Facts:
Francisco
Fontanilla and Andres Fontanilla were brothers. Francisco Fontanilla acquired
during his lifetime, on March 12, 1874, a lot in the center of the town of
Laoag, Ilocos Norte, the property having been awarded to him through its
purchase at a public auction held by the alcalde mayor of that province. The
lot has a frontage of 120 meters and a depth of 15.
Andres
Fontanilla, with the consent of his brother Francisco, erected a warehouse on a
part of the said lot, embracing 14 meters of its frontage by 11 meters of its
depth.
Francisco
Fontanilla, the former owner of the lot, being dead, the herein plaintiffs,
Alejandro Mina, et al., were recognized without discussion as his heirs.
Andres
Fontanilla, the former owner of the warehouse, also having died, the children
of Ruperta Pascual were recognized likes without discussion, though it is not
said how, and consequently are entitled to the said building, or rather, as
Ruperta Pascual herself stated, to only six-sevenths of one-half of it, the
other half belonging, as it appears, to the plaintiffs themselves, and the
remaining one-seventh of the first one-half to the children of one of the
plaintiffs, Elena de Villanueva. The fact is that the plaintiffs and the
defendants are virtually, to all appearance, the owners of the warehouse; while
the plaintiffs are undoubtedly, the owners of the part of the lot occupied by
that building, as well as of the remainder thereof.
This was the
state of affairs, when, on May 6, 1909, Ruperta Pascual, as the guardian of her
minor children, the herein defendants, petitioned the Curt of First Instance of
Ilocos Norte for authorization to sell "the six-sevenths of the one-half
of the warehouse, of 14 by 11 meters, together with its lot."
The plaintiffs
requested the court to decide the question of the ownership of the lot before
it pass upon the petition for the sale of the warehouse. But the court before
determining the matter of the ownership of the lot occupied by the warehouse,
ordered the sale of this building, saying:
While the
trial continues with respect to the ownership of the lot, the court orders the
sale at public auction of the said warehouse and of the lot on which it is
built, with the present boundaries of the land and condition of the building,
at a price of not less than P2,890 Philippine currency. . .
The warehouse,
together with the lot on which it stands, was sold to Cu Joco.
The plaintiffs
insisted upon a decision of the question of the ownership of the lot, and the
court decided it by holding that this land belonged to the owner of the
warehouse which had been built thereon thirty years before.
The plaintiffs
appealed and this court reversed the judgment of the lower court and held that
the appellants were the owners of the lot in question.
A writ of
execution issued and the plaintiffs were given possession of the lot; but soon
thereafter the trial court annulled this possession for the reason that it
affected Cu Joco, who had not been a party to the suit in which that writ was
served.
It was then
that the plaintiffs commenced the present action for the purpose of having the
sale of the said lot declared null and void and of no force and effect.
RTC held that
there were no grounds for the annulment of sale.
Issue:
Whether or not there should be an action for recovery against Cu Joco to
compel him, once the sale has been annulled, to deliver the lot to its lawful
owners, the plaintiffs.
Held:
The SC found
that:
1. That it is
a fact admitted by the litigating parties, both in this and in the previous
suit, that Andres Fontanilla, the defendants' predecessor in interest, erected
the warehouse on the lot, some thirty years ago, with the explicit consent of
his brother Francisco Fontanilla, the plaintiff's predecessor in interest.
2. That it
also appears to be an admitted fact that the plaintiffs and the defendants are
the coowners of the warehouse.
3. That it is
a fact explicitly admitted in the agreement, that neither Andres Fontanilla nor
his successors paid any consideration or price whatever for the use of the lot
occupied by the said building; whence it is, perhaps, that both parties have
denominated that use a commodatum.
The defendants
do not hold lawful possession of the lot in question.
Contracts are
not to be interpreted in conformity with the name that the parties thereto
agree to give them, but must be construed, duly considering their constitutive
elements, as they are defined and denominated by law.
By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to the other, either
anything not perishable, in order that the latter may use it during the certain
period and return it to the former, in which case it is called commodatum . . .
(art. 1740, Civil Code).
It is,
therefore, an essential feature of the commodatum that the use of the thing
belonging to another shall for a certain period. Francisco Fontanilla did not
fix any definite period or time during which Andres Fontanilla could have the
use of the lot whereon the latter was to erect a stone warehouse of
considerable value, and so it is that for the past thirty years of the lot has
been used by both Andres and his successors in interest. The present contention
of the plaintiffs that Cu Joco, now in possession of the lot, should pay rent
for it at the rate of P5 a month, would destroy the theory of the commodatum
sustained by them, since, according to the second paragraph of the aforecited
article 1740, "commodatum is essentially gratuitous," and, if what
the plaintiffs themselves aver on page 7 of their brief is to be believed, it
never entered Francisco's mind to limit the period during which his brother
Andres was to have the use of the lot, because he expected that the warehouse
would eventually fall into the hands of his son, Fructuoso Fontanilla, called
the adopted son of Andres, which did not come to pass for the reason that
Fructuoso died before his uncle Andres. With that expectation in view, it
appears more likely that Francisco intended to allow his brother Andres a
surface right; but this right supposes the payment of an annual rent, and
Andres had the gratuitous use of the lot.
Hence, as the
facts aforestated only show that a building was erected on another's ground,
the question should be decided in accordance with the statutes that, thirty
years ago, governed accessions to real estate, and which were Laws 41 and 42,
title 28, of the third Partida, nearly identical with the provisions of
articles 361 and 362 of the Civil Code. So, then, pursuant to article 361, the
owner of the land on which a building is erected in good faith has a right to
appropriate such edifice to himself, after payment of the indemnity prescribed
in articles 453 and 454, or to oblige the builder to pay him the value of the
land. Such, and no other, is the right to which the plaintiff are entitled.
For the
foregoing reasons, it is only necessary to annul the sale of the said lot which
was made by Ruperta Pascual, in representation of her minor children, to Cu
Joco, and to maintain the latter in the use of the lot until the plaintiffs
shall choose one or the other of the two rights granted them by article 361 of
the Civil Code.
No comments:
Post a Comment