Macasaet vs Macasaet G.R.

renovation of their parents

154391 92 September 30, 2004 house.
4. The parents filed an
ejectment suit against their
Facts: children for failure to pay the
agreed rental despite
1. Involved in this case are 1st repeated demands.
degree relatives, where Ismael 5. The MTCC ruled in favor of the
(children) is the son of the parents and ordered the
respondents. The parents children to vacate the
alleged that they were the premises. It opined that the
owners of two (2) parcels of children had occupied the
situated in Banay-banay, Lipa lots, not by virtue of a verbal
City; that by way of a verbal lease agreement but by
lease agreement, their son tolerance of the parents. As
and his wife occupied these their stay was by mere
lots in March 1992 and used tolerance, the children were
them as their residence and necessarily bound by an
the situs of their construction implied promise to vacate the
business. lots upon demand.
2. Ismael and Teresita denied the 6. The MTCC dismissed their
existence of any verbal lease contention that one lot had
agreement and that their been allotted as an advance
parents had invited them to inheritance, on the ground
construct their residence and that successional rights were
business on the subject lots. inchoate. It disbelieved that
They added that it was the other parcel had been
allotted as an advance grant given as payment for
of inheritance. construction material.
3. Thus, they contended that the 7. On appeal, the RTC upheld
1st lot had been given to the findings of the MTCC. RTC
Ismael as an advance allowed the parents to
inheritance. On the other appropriate the building and
hand, the 2nd lot was allegedly other improvements
given to petitioners as introduced by the children,
payment for construction after payment by indemnity
materials used in the provided for by Article 448 in
 relation to Article 546 and 548
of the Civil Code.
8. On an appeal the CA
sustained the finding of the
lower courts. Thus, possession
of the subject lots by the
children became illegal upon
their receipt of letter to vacate
it. The CA modified the RTC
Decision by declaring that
Article 448 of the Civil Code
was inapplicable. The CA
opined that under Article 1678
of the same Code, the
children had the right to be
reimbursed for one half of the
value of the improvements
made.
9. Not satisfied with the CAs
ruling, the children brought the
case to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
1. W/N the children can be
ejected
2. W/N Article 1678 of the Civil
Code should apply to the
case on the matters of
improvements.
HELD
1. Yes. Based on the parents love
reasons for gratuitously allowing the
children to use the lots, it can be
safely concluded that the
agreement subsisted as long as the
parents and the children benefitted
from the arrangement. Effectively,
there is a resolutory condition existing
between the parties occurs like a
change of ownership, necessity,
death of either party or unresolved
conflict or animosity the
agreement maybe deemed
terminated. When persistent conflict
and animosity overtook the love and
solidarity between the parents and
the children, the purpose of the
agreement ceased. The children
had any cause for continued
possession of the lots. Their right to
use became untenable. It ceased
upon their receipt of the notice to
vacate. And because they refused
to heed the demand, ejectment
was the proper remedy against
them.
The children had no right to
retain possession. The right of the
children to inherit from their parents
is merely inchoate and is vested only
upon the latters demise. Rights of
succession are transmitted only from
the moment of death of the
decedent. Assuming that there was
an allotment of inheritance,
ownership nonetheless remained
with the parents.
 The childrens allegation that
the indebtness of their parent to
them has been paid through
dation cannot be given credence
as there were no sufficient proof of a
settlement or contract of dation to
settle the alleged debt, and is
inconsistent of the separate action
by the children to recover the same
debt.

As a rule, the right of ownership

carries with it the right of possession.

2. No. As applied to the present

case, accession refers to the right of
owner to everything that is
incorporated or attached to the
property. Accession industrial
building, planting and sowing on an
immovable is governed by Articles
445 to 456 of the Civil Code.

As the court found that the

children possession of the two lots
was not by mere tolerance, the
applicable rule would be Article 448.
This article has been applied to
cases wherein a builder had
constructed improvements with the
consent of the owner.