Department of Education vs.

Tuliao
Facts:
Mariano Tuliao filed an action for recovery of possession and removal of structure with
damages against DepEd with the Mtc in Tuguegarao. He alleged that he was a
registered owner of the subject of parcel of land and that a portion of said property was
allowed by his predecessor-in-interest to be used by the Atulayan Elementary School as
an access road for the schoolchildren in going to and from the school. In March 200,
upon discovering that a structure was being constructed on the land, he demanded that
DepEd cease and desist and vacate the property. DepEd refused. Tuliao likewise
demanded payment for reasonable rent but was also ignored. Tuliao presented a
certificate of title as well as tax declarations and real property tax receipts for the years
2003-2005. Hence, the CA ruled that Tuliao has a better right of possession

Issue:
Whether or not DepEd has the right to construct on the question land

Held:
No, the registered owner of the land is Tuliao. It must be noted that DepEds contention
that its possession of the land was open, continuous, exclusive, adverse, notorious and
in the concept of an owner for 32 years is untenable. DepEds possession of a portion of
the Tuliaos land to be used as a passageway for the students was merely tolerance on
the part of Tuliao. Mere material possession of the land was not adverse as against the
owner and is insufficient to vest tile unless such possession was accompanied by the
intent to possess as an owner. At any rate, the MTC was fair when it stated that that
DepEd could not order the immediate removal of the structures and directed Tuliao to
exercise his option under Art 448.

Department of Education vs. Casibang

Facts:
The property in controversy is Lot registered under the name of Juan Cepeda, the
respondents' late father. Sometime in 1965, upon the request of the then Mayor Justo
Cesar Caronan, Cepeda allowed the construction and operation of a school on the
western portion of his property. The school is now known as Solana North Central
School, operating under the control and supervision of the petitioner DepEd. Despite
Cepeda's death in 1983, the herein respondents and other descendants of Cepeda
continued to tolerate the use and possession of the property by the school. Sometime
between October 31, 2000 and November 2, 2000, the respondents entered and
occupied a portion of the property. Upon discovery of the said occupation, the teachers
of the school brought the matter to the attention of the barangay captain. The school
officials demanded the respondents to vacate the property. However, the respondents
refused to vacate the property, and asserted Cepeda's ownership of the lot. The
respondents filed an action for Recovery of Possession and/or Sum of Money against
the DepEd. Respondents averred that since their late father did not have any immediate
need of the land in 1965, he consented to the building of the temporary structure and
allowed the conduct of classes in the premises. They claimed that they have been
deprived of the use and the enjoyment of the portion of the land occupied by the school,
thus, they are entitled to just compensation and reasonable rent for the use of property.
In its Answer, the DepEd alleged that it owned the subject property because it was
purchased by civic-minded residents of Solana, Cagayan from Cepeda. It further
alleged that contrary to respondents' claim that the occupation is by mere tolerance, the
property has always been occupied and used adversely, peacefully, continuously and in
the concept of owner for almost forty (40) years. It insisted that the respondents had lost
whatever right they had over the property through laches. RTC ruled in favor of the
respondents. The CA then affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence the instant petition.

1. Whether or not the respondents right to recover the possession of the subject
property is not barred by prescription and/or laches.
2. If not, whether or not DepEd is considered a builder in good faith under Art. 448
of the NCC
Held:
1. No. Laches is evidentiary in nature, a fact that cannot be established by mere
allegations in the pleading. The DepEd did not present, in addition to the deed of
sale, a duly-registered certificate of title in proving the alleged transfer or sale of
the property. Aside from its allegation, the DepEd did not adduce any evidence to
the transfer of ownership of the lot, or that Cepeda received any consideration for
the purported sale. On the other hand, to support their claim of ownership of the
subject lot, respondents presented the following: (1) the OCT No. 0-627
registered in the name of Juan Cepeda; (2) Tax Declarations in the name of
Cepeda and the tax receipts showing the payment of the real property taxes on
the property since 1965; (3) Technical Description of the lot by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources Land Management Services, surveyed in
the name of Cepeda; and (4) Certification from the Municipal Trial Court of
Solana, Cagayan declaring that Lot 115 was adjudicated to Cepeda. As
registered owners of the lots in question, the respondents have a right to eject
any person illegally occupying their property. This right is imprescriptible.
2. Yes. Despite being a possessor by mere tolerance, the DepEd is considered a
builder in good faith, since Cepeda permitted the construction of building and
improvements to conduct classes on his property. Hence, Article 448 may be
applied in the case at bar. Thus, the two options available to the respondents as
landowners are: (a) they may appropriate the improvements, after payment of
indemnity representing the value of the improvements introduced and the
necessary and useful expenses defrayed on the subject lots; or (b) they may
oblige the DepEd to pay the price of the land. However, it is also provided under
Article 448 that the builder cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is
considerably more than that of the improvements and buildings. If that is the
case, the DepEd is not duty-bound to pay the price of the land should the value
of the same be considerably higher than the value of the improvement introduced
by the DepEd on the subject property. In which case, the law provides that the
parties shall agree on the terms of the lease and, in case of disagreement, the
court shall fix the terms thereof.
Briones vs. Macabagdal
Facts:
Respondent-spouses purchased from Vergon Realty Investments Corporation (Vergon)
Lot No. 2-R, a 325-square-meter land. Petitioners are the owners of Lot No. 2-S, which
is adjacent to respondents land. After obtaining the necessary building permit and the
approval of Vergon, petitioners constructed a house on Lot 2-R, which they thought was
Lot No. 2-S. Respondent-spouses immediately demanded petitioners to demolish the
house and vacate the property. Respondent-spouses filed an action to recover
ownership and possession. CA affirmed the RTCs finding. That the petitioners house
was built on the lot of the respondent-spouses based on the contracts to sell, and the
survey report made by the geodetic engineer. CA further ruled that petitioners cannot
use the defense of allegedly being a purchaser in good faith for wrongful occupation of
land
Issue:
Whether or not CA was correct in affirming the decision of the trial court ordering the
petitioner to demolish their only house and vacate the lot and pay damages
Held:
No. Article 527[14] of the Civil Code presumes good faith, and since no proof exists to
show that the mistake was done by petitioners in bad faith, the latter should be
presumed to have built the house in good faith. When a person builds in good faith on
the land of another, Article 448 of the Civil Code governs. The builder in good faith can
compel the landowner to make a choice between appropriating the building by paying
the proper indemnity or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land. The choice
belongs to the owner of the land, a rule that accords with the principle of accession, i.e.,
that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around. He cannot, for
instance, compel the owner of the building to remove the building from the land without
first exercising either option. It is only if the owner chooses to sell his land, and the
builder or planter fails to purchase it where its value is not more than the value of the
improvements, that the owner may remove the improvements from the land. The owner
is entitled to such remotion only when, after having chosen to sell his land, the other
party fails to pay for the same. Moreover, petitioners have the right to be indemnified for
the necessary and useful expenses they may have made on the subject property. The
case must be remanded to the RTC which shall conduct the appropriate proceedings to
assess the respective values of the improvement and of the land