FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 254544. March 22, 2021.]
SUSAN BANCE, petitioner,vs. SPOUSES NEMESIO AND FIDELA BALLECER, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated March 22, 2021which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 254544 (Susan Bance, Petitioner, v. Spouses Nemesio and Fidela Ballecer, Respondents). — The petitioner's first and second motions for extension totaling sixty (60) days within which to file a petition for review on certiorari are GRANTED, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period.
This Petition for Review (petition) seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision 1 dated 22 May 2019 and the Resolution 2 dated 24 August 2020 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 104365, affirming the Decision 3 dated 27 October 2014 of Branch 35, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iriga City in Civil Case No. IR-3489.
Respondents, spouses Nemesio and Fidela Ballecer (respondents), filed a complaint against Spouses Victor and Susan Bance (Spouses Bance) for Reformation of Contract, Recovery of Possession and Damages. Respondents alleged that Spouses Bance constructed a building on a 127 square meter-portion of Fidela's property, which exceeded the 70 square meter-portion sold to them.
The RTC ruled in favor of respondents. The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, finding plaintiffs' claim under the complaint supported by preponderance of evidence, the court hereby decrees as follows:
1. Plaintiff Fidela Ballecer sold to defendants 70 square meters part of the property covered by TCT No. 6179;
2. The area in excess of this 70 square meters in the possession of the defendants belongs to and is owned by plaintiff Fidela Ballecer who is entitled to its peaceful possession and enjoyment;
3. Defendants shall remove all construction they have built on the said area in excess and immediately vacate, deliver and surrender the possession thereof to plaintiffs;
4. Further, defendants shall pay unto plaintiffs:
a. A reasonable monthly rental of P500 for the use of the area in excess of the sold 70 square meters to be reckoned from October 22, 2001 until the same is vacated;
b. P20,000 as moral damages.
5. To pay the cost.
SO ORDERED. 4
On appeal, the CA affirmed the Decision of the RTC, ruling that Fidela sold only 70 square meters of her property to Spouses Bance and that the latter was a builder in bad faith when they caused the construction of their building on the property which exceeded the 70 square meters, agreed upon by the parties. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Spouses Bance filed the instant Petition before this Court.
We find the petition without merit.
The Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the parties clearly stated that the portion of the property sold only had an area of "more or less 70.0 (SEVENTY) square meters." Contrary to petitioner's claim that it was a sale of real property in lump sum, both the RTC and the CA ruled that the evidence clearly established that the parties agreed for the sale of only a 70 square meter-portion of Fidela's property. Since Spouses Bance were builders in bad faith, respondents have a right under Article 450 of the Civil Code to demand the demolition of the improvements that encroached on their property. Interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum, however, shall be imposed on the total amount of rent due and the amount of moral damages awarded from the finality of this Resolution until fully paid. 5
WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 22 May 2019 and the Resolution dated 24 August 2020 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104365 are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the amount of total rent due and moral damages awarded shall earn interest at the rate of six percent (6%) per annum from the date of finality of the Court's Resolution until the amounts are fully paid.
The petitioner is hereby required to SUBMIT, within five (5) days from notice hereof, the verified declaration of the petition for review on certiorari and the soft copies in compact disc, USB or e-mail containing the PDF files of the signed first and second motions for extension of time to file the petition, all pursuant to A.M. Nos. 10-3-7-SC and 11-9-4-SC; and the Cash Collection and Disbursement Division is DIRECTED to RETURN to the petitioner the excess payment for the legal fees in the amount of P470.00 under O.R. No. 0286537-SC-EP dated December 17, 2020.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
by:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 33-46; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. of the Tenth (10th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
2.Id. at 59-60; penned by Associate Justice Gabriel T. Robeniol and concurred in by Associate Justices Ramon R. Garcia and Eduardo B. Peralta, Jr. of the Former Tenth (10th) Division, Court of Appeals, Manila.
3.Id. at 68-78; penned by Presiding Judge Salve Eva Q. Villareal Dimabayao.
4.Id. at 77-78.
5.Tensuan v. Heirs of Vasquez, G.R. No. 204992, 08 September 2020 [Per J. Lazaro-Javier]; Dimaguila v. Spouses Monteiro, 725 Phil. 337 (2014); G.R. No. 201011, 27 January 2014 [Per J. Mendoza].