02/09/2026
๐ BUYING THE BUILDING DOESNโT ALWAYS MEAN BUYING THE LAND
Imagine this:
A creditor won a case against a married couple who owed money. To collect the debt, the court ordered the sheriff to sell some of their properties at a public auction.
The creditor became the highest bidder and bought several propertiesโincluding a storehouse and a bodega.
So naturally, the creditor thought:
โI bought the buildings, so I also own the land underneath them.โ
Not so fast.
The storehouse and bodega were actually standing on Lot No. 1103.
The problem?
๐ The sheriff levied and sold the buildingsโbut did NOT levy or sell Lot No. 1103 itself.
Later, the creditor asked the court for a writ of possession covering both the buildings and the land.
The Supreme Court said NO.
Why?
Under Article 415 of the Civil Code, buildings are considered immovable property in their own right.
In this particular case, the building and the land were treated as separate properties for purposes of the ex*****on sale.
So, if the sheriff only levied and sold the building, the creditor acquired the buildingโnot automatically the land underneath it.
And a writ of possession cannot give someone something that was never included in the auction sale in the first place.
๐งฑ Think of it this way:
You can legally have:
OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING โ OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND
So before assuming that a building sale automatically includes the lot where it stands, check exactly what was included in the levy, auction, and sale documents.
In ex*****on sales, what was actually levied and sold matters.
๐ Case: Marcelo R. Soriano v. Spouses Ricardo and Rosalina Galit, G.R. No. 156295 (2003)
๐๏ธ Ponente: Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago
Real estate lesson: Donโt just look at what is standing on the land. Look at what the legal documents actually say was sold.
This post is a simplified and curated version of a legal post originally shared by Jurist Bible PH, for easier understanding and discussion. It is not a substitute for legal advice.
