6. FLORES vs LIM Digested

FLORES vs LIM FACTS: This case involves a land located in the barrio of Pinaninding, municipality of Laguimanoc Province of Tayabas, and is about 73 hectares, on which were 164 coconut bearing trees and 1,000 non-bearing, and about 300 buri trees. On January 20, 1923, Isabel Flores’(plaintiff) the subject land was sold at sheriff’s sale to the Trinidad Lim(defendant) for P1,603.78. ]. The usual certificate of sale was issued to the defendant. Prior to the one year period of redemption, Lim took the actual, physical possession of the property. The latter refused and still refuses to render an account of fruits, profits, to plaintiff's damage in the sum of P1,000. Flores prays judgment that the defendant be ordered to render an itemized account, the amount of which should be deducted from the price of the redemption; that plaintiff have the right to redeem; and that defendant pay her P1,000 as damages and costs. The Trial Court rendered judgment giving plaintiff the right to redeem the land upon the payment to the defendant within fifteen days from notice the following amounts: (a) The price of the land at the auction sale with legal interest thereon up to this date; (b) The amount of the land tax paid by the defendant with legal interest up to this date; and (c) The sum of P15,000, the value of the improvements made by the defendant on the land, and in case redemption is not made within that period, the right is lost, and relieved the defendant from rendering an account. On appeal the plaintiff alleged that the trial court erred in sentencing plaintiff to reimburse defendant in the sum of P15,000 for improvements alleged to have been introduced by said defendant in the land in suit, although said improvements were placed thereon by defendant with manifest bad faith. Moreover, the trial court erred in not ordering defendant to account to plaintiff for fruits and benefits received by said defendant from the land, and credit plaintiff against the amount due for its redemption the value of said fruits and benefits. ISSUE: Is Lim entitled to reimbursement for the coconut trees he had planted as well as for the other improvements? HELD: No, Lim here is a possessor in bad faith (for he should have waited for the termination of the one-year redemption period before entering into the possession of the property), and is therefore not entitled to a refund of useful improvements. On the other hand, the expenses he sought to recover were not even necessary expenses. Moreover, regarding judicial sales, the law defines and specifies what the redemptioner is required to pay in order to redeem, and in the absence of something unusual or extraordinary expense incurred in the preservation of the property (which incidentally has to be approved by the court), the redemptioner will not be required to pay any other or greater amount.