Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 186 views

    Aquino V Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Riguerra
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a property dispute. The property owners, the Spouses Aquino, allowed their relatives, the Spouses Aguilar, to occupy the property. While living there, the Spouses Aguilar demolished the existing house and built a new three-story building, occupying the third floor for 20 years without paying rent. When the Spouses Aquino demanded they vacate the property, the Spouses Aguilar claimed they were entitled to reimbursement for improving the property. The court ruled that as builders in bad faith, having been warned not to construct anything, the Spouses Aguilar were not entitled to reimbursement but only to recover necessary expenses to preserve the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Aquino V Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Riguerra
    186 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a property dispute. The property owners, the Spouses Aquino, allowed their relatives, the Spouses Aguilar, to occupy the property. While living there, the Spouses Aguilar demolished the existing house and built a new three-story building, occupying the third floor for 20 years without paying rent. When the Spouses Aquino demanded they vacate the property, the Spouses Aguilar claimed they were entitled to reimbursement for improving the property. The court ruled that as builders in bad faith, having been warned not to construct anything, the Spouses Aguilar were not entitled to reimbursement but only to recover necessary expenses to preserve the land.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Aquino v Aguilar

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes a court case regarding a property dispute. The property owners, the Spouses Aquino, allowed their relatives, the Spouses Aguilar, to occupy the property. While living there, the Spouses Aguilar demolished the existing house and built a new three-story building, occupying the third floor for 20 years without paying rent. When the Spouses Aquino demanded they vacate the property, the Spouses Aguilar claimed they were entitled to reimbursement for improving the property. The court ruled that as builders in bad faith, having been warned not to construct anything, the Spouses Aguilar were not entitled to reimbursement but only to recover necessary expenses to preserve the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    186 views2 pages

    Aquino V Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    Paolo Riguerra
    This document summarizes a court case regarding a property dispute. The property owners, the Spouses Aquino, allowed their relatives, the Spouses Aguilar, to occupy the property. While living there, the Spouses Aguilar demolished the existing house and built a new three-story building, occupying the third floor for 20 years without paying rent. When the Spouses Aquino demanded they vacate the property, the Spouses Aguilar claimed they were entitled to reimbursement for improving the property. The court ruled that as builders in bad faith, having been warned not to construct anything, the Spouses Aguilar were not entitled to reimbursement but only to recover necessary expenses to preserve the land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    NAME: PAOLO MIGUEL RIGUERRA

    SHORT TITLE: Aquino v Aguilar


    Doctrine: Builder in bad faith has no right of reimbursement.
    STATEMENT OF FACTS:

    Spouses Aquino are the owners of a house and lot located at Makati City
    as evidenced by Transfer of Certificate. The subject property is being occupied
    by Teresa Aquino’s sister Josefina Aguilar, her husband and their family.
    Spouses Aguilar stayed on the property with the consent and approval of the
    Spouses Aquino who were residing in the United States. While respondents
    were in possession of the property, the house previously constructed therein
    was demolished, and a three (3) storey building built in its place. The
    respondents occupied half of the third floor of the building for the new 20
    years without payment of rental.
    Petitioners sent a letter to respondents informing them that an
    immediate family needed to use the premises and demanding the surrender of
    the property. Respondents failed to heed this demand, prompting the
    petitioners to file an ejectment case.
    Respondent claimed that they contributed to the improvement of the
    property and the construction of the building, both in terms of money and
    management. Petitioners purportedly agreed to let them contribute to the
    costs of construction in exchange for the exclusive use of a portion of the
    building.

    ISSUE:

    W/N the respondents are entitled to be reimbursed for the improvements


    introduced on the property.

    RULING:
    As builders in bad faith, respondents are not entitled to reimbursement
    of useful expenses. Based on the findings of fact of the MeTC and the RTC,
    petitioners had already warned respondents not to build a structure on the
    property as early as 1983. We hold that petitioners, as the owners of the land,
    have the right to appropriate what has been built on the property, without any
    obligation to pay indemnity therefor; and that respondents have no right to a
    refund of any improvement built therein, pursuant to Articles 449 and 450 of
    the Civil Code: Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land
    of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right of indemnity. a
    builder in bad faith is entitled to recoup the necessary expenses incurred for
    the preservation of the land. The CA correctly ruled that respondents in this
    case are similarly entitled to this reimbursement. However, being builders in
    bad faith, they do not have the right of retention over the premises.

    You might also like