You are on page 1of 2

HEIR S OF RAMON DURANO VS UY FACTS: A 128 hectare parcel of land located in the barrios of DUNGA and CAHUMAYMAYAN DANAO

CITY, as originally owned by cebu Portland cement company. Said property has been purchased by Durano and Co. INC. In 1973, late congressman Ramon Durano Sr. together with Ramon Durano and the latters wife Elizabeth Hotchkiss durano instituted an action for damages against the spouses UY et.al. The Duranos Alleged: They officiate a hate campaign against them lodging complaints in Police Department of Danao city. which depicted them usurpers, land grabbers and oppressors. On the other hand, Spouses UY. Et al. alleged: They were the owners of the land as came into ownership through: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Inheritance from parents who in turn inherited form their parents. They had received mimeographed notices signed by ramon durano sr that the lands they were tilling were originally owned by cepoc and purchased by Durano and Co. Incorporated. Before they could vacate, men who were identified as employees Of Durano Corporation and Incorporated proceeded to bulldoze the lands destroying their plantings and improvements. On the same occasion these men fired shots in the air. They also maintain that they were unaware of anyone claiming adverse possession or ownership of this land until the bulldozing operations in 1970.

In 1970 the Durano Corp sold the property to Durano III. RTC- In favor of Spouses UY, return and pay indemnity in reparation of the destroyed properties during the demolition. Spouses Uy et al were in possession of the properties in GOOD FAITH. CA- affirmed the rtc decision Dissatisfied the Duranos filed this petition alleging that the Spouses Uy et al were builders in bad faith. ISSUE: WON THE HEIRS OF DURANO WERE BUILDERS IN BAD FAITH. HELD: YES. A purchaser of a parcel of land, cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man upon his guard, such as when the property subject of the purchase is in possession of persons other than the seller. A buyer who could not have failed to know or discover the land sold to him was in adverse possession of another is a buyer in bad faith.

In the same manner the purchase of the property of Durano III from Durano Co. could not have to be in good faith. Because it is not disputed tat Durano III had acquired the property with full knowledge of spouses uy occupancy thereon. Further there even appears to be undue haste in the conveyance of the property to Durano III, as bulldozing operations by Durano and Co. were still underway when the deed of sale to Durano III was executed on sept. 15, 1970/ there was not even an indication Durano Co. attempted to transfer the registration in its name before it conveyed to Durano III. ISSUE: WON THE SPOUSES DURANO RETURN THE PROPERTIES AND PAY INDEMNITY IN REPARATION OF THE DESTROYED PROPERTIES OVERRAN BY THE BULLDOZERS. HELD: YES. Since petitioners knew fully well the defect in their titles, they were correctly held by the Court of Appeals to be builders in bad faith. And since they were in bad faith. The Civil Code provides: Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right of indemnity. Art. 450. 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; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent. Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower. Based on these provisions, the owner of the land has three alternative rights: (1) to appropriate what has been built without any obligation to pay indemnity therefor, or (2) to demand that the builder remove what he had built, or (3) to compel the builder to pay the value of the land, or pay the rent in case of the sower. In any case, the landowner is entitled to damages under Article 451, abovecited. The right of the owner of the land to recover damages from a builder in bad faith is clearly provided for in Article 451 of the Civil Code. Although said Article 451 does not elaborate on the basis for damages, the Court perceives that it should reasonably correspond with the value of the properties lost or destroyed as a result of the occupation in bad faith, as well as the fruits (natural, industrial or civil) from those properties that the owner of the land reasonably expected to obtain.

You might also like