicted the absolute nature of the 1862 sale deed.
• Plaintiff and his brother Luis acquired the lot from the heirs of Ceferino Joven on March 12, 1884, evidenced by a public instrument executed before the gobernadorcillo of Malate, and Luis subsequently sold his share to plaintiff, making plaintiff the sole owner.
• Plaintiff was in continuous possession of the lot, which was registered in his name in the Register of Property.
• The house was constructed in 1880, destroyed by a typhoon in 1882, and rebuilt while Manuel Javier was still alive (he died in 1885), with the work completed gradually until 1895.
• Plaintiff built the house with his own funds and with the knowledge and consent of his father Manuel Javier, who lived in the house with him.
• This is evidenced by receipts signed by siblings Felix and Martin Javier acknowledging the house as the exclusive property of Segundo Javier, executed between 1887 and 1903.
• Defendant's witnesses claimed the house belonged to the estate, but their testimony was conflicting (one claiming the father and sisters paid, another claiming only the siblings paid) and obviously interested.

• The lot was validly sold in absolute terms by Manuel Javier to Ceferino Joven in 1862, and plaintiff subsequently acquired it from Joven's heirs, making it his exclusive property and not part of the estate.
• The house was built by plaintiff with his own funds and with the knowledge and consent of his father Manuel Javier, as evidenced by acknowledgment documents signed by coheirs Felix and Martin Javier who had adverse interests to the plaintiff.
• Plaintiff has been in continuous possession of both the lot and the house, receiving rents from the house, and the lot is registered in his name.
• The testimony of defendant's witnesses regarding repurchase of the lot is contradicted by the clear terms of the 1862 public instrument and is improbable.

• The property (both lot and house) belongs to the estate of Manuel Javier and Perfecta Tagle and was properly included in the inventory.
• The 1862 transaction between Manuel Javier and Ceferino Joven was merely a mortgage or a sale with right of redemption, not an absolute sale, and the lot was subsequently repurchased by the sisters and brother with their own funds.
• The house belongs to the estate because it was built on land belonging to the estate, and the acknowledgment documents signed by Felix Javier should be disregarded as he claimed to have signed them without reading the contents.
• The estate is entitled to the return of the property and the rents received by the plaintiff.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the lot in question forms part of the estate of Manuel Javier and Perfecta Tagle or belongs exclusively to the plaintiff.
  • Whether the house built on land belonging to the estate belongs to the plaintiff or to the estate.
  • Whether Article 361 of the Civil Code applies to the house built by the plaintiff on land belonging to the estate.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • The lot does not form part of the estate. The 1862 deed clearly evidences an absolute sale to Ceferino Joven, not a mortgage or conditional sale. Since there is no evidence that Manuel Javier or Perfecta Tagle reacquired the lot, and plaintiff acquired it from Joven's heirs through a valid instrument, the lot belongs exclusively to plaintiff.
  • The testimony of Gavina and Romualda Javier regarding repurchase is contradicted by the documentary evidence and is improbable because if true, they would be the owners rather than the estate.
  • The house belongs to the plaintiff as he built it with his own funds and with the knowledge and consent of his father Manuel Javier, as evidenced by acknowledgment documents signed by coheirs Felix and Martin Javier whose testimony against their own interest is credible, and by plaintiff's continuous possession.
  • Article 361 of the Civil Code applies: The owner of the land (the estate) has the right to appropriate the house after paying the indemnity required by Articles 453 and 454, or to compel the plaintiff to pay the value of the land. Plaintiff has the right of retention until the value of the land is paid.
  • The judgment appealed from is reversed; the house and lot are excluded from the estate inventory, subject to the estate's option under Article 361.

• Accession (Article 361, Civil Code) — When a person builds on another's land in good faith with the knowledge and consent of the landowner, the builder retains ownership of the building, but the landowner has the option to either appropriate the building after paying indemnity or compel the builder to pay the value of the land. The builder has the right of retention until paid.
• Presumption of Regularity of Documents — One does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents, and this presumption acquires greater force where several documents executed at different times and places were signed.
• Parol Evidence Rule — Oral testimony cannot vary the terms of a written instrument. The clear terms of the 1862 deed showing absolute sale cannot be contradicted by testimony claiming it was a mortgage.

• "Having agreed upon the sale," reads the text of the document, "with Ceferino Joven . . . (Manuel Javier) declares that he actually sells and transfers the said two lots to the said Ceferino Joven for the aforesaid sum of three hundred and fifty pesos. . . . In consideration thereof he transfers to the purchaser the title and ownership which he has to the property so that the said purchaser may dispose of and alienate the same, as he may see fit, as his own properly acquired property."
• "The natural presumption is the one does not sign a document without first informing himself of its contents, and that presumption acquires greater force where not only, but several documents, executed at different times and at different places, as is here the case, were signed."
• "Article 361 of the Civil Code is perfectly applicable to this case. That articles provides that the owner of the land on which building, sowing, or planting is done in good faith shall have a right to appropriate as his own the work, sowing, or planting, after having paid the indemnity therefor as required by articles 453 and 454, or to compel the person who has built or planted to pay to him the value of the land, and to force the person who sowed to pay the proper rent."

• Article 361 of the Civil Code (Old) — Governs accession with respect to buildings constructed in good faith on another's land, giving the landowner the option to appropriate the building after paying indemnity or compel the builder to pay the land value.
• Article 453 of the Civil Code (Old) — Provides for payment of useful expenses to a possessor in good faith, with the person who defeated him in possession having the option to refund expenses or pay the increase in value.

• Arellano, C.J., Torres and Johnson, JJ. — Concur in the decision without separate written opinion.

• Carson, Willard and Tracey, JJ. — Dissented from the second paragraph of the adjudging part of the decision (regarding the application of Article 361 to the house and the rights of the estate to either appropriate the house after paying indemnity or compel plaintiff to pay the value of the land).