BENITEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS

FACTS:

Both pairs of spouses, Sps. Benitez and Macapagal bought parcels of land wherein the latter found that the Sps. Benitez encroached on a portion of their land. The Sps. Macapagal filed an action to recover possession of said portion and after which a compromise was reached wherein the Sps. Macapagal would sell the encroached portion to the Benitez. The Sps. Macapagal bought another lot adjacent to that of the Sps. Benitez and found that the Sps. Benitez’s house encroached a portion of their lot [again]. After refusing to vacate despite verbal and written demands, the Sps. Macapagal filed an action for ejectment against the Sps. Benitez [within 1 year from the last demand]. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) decided in favor of Sps. Macapagal. On appeal the RTC and the CA affirmed in toto said decision. Thus the case at bar.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not an action for ejectment is the proper remedy to recover possession of the encroached portion
(2) Whether or not Sps. Benitez can be made to pay rent
(3) Whether or not the option to sell exclusively belongs to the owner

HELD:

(1) YES, Sec. 1 Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court allows any person unlawfully deprived of possession by FISTS or after expiration of right to hold possession within 1 year from unlawful deprivation to bring an action to recover possession. Forcible entry requires prior physical possession but unlawful detainer does not require prior physical possession. Actual or physical possession is not always necessary. And possession is not only acquired through material occupation but also when a thing is subject to the action of one’s will or by the proper acts and legal formalities established for acquiring such right, through execution of deed of sale. [since it is a proper remedy, the MeTC has jurisdiction to hear the matter]

(2) YES, The rent to be paid arises from the loss of the use and occupation of the property and is technically damages. Therefore since petitioners benefited from the occupation of the property it is only just that they be made to pay damages in the form of rent.

(3) YES, Art. 448 of the CC mandates that the option to sell the land on which another in good faith builds, plants or sown on, belongs to the owner. The reason for this is because the owner’s right is older and by principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing.