No.L57348.May16,1985.

FRANCISCODEPRA,plaintiffappellee,vs.AGUSTINDUMLAO,
defendantappellant.
Leases Ejectment The judgment of a Municipal Court in ejectment
casesiseffectiveinrespectofpossessiononly.Ithasnoauthoritytoimpose
a forced lease.Addressing ourselves to the issue of validity of the
DecisionoftheMunicipalCourt,weholdthesametobenullandvoid.The
judgmentinadetainercaseiseffectiveinrespectofpossessiononly(Sec.7,
Rule70,RulesofCourt).TheMunicipalCourtoversteppeditsboundswhen
itimposeduponthepartiesasituationofforcedlease,whichlikeforced
coownership is not favored in law, Furthermore, a lease is an interest in
real property, jurisdiction over which belongs to Courts of First Instance
(nowRegionalTrialCourts)(Sec.44(b),JudiciaryActof1948Sec.19(2)
Batas Pambansa Blg. 129). Since the Municipal Court, acted without
jurisdiction, its Decision was null and void and cannot operate as res
judicatatothesubjectcomplaintforQuietingofTitle.
SameSameJudgmentsRes judicata does not apply where previous
caseisanejectmentcaseandsubsequentcaseisapetitionforquietingof
title.Besides, even if the Decision were valid, the rule on res judicata
would not apply due to difference in cause of action. In the Municipal
Court, the cause of action was the deprivation of possession, while in the
action to quiet title, the cause of action was based on ownership.
Furthermore.Sec.7,Rule70oftheRulesofCourtexplicitlyprovidesthat
judgment in a detainer case shall not bar an action between the same
partiesrespectingtitletotheland.
Same Property Owner of land on which improvement was built by
another in good faith is entitled to removal of improvement only after
landownerhasoptedtosellthelandandthebuilderrefusedtopayforthe
same.However,thegoodfaithofDUMLAOispartoftheStipulationof
FactsintheCourtofFirstInstance.ItwasthuserrorfortheTrialCourtto
have ruled that DEPRA is entitled to possession, without more, of the
disputed portion implying thereby that he is entitled to have the kitchen
removed.Heisentitledtosuchremovalonlywhen,afterhavingchosento
sellhisencroachedland,
_______________
*FIRSTDIVISION.

476

476

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Depravs.Dumlao

DUMLAOfailstopayforthesame.Inthiscase,DUMLAOhadexpressed
hiswillingnesstopayfortheland,butDEPRArefusedtosell.
Same Same Where the lands value is considerably more than the
improvement,thelandownercannotcompelthebuildertobuytheland.In
such event, a forced lease is created and the court shall fix the terms
thereof in case the parties disagree thereon.The trial Court shall further
order that if DEPRA exercises the option to oblige DUMLAO to pay the
priceofthelandbutthelatterrejectssuchpurchasebecause,asfoundbythe
trial Court, the value of the land is considerably more than that of the
kitchen, DUMLAO shall give written notice of such rejection to DEPRA
andtotheCourtwithinfifteen(15)daysfromnoticeofDEPRAsoptionto
selltheland.Inthatevent,thepartiesshallbegivenaperiodoffifteen(15)
daysfromsuchnoticeofrejectionwithinwhichtoagreeuponthetermsof
thelease,andgivetheCourtformalwrittennoticeofsuchagreementandits
provisos. If no agreement is reached by the parties, the trial Court, within
fifteen(15)daysfromandaftertheterminationofthesaidperiodfixedfor
negotiation,shallthenfixthetermsofthelease,providedthatthemonthly
rentaltobefixedbytheCourtshallnotbelessthanTenPesos(P10.00)per
month, payable within the first five (5) days of each calendar month. The
period for the forced lease shall not be more than two (2) years, counted
fromthefinalityofthejudgment,consideringthelongperiodoftimesince
1952 that DUMLAO has occupied the subject area. The rental thus fixed
shall be increased by ten percent (10%) for the second year of the forced
lease.DUMLAOshallnotmakeanyfurtherconstructionsorimprovements
onthekitchen.Uponexpirationofthetwoyearperiod,orupondefaultby
DUMLAO in the payment of rentals for two (2) consecutive months,
DEPRAshallbeentitledtoterminatetheforcedlease,torecoverhisland,
and to have the kitchen removed by DUMLAO or at the latters expense.
TherentalshereinprovidedshallbetenderedbyDUMLAOtotheCourtfor
paymenttoDEPRA,andsuchtendershallconstituteevidenceofwhetheror
notcompliancewasmadewithintheperiodfixedbytheCourt.

APPEALfromtheorderoftheCourtofFirstInstanceofIloilo.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt
RobertoD.Dinerosforplaintiffappellee.
NeilD.Hechanovafordefendantappellant.
477

VOL.136,MAY16,1985

477

Depravs.Dumlao

MELENCIOHERRERA,J.:
This is an appeal from the Order of the former Court of First
Instance of Iloilo to the then Court of Appeals, which the latter
certifiedtothisinstanceasinvolvingpurequestionsoflaw.
Plaintiffappellee, Francisco Depra, is the owner of a parcel of
land registered under Transfer Certificate of Title No. T3087,
known as Lot No. 685, situated in the municipality of Dumangas,
Iloilo, with an area of approximately 8,870 square meters. Agustin
Dumlao, defendantappellant, owns an adjoining lot, designated as
LotNo.683,withanapproximateareaof231sq.ms.
Sometimein1972,whenDUMLAOconstructedhishouseonhis
lot,thekitchenthereofhadencroachedonanareaofthirtyfour(34)
square meters of DEPRAs property, After the encroachment was
discovered in a relocation survey of DEPRAs lot made on
November2,1972,hismother,BeatrizDerla,afterwritingademand
letteraskingDUMLAOtomovebackfromhisencroachment,filed
an action for Unlawful Detainer on February 6, 1973 against
DUMLAO in the Municipal Court of of Dumangas, docketed as
Civil Case No. I. Said complaint was later amended to include
DEPRAasapartyplaintiff.
After trial, the Municipal Court found that DUMLAO was a
builder in good faith, and applying Article 448 of the Civil Code,
renderedjudgmentonSeptember29,1973,thedispositiveportionof
whichreads:
Ordering that a forced lease is created between the parties with the
plaintiffs,aslessors,andthedefendantsaslessees,overthedisputedportion
with an area of thirty four (34) square meters, the rent to be paid is five
(P5.00)pesosamonth,payablebythelesseetothelessorswithinthefirst
five(5)daysofthemonththerentisdueandtheleaseshallcommenceon
thedaythatthisdecisionshallhavebecomefinal.

From the foregoing judgment, neither party appealed so that, if it

wereavalidjudgment,itwouldhaveordinarilylapsedintofinality,
but even then, DEPRA did not accept payment of rentals so that
DUMLAOdepositedsuchrentalswith
478

478

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Depravs.Dumlao

theMunicipalCourt.

OnJuly15,1974,DEPRAfiledaComplaintforQuietingofTitle
againstDUMLAObeforethethenCourtofFirstInstanceofIloilo,
BranchIV(TrialCourt),involvingtheverysame34squaremeters,
which was the bone of contention in the Municipal Court,
DUMLAO, in his Answer, admitted the encroachment but alleged,
inthemain,thatthepresentsuitisbarredbyresjudicatabyvirtue
oftheDecisionoftheMunicipalCourt,whichhadbecomefinaland
executory.
After the case had been set for pretrial, the parties submitted a
JointMotionforJudgmentbasedontheStipulationofFactsattached
thereto. Premised thereon, the Trial Court on October 31, 1974,
issuedtheassailedOrder,decreeing:
WHEREFORE,theCourtfindsandsoholdsthatthethirtyfour(34)square
meterssubjectofthislitigationispartandparcelofLot685oftheCadastral
Survey of Dumangas of which the plaintiff is owner as evidenced by
TransferCertificateofTitleNo.3087andsuchplaintiffisentitledtopossess
thesame.
Withoutpronouncementastocosts.
SOORDERED.

Rebutting the argument of res judicata relied upon by DUMLAO,

DEPRA claims that the Decision of the Municipal Court was null
andvoidabinitiobecauseitsjurisdictionislimitedtothesoleissue
of possession, whereas decisions affecting lease, which is an
encumbrance on real property, may only be rendered by Courts of
FirstInstance.
Addressing ourselves to the issue of validity of the Decision of
the Municipal Court, we hold the same to be null and void. The
judgmentinadetainercaseiseffectiveinrespectofpossessiononly
1
(Sec.7,Rule70,RulesofCourt). The
_______________
1Rule70

ForcibleEntryandDetainer
Sec. 7. Judgment conclusive only on possession not conclusive in actions involving title or
ownership.Thejudgmentrenderedinanactionforforcibleentryordetainershallbeeffective
withrespecttothepossessiononlyandinnowisebindthetitleoraffecttheownershipofthe
landorbuilding.Suchjudgmentshallnot

479

VOL.136,MAY16,1985

479

Depravs.Dumlao

Municipal Court overstepped its bounds when it imposed upon the

parties a situation of forced lease, which like forced co

ownershipisnotfavoredinlaw.Furthermore,aleaseisaninterest
in real property, jurisdiction over which belongs to Courts of First
Instance
(now Regional Trial Courts) (Sec. 44(b),
Judiciary Act of
2
3
1948 Sec.19(2)BatasPambansaBlg.129). Since the Municipal
Court,actedwithoutjurisdiction,itsDecisionwasnullandvoidand
cannotoperateasresjudicata to the subject complaint for Queting
of Title. Besides, even if the Decision were valid, the rule on res
judicatawouldnotapplyduetodifferenceincauseofaction.Inthe
Municipal Court, the cause of action was the deprivation of
possession,whileintheactiontoquiettitle,thecauseofactionwas
based on ownership. Furthermore, Sec. 7, Rule 70 of the Rules of
Courtexplicitlyprovidesthatjudgmentinadetainercaseshallnot
4
baranactionbetweenthesamepartiesrespectingtitletotheland.
ConcededIntheStipulation of Facts between the parties is that
DUMLAOwasabuilderingoodfaith.Thus,
8.Thatthesubjectmatterintheunlawfuldetainercase,CivilCaseNo.1,
beforetheMunicipalCourtofDumangas,Iloiloinvolvesthesamesubject
matterinthepresentcase,theThirtyfour(34)
_______________
baranactionbetweenthesamepartiesrespectingtitletothelandorbuilding,norshallitbe
heldconclusiveofthefactsthereinfoundinacasebetweenthesamepartiesuponadifferent
causeofactionnotinvolvingpossession.
2Sec.44.Originaljurisdiction.xxx

(b) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of real property, or any
interest therein, or the legality of any tax, impose or assessment, except actions of forcible
entryintoanddetaineronlandsorbuildings,originaljurisdictionofwhichisconferredbythis
Actuponcityandmunicipalcourts
3Sec.19.Jurisdictionincivilcase.xxx

(2) In all civil actions which involve the title to, or possession of, real property, or any
interest therein, except actions for forcible entry into and unlawful detainer of lands or
buildings, original jurisdiction over which is conferred upon Metropolitan Trial Courts,
MunicipalTrialCourts,andMunicipalCircuitTrialCourts
4Supra.

480

480

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Depravs.Dumlao

squaremetersportionoflandandbuiltthereoningoodfaithisaportionof
defendants kitchen and has been in the possession of the defendant since
1952continuouslyuptothepresentxxx.(Italicsours)

Consistentwiththe principle that our Court system, like any other,

mustbeadisputeresolvingmechanism,weaccordlegaleffecttothe
agreement of the parties, within the context of their mutual

concession and stipulation. They have, thereby, chosen a legal

formulatoresolvetheirdisputetoapplytoDUMLAOtherightsof
a builder in good faith and to DEPRA those of a landowner in
good faith as prescribed in Article 448. Hence, we shall refrain
fromfurtherexaminingwhetherthefactualsituationsofDUMLAO
andDEPRAconformtothejuridicalpositionsrespectivelydefined
bylaw,forabuilderingoodfaithunderArticle448,apossessor
in good faith under Article 526 and a landowner in good faith
underArticle448.
Inregardstobuildersingoodfaith,Article448oftheCivilCode
provides:
ART.448.Theownerofthelandonwhichanythinghasbeenbuiltsown
orplantedingoodfaith,
shallhavetheright
toappropriateashisowntheworks,sowingorplanting,afterpaymentof
theindemnityprovidedforinarticles546and548,or
toobligetheonewhobuiltorplantedtopaythepriceoftheland,and
theonewhosowed,theproperrent.
However,thebuilderorplantercannotbeobligedtobuythelandifits
valueisconsiderablymorethanthatofthebuildingortrees.Insuchcase,he
shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to
appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall
agreeuponthetermsoftheleaseandincaseofdisagreement,thecourtshall
fixthetermsthereof.(Paragraphingsupplied)

Pursuanttotheforegoingprovision,DEPRAhastheoptioneitherto
pay for the encroaching part of DUMLAOs kitchen, or to sell the
encroached 34 square meters of his lot to DUMLAO. He cannot
refusetopayfortheencroachingpartof
481

VOL.136,MAY16,1985

481

Depravs.Dumlao
5

thebuilding,andtoselltheencroachedpartofhisland, as he had
manifestedbeforetheMunicipalCourt.Butthatmanifestationisnot
bindingbecauseitwasmadeinavoidproceeding.
However,thegood faith of DUMLAOis part of the Stipulation
ofFactsintheCourtofFirstInstance.ItwasthuserrorfortheTrial
CourttohaveruledthatDEPRAisentitledtopossession,without
more,ofthedisputedportionimplyingtherebythatheisentitledto
havethekitchenremoved.Heisentitledtosuchremovalonlywhen,
afterhavingchosen6 to sell his encroached land, DUMLAO fails to
pay for the same. In this case, DUMLAO had expressed his
willingnesstopayfortheland,butDEPRArefusedtosell.

Theownerofthebuildingerectedingoodfaithonalandownedbyanother,
isentitledtoretainthepossessionofthelanduntilheispaidthevalueofhis
building,underarticle453(nowArticle546).Theowneroftheland,upon
theotherhand,hastheoption,underarticle361(nowArticle448),eitherto
payforthebuildingortosellhislandtotheownerofthebuilding.Buthe
cannot, as respondents here did refuse both to pay for the building and to
sell the land and compel the owner of the building to remove it from the
land where it erected. He is entitled to such remotion only when, after
having chosen to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same
(italicsours).
We hold, therefore, that the order of Judge Natividad compelling
defendantspetitionerstoremovetheirbuildingsfromthelandbelongingto
plaintiffsrespondentsonlybecausethelatterchoseneithertopayforsuch
buildingsnortoselltheland,isnullandvoid,foritamendssubstantiallythe
judgment sought to be executed and is, furthermore, offensive to articles
361 (now Article 448) and 453 (now Article 546) of the Civil Code,
(Ignaciovs.Hilario,76Phil.605,608[1946]).

AwordanentthephilosophybehindArticle448oftheCivilCode.
The original provision was found in Article 361 of the Spanish
CivilCode,whichprovided:
_______________
5Ignaciovs.Hilario,76Phil.605(1946).
6ibid.

482

482

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Depravs.Dumlao

ART. 361. The owner of land on which anything has been built, sown or
planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the
work, sowing or planting, after the payment of the indemnity stated in
Articles 453 and 454, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the
priceoftheland,andtheonewhosowed,theproperrent.

Aswillbeseen,theArticlefavorstheowneroftheland,bygiving
him one of the two options mentioned in the Article. Some
commentatorshavequestionedthepreferenceinfavoroftheowner
oftheland,butManresasopinionisthattheArticleisjustandfair.
...esjustalafacultadqueelcodigodaaldueodelsueloenelarticulo
361, en el caso de edificacion o plantacion? Algunos coinentaristas la
conceptuan injusta, y como un extraordinario privilegio en favor de la
propiedadterritorial.EntiendenqueimponeelCodigounapenaalposeedor
de buena fe y como advierte uno de los comentaristas aludidos, no se
veclaroelporquedetalpena...alobligaralqueobrodebuenafeaquedarse

coneledificiooplantacion,previoelpagodelterrenoqueocupa,porquesi
bien es verdad que cuando edifico o planto demostro con este hecho, que
queriaparasieledificiooplantio,tambienloesqueelqueedificooplanto
debuenafelohizoenlaerroneainteligenciadecreersedueodelterreno.
Posible es que, de saber lo contrario, y de tener noticia de que habia que
comprarypagarelterreno,nosehubieradecididoaplantarniaedificar.La
ley, obligandole a hacerlo, fuerza su voluntad, y la fuerza por un hecho
inocente de que no debe ser responsable. Asi podra suceder pero la
realidad es que con ese hecho voluntario, aunque sea inocente, se ha
enriquecido torticeramente con perjuicio de otro a quien es justo
indemnizarle.
Ennuestraopinion,elCodigoharesueltoelconflictodelamaneramas
justa y equitativa, y respetando en
lo posible el principio que para la
7
accesionseestableceenelart.358.

Our own Code Commission must have taken account of the

objections to Article 361 of the Spanish Civil Code. Hence, the
Commissionprovidedamodificationthereof,andArticle448ofour
Codehasbeenmadetoprovide:
ART.448.Theownerofthelandonwhichanythinghasbeen
_______________
73Manresa,7thEd.,pp.300301.

483

VOL.136,MAY16,1985

483

Depravs.Dumlao

built,sownorplantedingoodfaith,shallhavetherighttoappropriateashis
owntheworks,sowingorplanting,afterpaymentoftheindemnityprovided
forinarticles546and548,ortoobligetheonewhobuiltorplantedtopay
thepriceoftheland,andtheonewhosowed,theproperrent.However,the
builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
considerablymorethanthatofthebuildingortrees.Insuchcase,heshall
payreasonablerent,iftheownerofthelanddoesnotchoosetoappropriate
thebuildingortreesafterproperindemnity.Thepartiesshallagreeuponthe
termsoftheleaseandincaseofdisagreement,thecourtshallfixtheterms
thereof.

Additionalbenefitswereextendedtothebuilderbutthelandowner
retainedhisoptions.
ThefairnessoftherulesinArticle448hasalsobeenexplainedas
follows:
Where the builder, planter or sower has acted in good faith, a conflict of
rights arises between the owners, and it becomes necessary to protect the

owner of the improvements without causing injustice to the owner of the

land. In view of the impracticability of creating a state of forced co
ownership,thelawhasprovidedajustsolutionbygivingtheownerofthe
land the option to acquire the improvements after payment of the proper
indemnity, or to oblige the builder or planter to pay for the land and the
sower to pay for the proper rent. It is the owner of the land who is
authorizedtoexercisetheoption,becausehisrightisolder,andbecause,by
the principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory
thing. (3 Manresa 213 Bernardo vs. Bataclan, 37 Off. Gaz. 1382 Co Tao
vs. Chan Chico, G.R. No. 49167, April 30, 1949 Article applied: see
Cabral,etal.vs.Ibanez[S.C.]52Off.Gaz.217Marforivs.Velasco,[C.A.]
8
52Off.Gaz.2050).

WHEREFORE,thejudgment of the trial Court is hereby set aside,

andthiscaseisherebyorderedremandedtotheRegionalTrialCourt
ofIloiloforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwithArticles448and546
oftheCivilCode,asfollows:
1. ThetrialCourtshalldetermine
a) the present fair price of DEPRAs 84 square meterarea of
land
_______________
8IITolentino,CivilCodeofthePhilippines,1963ed.,p.97.

484

484

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Depravs.Dumlao

b) the amount of the expenses spent by DUMLAO for the

buildingofthekitchen
c) theincreaseinvalue (plus value) which the said area of
34squaremetersmayhaveacquiredbyreasonthereof,and
d) whetherthevalueofsaidareaoflandisconsiderablymore
thanthatofthekitchenbuiltthereon.
2. After said amounts shall have been determined by
competent evidence, the Regional Trial Court shall render
judgment,asfollows:
a) ThetrialCourtshallgrantDEPRAaperiodoffifteen(15)
days within which to exercise his option under the law
(Article 448, Civil Code), whether to appropriate the
kitchen as his own by paying to DUMLAO either the
amount of the expenses spent by DUMLAO for the

building of the kitchen, or the increase in value (plus

value)whichthesaid area of 34 square meters may have
acquiredbyreasonthereof,or to oblige DUMLAO to pay
thepriceofsaidarea.Theamountstoberespectivelypaid
by DUMLAO and DEPRA, in accordance with the option
thusexercisedbywrittennoticeoftheotherpartyandtothe
Court,shallbepaidbytheobligorwithinfifteen(15)days
fromsuchnoticeof the option by tendering the amount to
theCourtinfavorofthepartyentitledtoreceiveit
b) ThetrialCourtshallfurtherorderthatifDEPRAexercises
theoptiontoobligeDUMLAOtopaythepriceoftheland
butthelatterrejectssuchpurchasebecause,asfoundbythe
trialCourt,thevalueofthelandisconsiderablymorethan
that of the kitchen, DUMLAO shall give written notice of
such rejection to DEPRA and to the Court within fifteen
(15)daysfromnoticeofDEPRAsoptiontoselltheland.In
thatevent,thepartiesshallbegivenaperiodoffifteen(15)
days from such notice of rejection within which to agree
upon the terms of the lease, and give the Court formal
written notice of such agreement and its provisos. If no
agreementis
485

VOL.136,MAY16,1985

485

Depravs.Dumlao

reached by the parties, the trial Court, within fifteen (15)

daysfromandaftertheterminationofthesaidperiodfixed
for negotiation, shall then fix the terms of the lease,
provided that the monthly rental to be fixed by the Court
shall not be less than Ten Pesos (P10.00) per month,
payable within the first five (5) days of each calendar
month. The period for the forced lease shall not be more
than two (2) years, counted from the finality of the
judgment, considering the long period of time since 1952
that DUMLAO has occupied the subject area. The rental
thus fixed shall be increased by ten percent (10%) for the
secondyearoftheforcedlease.DUMLAOshallnotmake
any further constructions or improvements on the kitchen.
Uponexpirationofthetwoyearperiod,orupondefaultby
DUMLAO in the payment of rentals for two (2)
consecutive months, DEPRA shall be entitled to terminate
theforcedlease,torecoverhisland,andtohavethekitchen
removed by DUMLAO or at the latters expense. The
rentals herein provided shall be tendered by DUMLAO to
the Court for payment to DEPRA, and such tender shall

constituteevidenceofwhetherornotcompliancewasmade
withintheperiodfixedbytheCourt.
c) In any event, DUMLAO shall pay DEPRA an amount
computed at Ten Pesos (P10.00) per month as reasonable
compensation for the occupancy of DEPRAs land for the
periodcountedfrom1952,theyearDUMLAOoccupiedthe
subject area, up to the commencement date of the forced
leasereferredtointheprecedingparagraph
d) The periods to be fixed by the trial Court in its Decision
shallbeinextendible,anduponfailureofthepartyobliged
to tender to the trial Court the amount due to the obligee,
the party entitled to such payment shall be entitled to an
order of execution for the enforcement of payment of the
amountdueandforcompliancewithsuchotheractsasmay
berequiredbytheprestationduetheobligee.
Nocosts.
486

486

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Depravs.Dumlao

SOORDERED.
Teehankee, Actg. C.J., Plana, Relova De la Fuente and
Alampay,JJ.,concur.
Gutierrez,Jr.,**J.,tooknopart.
Judgment set aside and case remanded to Regional Trial Court
forfurtherproceedings.
Notes.Article448,NewCivilCode,ismanifestlyintendedto
apply only to a case where one builds, plants, or sows on land in
whichhebelieveshimselftohaveaclaimoftitle,andnottolands
where the only interest of the builder, planter or dower is that of a
holder, such as a tenant. (Alburo vs. Villanueva, 7 Phil. 277 De
Laureanovs.Adil,72SCRA148Elorezavs.Evangelista,96SCRA
130.)TherulestatedinArticle526,thatapossessoringoodfaithis
onewhohasnoknowledgeofanyflawordefectinhistitleormode
ofacquisition,shouldbeappliedindeterminingwhetherthebuilder,
planter,orsoweractsingoodfaith.Goodfaithconsistsinthebelief
ofthebuilder,planterorsowerthatthelandishis,orthatbysome
title he has a right to build, plant or sow thereon. Good faith is
presumed, under Article 527, and he who alleges bad faith has the
burdenofprovingsuchbadfaith,(3Manreza209.)
o0o

_______________
** Mr. Justice Hugo E. Gutierrez, Jr. took no part, having been one of the two

members of a Court of Appeals Division of Five Justices who dissented from the
majorityopinioncertifyingthiscasetothisCourt.
487

VOL.136,MAY22,1985
UnitedStatesofAmericavs.Ruiz

Copyright2016CentralBookSupply,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

487