25sqm on its eastern boundary that lot 25 did not

found that Lot 24 lost approx.. 25sqm. on its eastern boundary; that Lot 25 did not lose
nor gain any area; that Lot 26 lost around 3 sqm which were however gained by Lot 27.
On the basis of this survey, Ballatan made a written demand on Go to remove &
dismantle their improvements on Lot No. 24. Go refused, thus Ballatan brought the
issue before the barangay. Go did not appear.
Ballatan filed a case for recovery of possession before the RTC of Malabon. The
Go’s filed an answer with third -party complaint, impleading Li Ching Yao, AIA & Engr.
Quedding.
The RTC decided in favor of Ballatan, ordering Go to vacate Lot No. 24 and
demolish their improvements and to pay Ballatan actual damages. It also dismissed the
third-party complaint against AIA, Quedding & Li Ching Yao.
On appeal, the CA modified the decision of the RTC. It ordered Li Ching Yao &
Engr. Quedding to pay Ballatan; and Li Ching Yao to pay Go, a reasonable amount for
that portion of the lot which they encroached – the value to be fixed at the time of
taking.

Issues:
1) Given the fact of encroachment on Ballatan’s property, what are her rights?
Ruling:
Thus, Ballatan as owner of Lot No. 24, may choose to purchase the improvement
made by Go on their land, or sell to Go the subject portion.