Santos v. Mojica

b. Right of Accession — Builder in bad faith: instances of bad faith

Subject Home

16px

←Previous: Lumungo v. UsmanPrevious case

Primary source ↗Next: Office of the City Mayor of Parañaque v. EbioNext case→

Case DigestChapter II — Ownership

Santos v. Mojica

G.R. No. L-25450 · January 31, 1969 · Supreme Court

b. Right of Accession — Builder in bad faith: instances of bad faith

Gist

Eleven siblings sued their sister and her husband to partition a small Parañaque lot. Their son, who was not a party, had a house on it — and after the suit began he rebuilt it bigger. The Supreme Court held him a builder in bad faith: his parents had been summoned in 1959, and one who builds knowing the land is being claimed loses what he builds without indemnity, the owners being free to demand its demolition at his expense.

Core Doctrine

One who builds after his predecessors-in-interest have been summoned in an action over the land "must be deemed a builder in bad faith," and under Article 449 he "loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity." The landowners then hold both branches of the election in Article 450 — they may appropriate the improvement, or "demand the demolition of the work... at the expense of the person who built." A successor-in-interest is bound by the judgment against those under whom he claims, and registration of his purchase from them "is of no moment."

Facts

On 19 March 1959 eleven Allanigue brothers and sisters sued their sister Lorenza Allanigue, her husband Simeon Santos and two others in the CFI of Rizal (Civil Case No. 217-R) for partition of a 360-square-metre lot at San Dionisio, Parañaque and annulment of certain conveyances. The 1959 summons is the fact that decides the case — everything built afterwards is built with notice.
The defendants were declared in default, and the court ordered the lot partitioned among the eleven plaintiffs and Lorenza, later setting off Lorenza's share against unpaid rents she owed the plaintiffs.
A writ of execution issued ordering the defendants to vacate. Leonardo Santos — not a party, but their son — owned a house on the lot. His third-party claim and motion to recall the writ were denied, and in March 1962 the court ordered the houses demolished.
Leonardo and the defendants went to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-19618, which on 28 February 1964 denied the petition, holding that Leonardo — who claimed to own the house and the land under it by purchase from his parents — "did not follow the procedure sanctioned by law in vindicating his alleged ownership" and "should have filed an ordinary civil action."
After that decision became final Leonardo rebuilt. His house was "built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one" — and the reconstruction came not merely after the 1959 summons but after the Supreme Court had already rejected his claim, which is what makes the finding of bad faith unanswerable.
The other defendants voluntarily removed their houses, leaving only Leonardo's standing, and on 9 December 1965 Judge Mojica ordered it demolished — the landowners' election under Article 450. Leonardo then filed this petition, questioning the judge's jurisdiction to demolish the house of a non-party.

Issue

Main issue. Whether Leonardo Santos is a builder in bad faith, so that his house may be demolished at his own expense without indemnity — and whether he is bound by a judgment in a case to which he was not a party.

Secondary issue. Whether the petition is barred by the Court's prior judgment in G.R. No. L-19618.

Ruling

Main issue. YES — he is a builder in bad faith and is bound by the judgment. He "is bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R because he is a successor-in-interest of his parents... and his right, if any, is claimed under them," so the judgment "binds not only Simeon Santos and Lorenz[a] Allanigue but also their son." That he had registered the sale from them "is of no moment because... he is bound by the judgment against them." On bad faith, the timing is decisive: his house "having been built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R, he must be deemed a builder in bad faith." The consequence is Article 449 — "As builder in bad faith he lost the improvement made by him consisting of the reconstructed house to the owners of the land without right to indemnity" — so "[t]he Allanigue brothers and sisters therefore become owners of the improvement... if they chose to appropriate the accession". But appropriation is only one branch: "said owners could choose instead the demolition of the improvement or building at the expense of the builder", and "[i]t is of record... that the owners of the land chose to have the house or improvement demolished pursuant to their motion for demolition which was granted by respondent Judge Mojica on December 9, 1965."

Secondary issue — res judicata. YES, the petition is barred. Leonardo "was one of the petitioners in that case against the same official and private respondents"; there is "identity of subject matter, namely, the portion of the lot and the house standing on said portion," and "identity of cause of action, to wit: the order of the respondent Judge for the removal or demolition of the houses." The earlier decision was on the merits and had become final, so it "is res adjudicata in the instant case on the question of the validity of the order of demolition of December 9, 1965."

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is denied, with treble costs against the petitioner. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court is hereby dissolved."

Ratio

A successor-in-interest is bound. "Petitioner Leonardo Santos is bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R because he is a successor-in-interest of his parents... and his right, if any, is claimed under them."
Registration does not break the chain. "The fact that the sale to Leonardo Santos from his parents was registered, is of no moment because, as pointed out, he is bound by the judgment against them."
The instance of bad faith. "Leonardo Santos' house having been built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R, he must be deemed a builder in bad faith."
The forfeiture. "As builder in bad faith he lost the improvement made by him consisting of the reconstructed house to the owners of the land without right to indemnity."
Ownership by accession. "The Allanigue brothers and sisters therefore become owners of the improvement consisting of the house built in bad faith by Leonardo Santos if they chose to appropriate the accession. (Articles 445 and 449, Civil Code.)"
The alternative, and the one they took. "However, said owners could choose instead the demolition of the improvement or building at the expense of the builder" — and "the owners of the land chose to have the house or improvement demolished."
The elements of res judicata, found. Same parties, "identity of subject matter, namely, the portion of the lot and the house standing on said portion," and "identity of cause of action, to wit: the order of the respondent Judge for the removal or demolition of the houses standing on the lot."
From the earlier case, the procedural lesson. A stranger claiming ownership of a house and the land under it "should have filed an ordinary civil action to vindicate his alleged ownership," not a third-party claim and a certiorari petition.

Doctrine

Building After Notice of an Adverse Claim Is Bad Faith: one who builds after his predecessors have been summoned in an action over the land "must be deemed a builder in bad faith."
A Builder in Bad Faith Loses Everything Without Indemnity (Art. 449).
Improvements Belong to the Landowner by Accession (Art. 445), subject to what the following articles require him to pay.
The Landowner May Instead Demand Demolition at the Builder's Expense (Art. 450) — or compel him to buy the land.
A Successor-in-Interest Is Bound by the Judgment Against His Predecessor, and registration of his purchase does not free him.
A Non-Party Claiming Ownership Must Bring an Ordinary Civil Action, not a third-party claim, to vindicate it.
Res Judicata Bars a Second Petition on the same subject matter and cause of action after a final judgment on the merits.

How to place this case in the chapter. Santos is the chapter's cleanest picture of the bad-faith half of accession, and it is best read immediately after Depra v. Dumlao for the contrast. Under Article 448 demolition is a last resort the landowner reaches only after electing to sell and being refused payment; under Article 450 it is a first option, available at once and at the builder's own cost. The bridge between the two regimes is a single finding — good faith or bad — which is why the instances of bad faith are what the syllabus asks for here. This one is the most common: the builder knew, because he or those he claims under had been sued. For other instances see Lumungo v. Usman and Mindanao Academy v. Yap. Note too the aggravating fact peculiar to this case: Leonardo did not merely build after the summons, he rebuilt bigger after losing in the Supreme Court — and drew treble costs for it.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

Relationship to requested topic: DIRECT. Eleven Allanigue siblings sued their sister Lorenza and her husband Simeon Santos in 1959 to partition a 360-square-metre lot at San Dionisio, Parañaque. Their son Leonardo Santos, not a party, owned a house on the lot and claimed to have bought the land under it from his parents; after the suit began — and after the Supreme Court rejected his claim in G.R. No. L-19618 — he reconstructed the house into a bigger one. When Judge Mojica ordered it demolished on 9 December 1965, Leonardo challenged the court's jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied the petition with treble costs, holding him bound as a successor-in-interest and a builder in bad faith who, under Article 449, "lost the improvement... without right to indemnity," the landowners being free under Article 450 to demand demolition at his expense.

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

On 19 March 1959, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, "eleven brothers and sisters, all surnamed Allanigue, brought an action (Civil Case No. 217-R) against their sister, Lorenza Allanigue, her husband, Simeon Santos, Maria San Agustin and Felicidad San Agustin, for partition of a 360-square-meter lot situated at San Dionisio, Parañaque, Rizal, and for the annulment of certain conveyances involving the same."
"Defendants having been declared in default, the trial court, after hearing the plaintiffs' evidence, rendered judgment ordering the partition of the lot among the eleven plaintiffs and the defendant Lorenza Allanigue. In a subsequent order the court set off Lorenza Allanigue's share against the amount that she had failed to pay as rents to the plaintiffs as directed in the decision."
"A writ of execution was issued on the judgment ordering the defendants to vacate the lot and deliver its possession to the plaintiffs."
"Leonardo Santos, not a party defendant but a son of defendants Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, owned a house standing on the lot. He filed with the sheriff a third-party claim, and with the court, a motion to recall the writ of execution insofar as his house was concerned. The motion was denied."
On 15 March 1962, the defendants and Leonardo Santos "having failed to remove their houses from the lot within the period given them, the court ordered the sheriff to demolish said houses."
On 2 April 1962, Leonardo Santos and the defendants filed in the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition, G.R. No. L-19618, against Judge Mojica, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal and the plaintiffs — raising among other issues "whether or not the lower court had jurisdiction to order the demolition of petitioners' houses in that special civil action."
On 28 February 1964 the Supreme Court denied that petition, finding that Leonardo Santos, "who claimed to be the owner of a house and the portion of land on which it stood by purchase from his parents, did not follow the procedure sanctioned by law in vindicating his alleged ownership, i.e., he should have filed an ordinary civil action."
After that decision became final, Judge Mojica, on the plaintiffs' motion, ordered demolition of the defendants' houses. "The defendants having voluntarily removed their houses, the only house that remained standing on the lot was that belonging to Leonardo Santos."
Leonardo's house had meanwhile been "built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one."
On 9 December 1965, on the plaintiffs' motion, the respondent Judge "issued an order... directing the sheriff to demolish the house of Leonardo Santos."
Leonardo Santos then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, "question[ing] the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge in issuing the order of demolition of his house." A writ of preliminary injunction had issued from the Supreme Court.
On 31 January 1969 the Supreme Court, en banc, denied the petition with treble costs and dissolved the injunction.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Leonardo Santos)

That the respondent Judge lacked jurisdiction to order the demolition of his house, he not having been a party defendant in Civil Case No. 217-R; and that he owned the house and the portion of land on which it stood by purchase from his parents, a sale that had been registered.

B. Respondents (Judge Mojica, the Provincial Sheriff and the Allanigues)

That the order of demolition was validly issued in execution of the partition judgment, Leonardo being a successor-in-interest of the defendants, and that the matter had already been settled by the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-19618.

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

Whether Leonardo Santos, a non-party who claims under the defendants, is bound by the judgment and is a builder in bad faith whose house may be demolished at his own expense.

B. SECONDARY ISSUE

Whether the present petition is barred by the prior judgment in G.R. No. L-19618.

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

YES on both counts. "Petitioner Leonardo Santos is bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R because he is a successor-in-interest of his parents... The fact that the sale to Leonardo Santos from his parents was registered, is of no moment." And "Leonardo Santos' house having been built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R, he must be deemed a builder in bad faith." "As builder in bad faith he lost the improvement made by him consisting of the reconstructed house to the owners of the land without right to indemnity"; the landowners "become owners of the improvement... if they chose to appropriate the accession"; and they "could choose instead the demolition of the improvement or building at the expense of the builder", which is what they did.

B. SECONDARY ISSUE

YES, barred. Same parties, "identity of subject matter" and "identity of cause of action"; the earlier decision was on the merits and final, so it "is res adjudicata in the instant case on the question of the validity of the order of demolition of December 9, 1965."

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is denied, with treble costs against the petitioner. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court is hereby dissolved."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

Successors are bound. "[H]e is a successor-in-interest of his parents, Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, defendants in Civil Case No. 217-R, and his right, if any, is claimed under them. Hence, the judgment in said civil case binds not only Simeon Santos and Lorenz[a] Allanigue but also their son, Leonardo Santos, who is their successor-in-interest and who claims under them."
Registration is immaterial to that binding effect. "The fact that the sale to Leonardo Santos from his parents was registered, is of no moment because, as pointed out, he is bound by the judgment against them."
The finding of bad faith, and its basis in timing. "Leonardo Santos' house having been built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R, he must be deemed a builder in bad faith."
The forfeiture, with the article quoted. "ART. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity."
Accession to the landowner. "The Allanigue brothers and sisters therefore become owners of the improvement consisting of the house built in bad faith by Leonardo Santos if they chose to appropriate the accession. (Articles 445 and 449, Civil Code.)"
The demolition option, with the article quoted. "ART. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed...."
The election, made of record. "It is of record in Civil Case No. 217-R that the owners of the land chose to have the house or improvement demolished pursuant to their motion for demolition which was granted by respondent Judge Mojica on December 9, 1965."
Res judicata, element by element. "Herein petitioner, Leonardo Santos, was one of the petitioners in that case against the same official and private respondents in the instant petition. In the two cases there is identity of subject matter... There is also identity of cause of action... In the previous case this Court had jurisdiction, and its decision, which was on the merits, had become final."

B. Doctrines/Rules

Building After Suit Is Filed Against Those Under Whom One Claims Is Bad Faith.
A Builder in Bad Faith Forfeits the Improvement Without Indemnity (Art. 449).
Improvements Accede to the Land (Art. 445), and the owner may appropriate them.
Or Demand Demolition at the Builder's Expense (Art. 450) — a first-class remedy against a bad-faith builder, unlike under Article 448.
A Successor-in-Interest Is Bound by the Judgment Against His Predecessor, registration notwithstanding.
A Stranger Claiming Ownership Must Sue in an Ordinary Civil Action.
Res Judicata Requires Identity of Parties, Subject Matter and Cause of Action, plus a final judgment on the merits by a court with jurisdiction.

C. Limitations/Exceptions

The Court did not rule on whether Leonardo actually owned the portion of land he claimed. It held only that he had not vindicated the claim in the proper action, and was bound meanwhile.
Article 449's forfeiture reaches the improvement. Article 452 — not invoked here — still gives even a bad-faith builder reimbursement for "the necessary expenses of preservation of the land."
The finding of bad faith rests on the reconstruction after March 1962, not on the original house. The decision does not say when the original was built.
Treble costs signal that the Court treated the second petition as an abuse of process, the same question having been decided in 1964.
Demolition here is an execution of a partition judgment. The case is not authority that a landowner may demolish without judicial process — compare German Management v. Court of Appeals.

D. Topic Integration

The relationship is DIRECT.
On the assigned subtopic — instances of bad faith — this supplies the clearest one: knowledge through litigation. A person who builds while the land is the subject of a pending action, or who claims under someone already summoned, cannot afterwards say he believed himself owner.
The mechanism of imputation is worth noting. Leonardo was never summoned himself, yet the summons to his parents fixed him with notice, because he "claims under them." Good faith cannot be manufactured by taking a conveyance from a defendant.
Learn the bad-faith remedies as a set and contrast them with the good-faith ones: forfeiture without indemnity; demolition at the builder's expense or compelling him to buy the land; Article 451 damages; Article 452 reimbursement of necessary preservation expenses only. Against that, the good-faith builder gets indemnity, retention, and immunity from demolition.
Read with Lumungo v. Usman and Mindanao Academy v. Yap for the other instances of bad faith, and with Depra v. Dumlao for what the same facts would have produced had the builder been in good faith.

VII. Separate Opinions

NOT IN RECORD. The decision was penned by Justice Capistrano for the Court en banc, with Chief Justice Concepcion and Justices Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Sanchez, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee and Barredo concurring. Justice Zaldivar took no part.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Civil Code

Article 449, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book II (Property, Ownership, and Its Modifications), Title II (Ownership), Chapter 2 (Right of Accession), Section 2 (Right of Accession With Respect to Immovable Property)

He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity. (362)

Why it is cited here

The sanction, and it is total. "He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity."

Set it beside Article 448 and the contrast is the whole of accession law in miniature. The builder in good faith is paid before he can be displaced and may retain the property until he is; the builder in bad faith is paid nothing at all and keeps nothing. Everything therefore turns on which side of the line the builder falls, which is why the instance of bad faith found here is worth memorising.

That instance is notice by litigation. The house was "built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R" — so "he must be deemed a builder in bad faith." One who builds while the land is under claim builds at his own risk, and knowledge reaching his predecessors reaches him.

Note the limit the article does not state but the Code supplies: even a builder in bad faith keeps a claim for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land under Article 452. He loses the improvement, not every peso he ever spent.

Civil Code

Article 450, Civil Code

The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent. (363a)

Why it is cited here

The landowner's election once bad faith is established. He "may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land."

The difference from the good-faith case is where demolition sits. Under Article 448 it is not an option at all — see Depra v. Dumlao, where a landowner who refused both his choices could not have the encroaching kitchen removed. Here it is a first-class remedy, exercisable at once, and at the builder's expense rather than the owner's.

The Court records that the election was actually made: "the owners of the land chose to have the house or improvement demolished pursuant to their motion for demolition which was granted by respondent Judge Mojica on December 9, 1965."

The alternative branch is easy to overlook and is the mirror of Article 448's second option — the owner "may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land." Against a bad-faith builder there is no ceiling for disproportionate value; that protection belongs only to the builder in good faith.

Civil Code

Article 445, Civil Code

Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles. (358)

Why it is cited here

The premise the whole article group rests on. "Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles."

Ownership of the improvement passes to the landowner by accession as a starting position; Articles 448 to 454 then decide what he must pay for it, if anything. Against a builder in good faith he pays indemnity; against a builder in bad faith he pays nothing.

The Court cites it with Article 449 for exactly that step: "The Allanigue brothers and sisters therefore become owners of the improvement consisting of the house built in bad faith by Leonardo Santos if they chose to appropriate the accession. (Articles 445 and 449, Civil Code.)"

Read this article first in any accession problem. It tells you who owns the building; the articles after it tell you on what terms.

Cited laws & provisions

Article 449, Civil Code

Civil Code

He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity. (362)

Why it is cited here

The sanction, and it is total. "He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity."

Full entry below ↓

Article 450, Civil Code

Civil Code

Why it is cited here

Full entry below ↓

Article 445, Civil Code

Civil Code

Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles. (358)

Why it is cited here

Read this article first in any accession problem. It tells you who owns the building; the articles after it tell you on what terms.

Full entry below ↓

Facts

On 19 March 1959 eleven Allanigue brothers and sisters sued their sister Lorenza Allanigue, her husband Simeon Santos and two others in the CFI of Rizal (Civil Case No. 217-R) for partition of a 360-square-metre lot at San Dionisio, Parañaque and annulment of certain conveyances. The 1959 summons is the fact that decides the case — everything built afterwards is built with notice.
The defendants were declared in default, and the court ordered the lot partitioned among the eleven plaintiffs and Lorenza, later setting off Lorenza's share against unpaid rents she owed the plaintiffs.
A writ of execution issued ordering the defendants to vacate. Leonardo Santos — not a party, but their son — owned a house on the lot. His third-party claim and motion to recall the writ were denied, and in March 1962 the court ordered the houses demolished.
Leonardo and the defendants went to the Supreme Court in G.R. No. L-19618, which on 28 February 1964 denied the petition, holding that Leonardo — who claimed to own the house and the land under it by purchase from his parents — "did not follow the procedure sanctioned by law in vindicating his alleged ownership" and "should have filed an ordinary civil action."
After that decision became final Leonardo rebuilt. His house was "built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one" — and the reconstruction came not merely after the 1959 summons but after the Supreme Court had already rejected his claim, which is what makes the finding of bad faith unanswerable.
The other defendants voluntarily removed their houses, leaving only Leonardo's standing, and on 9 December 1965 Judge Mojica ordered it demolished — the landowners' election under Article 450. Leonardo then filed this petition, questioning the judge's jurisdiction to demolish the house of a non-party.

Issue

Secondary issue. Whether the petition is barred by the Court's prior judgment in G.R. No. L-19618.

Ruling

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is denied, with treble costs against the petitioner. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court is hereby dissolved."

Ratio

A successor-in-interest is bound. "Petitioner Leonardo Santos is bound by the judgment in Civil Case No. 217-R because he is a successor-in-interest of his parents... and his right, if any, is claimed under them."
Registration does not break the chain. "The fact that the sale to Leonardo Santos from his parents was registered, is of no moment because, as pointed out, he is bound by the judgment against them."
The instance of bad faith. "Leonardo Santos' house having been built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R, he must be deemed a builder in bad faith."
The forfeiture. "As builder in bad faith he lost the improvement made by him consisting of the reconstructed house to the owners of the land without right to indemnity."
Ownership by accession. "The Allanigue brothers and sisters therefore become owners of the improvement consisting of the house built in bad faith by Leonardo Santos if they chose to appropriate the accession. (Articles 445 and 449, Civil Code.)"
The alternative, and the one they took. "However, said owners could choose instead the demolition of the improvement or building at the expense of the builder" — and "the owners of the land chose to have the house or improvement demolished."
The elements of res judicata, found. Same parties, "identity of subject matter, namely, the portion of the lot and the house standing on said portion," and "identity of cause of action, to wit: the order of the respondent Judge for the removal or demolition of the houses standing on the lot."
From the earlier case, the procedural lesson. A stranger claiming ownership of a house and the land under it "should have filed an ordinary civil action to vindicate his alleged ownership," not a third-party claim and a certiorari petition.

Doctrine

Building After Notice of an Adverse Claim Is Bad Faith: one who builds after his predecessors have been summoned in an action over the land "must be deemed a builder in bad faith."
A Builder in Bad Faith Loses Everything Without Indemnity (Art. 449).
Improvements Belong to the Landowner by Accession (Art. 445), subject to what the following articles require him to pay.
The Landowner May Instead Demand Demolition at the Builder's Expense (Art. 450) — or compel him to buy the land.
A Successor-in-Interest Is Bound by the Judgment Against His Predecessor, and registration of his purchase does not free him.
A Non-Party Claiming Ownership Must Bring an Ordinary Civil Action, not a third-party claim, to vindicate it.
Res Judicata Bars a Second Petition on the same subject matter and cause of action after a final judgment on the merits.

Full Digest — Recitation Format

I. Gist and Central Doctrine

II. Chronological Narration of Material Facts

On 19 March 1959, in the Court of First Instance of Rizal, "eleven brothers and sisters, all surnamed Allanigue, brought an action (Civil Case No. 217-R) against their sister, Lorenza Allanigue, her husband, Simeon Santos, Maria San Agustin and Felicidad San Agustin, for partition of a 360-square-meter lot situated at San Dionisio, Parañaque, Rizal, and for the annulment of certain conveyances involving the same."
"Defendants having been declared in default, the trial court, after hearing the plaintiffs' evidence, rendered judgment ordering the partition of the lot among the eleven plaintiffs and the defendant Lorenza Allanigue. In a subsequent order the court set off Lorenza Allanigue's share against the amount that she had failed to pay as rents to the plaintiffs as directed in the decision."
"A writ of execution was issued on the judgment ordering the defendants to vacate the lot and deliver its possession to the plaintiffs."
"Leonardo Santos, not a party defendant but a son of defendants Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, owned a house standing on the lot. He filed with the sheriff a third-party claim, and with the court, a motion to recall the writ of execution insofar as his house was concerned. The motion was denied."
On 15 March 1962, the defendants and Leonardo Santos "having failed to remove their houses from the lot within the period given them, the court ordered the sheriff to demolish said houses."
On 2 April 1962, Leonardo Santos and the defendants filed in the Supreme Court a petition for certiorari and prohibition, G.R. No. L-19618, against Judge Mojica, the Provincial Sheriff of Rizal and the plaintiffs — raising among other issues "whether or not the lower court had jurisdiction to order the demolition of petitioners' houses in that special civil action."
On 28 February 1964 the Supreme Court denied that petition, finding that Leonardo Santos, "who claimed to be the owner of a house and the portion of land on which it stood by purchase from his parents, did not follow the procedure sanctioned by law in vindicating his alleged ownership, i.e., he should have filed an ordinary civil action."
After that decision became final, Judge Mojica, on the plaintiffs' motion, ordered demolition of the defendants' houses. "The defendants having voluntarily removed their houses, the only house that remained standing on the lot was that belonging to Leonardo Santos."
Leonardo's house had meanwhile been "built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one."
On 9 December 1965, on the plaintiffs' motion, the respondent Judge "issued an order... directing the sheriff to demolish the house of Leonardo Santos."
Leonardo Santos then filed the present petition for certiorari and prohibition, "question[ing] the jurisdiction of the respondent Judge in issuing the order of demolition of his house." A writ of preliminary injunction had issued from the Supreme Court.
On 31 January 1969 the Supreme Court, en banc, denied the petition with treble costs and dissolved the injunction.

III. Arguments of the Parties

A. Petitioner (Leonardo Santos)

B. Respondents (Judge Mojica, the Provincial Sheriff and the Allanigues)

IV. Issues

A. MAIN ISSUE

Whether Leonardo Santos, a non-party who claims under the defendants, is bound by the judgment and is a builder in bad faith whose house may be demolished at his own expense.

B. SECONDARY ISSUE

Whether the present petition is barred by the prior judgment in G.R. No. L-19618.

V. Ruling / Disposition

A. MAIN ISSUE

B. SECONDARY ISSUE

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, the petition is denied, with treble costs against the petitioner. The writ of preliminary injunction issued by this Court is hereby dissolved."

VI. Ratio Decidendi and Doctrines

A. Ratio Decidendi

Successors are bound. "[H]e is a successor-in-interest of his parents, Simeon Santos and Lorenza Allanigue, defendants in Civil Case No. 217-R, and his right, if any, is claimed under them. Hence, the judgment in said civil case binds not only Simeon Santos and Lorenz[a] Allanigue but also their son, Leonardo Santos, who is their successor-in-interest and who claims under them."
Registration is immaterial to that binding effect. "The fact that the sale to Leonardo Santos from his parents was registered, is of no moment because, as pointed out, he is bound by the judgment against them."
The finding of bad faith, and its basis in timing. "Leonardo Santos' house having been built and reconstructed (after March, 1962) into a bigger one after his predecessors-in-interest, his parents, had been summoned in 1959 in Civil Case No. 217-R, he must be deemed a builder in bad faith."
The forfeiture, with the article quoted. "ART. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity."
Accession to the landowner. "The Allanigue brothers and sisters therefore become owners of the improvement consisting of the house built in bad faith by Leonardo Santos if they chose to appropriate the accession. (Articles 445 and 449, Civil Code.)"
The demolition option, with the article quoted. "ART. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed...."
The election, made of record. "It is of record in Civil Case No. 217-R that the owners of the land chose to have the house or improvement demolished pursuant to their motion for demolition which was granted by respondent Judge Mojica on December 9, 1965."
Res judicata, element by element. "Herein petitioner, Leonardo Santos, was one of the petitioners in that case against the same official and private respondents in the instant petition. In the two cases there is identity of subject matter... There is also identity of cause of action... In the previous case this Court had jurisdiction, and its decision, which was on the merits, had become final."

B. Doctrines/Rules

Building After Suit Is Filed Against Those Under Whom One Claims Is Bad Faith.
A Builder in Bad Faith Forfeits the Improvement Without Indemnity (Art. 449).
Improvements Accede to the Land (Art. 445), and the owner may appropriate them.
Or Demand Demolition at the Builder's Expense (Art. 450) — a first-class remedy against a bad-faith builder, unlike under Article 448.
A Successor-in-Interest Is Bound by the Judgment Against His Predecessor, registration notwithstanding.
A Stranger Claiming Ownership Must Sue in an Ordinary Civil Action.
Res Judicata Requires Identity of Parties, Subject Matter and Cause of Action, plus a final judgment on the merits by a court with jurisdiction.

C. Limitations/Exceptions

The Court did not rule on whether Leonardo actually owned the portion of land he claimed. It held only that he had not vindicated the claim in the proper action, and was bound meanwhile.
Article 449's forfeiture reaches the improvement. Article 452 — not invoked here — still gives even a bad-faith builder reimbursement for "the necessary expenses of preservation of the land."
The finding of bad faith rests on the reconstruction after March 1962, not on the original house. The decision does not say when the original was built.
Treble costs signal that the Court treated the second petition as an abuse of process, the same question having been decided in 1964.
Demolition here is an execution of a partition judgment. The case is not authority that a landowner may demolish without judicial process — compare German Management v. Court of Appeals.

D. Topic Integration

The relationship is DIRECT.
On the assigned subtopic — instances of bad faith — this supplies the clearest one: knowledge through litigation. A person who builds while the land is the subject of a pending action, or who claims under someone already summoned, cannot afterwards say he believed himself owner.
The mechanism of imputation is worth noting. Leonardo was never summoned himself, yet the summons to his parents fixed him with notice, because he "claims under them." Good faith cannot be manufactured by taking a conveyance from a defendant.
Learn the bad-faith remedies as a set and contrast them with the good-faith ones: forfeiture without indemnity; demolition at the builder's expense or compelling him to buy the land; Article 451 damages; Article 452 reimbursement of necessary preservation expenses only. Against that, the good-faith builder gets indemnity, retention, and immunity from demolition.
Read with Lumungo v. Usman and Mindanao Academy v. Yap for the other instances of bad faith, and with Depra v. Dumlao for what the same facts would have produced had the builder been in good faith.