Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 231 views

    Aquino v. Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    Jay Morales
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents were builders in bad faith and were not entitled to reimbursement for improvements made on the petitioner's property. The respondents occupied the property for 20 years without paying rent. While the lower courts found the respondents were builders in bad faith, the Court of Appeals ruled they were entitled to reimbursement. However, the Supreme Court held that since the respondents were not leaseholders and disregarded demands to stop building, they did not have rights under the Civil Code to reimbursement for useful improvements. The owners could appropriate improvements without paying indemnity.

    Copyright:

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

    Aquino v. Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    Jay Morales
    231 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents were builders in bad faith and were not entitled to reimbursement for improvements made on the petitioner's property. The respondents occupied the property for 20 years without paying rent. While the lower courts found the respondents were builders in bad faith, the Court of Appeals ruled they were entitled to reimbursement. However, the Supreme Court held that since the respondents were not leaseholders and disregarded demands to stop building, they did not have rights under the Civil Code to reimbursement for useful improvements. The owners could appropriate improvements without paying indemnity.

    Original Description:

    s

    Original Title

    30. 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?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents were builders in bad faith and were not entitled to reimbursement for improvements made on the petitioner's property. The respondents occupied the property for 20 years without paying rent. While the lower courts found the respondents were builders in bad faith, the Court of Appeals ruled they were entitled to reimbursement. However, the Supreme Court held that since the respondents were not leaseholders and disregarded demands to stop building, they did not have rights under the Civil Code to reimbursement for useful improvements. The owners could appropriate improvements without paying indemnity.

    Copyright:

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

    Aquino v. Aguilar

    Uploaded by

    Jay Morales
    The Supreme Court ruled that the respondents were builders in bad faith and were not entitled to reimbursement for improvements made on the petitioner's property. The respondents occupied the property for 20 years without paying rent. While the lower courts found the respondents were builders in bad faith, the Court of Appeals ruled they were entitled to reimbursement. However, the Supreme Court held that since the respondents were not leaseholders and disregarded demands to stop building, they did not have rights under the Civil Code to reimbursement for useful improvements. The owners could appropriate improvements without paying indemnity.

    Copyright:

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

    Aquino v. Aguilar [G.R. No. 182754.

    June 29, 2015]

    Petitioner: Spouses Crispin Aquino and Teresa V. Aquino, represented by their Attorney-in-fact, Amador
    D. Ledesma

    Respondent: Spouses Eusebio Aguilar and Josefina V. Aguilar Ponente: Sereno, C.J.

    Doctrine:

    The Civil Code provisions under Arts. 449 and 450:

    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.

    Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may
    demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace
    things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may
    compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent.

    Facts:

    The petitioners, Spouses Aquino, are the registered owners of a house and lot located at Rosal Street,
    Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City. Their property has been occupied by Teresa's sister, Josena Vela Aguilar
    along with her husband and their family, since 1981. However, the house that was previously
    constructed therein was demolished in favor of a three-storey building during the respondents’
    possession of the property. The respondents then occupied half of the third floor of this new building for
    the next 20 years without payment of rental. But sometime in 2003, the petitioners sent a letter
    demanding that the respondents vacate the property because the former’s family member needed to
    use their premises. This demand was left unheeded which made the petitioners file a complaint for
    ejectment against the respondent. After they failed to reach amicable settlement, the petitioners
    decided to file a Complaint before the MeTC of Makati in order for the respondents to vacate their
    property and to pay the reasonable amount of their use and enjoyment of such property from the time
    they demanded it from them. In turn, the respondents contended that they are builders in good faith
    and that they have already made some improvements on the said property with consent from the
    petitioners, who then allowed them to do such in exchange of their exclusive use of a portion of the
    building. Consequently, the MeTC ruled in favor of the petitioners and found that the respondents are
    builders in bad faith because they are just mere possessors of the property and not co-owners who were
    allowed occupation of it through mere tolerance by the former, and that the improvements that they
    made go against the petitioners demand for them to refrain from doing such since the property was
    intended to be sold. This ruling was then affirmed by the RTC on appeal by the respondents. Then, the
    respondents went to the CA which modified the ruling of the MeTC and RTC by being entitled to
    reimbursement from the improvements it made in the petitioners’ property pursuant to Arts. 1678 and
    548 of the Civil Code.

    Issue:
    Whether or not the respondents are entitled to be reimbursed for the improvements they made on the
    petitioners’ property despite being builders in bad faith?

    Held:

    No. The court struck down the CA’s decision that the respondents are entitled to be reimbursed
    pursuant to Art. 1678 of the Civil Code since that provision only applies to a lease contract where the
    lessees have build useful improvements on the owner’s property. In this case, it was not found that the
    respondents have entered into such contract with the petitioners based on the former’s admission that
    they are co-owners with the property of the latter. Furthermore, the court affirmed the lower court
    decision that the respondents being builders in bad faith cannot now be entitled to reimbursement of
    useful expenses. This is because their occupation was by mere tolerance of the petitioners and that their
    utter disregard of the latter’s demand for them to refrain from building improvements on the property
    was the indication of them not being in good faith as against the petitioners. The court also noted that
    the petitioners were not aware of the improvements that the respondents made on their land based on
    the lack of evidence that the latter have agreed with the former to do such in exchange for their
    exclusive use and ownership of the property. Therefore, the court held that under Arts. 449 and 450 of
    the Civil Code, the petitioners, being owners of the land, have the right to appropriate what has been
    built on the property, without any obligation to pay indemnity, and that the respondents have no right
    to a refund of any improvement it built therein. But this is without prejudice to the reimbursement of
    the necessary expenses that the respondents have incurred in the preservation of the petitioners’
    property pursuant to Art. 452 of the Civil Code.

    Disposition:

    WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED.

    You might also like