Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 115 views

    Sarmiento Vs Agana

    Uploaded by

    Siobhan Robin
    1) Ernesto constructed a residential house in good faith on a lot owned by another party after being told by his mother-in-law that he and his wife could build there. However, the land was actually owned by someone else, who later sold it to Sarmiento. 2) As the land owner, Sarmiento was legally required to either purchase the house built by Ernesto or sell the land to him based on its court-determined value, according to Article 448 of the Civil Code. 3) Since Sarmiento failed to exercise either option within the allotted time period, he violated the law by not choosing one of the two compulsory options given to land owners in this situation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Sarmiento Vs Agana

    Uploaded by

    Siobhan Robin
    115 views2 pages
    1) Ernesto constructed a residential house in good faith on a lot owned by another party after being told by his mother-in-law that he and his wife could build there. However, the land was actually owned by someone else, who later sold it to Sarmiento. 2) As the land owner, Sarmiento was legally required to either purchase the house built by Ernesto or sell the land to him based on its court-determined value, according to Article 448 of the Civil Code. 3) Since Sarmiento failed to exercise either option within the allotted time period, he violated the law by not choosing one of the two compulsory options given to land owners in this situation

    Original Description:

    s

    Original Title

    Sarmiento vs Agana

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Ernesto constructed a residential house in good faith on a lot owned by another party after being told by his mother-in-law that he and his wife could build there. However, the land was actually owned by someone else, who later sold it to Sarmiento. 2) As the land owner, Sarmiento was legally required to either purchase the house built by Ernesto or sell the land to him based on its court-determined value, according to Article 448 of the Civil Code. 3) Since Sarmiento failed to exercise either option within the allotted time period, he violated the law by not choosing one of the two compulsory options given to land owners in this situation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    115 views2 pages

    Sarmiento Vs Agana

    Uploaded by

    Siobhan Robin
    1) Ernesto constructed a residential house in good faith on a lot owned by another party after being told by his mother-in-law that he and his wife could build there. However, the land was actually owned by someone else, who later sold it to Sarmiento. 2) As the land owner, Sarmiento was legally required to either purchase the house built by Ernesto or sell the land to him based on its court-determined value, according to Article 448 of the Civil Code. 3) Since Sarmiento failed to exercise either option within the allotted time period, he violated the law by not choosing one of the two compulsory options given to land owners in this situation

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Sarmiento vs Agana

    G.R. No. L-57288


    DOCTRINE: The land owner is required by the law to exercise only two (2) options:
    To purchase the house or to sell the land to them. Based on Article 448, the owner
    of the land is compelled by law to exercise either option. Not choosing either is a
    violation of the law.
    FACTS:
    When respondent Ernesto Valentino was still courting his wife, the latters mother
    told him that they as a couple could build a residential house on Lot D of a
    subdivision located in Paranaque in 1967. Because of that, Ernesto then constructed
    a residential house on the land at a cost of Php 8,000 to Php10,000. He assumed
    that his wifes mother owns the land and eventually transferred it to them.
    However, it turned out that the land is owned by Mr. and Mrs. Jose Santos Jr who
    sold the same to the petitioner Sarmiento. On January 6, 1975, Sarmiento asked
    Ernesto and his wife to vacate and later filed an ejectment suit against the spouses.
    The MTC ruled that the private respondents built the residential house in good faith.
    It then ordered the spouses to vacate the land after Sarmiento has paid them the
    value of the land (Php20,000). The case was then elevated to the Court of First
    Instance where the respondent Judge Agana has jurisdiction. Pursuant to Article 448
    of the Civil Code, CFI ordered Sarmiento to exercise the option in 60 days to pay
    Ernesto 40,000 as the value of the house or to let them purchase the land for
    25,000. Sarmiento was not able to exercise this option, and the CFI allowed Ernesto
    to deposit the 25,000 purchase price with the Court.
    ISSUE: Whether or not the land owner is compelled to exercise either option: to buy
    the building or to sell the land?
    HELD: The SC agreed that respondent spouses were builders in good faith in view
    of the peculiar circumstances under which they had constructed the residential
    house. As far as they knew, the land was owned by Ernesto's mother-in-law who,
    having stated they could build on the property, could reasonably be expected to
    later on give them the land.
    Sarmiento, who owns the land, was required to exercise only two (2) options: To
    purchase the house or to sell the land to them, in this case, based on the value
    decided by the courts. Since Sarmiento failed to exercise the option within the
    allotted period, and based on Art. 448, the owner of the land is compelled by law to
    exercise either option. Not choosing either is a violation of the law.
    The owner of the building erected in good faith on a land owned by another, is
    entitled to retain the possession of the land until he is paid the value of his building,
    under Article 546. The owner of the land on the other hand, has the option, under
    Article 448, either to pay for the building or to sell his land to the owner of the
    building. But he cannot, as respondents here did, refuse both to pay for the building
    and to sell the land and compel the owner of the building to remove it from the land

    where it is erected. He is entitled to such remotion only when, after having chosen
    to sell his land, the other party fails to pay for the same.

    You might also like