Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
WON the Company is entitled to a materialmans lien
to be paid by Pacific Farms, Inc? ART. 448
HELD: YES. PNB V. DE JESUS
Therefore, applying article 447 by analogy, 411 SCRA 557
we perforce consider the buildings as the principal
and the lumber and construction materials that went FACTS:
into their construction as the accessory. Thus Pacific It would appear that on 10 June 1995,
Farms, if it does own the six buildings, must bear the respondent filed a complaint against petitioner before
obligation to pay for the value of the said materials; the Regional Trial Court of Occidental Mindoro for
the Company- which apparently has no desire to recovery of ownership and possession, with
remove the materials, and, even if it were minded to damages, over the questioned property. In his
do so, cannot remove them without necessarily complaint, respondent stated that he had acquired a
damaging the buildings has the corresponding right parcel of land situated in Mamburao, Occidental
to recover the value of the unpaid lumber and Mindoro, with an area of 1,144 square meters
construction materials. covered by TCT No. T-17197, and that on 26 March
Of course, the character of a buyer in good 1993, he had caused a verification survey of the
faith and for value, if really possessed by the Pacific property and discovered that the northern portion of
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS
the lot was being encroached upon by a building of The private respondents then introduced
petitioner to the extent of 124 square meters. additional improvements and registered the house in
Despite two letters of demand sent by respondent, their names. After the expiration of the lease
petitioner failed and refused to vacate the area. contract, however, the petitioners' mother refused to
Petitioner, in its answer, asserted that when accept the monthly rentals.
it acquired the lot and the building sometime in 1981 It turned out that the lot in question was the
from then Mayor Bienvenido Ignacio, the subject of a suit, which resulted in its acquisition by
encroachment already was in existence and to one Maria Lee in 1972. Lee sold the lot to Lily
remedy the situation, Mayor Ignacio offered to sell Salcedo, who in turn sold it to the spouses Dionisio.
the area in question (which then also belonged to Spouses Dionisio executed a Deed of Quitclaim over
Ignacio) to petitioner at P100.00 per square meter the said property in favor of the petitioners.
which offer the latter claimed to have accepted. The The petitioners sent a letter addressed to
sale, however, did not materialize when, without the private respondent Mary Nicolas demanding that she
knowledge and consent of petitioner, Mayor Ignacio vacate the premises and pay the rentals in arrears
later mortgaged the lot to the Development Bank of within twenty days from notice.
the Philippines. He also contends that he is a builder Upon failure of the private respondents to
in good faith. heed the demand, the petitioners filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer and damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not being a builder in good faith matters ISSUE: WON Art. 448 is applicable to this case.
under article 448.
HELD: NO.
HELD: The private respondents claim they are
Article 448, of the Civil Code refers to a builders in good faith, hence, Article 448 of the Civil
piece of land whose ownership is claimed by two or Code should apply. They rely on the lack of title of
more parties, one of whom has built some works (or the petitioners' mother at the time of the execution of
sown or planted something) and not to a case where the contract of lease, as well as the alleged
the owner of the land is the builder, sower, or planter assurance made by the petitioners that the lot on
who then later loses ownership of the land by sale or which the house stood would be sold to them.
otherwise for, elsewise stated, where the true owner But being mere lessees, the private respondents
himself is the builder of works on his own land, the knew that their occupation of the premises would
issue of good faith or bad faith is entirely irrelevant. continue only for the life of the lease. Plainly, they
cannot be considered as possessors nor builders in
good faith.
G.R. NO. 120303. JULY 24, 1996 Article 448 of the Civil Code, in relation to
GEMINIANO, ET. AL. VS. COURT Article 546 of the same Code, which allows full
reimbursement of useful improvements and retention
OF APPEALS of the premises until reimbursement is made, applies
only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds
FACTS: on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof. It
It appears that subject lot was originally does not apply where one's only interest is that of a
owned by the petitioners' mother, Paulina Amado lessee under a rental contract; otherwise, it would
vda. de Geminiano. On a 12-square-meter portion of always be in the power of the tenant to "improve" his
that lot stood the petitioners' unfinished bungalow, landlord out of his property.
which the petitioners sold to the private respondents, And even if the petitioners indeed promised
with an alleged promise to sell to the latter that to sell, it would not make the private respondents
portion of the lot occupied by the house. possessors or builders in good faith so as to be
Subsequently, the petitioners' mother executed a covered by the provisions of Article 448 of the Civil
contract of lease over a 126 square-meter portion of Code. The latter cannot raise the mere expectancy
the lot, including that portion on which the house of ownership of the aforementioned lot because the
stood, in favor of the private respondents for P40.00 alleged promise to sell was not fulfilled nor its
per month for a period of 7 years. existence even proven.
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS
The Church despite knowledge that its when they applied for a writ of execution despite
intended contract of sale with the NHA had not been knowledge that the auction sale did not include the
perfected proceeded to introduce improvements on apartment building, they could not benefit from the
the land. On the other hand, NHA knowingly granted
lots improvement, until they reimbursed the improver
the Church temporary use of the subject properties
and did not prevent the Church from making in full, based on the current market value of the
improvements thereon. Thus the Church and NHA, property.
who both acted in bad faith shall be treated as if they Under Article 448, the landowner is given
were both in good faith. In this connection Art 448 the option, either to appropriate the improvement as
provides: the owner of the land in which anything his own upon payment of the proper amount of
has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall indemnity or to sell the land to the possessor in good
have the right to appropriate as his own the works,
faith. Relatedly, Article 546 provides that a builder in
sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity
provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the good faith is entitled to full reimbursement for all the
one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, necessary and useful expenses incurred; it also gives
and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, him right of retention until full reimbursement is
the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the made.
land and if its value is considerably more than that of The right of retention is considered as one
the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay of the measures devised by the law for the protection
reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not
of builders in good faith. Its object is to guarantee full
choose to appropriate the building or trees after
proper indemnity. The parties shall agree, on case of and prompt reimbursement as it permits the actual
disagreement, court shall fix. possessor to remain in possession while he has not
been reimbursed (by the person who defeated him in
the case for possession of the property) for those
G.R. NO. 151815. FEBRUARY 23, 2005 necessary expenses and useful improvements made
SPOUSES JUAN NUGUID AND ERLINDA T. by him on the thing possessed.
NUGUID VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND Given the circumstances of the instant case
PEDRO P. PECSON where the builder in good faith has been clearly
denied his right of retention for almost half a decade,
FACTS: we find that the increased award of rentals by the
Pedro P. Pecson owned a commercial lot on RTC was reasonable and equitable. The petitioners
which he built a four-door two-storey apartment had reaped all the benefits from the improvement
building. For failure to pay realty taxes, the lot was introduced by the respondent during said period,
sold at public auction by the City Treasurer to without paying any amount to the latter as
Mamerto Nepomuceno, who in turn sold it for reimbursement for his construction costs and
P103,000 to the spouses Juan and Erlinda Nuguid. expenses. They should account and pay for such
Pecson challenged the validity of the auction benefits.
sale before the RTC of Quezon City, the RTC upheld
the spouses title but declared that the four-door two- G.R. NO. 157605. DECEMBER 13, 2005
storey apartment building was not included in the SPS. RASDAS, ET. AL. VS. ESTENOR, ET. AL.
auction sale. This was affirmed by the CA and by the
SC. FACTS:
The Nuguids became the uncontested The dispute centers on a parcel of land with
owners of commercial lot. The Nuguid spouses an situated in Ilagan, Isabela. Respondent filed a
moved for delivery of possession of the lot and the Complaint For Recovery Of Ownership And
apartment building. Possession With Damages against. The complaint
was docketed and tried by the RTC of Ilagan. In the
ISSUE: same complaint, respondent asserted that he was the
WON the Nuguids should reimburse Pecson for the owner of the subject property, which was then in the
benefits derived from the apartment building. possession of petitioners. The RTC decided in favor
of petitioners. The CA reversed the judgment of the
HELD: YES. RTC and declared respondent as the owner of the
Since petitioners opted to appropriate the subject property. Thereafter, a Writ of Execution and
improvement for themselves as early as June 1993, Writ of Demolition was issued against petitioners,
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS
who were ordered to demolish their houses, property immediately after the execution of
structures, and improvements on the property. Agreement to Buy and Sell.
Petitioners alleged that they were entitled to Lauro Leviste (Lauro), a stockholder and
just compensation relating to the value of the houses member of the Board of Directors of El Dorado,
they had built on the property, owing to their through his counsel, Atty. Benjamin Aquino, called
purported status as builders in good faith. They the attention of the Board to Carrascosos failure to
claimed that the CA decision did not declare them as pay the balance of the purchase price of the property.
builders in bad faith, and thus, they were entitled to He wants a rescission of the sale made by the El
be reimbursed of the value of their houses before Dorado Plantation, Inc. to Mr. Carrascoso.
these could be demolished. They posited that without
such reimbursement, they could not be ejected from ISSUE: WON PLDT is in good faith when it built its
their houses. improvements on the subject land.
ISSUE: HELD:
WON petitioners are in good faith. In the case at bar, it is undisputed that PLDT
commenced construction of improvements on the
HELD: NO. 1,000 hectare portion of the property immediately
The father of the petitioners (and their after the execution of the July 11, 1975 Agreement to
predecessor-in-interest) had already known that he Buy and Sell with the full consent of Carrascoso.
did not own the property, and that his stay therein Thus, until March 15, 1977 when the Notice of Lis
was merely out of tolerance. Such conclusion in fact Pendens was annotated on Carrascosos TCT No. T-
bolstered the eventual conclusion that respondents 6055, PLDT is deemed to have been in good faith in
were the owners of the land and that petitioners introducing improvements on the 1,000 hectare
should vacate the same. portion of the property. After March 15, 1977,
These premises remaining as they are, it is however, PLDT could no longer invoke the rights of a
clear that petitioners are not entitled to the just builder in good faith.
compensation they seek through the present Should El Dorado then opt to appropriate
complaint. Under Article 448 of the Civil Code, the the improvements made by PLDT on the 1,000
builder in bad faith on the land of another loses what hectare portion of the property, it should only be
is built without right to indemnity. Petitioners were in made to pay for those improvements at the time good
bad faith when they built the structures as they had faith existed on the part of PLDT or until March 15,
known that the subject property did not belong to 1977, to be pegged at its current fair market value.
them. The commencement of PLDTs payment of
reasonable rent should start on March 15, 1977 as
G.R. NO. 123672. DECEMBER 14, 2005 well, to be paid until such time that the possession of
FERNANDO CARRASCOSO, JR. VS. COURT OF the 1,000 hectare portion is delivered to El Dorado,
APPEALS, LAURO LEVISTE subject to the reimbursement of expenses as
aforestated, that is, if El Dorado opts to appropriate
FACTS: the improvements.
El Dorado Plantation, Inc. (El Dorado) was If El Dorado opts for compulsory sale,
the registered owner of a land situated in Sablayan, however, the payment of rent should continue up to
Occidental Mindoro. At a special meeting of El the actual transfer of ownership.
Dorados Board of Directors, a Resolution was
passed authorizing Feliciano Leviste, then President
of El Dorado, to negotiate the sale of the property G.R. NO. 144635 JUNE 26, 2006
and sign all documents and contracts bearing PROGRAMME INCORPORATED, V. PROVINCE
thereof. Through a Deed of Sale of Real Property, El OF BATAAN
Dorado, through Feliciano Leviste, sold the property
to Carrascoso, Jr. FACTS:
PLDT commenced construction of BASECO is the owner of Piazza Hotel and
improvements on the 1,000 hectare portion of the Mariveles Lodge, both located in Mariveles, Bataan.
In 1986, BASECO granted petitioner a
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS
contract of lease over Piazza Hotel at a monthly There was no evidence that petitioner was the one
rental of P6,500 for three years, subject to renewal by which spent for the construction or renovation of the
mutual agreement of the parties. After the expiration property. And since petitioners alleged expenditures
of the three-year lease period, petitioner was allowed were never proven, it could not even seek
to continue operating the hotel on monthly extensions reimbursement of one-half of the value of the
of the lease. improvements upon termination of the lease under
In 1989, however, the Presidential Article 1678 of the Civil Code.
Commission on Good Government (PCGG) issued a
sequestration order against BASECO pursuant to
Executive Order No. 1 of former President Corazon G.R. NO. L-26694 DECEMBER 18, 1973
C. Aquino. Among the properties provisionally seized NELITA MORENO VDA. DE BACALING V HECTOR
and taken over was the lot on which Piazza Hotel LAGUNA
stood.
On July, 1989, however, Piazza Hotel was FACTS:
sold at a public auction for non-payment of taxes to Hector Laguda is the registered owner of a
respondent Province of Bataan. The title of the residential land situated at La Paz, Iloilo City. Many
property was transferred to respondent. BASECOs years back, petitioner and her late husband, Dr.
Transfer Certificate of Title was cancelled and a new Ramon Bacaling, with the acquiescence of private
one, was issued to the Province of Bataan. respondent Laguda, constructed a residential house
The trial court rendered judgment in favor of on a portion of said lot fronting Huevana Street, paying
respondent. a monthly rental of P80.00. Unable to pay the lease
CA affirmed the trial courts ruling. rental from July 1959 to September 1961, totalling
P2,160.00, an action for ejectment was filed by private
ISSUE: respondent Laguda against petitioner in her capacity
WON the petitioner is a possessor in good as judicial administratrix of the estate of her late
faith of the Piazza Hotel and Mariveles Lodge husband, Dr. Bacaling. The filing of said case
spawned various court suits.
HELD: Petitioner suffered a series of legal reverses
The benefits granted to a possessor in and ended up with a compromise agreement with the
good faith cannot be maintained by the lessee respondent. Trial court approved the amicable
against the lessor because, such benefits are settlement however the petitioner failed to comply with
intended to apply only to a case where one builds or the terms.
sows or plants on land which he believes himself to
have a claim of title and not to lands wherein ones ISSUE:
only interest is that of a tenant under a rental WON petitioner is a builder in good faith and,
contract, otherwise, it would always be in the power therefore, entitled to reimbursement, and/or
of a tenant to improve his landlord out of his reasonable expenses that may be incurred in
property. Besides, as between lessor and lessee, the transferring the house to another place
Code applies specific provisions designed to cover
their rights. HELD:
Hence, the lessee cannot claim Petitioner's contention that she be
reimbursement, as a matter of right, for useful considered a builder in good faith and, therefore,
improvements he has made on the property, nor can entitled to reimbursement in addition to reasonable
he assert a right of retention until reimbursed. His expenses that may be incurred in transferring the
only remedy is to remove the improvement if the house to another place, the same cannot stand legal
lessor does not choose to pay its value; but the court scrutiny. The rule is well-settled that lessees, like
cannot give him the right to buy the land. petitioner, are not possessors in good faith, because
Petitioners assertion that Piazza Hotel was they knew that their occupancy of the premises
constructed "at (its) expense" found no support in the continues only during the life of the lease, and they
records. Neither did any document or testimony cannot as a matter of right, recover the value of their
prove this claim. At best, what was confirmed was improvements from the lessor, much less retain the
that petitioner managed and operated the hotel.
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS
premises until they are reimbursed. Their rights are Under the foregoing provision (Art 448), the
governed by Article 1678 of the Civil Code which landowner can choose between appropriating the
allows reimbursement of lessees up to one-half of the building by paying the proper indemnity or obliging the
value of their improvements if the lessor so elects. builder to pay the price of the land, unless its value is
considerably more than that of the structures, in which
case the builder in good faith shall pay reasonable
G.R. NO.157044. OCTOBER 5, 2005 rent.[34] If the parties cannot come to terms over the
ROSALES VS. CASTELLFORT conditions of the lease, the court must fix the terms
thereof.
FACTS: The choice belongs to the owner of the land,
Spouses-petitioners Rodolfo V. Rosales and a rule that accords with the principle of accession, i.e.,
Lily Rosqueta-Rosales (petitioners) are the registered that the accessory follows the principal and not the
owners of a parcel of land with an area of other way around. Even as the option lies with the
approximately 315 square meters, covered by landowner, the grant to him, nevertheless, is
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 36856[4] and preclusive. The landowner cannot refuse to exercise
designated as Lot 17, Block 1 of Subdivision Plan LRC either option and compel instead the owner of the
Psd-55244 situated in Los Baos, Laguna. building to remove it from the land.
On August 16, 1995, petitioners discovered The raison detre for this provision has been
that a house was being constructed on their lot, enunciated thus:
without their knowledge and consent, by respondent Where the builder, planter or sower has
Miguel Castelltort (Castelltort). acted in good faith, a conflict of rights arises
It turned out that respondents Castelltort between the owners, and it becomes
and his wife Judith had purchased a lot, Lot 16 of the necessary to protect the owner of the
same Subdivision Plan, from respondent Lina Lopez- improvements without causing injustice to
Villegas (Lina) through her son-attorney-in-fact Rene the owner of the land. In view of the
Villegas (Villegas) but that after a survey thereof by impracticability of creating a state of forced
geodetic engineer Augusto Rivera, he pointed to Lot co-ownership, the law has provided a just
17 as the Lot 16 the Castelltorts purchased. solution by giving the owner of the land the
option to acquire the improvements after
Negotiations for the settlement of the case thus began, payment of the proper indemnity, or to oblige
with Villegas offering a larger lot near petitioners lot in the builder or planter to pay for the land and
the same subdivision as a replacement thereof. In the the sower the proper rent. He cannot refuse
alternative, Villegas proposed to pay the purchase to exercise either option. It is the owner of
price of petitioners lot with legal interest. Both the land who is authorized to exercise the
proposals were, however, rejected by petitioners option, because his right is older, and
whose counsel, by letter of August 24, 1995, directed because, by the principle of accession, he is
Castelltort to stop the construction of and demolish his entitled to the ownership of the accessory
house and any other structure he may have built thing.
thereon, and desist from entering the lot.
Petitioners subsequently filed on September
1, 1995 a complaint for recovery of possession and G.R. NO. 170923 JANUARY 20, 2009
damages with prayer for the issuance of a restraining SULO SA NAYON, INC. VS NAYONG PILIPINO
order and preliminary injunction against spouses- FOUNDATION
respondents Miguel and Judith Castelltort before the
RTC of Calamba, Laguna, docketed as Civil Case No. FACTS:
2229-95-C. In 1975, respondent leased a portion of the
Nayong Pilipino Complex, to petitioner Sulo sa
ISSUE: Nayon, Inc. for the construction and operation of a
Under Art 448, who has the right of option? hotel building, to be known as the Philippine Village
Hotel. The lease was for an initial period of 21 years,
HELD: or until May 1996. It is renewable for a period of 25
years under the same terms and conditions upon due
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS
notice in writing to respondent of the intention to Article 1678 of the Civil Code.
renew.
In 1995, petitioners sent respondent a letter
notifying the latter of their intention to renew the 96 SCRA 130 February 21, 1980
contract for another. July of the same year, parties FLOREZA v EVANGELISTA
agreed to the renewal of the contract for another 25
years, or until 2021. Under the new agreement, FACTS:
petitioner PVHI was bound to pay the monthly rentals The Evangelistas were the owner of a
Beginning January 2001, petitioners residential lot in Rizal with an area of 204.08 sq. m.
defaulted in the payment of their monthly rental. assessed at P410. They borrowed P100 from
Respondent repeatedly demanded petitioners to pay Floreza. Floreza occupied the residential lot and built
the arrears and vacate the premises. a house of light material (barong-barong) with the
MeTC rendered its decision in favor of consent of the Evangelistas. Additional Loans were
respondent made by the Evangelistas.
RTC which modified the ruling of the MeTC. Floreza demolished the house of light
CA which held that the RTC erroneously material and constructed one of strong material
applied the rules on accession, as found in Articles assessed. Floreza has not been paying any rentals
448 and 546 of the Civil Code since the beginning of their transactions. Eventually,
Evangelistas sold, with a right to repurchase within 6
ISSUE: years, their land to Floreza. Seven months before
WON Sulo sa Nayon as builders have acted the expiry of the repurchase period, the Evangelistas
in good faith in order for Art. 448 in relation to Art. were able to pay in full. Floreza refused to vacate the
546 of the Civil Code may apply with respect to their lot unless he was first reimbursed for the value of the
rights over improvements. house he built
Evangelistas filed a complaint. CFI ruled
HELD: based on Art, 448 of the Civil Code saying that
Article 448 is manifestly intended to apply Evangelistas have the choice between purchasing
only to a case where one builds, plants, or sows on the house or selling the land to Floreza. CA ruled
land in which he believes himself to have a claim of that Art. 448 was inapplicable and that Floreza was
title, and not to lands where the only interest of the not entiled to the reimbursement of his house and
builder, planter or sower is that of a holder, such as a could remove the same at his own expense.
tenant.
In the case at bar, petitioners have no ISSUE:
adverse claim or title to the land. In fact, as lessees, 1. WON Floreza was entitled to reimbursement of the
they recognize that the respondent is the owner of cost of his house.
the land. What petitioners insist is that because of the 2. WON he (his heirs who replaced him) should pay
improvements, which are of substantial value, that rental of the land.
they have introduced on the leased premises with the
permission of respondent, they should be considered HELD:
builders in good faith who have the right to retain 1. NO.
possession of the property until reimbursement by Issue of reimbursement is not moot because if
respondent. Floreza has no right of retention, then he must pay
We affirm the ruling of the CA that damages in the form of rentals. Agree with CA that
introduction of valuable improvements on the leased Art. 448 is inapplicable because it applies only when
premises does not give the petitioners the right of the builder is in good faith (he believed he had a right
retention and reimbursement which rightfully belongs to build). Art. 453 is also not applicable because it
to a builder in good faith. Otherwise, such a situation requires both of the parties to be in bad faith. Neither
would allow the lessee to easily "improve" the lessor is Art. 1616 applicable because Floreza is not a
out of its property. We reiterate the doctrine that a vendee a retro. The house was already constructed
lessee is neither a builder in good faith nor in bad in 1945 (light materials) even before the pacto de
faith that would call for the application of Articles 448 retro was entered into in 1949. Floreza cannot be
and 546 of the Civil Code. His rights are governed by classified as a builder in good faith nor a vendee a
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS
retro, who made useful improvements during the amicable settlement. On June 25, 1999, the
pacto de retro, he has no right to reimbursement of barangay chairman issued a Certification to File
the value of the house, much less to the retention of Action.
the premises until he is paid. In his answer to the complaint, petitioner
His rights are more akin to a usufructury claimed that sometime in 1968, respondents allowed
under Art. 579, who may make on the property useful him to build his house on the lot, provided he would
improvements but with no right to be indemnified guard the premises to prevent landgrabbers and
thereof, He may, however, remove such squatters from occupying the area. In 1995, when
improvements should it be possible to do so without respondents visited this country, they agreed verbally
damage to the property. to sell the portion on which his house was
constructed. A year later, he made an offer to buy
2. YES. the 60 square meter portion occupied by him and to
From the time the redemption price was paid in spend for its survey. But what respondents wanted
January 3, 1955, Florezas right to use the residential to sell was the whole area containing 251 square
lot without rent ceased. He should be held liable for meters. He then informed them that he would first
damages in the form of rentals for the continued use consult his children and they said they will wait.
of the lot for P10 monthly from January 3, 1955 until Instead, they filed the instant complaint.
the house was removed and the property vacated by
Floreza or his heirs. Judgment affirmed with ISSUE:
modification. 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
DEL ROSARIO V. SPS. MANUEL (Similar to the previous article)
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B
PROPERTY CASE DIGESTS
Digested and compiled by Chami, Daisy, James, Moneh, and Relie UST
LAW 2B