Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
ART. 448
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
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
ISSUE:
WON petitioners are in good faith.
HELD:
HELD: NO.
The father of the petitioners (and their
predecessor-in-interest) had already known that he
did not own the property, and that his stay therein
was merely out of tolerance. Such conclusion in fact
bolstered the eventual conclusion that respondents
were the owners of the land and that petitioners
should vacate the same.
These premises remaining as they are, it is
clear that petitioners are not entitled to the just
compensation they seek through the present
complaint. Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the
builder in bad faith on the land of another loses what
is built without right to indemnity. Petitioners were in
bad faith when they built the structures as they had
known that the subject property did not belong to
them.
G.R. NO. 123672. DECEMBER 14, 2005
FERNANDO CARRASCOSO, JR. VS. COURT OF
APPEALS, LAURO LEVISTE
FACTS:
El Dorado Plantation, Inc. (El Dorado) was
the registered owner of a land situated in Sablayan,
Occidental Mindoro. At a special meeting of El
Dorados Board of Directors, a Resolution was
passed authorizing Feliciano Leviste, then President
of El Dorado, to negotiate the sale of the property
and sign all documents and contracts bearing
thereof. Through a Deed of Sale of Real Property, El
Dorado, through Feliciano Leviste, sold the property
to Carrascoso, Jr.
PLDT
commenced
construction
of
improvements on the 1,000 hectare portion of the
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
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
mere tolerance, he is aware that his occupation
of the same may be terminated by respondents
any time.
ART. 449
SPS. RASDAS VS. ESTENOR
(Similar to the previous article)
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
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:
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
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
that Jose Castillo, whom he bought the property did
not own the land. When Roa constructed a
substantial building on the property in question after
he acquired the property from Castillo, the
Municipality did not oppose the construction.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the municipality owns the land.
HELD:
Yes. The defendant was not a purchaser in
good faith. The plaintiff, having permitted the erection
by the defendant of a building on the land without
objection, acted in bad faith. The rights of the parties
must, therefore, be determined as if they both had
acted in good faith. To the case are applicable those
provisions of the Civil Code which relate to the
construction by one person of a building upon land
belonging to another. Article 364 (now Art.453) of the
Civil Code is as follows: "When there has been bad
faith, not only on the part of the person who built,
sowed, or planted on another's land, but also on the
part of the owner of the latter, the rights of both shall
be the same as if they had acted in good faith. The
Supreme declared that the Municipality is the owner
of the land and that it has the option of buying the
building thereon, which is the property of the
defendant, or of selling to him the land on which it
stands.
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:
Whether or not Art. 458 is applicable.
Whether or not the property in question belongs to
the public domain as a part of the bed of Laguna de
Bay.
HELD:
No. Article 367 (now Art.458) provides that the
owners of estates bordering on ponds or lagoons, do
not acquire the land left dry by the natural decrease
of the waters, nor lose those inundated by them in
extraordinary floods. The provision refers to ponds
and lagoons, and has therefore no application to the
present case, which refers to a lake, a lagoon being
legally distinct in character from a lake. Instead,
Art.77 of the Spanish Law of Waters should apply,
which provides: Lands accidentally inundated by the
waters of lakes, or by creeks, rivers or other streams
shall continue to be the property of their respective
owners. Therefore, they must belong to Colegio de
San Jose as part of Hacienda de San Pedro
Tunasan, which was originally owned by it.
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B