VSD REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v.

UNIWIDE SALES, INC. and DOLORES BAELLO TEJADA HELD

G.R. No. 170677 | 24 October 2012
FACTS
1. VSD alleged that it is the owner of a parcel of land in Caloocan City
covered by TCT T-285312, which it purchased from Bonifacio.
2. However, respondent BAELLO claim ownership and has possession over
the same land. BAELLO even entered into a contract of lease with
UNIWIDE in 1988. Because of the said contract of lease, UNIWIDE
constructed a building worth at least P200M on the said land.
3. BAELLO alleged that her adoptive mother, Galauran, through a will,
gave the said land to her. After Galauran died, BAELLO registered the land
in her name in 1954. She added that during her open and public possession
of the said property for over 40 years, nobody came forward to contest her
title. It was only in 1994 that VSD demanded rentals from UNIWIDE,
asserting ownership over the land.
4. But VSD alleged that BAELLO is the registered owner of another land
covered by TCT 35788. The technical description in BAELLOs title is not
the same as the technical description in VSDs title.
VSD filed a complaint for annulment of Baellos title and recovery of
possession of property.
1) YES. Art. 434 of the Code provides that to recover the ownership of a
real property, the person who claims a better right to it must prove two (2)
things: first, the identity of the land claimed, and; second, his title thereto.
In this case, petitioner proved the identity of the land it is claiming through
the technical description contained in its title, the derivative title of
Bonifacio,; the technical description in the official records in the Register of
Deeds of Caloocan City; and the verification survey conducted by the
DENR.
In addition, petitioner proved its title over the property by presenting in
evidence its title, TCT No. T-285312. Hence, it is entitled to recover the
possession of the property from respondents.
2) NO. UNIWIDE cannot avail of the rights of a builder in good faith under
Art. 448, which provides for full reimbursements of useful improvements
and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, as the said
provision apply only to a possessor in good faith who builds on land with
the belief that he is the owner thereof. It does not apply where ones only
interest is that of a lessee under a rental contract.
Hence, Uniwide cannot recover the cost of its improvement on the land
from VSD.

5. RTC rendered a decision in favor of VSD. BAELLO is the holder of a

title over a lot entirely different and not in anyway related to VSDs title
and its technical description. RTC said that BAELLOs title is null & void.
CA reversed and decided in favor of BAELLO. CA said that BAELLOs
title is not void, and it enjoys the presumption of validity because it is a
Torrens title.

ISSUE
1) W/N VSD is entitled to the recovery of possession of the subject property
- YES

2) W/N UNIWIDE is entitled to recover from VSD the cost of its

improvement on the land NO.