Sei sulla pagina 1di 1

Angeles vs Pascual Article 448, therefore, is applicable.

The
land being the principal and the building being the
Facts: accessory, preference is given to Pascual as the
Pascual and Angeles are neighbors. owner of the land to make the choice as between
Pascual owned Lot 4, and Angeles owned Lot 5. a) appropriating the building; or b) obliging
Angeles to pay the value of the land.
Each of them built a house on his
respective lot, believing all the while that his lot
was properly delineated.

It was not until Metrobank foreclosed Lot


3 and caused the relocation survey of Lot 3 that
the geodetic engineer discovered that Pascuals
house had encroached on Lot 3.

In turn, Pascual cause the relocation


survey of Lot 4 and discovered that Angeles
house also encroached on his lot.

Pascual demanded rentals for the use of


the encroached Lot 4 from Angeles, or the
removal of Angeles house. Angeles refused.

When the case reached the CA, the CA


applied Article 448. The options laid down by the
CA are:

1. For Pascual to buy the portion of


Angeles house; or
2. To sell the portion of his land
occupied by Angeles.

ISSUE:

Whether or not is proper to apply Article


448 to the case at bar.

RULING:

(Note: LANDOWNER- Pascual, while BUILDER-


Angeles)

A careful reading of Article 448 would


show that the provision contemplates a person
building, or sowing, or planting in good faith on
land owned by another.

To warrant the application of Art.448, the


builder must be in good faith. Good faith consists
in the belief of the builder that the land he is
building on is his land and in his ignorance of a
defect or flaw in his title.

In this case, Angeles was a builder in


good faith which can be drawn from the fact that
he believed he built his house on his own lot.

Potrebbero piacerti anche