Tuatis v.

Escol

Petitioner: Ophelia Tuatis

Respondents: Sps. Elise and Visminda Escol; CA, RTC

Facts:

In 1996, Tuaties filed a complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against Visminda Escol before
the RTC alleging that Visminda, as seller, and Tuatis, as buyer, entered into a Deed of Sale by
Installment. The Deed was for a piece of real property situated in Zamboanga del Norte.
The parties agreed that in
consideration of the sum of 10,000 pesos, the seller sells to the buyer the parcel of land under
the conditions that the buyer pays 3,000 pesos as downpayment, 4,000 pesos on or before
December 31, 1989, and 3,000 pesos on or before January 31, 1990. The agreement also
stated that failure of the buyer to pay the remaining balance within the period of three months
from the period stipulated above, the BUYER [Tuatis] shall return the land subject of this
contract to the SELLER [Visminda] and the SELLER [Visminda] [shall] likewise return all the
amount paid by the BUYER [Tuatis].

The parties agreed that in

consideration of the sum of 10,000 pesos, the seller sells to the buyer the parcel of land under
the conditions that the buyer pays 3,000 pesos as downpayment, 4,000 pesos on or before
December 31, 1989, and 3,000 pesos on or before January 31, 1990. The agreement also
stated that failure of the buyer to pay the remaining balance within the period of three months
from the period stipulated above, the BUYER [Tuatis] shall return the land subject of this
contract to the SELLER [Visminda] and the SELLER [Visminda] [shall] likewise return all the
amount paid by the BUYER [Tuatis].
The parties agreed that in
consideration of the sum of 10,000 pesos, the seller sells to the buyer the parcel of land under
the conditions that the buyer pays 3,000 pesos as downpayment, 4,000 pesos on or before
December 31, 1989, and 3,000 pesos on or before January 31, 1990. The agreement also
stated that failure of the buyer to pay the remaining balance within the period of three months
from the period stipulated above, the BUYER [Tuatis] shall return the land subject of this
contract to the SELLER [Visminda] and the SELLER [Visminda] [shall] likewise return all the
amount paid by the BUYER [Tuatis].
The parties agreed that in
consideration of the sum of 10,000 pesos, the seller sells to the buyer the parcel of land under
the conditions that the buyer pays 3,000 pesos as downpayment, 4,000 pesos on or before
December 31, 1989, and 3,000 pesos on or before January 31, 1990. The agreement also
stated that failure of the buyer to pay the remaining balance within the period of three months
from the period stipulated above, the BUYER [Tuatis] shall return the land subject of this
contract to the SELLER [Visminda] and the SELLER [Visminda] [shall] likewise return all the
amount paid by the BUYER [Tuatis].
The parties agreed that the buyer pays P3,000 as a downpayment, P4,000 on or before December 31,
1989, and P3,000 on or before January, 1990. The agreement also stated that failure of the buyer to pay
the remaining balance within the period of 3 months, the buyer shall return the land to the seller, and the
seller likewise return all the amount paid by the buyer. Upon the downpayment, Tuatis already took the
possession of the property and constructed a residential building.

Tuatis requested Visminda to sign an absolute deed of sale covering the property but the latter refused
contending that the purchase price had not yet been fully paid. Tuaties contended that Visminda failed
and refused to sign the absolute deed of sale without any valid reason. Visminda countered that Tuaties
only paid the 3k downpayment, 1k installment on December 1989 and February 1990, respectively. From
then, Tuatis made no other payment.
RTC favored Visminda as Tuatis did not establish by satisfactory proof as to her compliance with the
terms and conditions in the Deed. Tuatis constructed the building in bad faith for she had the knowledge
of the fact that Visminda is still the absolute wner of the property. There was bad faith also on the part of
Visminda since she allowed Tuatis to construct the building without any opposition.

Hence this petition. Tuatis maintained that she then had the right to choose between being indemnified for
the value of her residential building or buying from Visminda the land. Tuatis maintained that she was
opting to exercise the second option.

Issue: WON Tuatis has the right to choose between being indemnified for the value of her residential
building or buying from Visminda the parcel of land pursuant to Art. 448 of Civil Code. NO

Held:
Under Art 448, the landowner, Visminda, has the right to choose and not Tuatis.
Taking into consideration the provisions of the Deed of Sale by Installment and Article 448 of
the Civil Code, Visminda has the following options:
Under the first option, Visminda may appropriate for herself the building on the subject property
after indemnifying Tuatis for the necessary and useful expenses the latter incurred for said
building, as provided in Article 546 of the Civil Code.
Taking into consideration the provisions of the Deed and Art 448 of Civil Code, Visminda has the following
options:
1) Visminda may appropriate herself the building on the subject property after indemnifying Tuatis
for the necessary and useful expenses the latter incurred for said building.
2) Visminda may choose not to appropriate the building and,instead, oblige Tuatis to pay the
present of current fair market value of the land.

Article 448 of the Civil Code, referred to by the RTC, provides:

ART. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall
have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity
provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land,
and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the
land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, 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 agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court
shall fix the terms thereof. (Emphases supplied.)