BALLATAN V.

CA
G.R. NO. 125683

March 2, 1999

Rules governing BPS

Petitioner: Eden Ballatan and Sps. Betty Martinez and Chong Chy Ling

Respondent: Court of Appeals, Gonzalo Go, Winston Go, Li Ching Yao, Araneta Institute of Agriculture
and Jose N. Quedding

FACTS

During construction, petitioner Ballatan noticed that the concrete fence and side pathway of the
adjoining house of respondent Winston Go encroached on the entire length of the eastern side of her
property. Her building contractor informed her that he area of her lot was actually less than that descried
in the title. Ballatan informed Go of this discrepancy and his encroachment on her property. Go claimed
that his house, including the fence and pathway, were built within the parameters of his father’s lot.

Ballatan called the attention of Aranent Institute of Agriculture, owner-developer of the

subdivision project, to the discrepancy of the land area in her title and the actual land area received from
them. AIA authorized another survey of the land by Engr. Jose N. Quedding. Engineer Quedding found
that the lot area of Ballatan was less by few mteres and that of respondent Li Ching Yao, which was 3 lots
away, was increased by 2 M. Ballatan made a writted demand on respondents Go to remove and
dismante their imrpvements but Go refused. Failing to agree amicably, Ballatan instituted a recovery of
possession before the RTC.

Decision of the Trial Court

Trial Court decided in favor of Ballatan. It ordered the Go’s to vacate and demolish their
improvements and pay petitioner. It dismissed third-party complaint against IAI, Jose Quedding and Li
Ching Yao.

Decision of the Court of Appeals

CA affirmed the dismissal of the third-party complaint against the AIA but reinstated the
complaint against Li Ching Yao and Jose Quedding. CA ordered the Gos to pay Ballatan, Li Ching Yao to
pay Go a reasonable amount for that portion of the lot which they are encroached.

RULING

Supreme Court gave the petitioners the choice to purchase the improvement made by Go on
their land or to sell to respondents Go the subject portion. If buying the improvement is impractical as it
may render Go’s house useless, then petitioners may sell that portion to Go. If the Go’s are unwilling or
unable to buy, then they must vacate the land and until they vacate, they must pay rent. Ballatan cannot

YEJAMELO
compel Go to buy the land if its value is considerably more than the portion of their house constructed
thereon. If the value of the land is much more than Go’s improvement, Go must pay reasonable rent.

YEJAMELO