Ballatan v. CA

Case Digest - Rules on BPS
of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
  YEJAMELO BALLATAN V. CA G.R. NO. 125683 March 2, 1999 Rules governing BPS Petitioner: Eden Ballatan and Sps. Betty Martinez and Chong Chy Ling Respondent: Court of Appeals, Gonzalo Go, Winston Go, Li Ching Yao, Araneta Institute of Agriculture and Jose N. Quedding FACTS During construction, petitioner Ballatan noticed that the concrete fence and side pathway of the adjoining house of respondent Winston Go encroached on the entire length of the eastern side of her property. Her building contractor informed her that he area of her lot was actually less than that descried in the title. Ballatan informed Go of this discrepancy and his encroachment on her property. Go claimed that his house, including the fence and pathway, were built within the parameters of his father’s lot. Ballatan called the attention of Aranent Institute of Agriculture, owner-developer of the subdivision project, to the discrepancy of the land area in her title and the actual land area received from them. AIA authorized another survey of the land by Engr. Jose N. Quedding. Engineer Quedding found that the lot area of Ballatan was less by few mteres and that of respondent Li Ching Yao, which was 3 lots away, was increased by 2 M. Ballatan made a writted demand on respondents Go to remove and dismante their imrpvements but Go refused. Failing to agree amicably, Ballatan instituted a recovery of possession before the RTC. Decision of the Trial Court Trial Court decided in favor of Ballatan. It ordered the Go’s to vacate and demolish their improvements and pay petitioner. It dismissed third-party complaint against IAI, Jose Quedding and Li Ching Yao. Decision of the Court of Appeals CA affirmed the dismissal of the third-party complaint against the AIA but reinstated the complaint against Li Ching Yao and Jose Quedding. CA ordered the Gos to pay Ballatan, Li Ching Yao to pay Go a reasonable amount for that portion of the lot which they are encroached. RULING  Supreme Court gave the petitioners the choice to purchase the improvement made by Go on their land or to sell to respondents Go the subject portion. If buying the improvement is impractical as it may render Go’s house useless, then petitioners may sell that portion to Go. If the Go’s are unwilling or unable to buy, then they must vacate the land and until they vacate, they must pay rent. Ballatan cannot  YEJAMELO compel Go to buy the land if its value is considerably more than the portion of their house constructed thereon. If the value of the land is much more than Go’s improvement, Go must pay reasonable rent.
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks