FACTS: Spouses
Padilla bought a parcel of land in Magsaysay Norte, Cabanatuan City in
1984.
Sometime in 1998, Spouses Padilla discovered that Leopoldo
Malicsi, Lito Casino, and Agrifino Guanes (Malicsi, et al.) constructed houses
on their lot.
Spouses Padilla made repeated verbal and written demands
for Malicsi, et al. to vacate the premises and pay monthly rentals, but
Malicsi, et al. refused to heed Spouses Padilla's demands.
On August 6, 2007, Spouses Padilla filed a complaint for
recovery of possession against Malicsi, et al., along with three (3) others:
Larry Marcelo, Diosdado dela Cruz, and Rolando Pascua.
Malicsi, et al. alleged that they believed in all honesty
and good faith that the lot belonged to Toribia Vda. De Mossessgeld (De
Mossessgeld). They claimed that they possessed the land and built their houses
on the lot only after receiving De Mossessgeld's permission.
ISSUE: Whether
or not respondents are builders in good faith.
HELD:
Undoubtedly, [Malicsi, et al.] cannot claim that they were builders in good
faith because they relied on the promise of De Mossessgeld who will sell the
same to them but such allegations are contrary to the actual circumstances
obtaining in this case.
As builders in bad faith, respondents have no right to
recover their expenses over the improvements they have introduced to
petitioners' lot under Article 449 of the Civil Code, which provides: Article
449. 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. Under Article 452 of
the Civil Code, a builder in bad faith is entitled to recoup the necessary
expenses incurred for the preservation of the land. However, respondents
neither alleged nor presented evidence to show that they introduced
improvements for the preservation of the land. Therefore, petitioners as
landowners became the owners of the improvements on the lot, including the residential
buildings constructed by respondents, if they chose to appropriate the
accessions. However, they could instead choose the demolition of the
improvements at respondents' expense or compel respondents to pay the price of
the land under Article 450 of the Civil Code. Considering that petitioners pray
for the reinstatement of the Regional Trial Court Decision ordering respondents
to vacate the lot and surrender its possession to them, petitioners are deemed
to have chosen to appropriate the improvements built on their lot without any
obligation to pay indemnity to respondents.
Comments
Post a Comment