Daclison v Baytion

G.R. No. 219811 | April 6, 2016 Alluvium | Mendoza, J. | Guanco, E.

Facts
R e s p o n d e n t E d u a r d o   B a y t i o n   f i l e d   a   c o m p l a i n t   f o r   Forcible Entry and damages with
prayer for issuanceof preliminary mandatory injunction against petitioner Rex Daclision. I n t h e
c o m p l a i n t , B a y t i o n a l l e g e d t h a t h e w a s a c o - owner of a parcel of land which he
and his sibling sinherited from his parents. As the administrator, he leased portions of the
property to third persons.

E r e c t e d   o n   t h e   s a i d   p r o p e r t y   w a s   a   o n e - s t o r e y building which was

divided into seven units or stalls. One of the stalls was leased to a certain Leonida DelaCruz who used
it for her business of selling rocks, pebbles and similar construction materials.

When Dela Cruz’s lease expired, Daclison and

o t h e r   p e r s o n s   a c t i n g   u n d e r   h e r   t o o k   p o s s e s s i o n   o f   t h e portion leased out to her without
the prior knowledge and consent of Baytion. D e s p i t e b o t h o r a l a n d w r i t t e n d e m a n d s b y
B a y t i o n f o r   Daclison to leave the premises, he refused to do so.

D a c l i s o n   a v e r r e d   t h a t sometime in 1978, Baytion least the subject portion to Antonio dela Cruz
10 or 15 years later, a stone walling, called ariprap, was erected at the creek lying beside
Baytion’s property, leaving a down-slopingarea.

T h e   M e T C d i s m i s s e d   t h e   c a s e o n   t h e   g r o u n d t h a t Baytion failed to include his

siblings or his co-owners, as plaintiffs in the case. Baytion appealed the case tothe RTC which ruled that
the MeTC lacked jurisdiction t o d e c i d e t h e c a s e f o r f a i l u r e o f t h e c o m p l a i n t t o constitute a
case of forcible entry. The CA concluded that Baytion, as co-owner of the subject property, hada better
right to possess.

ISSUE

W / N   t h e   C o u r t   a   q u o   g r a v e l y e r r e d u n d e r t h e l a w when it ruled that the second

property or land was an i m p r o v e m e n t   o n   t h e p r o p e r t y   o f   t h e   r e s p o n d e n t .

RULING

YES.  Article 445 provides:

Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of

another and thei m p r o v e m e n t s   o r   r e p a i r s madethereon belong to the
o w n e r o g the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles.
It must be noted that Article 445 uses theadverb “ t h e r e o n ” which is simply defined as“on the
thing that has been mentioned”.

Ino t h e r   w o r d s ,   t h e   s u p p o s e d   i m p r o v e m e n t m u s t   b e   m a d e ,   c o n s t r u c t e d   o r   i n t r
o d u c e d within or on the property and not outside.