Mendoza V De Guzman 6p196w

Property Case Digest - Possession

MARTIN MENDOZA and NATALIO ENRIQUEZ, plaintiffs-appellees, v. MANUEL DE GUZMAN, defendant-appellant. MAX B. SOLIS, intervenor-appellant. [G.R. No. L-28721; October 5, 1928] EN BANC Facts:   A  judgment  on  a  previous  case1  which  was  ins6tuted  on  November  6,  1916  for  recovery  of  a  certain  piece  of  land   filed  by  Leandra  Solis  and  her  husband  Bernardo  Solis  was  rendered  in  favour  of  Mendoza.    Said  case  was  remanded  to  the   court  of  origin  which  is  the  CFI  at  Sariaya,  Tayabas  and  put  Mendoza  de  facto  in  possession  of  the  property.   In  the  cadastral  proceedings,  the  CFI  adjudicated  the  above  men6oned  land  in  favour  of  pe66oners  pro  indivso  and   de  Guzman  with  the  right  to  reten6on  un6l  the  laKer  is  indemnified  for  the  improvements  already  exis6ng  on  the  land.    By   virtue  of  the  judgment,  de  Guzman  moved  for  a  writ  of  possession  which  the  court  granted  on  June  25,  1924.    From   December  16,  1916  un6l  June  25,  1924,  Mendoza  was  in  possession  of  the  land,  thereaRer  de  Guzman  was  in  dominion  of   the  land.   Being  unable  to  agree  as  to  the  amount  for  the  improvements  of  the  land  the  pe66oners  requested  the  CFI  to  (a)  fix   the  value  of  the  necessary  and  useful  expenses  incurred  by  de  Guzman  in  introducing  the  improvements;  (b)  require  the  de   Guzman  to  render  an  accoun6ng  of  the  fruits  received  by  him  and  order  that  the  value  of  the  fruits  be  applied  to  the   payment  of  the  necessary  and  useful  expenses;  and  (c)  decree  the  res6tu6on  of  the  possession  to  the  plain6ffs.    In  answer,   de  Guzman  asked  for  ₱6,000.00.    During  the  pendency  of  the  case,  Bernardo  Solis  a.k.a  Max  B.  Solis  intervened  alleging  that   de  Guzman  in  considera6on  of  ₱5,000.00  transferred  all  his  rights  in  the  improvements  except  for  200  coconut  trees.   The  CFI  held  (1)  that  in  accordance  with  the  provisions  of  ar6cles  435  and  454  in  rela6on  with  ar6cle  361  of  the  Civil   Code,  the  value  of  the  "indemniza6on"  to  be  paid  to  the  defendant  should  be  fixed  according  to  the  necessary  and  useful   expenses  incurred  by  him  in  introducing  "las  plantaciones  en  cues6on";  (2)  that  the  plain6ffs  as  the  owner  of  the  property   have  the  right  to  make  their  own  "las  plantaciones  hechas  por  el  demandado"  upon  payment  in  the  form  indicated  in  No.  1,   the  defendant  having  the  right  to  retain  the  land  un6l  the  expenditures  have  been  refunded;  (3)  that  the  defendant  is  obliged   to  render  a  detail  and  just    of  the  fruits  and  other  profits  received  by  him  from  the  property  for  their  due  applica6on;   and  (4)  that  the  value  of  the  fruits  received  by  the  defendant  should  first  be  applied  to  the  payment  of  the  "indemnizacion,"   and  in  that  it  exceeds  the  value  of  the  "indemnizacion,"  the  excess  shall  be  returned  to  the  plain6ffs.     September  23,  1927,  the  amount  that  the  plain6ffs  were  required  to  pay  to  the  respondents  exceeded  the  amount   that  the  laKer  were  to  pay  the  former,  the  defendant  and  intervenor  were  ordered  to  deliver  the  land  and  its  improvement   as  soon  as  the  plain6ffs  have  paid  the  difference,  without  special  pronouncement  as  to  costs.

Issue:  

Whether  or  not  the  excess  of  the  indemnifica6on  should  be  returned  to  the  pe66oners.

Held:   The  Court  goes  into  the  discussion  of  what  is  necessary  expenses.    As  described  by  Spanish  commentators,   necessary  expenses  are  those  made  for  the  preserva6on  of  the  thing;  as  those  without  which  the  thing  would  deteriorate  or   be  lost;  as  those  that  augment  the  income  of  the  things  upon  which  they  are  expanded.  Among  the  necessary  expenditures   are  those  incurred  for  cul6va6on,  produc6on,  upkeep,  etc.       The  Court  resolved  the  issue  which  held  that  once  the  owner  elects  to  appropriate  the  improvements,  the  builder,   planter,  or  sower  cannot  exactly  be  considered  a  possessor  in  good  faith.    Hence,  whatever  fruits  he  receives  during  the   pendency  of  reten6on  must  be  deducted  from  whatever  indemnity  is  due  to  him;  and  in  case  it  exceeds  the  value  of  the   indemnity,  the  excess  shall  be  returned  to  the  owner  of  the  land.

1 G. R. No. 14033, Espinosa and Solis vs. Mendoza, promulgated August 23, 1919, not reported.

Page 1 of 1