This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2013-03-06 |
SERENO, J. |
||||
| Although these provisions of the Civil Code do not explicitly state the reckoning period for valuing the property, Ballatan v. Court of Appeals[15] already specifies that in the event that the seller elects to sell the lot, "the price must be fixed at the prevailing market value at the time of payment." More recently, Tuatis v. Spouses Escol[16] illustrates that the present or current fair value of the land is to be reckoned at the time that the landowner elected the choice, and not at the time that the property was purchased. We quote below the relevant portion of that Decision:[17] | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| ruling in Tuatis v. Escol.[66] | |||||
|
2010-10-06 |
NACHURA, J. |
||||
| The pronouncement of this Court in Pecson v. CA,[15] which was reiterated in Tuatis v. Escol,[16] is instructive, viz.: The objective of Article 546 of the Civil Code is to administer justice between the parties involved. In this regard, this Court had long ago stated in Rivera vs. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Manila [40 Phil. 717 (1920)] that the said provision was formulated in trying to adjust the rights of the owner and possessor in good faith of a piece of land, to administer complete justice to both of them in such a way as neither one nor the other may enrich himself of that which does not belong to him. Guided by this precept, it is therefore the current market value of the improvements which should be made the basis of reimbursement. A contrary ruling would unjustly enrich the private respondents who would otherwise be allowed to acquire a highly valued income-yielding four-unit apartment building for a measly amount. Consequently, the parties should therefore be allowed to adduce evidence on the present market value of the apartment building upon which the trial court should base its finding as to the amount of reimbursement to be paid by the landowner. | |||||