FACTS:

Petitioner was the owner of a parcel of land wherein he built an apartment complex.  Due to his failure to pay for realty taxes, his land was sold in a public auction and was sold to spouses Nuguid.  He moved for the setting aside of the auction but was denied.
 

HELD:

     Article 448 doesn't apply to a case where the owner of the land is the  builder  who  then  later  loses  ownership  of  the  land  by  sale  or auction.   
     Nevertheless, the provision therein  on indemnity may be  applied by analogy considering that the primary intent of this provision is to avoid a state of forced ownership.
     The  current  market  value  of  the  improvements  which  should  be made the basis of reimbursement to the builder in good faith
     The  right  to  retain  the  improvements  while  the  corresponding indemnity is not paid implies the tenancy or possession in fact of the  land  on  which  it  is  built,  planted  or  sown  and  retention  of ownership  of  the  improvements,  and  necessarily,  the  income therefrom