.

Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10 ,

February 01, 1996

Case Title : PLEASANTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, WILSON KEE, C.T. TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. and
ELDRED JARDINICO, respondents.Case Nature : PETITION for review on
certiorari of a decision of the Court of Appeals.
Syllabi Class : Civil Law|Property|Builder in Good Faith|Waiver|Agency|
Damages
Syllabi:
1. Civil Law; Property; Builder in Good Faith; Court agrees with the findings
and conclusions of the Court of Appeals that Kee was a builder in good faith. +
2. Civil Law; Property; Builder in Good Faith; Good faith consists in the
belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of any
defect or flaw in his title.+
3. Civil Law; Property; Builder in Good Faith; Violation of the Contract of
Sale on Installment may not be the basis to negate the presumption that Kee
was a builder in good faith.+
4. Civil Law; Property; Waiver; Rights may be waived unless the waiver is
contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial
to a third person with a right recognized by law. +
5. Civil Law; Agency; Damages; Rule is that the principal is responsible for
the acts of the agent, done within the scope of his authority and should bear the
damage caused to third persons.+
Division: THIRD DIVISION
Docket Number: G.R. No. 79688
Counsel: Mirano, Mirano & Associates Law Offices, Federico T. Tabino, Jr.,
Abraham D. Caa
Ponente: PANGANIBAN
Dispositive Portion:
WHEREFORE, the petition is partially GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of
Appeals is hereby MODIFIED as follows:

Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 79688. February 1, 1996.*
PLEASANTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. COURT OF
APPEALS, WILSON KEE, C.T. TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. and ELDRED
JARDINICO, respondents.
Civil Law; Property; Builder in Good Faith; Court agrees with the findings and
conclusions of the Court of Appeals that Kee was a builder in good faith.Petitioner
fails to persuade this Court to abandon the findings and conclusions of the Court of
Appeals that Kee was a builder in good faith.

Same; Same; Same; Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is
building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.Good faith
consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance
of any defect or flaw in his title. And as good faith is presumed, petitioner has the burden
of proving bad faith on the part of Kee. At the time he built improvements on Lot 8, Kee
believed that said lot was what he bought from petitioner. He was not aware that the lot
delivered to him was not Lot 8. Thus, Kees good faith. Petitioner failed to prove
otherwise.
Same; Same; Same; Violation of the Contract of Sale on Installment may not be the basis
to negate the presumption that Kee was a builder in good faith.Such violations have no
bearing whatsoever on whether Kee was a builder in good faith, that is, on his state of
mind at the time he built the improvements on Lot 9. These
_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
11
VOL. 253, FEBRUARY 1, 1996
11
Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
alleged violations may give rise to petitioners cause of action against Kee under the said
contract (contractual breach), but may not be bases to negate the presumption that Kee
was a builder in good faith.
Same; Same; Waiver; Rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public
order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right
recognized by law.We do not agree with the interpretation of petitioner that Kee
contracted away his right to recover damages resulting from petitioners negligence. Such
waiver would be contrary to public policy and cannot be allowed. Rights may be
waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good
customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.
Same; Agency; Damages; Rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of the
agent, done within the scope of his authority and should bear the damage caused to third
persons.The rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of the agent, done
within the scope of his authority, and should bear the damage caused to third persons. On
the other hand, the agent who exceeds his authority is personally liable for the damage.
[Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10(1996)]