Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
587
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ea9ae6c602a9f8f2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
1/8
9/2/2016
Inc. v. Phil. Eastern Trading Co., Inc., 98 Phil. 348) and that he be
unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any
flaw which invalidates it. (Art. 526, Civil Code; Granados v.
Monton, 86 Phil. 42; Arriola v. Gomez de la Serna, 14 Phil. 627;
See also Manotok Realty, Inc. v. C.A., 134 SCRA 329, citing
Caram v. Laureta, 103 SCRA 7) It is such a builder in good faith
who is given the right to retain the thing, even
_______________
*
THIRD DIVISION.
588
588
as against the real owner, until he has been reimbursed in full not
only for the necessary expenses but also for useful expenses. (Art.
546, Civil Code; Policarpio v. CA., 129 SCRA 51; Sarmiento v.
Agana, 129 SCRA 122; cf, Queto v. C.A. 122 SCRA 206) xxx
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Good faith of private
respondent ceased after the filing of the complaint below.
Furthermore, the private respondents good faith ceased after the
filing of the complaint below by the petitioner. x x x Thus, the
repairs and improvements introduced by the said respondents
after the complaint was filed cannot be considered to have been
built in good faith, much less, justify the denial of the petitioners
exercise of option.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Where the improvements
have been gutted by fire, the basis for private respondents right to
retain the premises has already been extinguished without
petitioners fault.Since the improvements have been gutted by
fire, and therefore, the basis for private respondents right to
retain the premises has already been extinguished without the
fault of the petitioner, there is no other recourse for the private
respondent but to vacate the premises and deliver the same to
herein petitioner.
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ea9ae6c602a9f8f2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
2/8
9/2/2016
589
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ea9ae6c602a9f8f2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
3/8
9/2/2016
590
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ea9ae6c602a9f8f2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
4/8
9/2/2016
591
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ea9ae6c602a9f8f2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
5/8
9/2/2016
592
they are not applicable to plaintiffs case. Under Article 448, the
right to appropriate the works or improvements or to oblige the
one who built or planted to pay the price of the land belongs to
the owner of the land. The only right given to the builder in good
faith is the right to reimbursement for the improvements; the
builder, cannot compel the owner of the land to sell such land to
the former. x x x
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ea9ae6c602a9f8f2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
6/8
9/2/2016
we said:
x x x To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a
person assert title to the land on which he builds; i.e., that he be a
possessor in concept of owner, (Art. 525, Civil Code; Lopez, Inc. v.
Phil. Eastern Trading Co., Inc., 98 Phil. 348) and that he be
unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any
flaw which invalidates it. (Art. 526, Civil Code; Granados v.
Monton, 86 Phil. 42; Arriola v. Gomez de la Serna, 14 Phil. 627;
See also Manotok Realty, Inc. v. CA, 134 SCRA 329, citing Caram
v. Laureta, 103 SCRA 7) It is such a builder in good faith who is
given the right to retain the thing, even as against the real owner,
until he has been reimbursed in full not only for the necessary
expenses but also for useful expenses. (Art. 546, Civil Code;
Policarpio v. CA., 129 SCRA 51; Sarmiento v. Agana, 129 SCRA
122; cf, Queto v. C.A., 122 SCRA 206) x x x
593
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ea9ae6c602a9f8f2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
7/8
9/2/2016
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000156ea9ae6c602a9f8f2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
8/8