[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
1K views2 pages

Case Digest Pada-Kilario Vs CA

1) The heirs of Jacinto Pada partitioned his estate through an extrajudicial partition in 1951, allocating the property (Cadastral Lot No. 5581) to two of his sons. 2) In the 1960s, the petitioner began living on the northern portion of the property with permission from the owners. 3) In the 1990s, a new owner of the property demanded the petitioner vacate. The court ruled that the 1951 extrajudicial partition was valid and produced a legal status, and that the petitioner was not a builder in good faith entitled to compensation for improvements, as their occupation of the land was by tolerance rather than ownership.

Uploaded by

Divina Gracia Hinlo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
1K views2 pages

Case Digest Pada-Kilario Vs CA

1) The heirs of Jacinto Pada partitioned his estate through an extrajudicial partition in 1951, allocating the property (Cadastral Lot No. 5581) to two of his sons. 2) In the 1960s, the petitioner began living on the northern portion of the property with permission from the owners. 3) In the 1990s, a new owner of the property demanded the petitioner vacate. The court ruled that the 1951 extrajudicial partition was valid and produced a legal status, and that the petitioner was not a builder in good faith entitled to compensation for improvements, as their occupation of the land was by tolerance rather than ownership.

Uploaded by

Divina Gracia Hinlo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Pada-Kilario v. CA GR NO.

134329 Jan 19, 2000

Facts:

During the lifetime of Jacinto Pada, his half-brother, Feliciano Pada, obtained permission from
him to build a house on the northern portion of Cadastral Lot No. 5581. When Feliciano died, his
son, Pastor, continued living in the house together with his 8 children. Petitioner Verona Pada-
Kilario, one of Pastor's children, has been living in that house since 1960.

Sometime in May, 1951, the heirs of Jacinto Pada entered into an extra-judicial partition of his
estate. For this purpose, they executed a private document which they, however, never
registered in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds of Leyte. At the execution of the extra-judicial
partition, it was to both sons of Jacinto, Ananias and Marciano, represented by his daughter,
Maria, that Cadastral Lot No. 5581 was allocated during the said partition. Subsequently, Maria
Pada sold the co-ownership right of his father, Marciano to respondent, Silverio Pada, who is
her first cousin.

Thereafter, Silverio Pada demanded that petitioner spouses vacate the northern portion of
Cadastral Lot No. 5581 so his family can utilize the said area. Consequently, the heirs of
Amador Pada (son of Jacinto) executed a Deed of Donation transferring to petitioner Verona
Pada-Kilario, their respective shares as co-owners of Cadastral Lot No. 5581.

Issue: Whether Pada-Kilario is a builder in good faith.

Ruling:

The extrajudicial partition which the heirs of Jacinto Pada executed voluntarily and
spontaneously in 1951 has produced a legal status.

The belated act of the heirs of Amador Pada, of donating the subject property to Verona Pada-
Kilario after 44 years of never having disputed the validity of the 1951 extrajudicial partition that
allocated the subject property to Marciano and Ananias, produced no legal effect. The donation
made by his heirs to petitioners of the subject property, thus, is void for they were not the
owners thereof. At any rate it is too late in the day for the heirs of Amador Pada to repudiate the
legal effects of the 1951 extrajudicial partition as prescription and laches have equally set in.

Petitioners are estopped from impugning the extrajudicial partition executed by the heirs of
Jacinto Pada after explicitly admitting in their Answer that they had been occupying the subject
property since 1960 without ever paying any rental as they only relied on the liberality and
tolerance of the Pada family.

Thus, they cannot be considered possessors nor builders in good faith. It is well-settled that
both Article 448 and Article 546 of the New Civil Code which allow full reimbursement of useful
improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, apply only to a
possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof.
Verily, persons whose occupation of a realty is by sheer tolerance of its owners are not
possessors in good faith. Neither did the promise of Concordia, Esperanza and Angelito Pada
that they were going to donate the premises to petitioners convert them into builders in good
faith for at the time the improvements were built on the premises, such promise was not yet
fulfilled, i.e., it was a mere expectancy of ownership that may or may not be realized. More
importantly, even as that promise was fulfilled, the donation is void for Concordia, Esperanza
and Angelito Pada were not the owners of Cadastral Lot No. 5581. As such, petitioners cannot
be said to be entitled to the value of the improvements that they built on the said lot.

You might also like