Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
MEMORANDUM
(for the Defendants-Appellants)
Page 1 of 7
Article 448 of the Civil Code is not applicable to the Defendants-
Apellants as their possession of the disputed property was merely
tolerated by the regisered owner. It ruled in relevant part, thus:
“As the defendants in this case were merely tolerated by the registered
owner, James Yap-Yap, to occupy and possess the subject lot
including the house which was constructed by the latter, they knew
very well that they were not the owners of the subject property so that
whatever useful and necessary improvements they introduced thereon
cannot be considered as reimbursable pursuant to Article 546. At
most, defendants can only be considered as mere usufructuaries of the
subject property.
6. Earnestly believing that the MCTC erred in deciding the case in the
plaintiff’s favor, the defendants-appellants are now seeking the reversal of
the said decision through this appeal.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Page 2 of 7
to construct their fmaily dwelling thereon. Because of this inviataion, the
Defendants-Appellants introduced necessary and useful improvements on
the disputed property, among which is the house their family is currently
living in.
10. On December 8, 2016, Plaintiff Kris Aquinon initiated the instant action
for unlawful detainer against the defendants-appellants. In their answer to
the complaint, the defendants-appellants did not entirely dispute the
plaintiff-appellee’s status as the widow of the disputed property’s registered
owner. They, however, contended that they may not be evicted from the
property unles the plaintiff-appellee complied with the provisions of Article
448 of the Civil Code providing the reights of a builder in good faith. They
argued that they have introduced necessary and useful improvements on the
property, their family home included, upon the invitation and express
consent of the registered owner. Hence, they should first be reimbursed of
the said expenses before eviction.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS
A.
The MCTC erred in declaring that the defendants-appellants merely
occupied and possessed the disputed property on the basis of mere
tolerance
B.
The MCTC erred in not considering the defendants-appellants buidlers in
good faith under Article 448 of the Civil Code, in total disregard of
the ruling of the Supreme Court in Spouses Macasaet v. Spouses
Macasaet, which involced identical facts and issues as those raised
in the present case.
C.
The defendants-appellants being builders in good faith, the MCTC erred
in ordering them to pay the plaintiff reasonable compensation for the
uses of the disputed property from the time of last demand upin
them on December 08, 2017.
Page 3 of 7
D.
Finally, the MCTC erred in awarding the plaintiff attorney’s fees despite
the utter lack of evidence showing bad fatih on the part of the
defendants-appellants.
DISCUSSION
A.
The defendants-appellants occupied and possessed the
disputed parcel of land not merely on the basis of tolerance on the
part of the late James Yap-Yap; they were invited by James Yap-
Yp to possess the same and all improvements introduced thereon
were done with the complete approval of the latter.
12. According to the MCTC, Article 448 of the Civil Code exclusively
applies to cases where the builder believes himself to be the owner of the
land or, at least to have a claim of title thereto. It supposedly does not apply
when the interest of the support of its position, the MCTC cited the ruling of
the Supreme Court in the case of Spouses Macasaet v. Spouses Macasaet.
13. In fact, in the same case of Spouses Macasaet v. Spouses Macaset, which
incidentally also involved builders who were invited by their relatives (their
parents to be exact) to construct their family residence on the latter’s land
the Supreme Court categorically declared Article 448 of the Civil Code to be
applicable. Again, relevant portions of the decision are reproduced below for
reference:
Page 4 of 7
to the improvements introduced by the petitoners. In
fact, because the children occupied the lots upon their
invitation, the parents certainly knew and approved of
the petitioners may be deemed to have been in good
faith when they built structures on those lots.”
14. The rule that Article 448 of the Civil Code may be applied to cses where
the builder introducd improvements on land which he knows to be belonging
to another if its shown that the said improvements were introduced upon the
owner’s invitation and consent has again been enunciated by the Supreme
Court in the later cases of Spouses Aquino v. Spouses Aguilar, where the
Court declared as follows:
16. It should be highlighted that like in the builders in the cases of Spouses
Macasaet v. Spouses Macasaet and Spouses Aquino v. Spouses Aguilar, the
defendants-appellants only introduced constructions on the land of James
Yap-Yap because the latter had invited them to do so. Furthermore, all their
constructions, their family dwelling included, were made with the
knowledge and express consent of James Yap-Yap.
Page 5 of 7
19. A builder in good faith, until the required indemnity under Article 448 of
the Civil Code has been paid in full, has the right to retain not only the
improvements he introduced, but also the land on which the said
improvements have been built. During this period, therefore, the land owner
has absolutely no right to demand from the builder in good faith the payment
of rental s for the occupation of his land.
20. Following the foregoing discussion, the MCTC’s award of attorney’s fee
to the plaintiff-appelle necessarily must likewise be deleted. The defendants-
appellant’s act of refusing to vacate the disputed property while they have
not yet been reimbursed of the necessary and useful expenses they have
introduced was not only done in good faith, but is atually supported and
sanctioned by existing law and jurisprudence.
21. Be that as it my, and even assuming that the defendants-appellants were
mistaken in their belief that they had the right to retain the disputed property,
the award of attorney’s fees is still improper as no evidence was presented
during trial to the effect that defendants-appellants actions were tainted with
bad faith.
RELIEF
Other relief just and equitable under the premises under the premises are
likewise prayed for.
Page 6 of 7
RACHEL GREEN-GELLER
Counsel for Defendants Spouses Cojuangco
Winterfell, Westeros
wewereonabreak@gmail.com
By:
RACHEL GREEN-GELLER
Roll of Attorneys No: 000
IBP Lifetime Member No: 000
PTR No. 000-ZZZ/ 12-08-22 Cotabato city
Copy furnished:
Page 7 of 7