KINDS OF POSSESSION

G.R. No. 97761

DE VERA v CA
PURISIMA, J.

Summarized by Ira Agting

Ramos filed a complaint vs De Veras for recovery of his property. The De Veras claim
they had possession even before Ramos obtained a Homestead Patent over the Land.
Ramos sent them letters telling them they were on his property. They were asked to
choose between buying or leasing the property they occupied. They refused and even
built a house of strong materials on it. SC: De Veras are possessors and builders in bad
faith. Ramos gave Agueda de Vera the option to either pay him the value of the property
or lease the same on a yearly or monthly basis. Parties failed to reach a compromise
agreement. Despite this, De Veras constructed a house of strong materials. Good faith
consists in the possessors belief that the person from whom he received a thing was the
owner of the same and could convey his title. It consists in an honest intention to
abstain from taking any unconscientious advantage of another, and is the opposite of
fraud.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
AGUEDA DE VERA, MARIO DE LA CRUZ, EVANGELINE DELA CRUZ, and
EDRONEL DE LA CRUZ - petitioners, builders in bad faith
RICARDO RAMOS respondent, rightful owner

FACTS
Ricardo Ramos filed a complaint against Agueda de Vera for recovery of property and
damages
Ramos owns a parcel of land
De Vera et al occupied a triangular 22 sqm portion of the property where they
constructed a house of strong and permanent materials (used to be a building of
light materials)
It took Ramos 23 years before demanding that they vacate. The de Veras
Refused

Basis of Ramos' claim: Ramos was granted a Homestead Patent and OCT after he
fully complied with the cultivation and residence requirements of the public land act
After the issuance of his Homestead Patent, Ramos brought a complaint for
recovery of possession against several people for ejectment
A protracted litigation between Ramos and the defendants ensued with the latter
averring that Homestead Patent and Original Certificate were obtained in violation
of Section 19 of the Public Land Law and null and void.

1
 The case eventually reached this Court which, on January 27,
1981, came out with a decision upholding the validity of Ramos' title

April 27, 1981, Ramos wrote De Veras reminding them that their house is on his
titled property, and asking them to buy the portion occupied by them or to lease
the same on a yearly or monthly basis; otherwise, Ramos would be constrained
to take proper legal action against them. But the letter of private respondent
was ignored by petitioners.

Basis of De Vera's claim: De Vera et al claim they have been in possession of 70 sqm
of land since the late1950s, before Ramos filed his Homestead Patent
Their possession was through their predecessor in interest, Teodoro de la Cruz
(Husband of de Vera) by virtue of a valid title (Miscellaneous Sales Application).
They honestly believed that the other portions formed part of the lot with an area
of 70 square meters covered by their Miscellaneous Sales Application
They claim that Ramos' knowledge that they had been occupying the portions for
several years prior to his filing of the application for a homestead patent, opens to
question the validity of his homestead patent and the title derived therefrom

TC:
A Relocation Survey showed that only a portion of 22 sqm of Ramos' lot is
occupied by the De Veras and that between the National Road and Ramos'
property is an area of 51 square meters
Ramos is owner of all lands, ordered De Veras to vacate and pay rent

On appeal, De Veras argue that TC erred

in not dismissing the complaint on the ground of laches;
in holding that they are possessors in bad faith and
De Veras claimed they are not liable for rental payments for the use of the disputed
property, for attorney's fees and the costs of suit.

CA: Modified, deleted monthly rents

ISSUE/HELD/RATIO
1 W/N De Vera et al were possessors and builders in bad faith -- YES
Facts and circumstances stated are outward acts and proven conduct indicating
bad faith of petitioners as possessor and builder
Prior to the construction in 1983 of De Vera's house on the land, a demand
letter dated April 27, 1981 was sent by Ramos, informing them that the land
they were possessing and occupying is within his titled property.
Ramos gave Agueda de Vera the option to either pay him the value of the
property or lease the same on a yearly or monthly basis.
Parties failed to reach a compromise agreement

2 2
 Despite this, De Veras constructed a house of strong materials in 1983, after
dismantling their previous building of light materials
Ramos demanded that they remove their improvements, which option is
legally feasible under the attendant facts and circumstances

Tolentino
Good faith consists in the possessors belief that the person from whom he
received a thing was the owner of the same and could convey his title. It
consists in an honest intention to abstain from taking any unconscientious
advantage of another, and is the opposite of fraud.
o A possessor in good faith is one who is unaware that there exists a flaw
which invalidates his acquisition of the thing.
o Since good faith is a state of the mind, and is not a visible, tangible fact
that can be seen or touched, it can only be determined by outward acts
and proven conduct.
o It implies freedom from knowledge and circumstances which ought to put
a person on inquiry

1 W/N Ramos is barred by laches --NO

In light of the factual background of the case, the principle of laches has no
application
Ramos' failure to assert his rights over the land for 23 years (1958-81) was
due to the prolonged litigation he was embroiled with the De Veras
As the validity of his patent itself was being questioned, the cause of action
of Ramos vis-a-vis the land he acquired by homestead patent had to be kept
dormant, pending determination of the validity of the said homestead patent.
The delay is not unreasonable and considering that the essence of laches is
the unreasonableness of the delay in the prosecution or institution of a case,
the principle of laches finds no room for application here

APPLICABLE PROVISIONS

Article 526 of the New Civil Code

He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his
title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.

He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the
foregoing.

Mistake upon a doubtful or difficult question of law may be the basis of good faith.

Article 449
He who builds ... in bad faith on the land of another, losses what is built, ... without
right to indemnity.

3
Article 450
The owner of the land on which anything has been built, ... in bad faith may
demand the demolition of the work, ... in order to replace things in their former
condition at the expense of the person who built, ...; or he may compel the builder
... to pay the price of the land, ...

Article 451
In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages
from the builder...

Under the aforecited Articles 449 and 450, the landowner has three alternative
rights, either:
1. to appropriate what has been built without any obligation to pay indemnity
therefor; or
2. to demand the builder to remove what he had built; or
3. to compel the builder to pay the value of the land.
In any event, he (landowner) is entitled to be indemnified by the builder in bad
faith, pursuant to Article 451

CA Affirmed

4 4