Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
ART. 447
GRN L-21783 NOVEMBER 29, 1969
PACIFIC FARMS, INC. VS. SIMPLICIO G.
ESGUERRA, CARRIED LUMBER COMPANY
FACTS:
On several occasions, the Company sold
and delivered lumber and construction materials to
the Insular Farms, Inc. which the latter used in the
construction of the aforementioned six buildings at its
compound in Bolinao, Pangasian. Of the total
procurement price of P15,000, the sum of P4,710.18
has not been paid by the Insular Farms, Inc. The
Company instituted a civil case with the CIR of
Pangasinan to recover the said unpaid balance from
the Insular Farms, Inc. The trial court rendered
judgment in favor of the Company's claim. The
corresponding writ of execution was issued because
there was no appeal instituted by Insular, Inc.
The Pacific Farms, Inc. filed a third-party
claim asserting ownership over the levied buildings
which it had acquired from the Insular Farms, Inc. by
virtue of a deed of absolute sale executed about
seven months before the Company filed the civil
action. Shielded by an indemnity bond put up by the
Company and the Cosmopolitan Insurance Company,
Inc., the sheriff proceeded with the announced public
auction and sold the levied buildings to the Company.
ART. 448
ISSUE:
WON the Company is entitled to a materialmans lien
to be paid by Pacific Farms, Inc?
HELD: YES.
Therefore, applying article 447 by analogy,
we perforce consider the buildings as the principal
and the lumber and construction materials that went
into their construction as the accessory. Thus Pacific
Farms, if it does own the six buildings, must bear the
obligation to pay for the value of the said materials;
the Company- which apparently has no desire to
remove the materials, and, even if it were minded to
do so, cannot remove them without necessarily
damaging the buildings has the corresponding right
to recover the value of the unpaid lumber and
construction materials.
Of course, the character of a buyer in good
faith and for value, if really possessed by the Pacific
Farms, could possibly exonerate it from making
compensation. But the Pacific Farm's stance that it is
an innocent purchaser for value and in good faith is
open to grave doubt because of certain facts of
PNB V. DE JESUS
411 SCRA 557
FACTS:
It would appear that on 10 June 1995,
respondent filed a complaint against petitioner before
the Regional Trial Court of Occidental Mindoro for
recovery of ownership and possession, with
damages, over the questioned property. In his
complaint, respondent stated that he had acquired a
parcel of land situated in Mamburao, Occidental
Mindoro, with an area of 1,144 square meters
covered by TCT No. T-17197, and that on 26 March
1993, he had caused a verification survey of the
property and discovered that the northern portion of
the lot was being encroached upon by a building of
petitioner to the extent of 124 square meters.
Despite two letters of demand sent by respondent,
petitioner failed and refused to vacate the area.
Petitioner, in its answer, asserted that when
it acquired the lot and the building sometime in 1981
from then Mayor Bienvenido Ignacio, the
ISSUE:
Whether or not being a builder in good faith matters
under article 448.
HELD:
Article 448, of the Civil Code refers to a
piece of land whose ownership is claimed by two or
more parties, one of whom has built some works (or
sown or planted something) and not to a case where
the owner of the land is the builder, sower, or planter
who then later loses ownership of the land by sale or
otherwise for, elsewise stated, where the true owner
himself is the builder of works on his own land, the
issue of good faith or bad faith is entirely irrelevant.
HELD: NO.
The private respondents claim they are
builders in good faith, hence, Article 448 of the Civil
Code should apply. They rely on the lack of title of
the petitioners' mother at the time of the execution of
the contract of lease, as well as the alleged
assurance made by the petitioners that the lot on
which the house stood would be sold to them.
But being mere lessees, the private respondents
knew that their occupation of the premises would
continue only for the life of the lease. Plainly, they
cannot be considered as possessors nor builders in
good faith.
Article 448 of the Civil Code, in relation to
Article 546 of the same Code, which allows full
reimbursement of useful improvements and retention
of the premises until reimbursement is made, applies
only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds
on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof. It
does not apply where one's only interest is that of a
lessee under a rental contract; otherwise, it would
always be in the power of the tenant to "improve" his
landlord out of his property.
And even if the petitioners indeed promised
to sell, it would not make the private respondents
possessors or builders in good faith so as to be
covered by the provisions of Article 448 of the Civil
Code. The latter cannot raise the mere expectancy
of ownership of the aforementioned lot because the
alleged promise to sell was not fulfilled nor its
existence even proven.
ART. 449
LUMUNGO V. USMAN
25 SCRA 255
FACTS:
On August 12, 1999, spouses Jose and
Concordia Manuel, respondents, filed with the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC), San Mateo, Rizal a
complaint1 for unlawful detainer against Alfredo
Yasay del Rosario, petitioner, docketed as Civil Case
No. 1360. They alleged that they are the true and
lawful owners of a 251 square meter lot located at
Sta. Ana, San Mateo, Rizal. Because of their
compassion, they allowed petitioner, whose house
was destroyed by a strong typhoon, to occupy their
lot. They agreed that he could build thereon a
temporary shelter of light materials. But without their
consent, what he constructed was a house of
concrete materials.
In 1992, respondents asked petitioner to vacate the
lot. This was followed by repeated verbal demands
but to no avail, prompting them to bring the matter to
the barangay. But the parties failed to reach an
amicable settlement.
On June 25, 1999, the
barangay chairman issued a Certification to File
Action.
In his answer to the complaint, petitioner
claimed that sometime in 1968, respondents allowed
him to build his house on the lot, provided he would
guard the premises to prevent landgrabbers and
squatters from occupying the area. In 1995, when
respondents visited this country, they agreed verbally
to sell the portion on which his house was
constructed. A year later, he made an offer to buy the
60 square meter portion occupied by him and to
spend for its survey. But what respondents wanted to
sell was the whole area containing 251 square
meters. He then informed them that he would first
consult his children and they said they will wait.
Instead, they filed the instant complaint.
ISSUE:
WON petitioner is a builder in good faith.
HELD: NO.
Petitioner is not a builder in good
faith. Considering that he occupies the land by
FACTS:
Dominga Usman sold and transfers her
rights in and to the 3 lots in question to Jose Angeles.
The latter made the purchase with the knowledge
that the property was already in dispute by Atty.
Usman, husband of Dominga, and by the plaintiffs.
Angeles, upon taking possession of the land, planted
the same with coconuts, which, together with those
already planted by Dominga Usman, numbered
about 3,000, most of which are now fruit-bearing. In
short, Angeles was a purchaser and a builder in bad
faith.
ISSUE:
Whether or not Angeles is entitled to reimbursement
for the coconuts tree he planted on the property in
litigation.
HELD:
No. It should be noted that said trees are
improvements, not "necessary expenses of
preservation," which a builder, planter or sower in
bad faith may recover under Arts. 452 and 546, first
paragraph, of the Civil Code. The facts and findings
of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals leave
no room for doubt that Jose Angeles was a purchaser
and a builder in bad faith. The provision applicable to
this case is, accordingly, Article 449 of the Civil Code,
which provides 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."
ART. 453
MUNICIPALITY OF OAS V. ROA
7 PHIL. 20
FACTS:
The Municipality brought the action for the
recovery of a tract of land in the pueblo of Oas,
claiming that it was a part of the public square of said
town, while Roa alleged that he was the owner of the
property. The defendant admitted in writing that he
knew that the land is owned by the Municipality and
ART. 458
GOVERNMENT V. COLEGIO DE SAN JOSE
53 PHIL. 423
FACTS:
During the months of September to
November every year, the waters of Laguna de Bay
cover a long strip of land along the eastern border of
the two parcels of land in question. The claimant
Colegio de San Jose contends that the parcels of
land are a part of the Hacienda de San Pedro
Tunasan belonging it, which has been in possession
thereof since time immemorial by means of its
tenants or lessees and farmers. In contrast, the
Government contends that the said two parcels of
land belong to the public domain, and its evidence
tends to prove that they have always been known as
the shores of Laguna de Bay. The CFI rendered a
decision in favor of Colegio de San Jose ordering the
registration of the 2 parcels of land in accordance
with law. Both admitted that the strip was formerly
covered by water but since the Bay receded, it was
now uncovered. The government tried to apply Art.
458 which states the adjoin estate (the College) does
not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease
of the waters.
ISSUES: