Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 35 views

    Cruz Sulosanayonvsnayonsafilipno Article448

    Uploaded by

    heyooo
    Sulo sa Nayon leased land from Nayong Pilipino Foundation to build a hotel but later defaulted on rent payments. Nayong Pilipino filed an unlawful detainer case and Sulo sa Nayon argued that as builders in good faith under Article 448, they had the right to retain the property until reimbursed for improvements. However, the Court ruled that Article 448 does not apply to lessees like Sulo sa Nayon. As a lessee, Sulo sa Nayon recognized Nayong Pilipino's land ownership and defaulting on rent removed any rights to remain on the property or claim reimbursement beyond what is specified in their lease contract.

    Copyright:

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

    Cruz Sulosanayonvsnayonsafilipno Article448

    Uploaded by

    heyooo
    35 views1 page
    Sulo sa Nayon leased land from Nayong Pilipino Foundation to build a hotel but later defaulted on rent payments. Nayong Pilipino filed an unlawful detainer case and Sulo sa Nayon argued that as builders in good faith under Article 448, they had the right to retain the property until reimbursed for improvements. However, the Court ruled that Article 448 does not apply to lessees like Sulo sa Nayon. As a lessee, Sulo sa Nayon recognized Nayong Pilipino's land ownership and defaulting on rent removed any rights to remain on the property or claim reimbursement beyond what is specified in their lease contract.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Sulo sa Nayon leased land from Nayong Pilipino Foundation to build a hotel but later defaulted on rent payments. Nayong Pilipino filed an unlawful detainer case and Sulo sa Nayon argued that as builders in good faith under Article 448, they had the right to retain the property until reimbursed for improvements. However, the Court ruled that Article 448 does not apply to lessees like Sulo sa Nayon. As a lessee, Sulo sa Nayon recognized Nayong Pilipino's land ownership and defaulting on rent removed any rights to remain on the property or claim reimbursement beyond what is specified in their lease contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    35 views1 page

    Cruz Sulosanayonvsnayonsafilipno Article448

    Uploaded by

    heyooo
    Sulo sa Nayon leased land from Nayong Pilipino Foundation to build a hotel but later defaulted on rent payments. Nayong Pilipino filed an unlawful detainer case and Sulo sa Nayon argued that as builders in good faith under Article 448, they had the right to retain the property until reimbursed for improvements. However, the Court ruled that Article 448 does not apply to lessees like Sulo sa Nayon. As a lessee, Sulo sa Nayon recognized Nayong Pilipino's land ownership and defaulting on rent removed any rights to remain on the property or claim reimbursement beyond what is specified in their lease contract.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Sulo sa Nayon vs.

    Nayong Pilipino Foundation be obliged to buy the land if its value is


    Article 448 considerably more than that of the building or
    Digest by: Cruz, Trisha Marie trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if
    the owner of the land does not choose to
    FACTS: appropriate the building or trees after proper
    indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms
    Nayong Pilipino Foundation, a GOCC, is the owner of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court
    of a parcel of land known as the Nayong Pilipino shall fix the terms thereof.
    Complex.
    Article 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded
    Sulo sa Nayon, Inc. is a domestic corporation to every possessor; but only the possessor in good
    organized under the Philippine laws. faith may retain the thing until he has been
    reimbursed therefor.
    Nayong Pilipino leased to Sulo sa Nayon a portion
    of the Nayong Pilipino Complex for the The SC held that Art. 448 is not applicable and
    construction and operation of a hotel building to be cited the explanation of the late Senator Arturo
    known as Philippine Village Hotel. Tolentino:

    The lease was for an initial period of 21 years and “This article [Article 448] is manifestly
    in 1997, Sulo sa Nayon Inc signed a 25 year lease intended to apply only to a case where
    contract extension. one builds, plants, or sows on land in
    which he believes himself to have a
    However, On the beginning of January 2001 claim of title, and not to lands where the
    Sulo sa Nayon defaulted in the payment of their only interest of the builder, planter or sower
    monthly rentals. is that of a holder, such as a tenant.”

    Nayong Pilipino repeatedly demanded the payment Therefore Sulo sa Nayon as a lessee they
    of the arrears and eventually ordered Sulo sa recognized that the lessor, Nayong Pilipino
    Nayon to vacate the premises. is the owner of the land.

    Consequently, Nayon Pilipino filed a complaint for The Court, reiterates the doctrine that the lessee
    unlawful detainer against Sulo sa Nayon. is neither a builder in good faith nor bad faith
    that would call for the application of Article
    Sulo sa Nayon contends that because of the 448 and 546.
    improvements, which are of substantial value, that
    they have introduced on the leased premised with The introduction of valuable improvements on the
    the permission of Nayong Pilipino, they should be leased premises does not give Sulo sa Nayon the
    considered as builders in good faith who have right of retention and reimbursement which
    the right to retain possession of the property rightfully belongs to a builder in good faith.
    until reimbursement by Nayong Pilipino. Otherwise, such situation would allow the lessee
    to easily “improve” the lessor out of its
    ISSUE: property.

    WHETHER OR NOT THE RULES ON ACCESSION It may be true that their contract of lease
    FOUND IN ARTICLE 448 OF THE CIVIL CODE IS stipulates that the building and all the
    APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE? NO improvements in the leased premises belong to
    Sulo sa Nayon, such will not defeat the right of
    HELD: Nayon Pilipino to its property as Sulo sa Nayon
    failed to pay their rentals. At most, they can only
    The Court held that the rules on accession under invoke Article 1678 of the New Civil Code which
    Article 448 and 546 is not applicable in the instant grants them the right to be reimbursed one- half
    case. of the value of the building upon termination of
    the lease, or in the alternative, to remove the
    Article 448. The owner of the land on which improvements if the lessor refuses to make
    anything has been built, sown or planted in good reimbursement.
    faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own
    the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the ***End of Digest***
    indemnity provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or
    to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the
    price of the land, and the one who sowed, the
    proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot

    You might also like