Right of Accession

G.R. No. 149295

Ignacio v Hilario
Vitug
Summarized by RJN
IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Damian, Francisco and Luis Ignacio Petitioner
Elias Hilario and Dionisia Dres Jesus - Respondent

Summary: Respondents were the legal owners of a parcel of land and the petitioners owned
the houses and granaries built on them, as possessors in good faith. Lower court ordered
petitioners to remove their buildings upon the failure of the respondent to neither purchase the
buildings nor sell the residential lot on which they stood. SC held that the respondent was only
entitled to compel the petitioner to remove the buildings only after choosing to sell the land on
which they were built and the failure of the petitioner to pay for the same.
FACTS

The case originated before CFI Pangasinan, concerning the ownership of a parcel of
land, partly rice-land and partly residential between petitioners and respondent spouse.

Lower court ruled that respondents were the legal owners of the whole property but
the petitioners owned the houses and granaries built by them on the residential
portion of the lot with the rights of a possessor in good faith, in accordance with Art.
361. (now 448)
o

Petitioners were entitled to hold on the residential lot until after they were paid
the market value of the buildings erected, unless the respondent prefered to sell
to them said lot. (Price would have been based on the proportionate value of the
residential lot based on the price paid of the whole lot) This was based on Art.
453. (now 546)

If petitioners failed to purchase the lot in question, the court ruled that they
should remove their houses and granaries.

In a subsequent motion, respondents prayed for the removal of the buildings because they
neither chose to pay the petitioners nor to sell to them. Lower court granted. Hence, this
petition.

ISSUE with HOLDING

I.

WON the petitioner should remove the buildings because the owner-respondents
chose to neither buy the buildings nor sell the residential lot (NO)
Respondents cannot refuse both to pay for the buildings and to sell the land, and then
compel the owner of the buildings to remove them from the land where they are erected.
He is entitled to compel the owner of the building to remove it only when after
choosing to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same. On this point, the
order of the lower court is null and void.

II.

WON the period of time when to exercise the option and payment should be made
and the value of the buildings and the lot, should be in the judgment (YES)
The first ruling of the lower court is erroneous. While the rights of both parties under Arts.
448 and 546 were well-defined, it failed to determine the the value of the buildings and of
the lot where they were erected, as well as the periods of time within which the option
may be execised and payment should be made.
These were left for determination after the judgment had become final. However, no
additions can be made to the judgment and nothing can be done except its execution
after it had become final.
Thus, the judgment originally rended had never become final, having left matters to be
settled for its completion in a subsequent proceeding.

DISPOSITIVE PORTION
Writ of execution issued SET ASIDE. Lower court ordered to determine prices of the buildings
and residential lot in which they are erected, and the period of time within which respondents
may exercise their option to either pay for the buildings or to sell their land.
DOCTRINE
The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by another, is entitled to
retain possession of the land until he is paid the value of the building. (Art. 546)
The owner of the land has the option to either pay for the building or sell his land to the
owner of the building. (Art. 448) He is entitled to compel the owner of the building to
remove it only when after choosing to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the
same.