[ G.R. No. 49167. April 30, 1949 ] 83 Phil. 543
[ G.R. No. 49167. April 30, 1949 ]
CO TAO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. JOAQUIN CHAN CHICO, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. D E C I S I O N
MORAN, C.J.:
This is an appeal by certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals.
According to the findings of said Court, in 1927 respondent Joaquin Chan Chico built a house on his lot No. 7, described in transfer certificate of title No. 24239. When that house was constructed, Prudencia Rodriguez was yet the owner of the adjoining lot No. 6 belonging now to petitioner Co Tao. About a year after petitioner bought lot No. 6, he built a house thereon and he used lumber that butted in respondent’s house. Respondent protested and his protest was resented by petitioner. Hence, the present suit.
It is now claimed by petitioner that the respondent’s house took a portion of petitioner’s land. The Court of Appeals, after examining the evidence, found that respondent’s house occupies 6.97 square meters of petioner’s lot, but that respondent acted in good faith. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals declared “that the plaintiff (petitioner) has the right to elect to purchase that portion of the defendant’s (respondent’s) house which protrudes into the plaintiff’s property, or to sell to the defendant the land upon which the said portion of the defendants house is built.” And the case was remanded to the Court of First Instance “with direction to require the plaintiff to make the election as herein provided, within the time that the Court shall fix, and thereafter to reset the case for the admission of the evidence on the value of the improvement, in case the plaintiff elects to buy the same, or the value of the land, in case he elects to sell it, and to render decision as the result of the new trial shall warrant.” From this decision petitioner appealed by certiorari to this Court.
All the questions raised by the petitioner are unmeritorious. He alleges, for instance, that respondent could not have acted in good faith in building a portion of his house beyond the limits of his land, because he ought to know the metes and bounds of his property as stated in his certificate of title. But, as rightly stated by the Court of Appeals: “It is but stating the obvious to say that outside of the individuals versed in the science of surveying, and this is already going far, no one can determine the precise extent or location of his property by merely examining his paper title. The fact is even surveyors cannot with exactitude do so. The disagreement among the three surveyors in the case at hand who have made a resurvey of the ground with the aid of scientific devices and of their experience and knowledge of surveying, is a graphic and concrete illustration of this truth.”
And there is another circumstance showing respondent’s good faith. The Court of Appeals found that “the defendant’s title dated back to March 12, 1923, and he built his house as early as 1927. When this was done, it has also been shown, there was a stone wall which had existed since as early as 1902, and inside which the defendant’s house is constructed. Prudencia Rodriguez herself, who was still the owner of the adjoining land when the defendant built his house in 1927, must have been under the same impression, since, as has been stated, she allowed the construction without making any protest during or after the construction.”
Petitioner alleges that it is not fair for him to pay for the building erected on his lot which is not only prejudicial but is certainly a nuissance to his property. The petitioner is indeed overlooking the circumstance that he is not being forced to buy the building for he has the option to sell the portion of his lot occupied by that building. The provisions of article 361 of the Civil Code admit of no distinction.
Wherefore, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed with costs against the petitioner.
Paras, Pablo, Bengzon, Briones, and Reyes, JJ., concur.