Você está na página 1de 1

Ortiz vs.

Kayanan
Facts: Plaintiff used to be the legal guardian of Martin Dolorico II.When his ward died, plaintiff continued to cultivate and possess thelatter’s
property, which was formerly a subject of homesteadapplication. In the said application, the ward’s uncle was named ashis heir and
successor in interest. Thus, the uncle executed anaffidavit relinquishing his rights over the property in favor of Comintan and Zamora, his
grandson and son-in-law and requestedthe Director of Lands to cancel the homestead application. Thehomestead application was
cancelled to the protest of Ortiz sayingthat he should be given preference to purchase the lot inasmuch ashe is the actual occupant and has
been in continuous possession of the same. Still, the lot in question was sold at a public auctionwherein defendant Comintan was the only
bidder. The plaintiff’s protest was investigated upon but his claim was notgiven due course. On appeal, respondent court rules
that half of theportion of land should be given to the defendant, being thesuccessful bidder. The other half should be awarded to
Zamorawithout prejudice to the right of Ortiz to participate in the publicbidding of the lot. If Ortiz is to be not declared the successful
bidder,defendants should reimburse jointly said plaintiff for theimprovements introduced on the land, with him, having the right toretain the
property until after he has been paid for.Plaintiff appealed the judgment. It was later found out that Ortizcollected tolls on a portion of the
property wherein he has notintroduced any improvement. The judgment became final and executory. Private respondents
fileda motion for its execution requesting that they file a bond in lieu of the amount that should be paid to Ortiz, on the condition that afterthe
accounting of the tolls collected by plaintiff, there is still andamount due and payable to the said plaintiff, the bond shall be
heldanswerable.Petitioner thus filed the instant petition, contending that in havingissued the Order and Writ of
Execution, respondent Court "actedwithout or in excess of jurisdiction, and/or with grave abuse of discretion,
because the said order and writ in effect vary the terms of the judgment they purportedly seek to enforce." He argued thatsince
said judgment declared the petitioner a possessor in goodfaith, he is entitled to the payment of the value of the
improvementsintroduced by him on the whole property, with right to retain theland until he has been fully paid such value. He
likewise averred thatno payment for improvements has been made and, instead, a bondtherefor had been filed by defendants (private
respondents), which,according to petitioner, is not the payment envisaged in the decisionwhich would entitle private respondents to
the possession of theproperty. Furthermore, with respect to portion "B", petitioner allegesthat, under the decision, he has the
right to retain the same untilafter he has participated and lost in the public bidding of the land tobe conducted by the Bureau of
Lands. It is claimed that it is only int h e e v e n t t h a t h e l o s e s i n t h e b i d d i n g t h a t h e c a n
b e l e g a l l y dispossessed thereof.It is the position of petitioner that all the fruits of the property,including the tolls collected by him from the
passing vehicles, whichaccording to the trial court amounts to P25,000.00, belongs topetitioner and not to defendant/private respondent
QuirinoComintan, in accordance with the decision itself, which decreed thatthe fruits of the property shall be in lieu of interest on the amount
tobe paid to petitioner as reimbursement for improvements. Anycontrary opinion, in his view, would be tantamount to an amendmentof a
decision which has long become final and executory and,therefore, cannot be lawfully done. The issue decisive of the controvery
is—after the rendition by thetrial court of its judgment in Civil Case No. C-90 on March 22, 1966confirming the award of one-half of the
property to Quirino Comintan—whether or not petitioner is still entitled to retain for his ownexclusive benefit all the fruits of the property, such
as the tollscollected by him from March 1967 to December 1968, andSeptember 1969 to March 31, 1970, amounting to about
P25,000.00.RULING: Negative
1.
No contention that the possessor in good faith is entitled tothe fruits received before the possession is legallyinterrupted. Possession in good
faith ceases or is legally

Você também pode gostar