Ang kaso ni Tatay Narding Flores (Tatay Narding Flores' case)

Disclaimer: This discussion is only based upon the limited facts stated in the news. This discussion is not definitive as to whom the land and/or the tree really belongs to. This discussion only aims to provide a glimpse of how a person can be considered as a planter in good faith and his rights over the thing planted. Should there be any mistakes in my explanation, please feel free to correct me in the comment section.

---

Earlier this week, news about the arrest of an 80-year old man for stealing 10 kgs of mangoes shocked the country. Netizens from all over the country expressed their dismay as to how the elderly accused was treated. I wanted to tackle a civil aspect of the issue where it involves “planters in good faith”, because according to Tatay Narding, it was his tree. However, a friend of mine sent me an update this morning regarding the issue.

With the aid of Senator Ping Lacson, it was found out that 12,000 pesos worth of mangoes were taken from the tree without the consent of the land owner, and that Tatay Narding had already sold the fruits and had enjoyed the proceeds thereof. Furthermore, it was also stated by Atty. Fernandez that the accused believed that it was his parents who planted the tree and not him.

As Atty. Libayan of Batas Natin would say, “audi alteram partem” or “listen to the other side”. The first few facts would be enough to trigger one’s emotions and sympathize immediately with the accused. However, now that the haze of this issue is starting to fade, we now have a clearer view of what could have really transpired. For more information about the recent update on the issue, please visit:
https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1543492/whos-victim-villain-lines-blur-in-viral-mango-theft-case?utm_source=gallery&utm_medium=direct

For purposes of discussion, let us tackle two different scenarios. First would be if Tatay Narding was a planter in good faith. The second would be if he was not. Along with these scenarios, we will also discuss his rights to the tree and the fruits thereof.

---

Disclaimer: These scenarios do not reflect the real situation affecting the ownership and/or claim of both parties over the mango tree in dispute. These scenarios are only meant to illustrate the difference between those who are planters in good faith from those who are not. Should you find any wrongs with respect to my interpretation or application of the law and jurisprudence, please do not hesitate to correct me in the comments down below. I would greatly appreciate it.

---

Scenario number 1:

In this scenario, let us presume that Tatay Narding is a planter in good faith.

“Good faith is always presumed, and upon him who alleges bad faith on the part of a possessor rests the burden of proof.”
Art. 527 of the New Civil Code

A planter in good faith is someone who believes that he has the right to plant because he thinks he owns the land by virtue of a legal claim such as a title. Therefore, he not only becomes a planter in good faith, but also a possessor in good faith with respect to the thing planted.

Supposing that the owner of the land also acted in good faith, he has the right to choose on whether to sell the land upon which the tree is situated to the planter in good faith or to indemnify the same for the expenses incurred. (See Art. 448 of the New Civil Code)

“The rule that the choice under Article 448 of the Civil Code belongs to the owner of the land is in accord with the principle of accession, i.e., that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around.”
Spouses Espinoza vs. Spouses Mayandoc G.R. No. 211170

Based on the premise that Tatay Narding is a planter in good faith, Art. 544 and 546 of the New Civil code affords him the right of retention over the plant/tree and its fruits until he has been indemnified by the land owner if the latter chooses the option to claim ownership and possession over the mango tree.

“A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received before the possession is legally interrupted.”
Art. 544 of the New Civil Code

“Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.”
Art. 546 of the New Civil Code

The land owner also has the option to sell the tract of land to Tatay Narding. However, he cannot compel Tatay Narding to buy the said lot if its value is considerably more than that of the tree.

Supposing that the tree is of greater value than the land and the land owner chooses the option to sell the land to Tatay Narding but the latter does not have enough resources to pay, the land owner may either ask Tatay Narding to remove the same (Please refer to Ignacio vs. Hilario) or he may sell the piece of land at a public auction and the proceeds thereof shall be first applied to the value of his land and the excess shall be given to Tatay Narding. Tatay Narding, however, cannot complain if there is a deficiency as to the value of the tree. In this instance, since Tatay Narding is the one required to pay, he may not exercise his right of retention over the mango tree (Please refer to Bernardo vs. Batacalan).

The land owner must first make a choice among the two options given to him by Art. 448. Until then, he cannot claim ownership over the mango tree because, based on jurisprudence, the land owner may not oust the planter in good faith until indemnity is paid.

To conclude, Tatay Narding may not have ownership rights over the mango tree and its fruits. However, he may have possessory rights and the right to exercise his right of retention over them if the land owner elects the choice to appropriate the tree to himself without yet having paid Tatay Narding.

---

Scenario number 2:

In this scenario, let us now try to look at an angle where neither Tatay Narding nor his parents were planters in good faith. That is, if they planted the tree upon a land believing it was theirs in the absence of any legal claim, such as a title.

In this situation, they are referred to as planters in bad faith.

“He is deemed a possessor in good faith who is not aware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it. He is deemed a possessor in bad faith who possesses in any case contrary to the foregoing.”
Art. 526 of the New Civil Code

What then happens to their claim over the tree and its fruits in controversy? Will they have any right or claim?

I answer in the negative. Art. 449 of the New Civil Code states that “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.”

Therefore, Neither Tatay Narding nor his parents will have any claim or right over the tree in controversy.

Is there any possible scenario where Tatay Narding may gain something despite being a planter in bad faith?

Yes, there is. However, Tatay Narding or his parents must have done or spent something to preserve the land upon which the tree is situated.

“The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land.”
Art. 452 of the New Civil Code

Who, then, has the right over the tree and its fruits? In this scenario, it is the land owner himself.

Article 440 of the New Civil Code provides that “the ownership of property gives the right by accession to everything which is produced thereby, or which is incorporated or attached thereto, either naturally or artificially.”

Accession, as defined by Sanchez Roman, is “the right of an owner of a thing to the products of the said thing as well as to whatever is inseparably attached thereto as an accessory”. Simply put, anything that is incorporated into one’s land is his.

---

Disclaimer: These scenarios do not reflect the real situation affecting the ownership and/or claim of both parties over the mango tree in dispute. These scenarios are only meant to illustrate the difference between those who are planters in good faith from those who are not. Should you find any wrongs with respect to my interpretation or application of the law and jurisprudence, please do not hesitate to correct me in the comments down below. I would greatly appreciate it.

---

Thank you for reading 😄

"Unjust enrichment exists when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience."
Filinvest Land, inc., et. al vs. Abdul Backy, Et. al G.R. No. 174715