You are on page 1of 1

Sps.

Benitez vs CA

SPOUSES RAFAEL BENITEZ AND AVELINA BENITEZ , petitioners
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES RENATO MACAPAGAL and ELIZABETH MACAPAGAL, respondents

G.R. No. 104828. January 16, 1997
Panganiban, J .

TOPIC. Accession Natural Owner in Good Faith; Builder in Bad Faith Right of Pre-Emption; Unlawful detainer, prior
physical possession is not required.

FACTS. On July 1989, the spouses Renato and Elizabeth Macapagal purchased a parcel of land adjoining the lot of spouses
Rafael and Avelina Benitez. After they conducted a survey on said land, the spouses Macapagal discovered that the house of
spouses Benitez was already encroaching their property. Macapagal then demanded in writing for Benitez to vacate. Eventually, an
ejectment suit was filed by Macapagal against Benitez. The trial court ruled in favor of Macapagal as it found Benitez to be a
builder in bad faith. On appeal, Benitez insists that they are builders in good faith hence he should be given the option to exercise
the right of pre-emption (the right to buy the said portion of land owned by Macapagal which is being occupied by his [Benitez]
house.)

ISSUES. 1) Whether or not the possession of the portion of the private respondents' land encroached by petitioners' house can be
recovered through an action of ejectment, not accion publiciana. 2) Whether or not the right of pre-emption may be exercised by a
builder in good faith.

HOLDING AND RESOLUTION. 1) YES. That petitioners occupied the land prior to private respondents' purchase does not negate
the latter's case for ejectment. Prior possession is not always a condition sine qua non in ejectment. This is one of the distinctions
between forcible entry and unlawful detainer. In forcible entry, the plaintiff is deprived of physical possession of his land or
building by means of force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth; thus, he must allege and prove prior possession. But in unlawful
detainer, the defendant unlawfully withholds possession after the expiration or termination of his right thereto under any contract,
express or implied. In such a case, prior physical possession is not required.

Considering that private respondents are unlawfully deprived of possession of the encroached land and that the action for the
recovery of possession thereof was made within the one- year reglementary period, ejectment is the proper remedy.

2) NO. In the first place, there is already a factual finding by the trial court that Benitez was a builder in bad faith. Secondly, even
assuming that Benitez was a builder in good faith, he cannot exercise said right of pre-emption. The right of pre-emption or the
right to sell is solely lodged in the owner in good faith as provided for by Article 448 of the Civil Code. This advantage in Article
448 is accorded the landowner in good faith because his right is older, and because, by the principle of accession, he is entitled to
the ownership of the accessory thing. Otherwise stated, the builder in good faith has no pre-emptive right to buy even as a
compromise, as this prerogative belongs solely to the landowner in good faith.

What if the builder is in bad faith, like in this case? The right is not shifted in favor of the builder in bad faith. And this situation is
now governed by Article 450 of the Civil Code which gives the owner in good faith the options either: a) to demand the builder in
bad faith to demolish what he built; or b) to compel the builder in bad faith to pay the price of the land.

Petition DENIED, assailed Resolution AFFIRMED.

You might also like