Primary Holding

Article 448 of the Civil Code can apply to resolve disputes between former co-owners after partition, concerning constructions made in good faith that encroach on another co-owner's allocated portion.

Background

Spouses Del Campo and Bernarda Abesia were co-owners of a small parcel of land. During a partition action, it was discovered that Abesia's house slightly encroached onto the portion allocated to the Del Campos. The core issue was whether Abesia, as a co-owner builder, could invoke the rights of a builder in good faith under Article 448.

Facts

• 1. The case involves Lot No. 1161 in Cebu City, a 45 square meter property co-owned by Spouses Del Campo (2/3 share) and Bernarda Abesia (1/3 share).
• 2. An action for partition was initiated by the Del Campos.
• 3. A court-appointed commissioner surveyed the land and proposed a partition, dividing it into Lot 1161-A for the plaintiffs (30 sqm) and Lot 1161-B for the defendants (15 sqm).
• 4. Defendants' house was found to encroach 5 square meters onto Lot 1161-A.
• 5. Both parties initially agreed with the partition plan but disputed the issue of the encroaching house.

Arguments of the Petitioners

• 1. The Plaintiffs-Appellees (Spouses Del Campo) argued that they should not be obligated to pay for the encroached portion of the defendants' house, nor should the defendants be obligated to pay for the 5 square meters of land. They supported the CFI's view that Article 448 does not apply to co-owners building on common land.

Arguments of the Respondents

• 1. The Defendant-Appellant (Bernarda Abesia) argued that the trial court erred in not applying Article 448 of the New Civil Code, asserting that they should be considered builders in good faith and afforded the rights provided under this article concerning the encroaching portion of their house.

Issues

• 1. Is Article 448 of the Civil Code, concerning the rights of a builder in good faith, applicable in cases where a co-owner builds on commonly owned land and the construction later encroaches on another co-owner’s partitioned share?
• 2. Did the trial court err in ordering the defendants to remove and demolish the encroaching portion of their house at their own expense?

Ruling

• 1. The Supreme Court modified the lower court's decision. It ruled that while Article 448 is generally not applicable during co-ownership itself, it can apply after partition when a co-owner’s construction in good faith encroaches on the lot assigned to another. The Court held that the plaintiffs have the option to either appropriate the encroached portion of the house by paying indemnity to the defendants or to oblige the defendants to pay for the land. If the land's value is considerably higher than the encroached house portion, defendants should pay reasonable rent. Demolition is a last resort if no agreement is reached.

Doctrines

• 1. Builder in Good Faith: A person who builds on land believing they have a right to do so, or are unaware of any defect in their title. The court implied that the defendants could be considered builders in good faith post-partition.
• 2. Co-ownership: The right of common dominion of two or more persons over a spiritual part of a thing which is not physically divided. The court distinguished the inapplicability of Article 448 during co-ownership from its applicability after partition.

Key Excerpts

• 1. "The co-owner is not a third person under the circumstances, and the situation is governed by the rules of co-ownership." (Referring to the general rule of inapplicability of Article 448 during co-ownership).
• 2. "Manresa and Navarro Amandi agree that the said provision of the Civil Code may apply even when there was co-ownership if good faith has been established." (Supporting the applicability of Article 448 even in cases originating from co-ownership, particularly post-partition and with good faith).

Precedents Cited

• 1. Viuda de Arias vs. Aguilar: Cited by the lower court and Tolentino to support the view that Article 448 is not applicable in co-ownership situations. The Supreme Court distinguished this case by applying Article 448 post-partition.

Statutory and Constitutional Provisions

• 1. Article 448 of the New Civil Code: Governs the rights of a landowner and a builder, planter, or sower in good faith on the land. This was the central legal provision discussed and applied in the case.
• 2. Articles 546 and 548 of the Civil Code: Referenced within Article 448 regarding the indemnity due to a builder in good faith for necessary and useful expenses.