Q: Petitioners discovered that a house was being

constructed on their lot, without their knowledge and

consent, by respondent. It turned out that respondent had
purchased a different lot but that after a survey thereof by
geodetic engineer, he pointed to the respondent the lot of
the petitioners as the one respondent purchased.
Respondent claimed that they acted in good faith in
constructing the house on petitioners lot as they have
relied on the technical description of the lot sold to them,
verified by the geodetic engineer. Is respondent a builder in
good faith?
A: YES, respondent is considered a builder in good faith. A
builder in good faith is one who builds with the belief
that the land he is building on is his, or that by some
title one has the right to build thereon, and is
ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title. Good faith is
always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith
on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof.
Under Art. 448 of the Civil Code, the landowner can choose
between appropriating the building by paying the proper
indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the price of the
land, unless its value is considerably more than that of the
structures, in which case the builder in good faith shall pay
reasonable rent. If the parties cannot come to terms over
the conditions of the lease, the court must fix the terms
thereof. The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule
that accords with the principle of accession, i.e., that the
accessory follows the principal and not the other way
around. Even as the option lies with the landowner, the
grant to him, nevertheless, is preclusive. The landowner
cannot refuse to exercise either option and compel instead
the owner of the building to remove it from the land.
(Rosales v. Castelltort, G.R. No. 157044, October 5, 2005)
NOTE: Possession acquired in good faith does not lose this
character except in the case and from the moment facts
exist which show that the possessor is not unaware that he
possesses the thing improperly or wrongfully. The good faith

ceases or is legally interrupted from the moment defects in

the title are made known to the possessor, by extraneous
evidence or by suit for recovery of the property by the true
owner.

Q: In a previous case for declaration of nullity of marriage,

the RTC held that respondent (petitioners wife) was
suffering from psychological incapacity. On appeal, the CA
(and the SC) ruled that petitioner failed to prove that
respondent suffers from psychological incapacity. It was
held that the testimonies of two supposed expert witnesses,
presented by petitioner, who concluded that respondent is
psychologically incapacitated, were premised on the alleged
acts or behavior of respondent which had not been
sufficiently proven. Should the findings of the RTC based on
the testimonies of the expert witnesses be given conclusive
weight?
A: YES, the findings and evaluation by the RTC as the trial
court deserved credence because it was in the better
position to view and examine the demeanor of the witnesses
while they were testifying. We uphold the conclusions
reached by the two expert witnesses because they were
largely drawn from the case records and affidavits, and
should not anymore be disputed after the RTC itself had
accepted the veracity of the petitioners factual premises. It
is already settled that the courts must accord weight to
expert testimony on the psychological and mental state of
the parties in cases for the declaration of the nullity of
marriages, for by the very nature of Article 36 of the Family
Code the courts, despite having the primary task and

burden of decision-making, must not discount but,

instead, must consider as decisive evidence the expert
opinion
on
the
psychological
and
mental
temperaments of the parties. (Kalaw v. Fernandez, G.R.
No. 166357, January 14, 2015)
NOTE: The lack of personal examination and interview of
the person diagnosed with personality disorder, like the
respondent, did not per se invalidate the findings of the
experts. There is no requirement for one to be declared
psychologically incapacitated to be personally examined by
a physician, because what is important is the presence of
evidence
that
adequately
establishes
the
partys
psychological incapacity. Hence, if the totality of
evidence presented is enough to sustain a finding of
psychological
incapacity,
then
actual
medical
examination of the person concerned need not be
resorted to. By the very nature of Article 36, courts,
despite having the primary task and burden of decisionmaking, must not discount but, instead, must consider
as decisive evidence the expert opinion on the
psychological and mental temperaments of the
parties.