Scribd
Upload
183 views1 page

PNB V. de Jesus 411 SCRA 557

1) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for recovery of ownership and possession of 124 square meters of land that the petitioner was encroaching upon with a building. 2) The petitioner claimed that when they acquired the property in 1981, the encroachment already existed, and the then-mayor offered to sell the encroached area but the sale did not materialize. 3) The court held that whether the builder was in good faith is irrelevant under Article 448, as that article refers to a disputed piece of land built on by two competing parties, not where the original owner built on their own land and later lost ownership.

Uploaded by

roselleyap20
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
183 views1 page

PNB V. de Jesus 411 SCRA 557

1) The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for recovery of ownership and possession of 124 square meters of land that the petitioner was encroaching upon with a building. 2) The petitioner claimed that when they acquired the property in 1981, the encroachment already existed, and the then-mayor offered to sell the encroached area but the sale did not materialize. 3) The court held that whether the builder was in good faith is irrelevant under Article 448, as that article refers to a disputed piece of land built on by two competing parties, not where the original owner built on their own land and later lost ownership.

Uploaded by

roselleyap20
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

PNB V.

DE JESUS
411 SCRA 557

FACTS:
On 10 June 1995, respondent filed a complaint against petitioner before the Regional Trial Court of
Occidental Mindoro for recovery of ownership and possession, with damages, over the questioned property. In his
complaint, respondent stated that he had acquired a parcel of land situated in Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro, with
an area of 1,144 square meters covered by TCT No. T-17197, and that on 26 March 1993, he had caused a
verification survey of the property and discovered that the northern portion of the lot was being encroached upon by a
building of petitioner to the extent of 124 square meters. Despite two letters of demand sent by respondent, petitioner
failed and refused to vacate the area.
Petitioner, in its answer, asserted that when it acquired the lot and the building sometime in 1981 from then
Mayor Bienvenido Ignacio, the encroachment already was in existence and to remedy the situation, Mayor Ignacio
offered to sell the area in question (which then also belonged to Ignacio) to petitioner at P100.00 per square meter
which offer the latter claimed to have accepted. The sale, however, did not materialize when, without the knowledge
and consent of petitioner, Mayor Ignacio later mortgaged the lot to the Development Bank of the Philippines. He also
contends that he is a builder in good faith.

ISSUE:
Whether or not being a builder in good faith matters under article 448.

HELD:
NO. Article 448, of the Civil Code refers to a piece of land whose ownership is claimed by two or more
parties, one of whom has built some works (or sown or planted something) and not to a case where the owner of the
land is the builder, sower, or planter who then later loses ownership of the land by sale or otherwise for, elsewise
stated, “where the true owner himself is the builder of works on his own land, the issue of good faith or bad faith is
entirely irrelevant.”

You might also like