Scribd
Upload
127 views1 page

21 - Florencio Ignao Vs IAC

Petitioner Florencio Ignao and private respondents Juan and Isidro Ignao were co-owners of a parcel of land. A partition order allotted 133.5 sqm to the private respondents and 266.5 sqm to Florencio, but no actual partition occurred. Florencio later alleged the houses built by Juan and Isidro exceeded their allotted area. The court found the houses occupied Florencio's land but the builders should be considered in good faith under Article 448. The Supreme Court held that while Article 448 does not usually apply to co-owners, when co-ownership ends and a house was built in good faith but encroaches on another's portion, Article 4

Uploaded by

JMX
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
127 views1 page

21 - Florencio Ignao Vs IAC

Petitioner Florencio Ignao and private respondents Juan and Isidro Ignao were co-owners of a parcel of land. A partition order allotted 133.5 sqm to the private respondents and 266.5 sqm to Florencio, but no actual partition occurred. Florencio later alleged the houses built by Juan and Isidro exceeded their allotted area. The court found the houses occupied Florencio's land but the builders should be considered in good faith under Article 448. The Supreme Court held that while Article 448 does not usually apply to co-owners, when co-ownership ends and a house was built in good faith but encroaches on another's portion, Article 4

Uploaded by

JMX
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Florencio Ignao v.

Intermediate Appellate Court, Juan Ignao, substituted by his Legal Heirs,

and Isidro Ignao

G.R. No. 72876; January 18, 1991

FERNAN, J.

Doctrine: Article 448 cannot apply where a co-owner builds, plants or sows on the land owned in common for then
he did not build, plant or sow upon land that exclusively belongs to another but of which he is a co-owner.
The co-owner is not a third person unde the circumstances, and the situation is governed by the rules of
co-ownership.

Facts: Petitioner Florencio Ignao and his uncles private respondents Juan Ignao and Isidro Ignao were
coowners of a parcel of land in Kawit, Cavite. Ignao successfully obtained an order of partition of the said
land, allotting 133.5 square meters or 2/8 thereof to private respondents, and giving the remaining portion
with a total area of 266.5 square meters to petitioner Florencio. However, no actual partition was ever
effected. Ignao later instituted a complaint for recovery of possession of real property against private
respondents alleging that the area occupied by the 2 houses built by private respondents exceeded the
133.5 square meters previously allotted to them. The lower court found that the houses of Juan and Isidro
occupied a portion of Florencio's property but they should be considered builders in good faith under Article
448 of the Civil Code.

Issue: Is Article 448 applicable to a builder in good faith on a property held in common?

Held: Yes. Article 448 is applicable to a builder in good faith on a property held in common.

It has been previously held by the Supreme Court that Article 448 cannot apply where a co-owner builds,
plants or sows on the land owned in common for then he did not build, plant or sow upon land that
exclusively belongs to another but of which he is a co-owner. The co-owner is not a third person unde the
circumstances, and the situation is governed by the rules of co-ownership. However, when the co-
ownership is terminated by a partition and it appears that the house of an erstwhile co-owner has
encroached upon a portion pertaining to another co-owner which was however made in good faith, then the
provisions of Article 448 should apply to determine the respective rights of the parties.

You might also like