Scribd
Upload
242 views2 pages

Delos Santos Vs Abejon

Erlinda and her late husband Pedro borrowed money from Teresita and used their property as collateral. Unable to pay back the loan, Erlinda claims they agreed to sell the property to Teresita. However, Erlinda denies signing the deed of sale and asserts the property was not actually sold. The lower courts ruled that Erlinda admitted to the debt and benefited from a building Teresita constructed, so she must reimburse Teresita for the loan and construction costs. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding that while Erlinda knew the deed of sale was defective, she still allowed the building's construction, making her a landowner in bad faith according to civil law and responsible for reimbursing expenses

Uploaded by

Nikki Diane Cadiz
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
242 views2 pages

Delos Santos Vs Abejon

Erlinda and her late husband Pedro borrowed money from Teresita and used their property as collateral. Unable to pay back the loan, Erlinda claims they agreed to sell the property to Teresita. However, Erlinda denies signing the deed of sale and asserts the property was not actually sold. The lower courts ruled that Erlinda admitted to the debt and benefited from a building Teresita constructed, so she must reimburse Teresita for the loan and construction costs. The Supreme Court upheld this, finding that while Erlinda knew the deed of sale was defective, she still allowed the building's construction, making her a landowner in bad faith according to civil law and responsible for reimbursing expenses

Uploaded by

Nikki Diane Cadiz
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/ 2

G.R. No.

215820
ERLINDA DINGLASAN DELOS SANTOS vs ALBERTO ABEJON and the estate of
TERESITA DINGLASAN ABEJON
March 20, 2017

FACTS: Respondents filed a Complaint for Cancellation of Title with collection of


sum of money against Petitioners before the RTC.

The complaint alleged that Erlinda and her late husband Pedro Delos Santos
borrowed money from the Teresita Abejon, as evidenced by a Promissory Note.
As security for the loan, Erlinda and Pedro mortgaged their property, covered by
a Transfer Certificate of Title which mortgage was annotated on the title.

After Pedro died, Erlinda ended up being unable to pay the loan, and as such,
agreed to sell the subject land to Teresita. They executed a Deed of Sale and a
Release of Mortgage, and eventually issued in the name of "Teresita, Abejon.”

In defense, petitioners denied any participation relative to the spurious Deed of


Sale, and instead, maintained that it was Teresita who fabricated the same and
caused its registration before the Register of Deeds of Makati City.

They likewise asserted that Erlinda and Pedro never sold the subject land to
Teresita, and that they did not receive any demand for the payment,
representing the loan, representing the construction cost of the building. Finally,
they claimed that the improvements introduced by Teresita on the subject land
were all voluntary on her part.

The RTC ruled that respondents should be reimbursed for the amount of the
loan, as well as the expenses incurred for the construction of the three (3)-storey
building in view of petitioners' categorical admission of their indebtedness to
her, as well as the construction of the building from which they derived benefit
being the actual occupants of the property.

The CA ruled that since petitioners admitted their indebtedness to Teresita


during the pre-trial proceedings, respondents should be allowed to recover the
amount representing the same, including the appropriate interest.

ISSUE: WON the CA correctly held that petitioners should be held liable to
respondents?

RULING: Petitioners knew of the defect in the execution of the Deed of Sale from
the start, but nonetheless, still acquiesced to the construction of the three (3)-
storey building thereon. Hence, they should likewise be considered as
landowners in bad faith.

In this relation, Article 453 of the Civil Code provides that where both the
landowner and the builder, planter, or sower acted in bad faith, they shall be
treated as if both of them were in good faith, viz.:

Article 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built,
planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of
such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had
acted in good faith.
It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever
the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part.

Whenever both the landowner and the builder/planter/sower are in good faith
(or in bad faith, pursuant to the afore-cited provision), the landowner is given
two (2) options under Article 44836 of the Civil Code, namely: (a) he may
appropriate the improvements for himself after reimbursing the buyer (the
builder in good faith) the necessary and useful expenses under Articles 54637
and 54838 of the Civil Code; or (b) he may sell the land to the buyer, unless its
value is considerably more than that of the improvements, in which case, the
buyer shall pay reasonable rent.39

You might also like