8/11/2019 15. Nuguid v CA (2005)

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 151815 February 23, 2005

SPOUSES JUAN NUGUI AN ER!INA T. NUGUI,petitioners,

vs."ON. COURT OF APPEA!S AN PERO P. PECSON,respondents.

D ! I S I O N

#UISUM$ING, J.:

This is a petition for revie" on certiorariof the Decision#dated Ma$ %#, %&, of the!ourt of 'ppeals in !'().R. !V No. *+%-, "hich odified the Order dated /ul$ 0#,#1 of the Re2ional Trial !ourt 3RT!4 of 5ue6on !it$, 7ranch # in !ivil !ase No.5(+#+8&. The trial court ordered the defendants, aon2 the petitioner herein /uanNu2uid, to pa$ respondent herein Pedro P. Pecson, the su of P#,0++,&&& as

reiburseent of unreali6ed incoe for the period be2innin2 Noveber %%, #0 toDeceber #8. The appellate court, ho"ever, reduced the trial court9s a"ard in favorof Pecson fro the said P#,0++,&&& to P%1&,&&&. :uall$ assailed b$ the petitioners isthe appellate court9s Resolution%dated /anuar$ #&, %&&%, den$in2 the otion forreconsideration.

It a$ be recalled that relatedl$ in our Decision dated Ma$ %*, #-, in ).R. No.##-1#+, entitled Pecson v. !ourt of 'ppeals, "e set aside the decision of the !ourt of'ppeals in !'().R. SP No. 0%*8 and the Order dated Noveber #-, #0, of theRT! of 5ue6on !it$, 7ranch # and reanded the case to the trial court for thedeterination of the current ar;et value of the four(door t"o(store$ apartentbuildin2 on the %-*(s:uare eter coercial lot.

The antecedent facts in this case are as follo"spensesincurred it also 2ives hi ri2ht of retention until full reiburseent is ade.

?hile the la" ais to concentrate in one person the o"nership of the land and theiproveents thereon in vie" of the ipracticabilit$ of creatin2 a state of forced co(o"nership,%0it 2uards a2ainst un@ust enrichent insofar as the 2ood(faith builder9siproveents are concerned. The ri2ht of retention is considered as one of theeasures devised b$ the la" for the protection of builders in 2ood faith. Its ob@ect is to2uarantee full and propt reiburseent as it perits the actual possessor to reainin possession "hile he has not been reibursed 3b$ the person "ho defeated hi inthe case for possession of the propert$4 for those necessar$ e>penses and usefuliproveents ade b$ hi on the thin2 possessed.%+'ccordin2l$, a builder in 2oodfaith cannot be copelled to pa$ rentals durin2 the period of retention%-nor bedisturbed in his possession b$ orderin2 hi to vacate. In addition, as in this case, theo"ner of the land is prohibited fro offsettin2 or copensatin2 the necessar$ anduseful e>penses "ith the fruits received b$ the builder(possessor in 2ood faith.Other"ise, the securit$ provided b$ la" "ould be ipaired. This is so because theri2ht to the e>penses and the ri2ht to the fruits both pertain to the possessor, a;in2copensation @uridicall$ ipossible and one cannot be used to reduce the other.%*

's "e earlier held, since petitioners opted to appropriate the iproveent fortheselves as earl$ as /une #0, "hen the$ applied for a "rit of e>ecution despite;no"led2e that the auction sale did not include the apartent buildin2, the$ could notbenefit fro the lot9s iproveent, until the$ reibursed the iprover in full, based onthe current ar;et value of the propert$.

Despite the !ourt9s reco2nition of Pecson9s ri2ht of o"nership over the apartentbuildin2, the petitioners still insisted on dispossessin2 Pecson b$ filin2 for a ?rit ofPossession to cover both the lot and the buildin2. !learl$, this resulted in a violation ofrespondent9s ri2ht of retention. ?orse, petitioners too; advanta2e of the situation tobenefit fro the hi2hl$ valued, incoe($ieldin2, four(unit apartent buildin2 b$collectin2 rentals thereon, before the$ paid for the cost of the apartent buildin2. It"as onl$ four $ears later that the$ finall$ paid its full value to the respondent.

Petitioners9 interpretation of our holdin2 in ).R. No. ##-1#+ has neither factual norle2al basis. The decision of Ma$ %*, #-, should be construed in connection "ith thele2al principles "hich for the basis of the decision, 2uided b$ the precept that@ud2ents are to have a reasonable intendent to do @ustice and avoid "ron2.%8

3

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt27http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt19http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt20http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt21http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt22http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt25http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt26http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2005/feb2005/gr_151815_2005.html#fnt27

8/11/2019 15. Nuguid v CA (2005)

4/4

The te>t of the decision in ).R. No. ##-1#+ e>pressl$ e>epted Pecson fro liabilit$to pa$ rentals, for "e found that the !ourt of 'ppeals erred not onl$ in upholdin2 thetrial court9s deterination of the indenit$, but also in orderin2 hi to account for therentals of the apartent buildin2 fro /une %0, #0 to Septeber %0, #0, theperiod fro entr$ of @ud2ent until Pecson9s dispossession. 's pointed out b$ Pecson,the dispositive portion of our decision in ).R. No. ##-1#+ need not specificall$ includethe incoe derived fro the iproveent in order to entitle hi, as a builder in 2oodfaith, to such incoe. The ri2ht of retention, "hich entitles the builder in 2ood faith tothe possession as "ell as the incoe derived therefro, is alread$ provided for under'rticle -+* of the !ivil !ode.

)iven the circustances of the instant case "here the builder in 2ood faith has beenclearl$ denied his ri2ht of retention for alost half a decade, "e find that the increaseda"ard of rentals b$ the RT! "as reasonable and e:uitable. The petitioners had reapedall the benefits fro the iproveent introduced b$ the respondent durin2 said period,"ithout pa$in2 an$ aount to the latter as reiburseent for his construction costsand e>penses. The$ should account and pa$ for such benefits.

?e need not belabor no" the appellate court9s reco2nition of herein respondent9sentitleent to rentals fro the date of the deterination of the current ar;et valueuntil its full pa$ent. Respondent is clearl$ entitled to pa$ent b$ virtue of his ri2ht ofretention over the said iproveent.

?ARFOR, the instant petition is DNID for lac; of erit. The Decision datedMa$ %#, %& of the !ourt of 'ppeals in !'().R. !V No. *+%- is ST 'SID and theOrder dated /ul$ 0#, #1, of the Re2ional Trial !ourt, 7ranch #, 5ue6on !it$, in!ivil !ase No. 5(+#+8& orderin2 the herein petitioners, Spouses /uan and rlindaNu2uid, to account for the rental incoe of the four(door t"o(store$ apartent buildin2fro Noveber #0 until Deceber #8, in the aount of P#,0++,&&&, coputed onthe basis of T"ent$(ei2ht Thousand 3P%1,&&&.&&4 pesos onthl$, for a period of +1onths, is hereb$ RINST'TD. Entil full$ paid, said aount of rentals should bearthe le2al rate of interest set at si> percent 3*K4 per annu coputed fro the date ofRT! @ud2ent. If an$ portion thereof shall thereafter reain unpaid, despite notice offinalit$ of this !ourt9s @ud2ent, said reainin2 unpaid aount shall bear the rate ofinterest set at t"elve percent 3#%K4 per annu coputed fro the date of said notice.!osts a2ainst petitioners.

SO ORDRD.

4