Santos vs. Mojica

A successor-in-interest who claims a house on land adjudicated to others is bound by the judgment against his predecessors; if he builds or reconstructs the house in bad faith after his predecessors were summoned, he loses the improvement without indemnity under Article 449 of the Civil Code, and the landowner may instead demand its demolition at his expense under Article 450; a subsequent petition attacking the demolition order is barred by res judicata where the same parties, subject matter, and cause of action were already resolved in a prior final judgment.

Leonardo Santos is the son of Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, who were among the defendants in a partition action brought by Lorenza's siblings, the Allanigues, over a 360-square-meter lot in San Dionisio, Parañaque, Rizal. Leonardo claimed ownership of a house standing on that lot by purchase from his parents. The dispute implicated the Civil Code rules on accession and the remedies of a landowner against a builder in bad faith, particularly Articles 445, 449, and 450.

On March 19, 1959, eleven brothers and sisters surnamed Allanigue filed Civil Case No. 217-R in the Court of First Instance of Rizal against their sister Lorenza Allanigue, her husband Simeon Santos, Maria San Agustin, and Felicidad San Agustin. The complaint sought partition of a 360-square-meter lot situated at San Dionisio, Parañaque, Rizal, and annulment of certain conveyances involving the same lot. The defendants were declared in default, and after hearing the plaintiffs' evidence, the trial court rendered judgment ordering partition of the lot among the eleven plaintiffs and Lorenza Allanigue. A subsequent order set off Lorenza Allanigue's share against the amount she had failed to pay as rents to the plaintiffs as directed in the decision.

A writ of execution issued on the judgment, ordering the defendants to vacate the lot and deliver possession to the plaintiffs. Leonardo Santos, not a party defendant but a son of Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, owned a house standing on the lot. He filed a third-party claim with the sheriff and a motion with the court to recall the writ of execution insofar as his house was concerned, but the motion was denied. On March 15, 1962, because the defendants and Leonardo Santos failed to remove their houses from the lot within the period given them, the court ordered the sheriff to demolish said houses.

On April 2, 1962, Leonardo Santos and the defendants in the case filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court, docketed as G.R. No. L-19618, against Judge Angel H. Mojica, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, and the plaintiffs in the case. Among the issues raised was whether the lower court had jurisdiction to order the demolition of petitioners' houses in that special civil action. In its decision of February 28, 1964, the Supreme Court denied the petition after finding that Leonardo Santos, who claimed to be the owner of a house and the portion of land on which it stood by purchase from his parents, did not follow the procedure sanctioned by law in vindicating his alleged ownership; he should have filed an ordinary civil action to vindicate his alleged ownership of the house and the portion of land on which it was built.

After the Supreme Court's decision became final, respondent Judge Angel H. Mojica, on motion of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 217-R, ordered the demolition of the defendants' houses. The defendants voluntarily removed their houses, leaving only the house belonging to Leonardo Santos standing on the lot. Subsequently, on motion of the plaintiffs, the respondent Judge issued an order dated December 9, 1965, directing the sheriff to demolish Leonardo Santos's house. Leonardo Santos then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition in the Supreme Court, questioning the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge in issuing the order of demolition of his house.

The record in Civil Case No. 217-R showed that the owners of the land chose to have the house or improvement demolished, pursuant to their motion for demolition which was granted by respondent Judge Mojica on December 9, 1965. It was also established that Leonardo Santos's house had been built and reconstructed after March 1962 into a bigger one, after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R.

• Jurisdiction: Petitioner Leonardo Santos questioned the jurisdiction of respondent Judge Angel H. Mojica in issuing the order dated December 9, 1965, directing the demolition of his house.

• Jurisdiction: Whether respondent Judge had jurisdiction to issue the order dated December 9, 1965, directing the demolition of petitioner's house.
• Res Judicata: Whether the present petition is barred by the prior judgment of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-19618.
• Successor-in-Interest: Whether petitioner Leonardo Santos is bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R as a successor-in-interest of his parents.
• Builder in Bad Faith: Whether petitioner is a builder in bad faith and whether the owners of the land may choose demolition of his house at his expense under Articles 449 and 450 of the Civil Code.

• Jurisdiction: Yes. The petition for certiorari and prohibition was denied; the respondent Judge's order of demolition was upheld because petitioner was bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R and the present petition was barred by the prior final judgment in G.R. No. L-19618.
• Res Judicata: Yes. The present petition is barred by the prior judgment in G.R. No. L-19618, there being identity of subject matter, cause of action, and parties, and the prior decision was on the merits and had become final.
• Successor-in-Interest: Yes. Petitioner is bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R because he is a successor-in-interest of his parents, Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, and his right, if any, is claimed under them; the registration of the sale to him is of no moment.
• Builder in Bad Faith: Yes. Petitioner is deemed a builder in bad faith because he built and reconstructed his house into a bigger one after his parents had been summoned in 1959; under Article 449 he loses the improvement without indemnity, and under Article 450 the owners may demand demolition at his expense.

• Jurisdiction: The petition for certiorari and prohibition was denied. The respondent Judge's order of demolition was not set aside because Leonardo Santos was bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R and because the owners of the land had validly chosen demolition under Article 450 of the Civil Code. The prior final judgment in G.R. No. L-19618 also barred the present petition by res judicata.
• Res Judicata: The present petition is barred by the prior judgment of the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-19618. Leonardo Santos was one of the petitioners in that case against the same official and private respondents in the instant petition. There was identity of subject matter, namely, the portion of the lot and the house standing on said portion alleged by petitioner to belong to him. There was also identity of cause of action, namely, the order of the respondent Judge for the removal or demolition of the houses standing on the lot. The prior case was within the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and its decision, which was on the merits, had become final. Thus, the judgment in G.R. No. L-19618 was res adjudicata in the instant case on the question of the validity of the order of demolition of December 9, 1965.
• Successor-in-Interest: Leonardo Santos is bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R because he is a successor-in-interest of his parents, Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, defendants in that case, and his right, if any, is claimed under them. The judgment binds not only Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue but also their son, Leonardo Santos, who claims under them. The fact that the sale to Leonardo Santos from his parents was registered is of no moment because he is bound by the judgment against them.
• Builder in Bad Faith: Leonardo Santos's house was built and reconstructed after March 1962 into a bigger one after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R. He must therefore be deemed a builder in bad faith. As a builder in bad faith, he lost the improvement consisting of the reconstructed house to the owners of the land without right to indemnity under Article 449 of the Civil Code. The Allanigue brothers and sisters became owners of the improvement if they chose to appropriate the accession under Articles 445 and 449. However, the owners could instead choose the demolition of the improvement or building at the expense of the builder under Article 450. The record in Civil Case No. 217-R showed that the owners of the land chose to have the house or improvement demolished pursuant to their motion for demolition, which was granted by respondent Judge Mojica on December 9, 1965.

• Builder in Bad Faith — Under Article 449 of the Civil Code, one who builds, plants, or sows in bad faith on the land of another loses what is built, planted, or sown without right to indemnity. Under Article 450, the owner of the land may instead demand the demolition of the work, or the removal of the planting or sowing, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted, or sowed. The Court deemed Leonardo Santos a builder in bad faith because he built and reconstructed his house into a bigger one after his parents had been summoned in Civil Case No. 217-R in 1959; the owners of the land chose demolition, so the order was proper.
• Res Judicata — A final judgment on the merits by a court of competent jurisdiction bars a subsequent action involving identity of parties, subject matter, and cause of action. The Court found the present petition barred by the prior judgment in G.R. No. L-19618, where Leonardo Santos was a petitioner against the same official and private respondents, and the subject matter and cause of action—the lot, the house, and the demolition order—were identical.
• Successor-in-Interest Bound by Judgment — A judgment binds not only the parties but also their successors-in-interest who claim under them. Leonardo Santos, as the son and successor-in-interest of Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, was bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R; the registration of the sale to him did not exempt him from that judgment.

• "The instant petition for certiorari and prohibition should be denied in view of the following considerations:" — This sentence introduces the Court's ratio for denying the petition.
• "Petitioner Leonardo Santos is bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R because he is a successor-in-interest of his parents, Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, defendants in Civil Case No. 217-R, and his right, if any, is claimed under them." — This passage states the successor-in-interest doctrine applied against the petitioner.
• "Leonardo Santos' house having been built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R, he must be deemed a builder in bad faith." — This passage establishes the factual basis for the finding of bad faith.
• "It is evident that the judgment of this Court in G.R. No. L-19618 is res adjudicata in the instant case on the question of the validity of the order of demolition of December 9, 1965." — This passage states the res judicata holding.

• G.R. No. L-19618 (Feb. 28, 1964) — Prior Supreme Court judgment in the certiorari and prohibition case filed by Leonardo Santos and the defendants against Judge Angel H. Mojica, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal, and the plaintiffs; the petition was denied because Leonardo Santos should have filed an ordinary civil action to vindicate his alleged ownership. In the instant case, that final judgment was held res adjudicata on the validity of the December 9, 1965 demolition order.

• Article 449, Civil Code — He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity. Applied to Leonardo Santos as a builder in bad faith.
• Article 450, Civil Code — The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed. Applied because the owners of the land chose demolition.
• Article 445, Civil Code — Cited with Article 449 for the rule that the owners become owners of the improvement if they choose to appropriate the accession. Applied as the alternative to demolition.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo, JJ., concur. Zaldivar, J., took no part.