Francisco Depra vs Agustin Dumlao

The properties of Francisco Depra and Agustin Dumlao were adjoining each other. In
1972, Dumlao built his house however, he unwittingly built the kitchen portion of his house
on Depras land. Depra then sued Dumlao for unlawful detainer. During pre-trial, the
parties agreed that Dumlao was a builder in good faith.
Eventually, the trial court ruled that both parties were in good faith but then a forced lease
was ordered whereby Dumlao retains the kitchen but he shall pay a rental to Depra at
P5.00 per month. But Depra refused to receive the rental payments from Dumlao, instead,
Depra filed an action for quieting of title against Dumlao. In his defense, Dumlao raised
the defense of res judicata considering that the nature and purpose of the initial unlawful
detainer case and that of the subsequent quieting of title case is ejectment.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the order of forced lease decreed in the unlawful detainer case is valid.
2. Whether or not the subsequent case of res judicata is barred by prescription due to the
prior case of unlawful detainer.
HELD:
1. No. The judgment of forced lease is improper. A forced lease, just like co-ownership is
not favored. It should be considered that the parties themselves stipulated that Dumlao,
the builder, was in good faith and it was later found that Depra, the owner, was also in
good faith. Hence, what applies is the provisions of Article 448 of the Civil Code, which
provides in sum that:
a. Builder in good faith entitled to retain the possession of the land on which he built in
good faith until he is paid the value of the building he built in good faith;
b. Owner in good faith has the option to either (i) pay for the building OR (ii) sell his land
to the builder in good faith but builder cannot be forced to buy said land if the same is
considerably more than the value of the building.
Forced rent only comes in if the owner exercises his right to sell the land but the builder
rejects it by reason of the price thereof being considerably more than the value of the
building in such case, the parties shall agree to the terms of the lease, if they cant agree
then they may bring the issue to court.

2. No. The action for quieting of title is not barred by reason of res judicata. The cause of
action in the unlawful detainer case involves possession while the cause of action in the
quieting of title case involves ownership. Furthermore, the Rules of Court explicitly
provides that judgment in a detainer case shall not bar an action between the same
parties respecting title to the land.