DEL CAMPO V.

ABESIA

When land is co-owned by two parties, but the co-ownership is terminated, Article 448 governs in case
real property (like a house) encroaches the land of another. This is provided that good faith exists.

FACTS:

The case involves two friendly parties who are co-owners of a corner lot at Flores and Cavan Streets in
Cebu City. Plaintiff owns 2/3 of the lot and Defendant owns 1/3 of the same. The total size of the lot is 45
square meters (which is about the size of a typical Starbux café)

Later on, the two parties decided to divide the co-owned property into two lots. 30 square meters went
to the plaintiffs and 15 square meters went to the defendants. From the sketch plan, both parties
discovered that the house of the defendants occupied a portion of the plaintiff’s adjacent lot, eating 5
sqm of it. The parties then requested the trial court to adjudicate who should take possession of the
encroached 5 sqm.

The trial court ruled that Art 448 does not apply. 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. Since art 448 does not apply, the Plaintiff
cannot be obliged to pay for the portion of defendant’s house that entered into the 30 sqm lot, AND
Defendant cannot be obliged to pay for the price of the 5 sqm their house occupied. Why? The RTC
believed the rules of co-ownership should govern, and not that of accession.
RTC then assigned the full 30sqm to Plaintiff and ordered Defendants to demolish the 5sqm part of their
house encroaching the 30sqm lot of the Plaintiffs. Defendants where aghast at having to axe the family
home, hence they appealed.

CA affirmed the decision. So we have the SC coming to the rescue.

ISSUE:

w/n the rules of accession applies (and not coownership) on property that used to be co-owned, but was
subdivided.

HELD:

The rule of accession applies because co-ownership was terminated upon the partitioning of the lot. Art
448 therefore governs. The house of Defendant overlapped that of Plaintiff, but this was built on good
faith. Hence, the plaintiffs have the right to choose one of two options

> Appropriate the 5sqm portion of the house of Defendants after indemnifying the Defendants; or

> Obliging the Defendants to pay a portion of the land on which their home rested. ( or they can rent it)