TECNOGAS PHILIPPINES MANUFACTURING CORP VS COURT OF

APPEALS
G.R. No. 108894. February 10, 1997

Petitioner Technogas Phils is the registered owner of a parcel of land in

Paranaque, purchased from Pariz Industries together with all the buildings and
improvements, including the wall existing thereon.

Respondent purchased a lot adjoining the petitioner’s land, upon learning of the
encroachment by its building and wall of a portion of the defendant’s land, the
petitioner was offered to buy from the defendant particular portion of 770 sq
meters more or less but the defendant refused.

In 1973, both parties came into an agreement that the petitioner Technogas shall
demolish the wall at the back portion of its land.

RTC ruled in favor of the petitioner ordering the latter to sell that portion of land

CA reversed and set aside the decision of RTC appealed from.

ISSUE:

Whether or not CA erred in holding the petitioner a builder in bad faith because it
is presumed to know the metes and bounds of his property.

HELD:

Yes. The CA relied upon two cases, (JM Tuason & Co Inc vs Vda de Lumanlan
and JM Tuason & Co Inc vs Macalindong) which do not support its main
pronouncement that a registered owner of land has presumptive knowledge of
the metes and bounds of its own land, and is therefore in bad faith if he
mistakenly builds on an adjoining land.

The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of CA.

The private respondent shall be granted a period of 15 days to exercise his

option under Art 448.

ANALYSIS:

The time when to determine the good faith of the builder under Art 448 is
reckoned during the period when it was actually being built; and in a case where
no evidence was presented nor introduced as to the good faith or bad faith of the
builder at that time, as in this case, he mus be presumed to be a builder in good
faith, since bad faith cannot be presumed.
In a specific boundary overlap situation, which involves a builder in good faith, as
in this case, it is now well settled that the lot owner, who builds on the adjacent
lot is not charged with constructive notice of the technical metes and bounds
contained in their torrens titles to determine exact and precise extent of his
boundary perimeter.

CONSLUSION:

There is no question that when the petitioner purchased the land from Pariz
Industries, the buildings and other structures were already in existence. The
record is not clear as to who actually built those structures, but it may be well-
assumed that petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Pariz Industries, did so.