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

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 5 views

    Quemuel v. Olaes Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    millannicole111

    Copyright:

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

    Quemuel v. Olaes Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    millannicole111
    5 views2 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

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

    Quemuel v. Olaes Case Digest

    Uploaded by

    millannicole111

    Copyright:

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

    Accession; Non-application of Art.

    448

    ALEJANDRO QUEMUEL and RUPERTA SOLIS, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. ANGEL S.


    OLAES and JULIANA PRUDENTE, defendants-appellees.
    No. L-11084 | April 29, 1961

    PAREDES, J.:

    DOCTRINE:
    Tenant cannot be a builder in good faith. — Article 448 of the New Civil Code is intended to
    apply only to a case where one builds, or sows, or plants on land in which he believes himself to
    have a claim of title and not to lands wherein one's only interest is that of a tenant and a tenant
    cannot be said to be a builder in good faith, as he has no pretension to be an owner of the land.

    FACTS:
    In a previous case (Civil Case No. 5442), the court ordered the plaintiffs (Alejandro Quemuel
    and Ruperta Solis) to vacate Lot 1095 and to pay a monthly rental of ₱20. The plaintiffs did not
    appeal, and the decision became final.

    The plaintiffs subsequently filed a new complaint to reduce the rental and compel the sale of
    the land where their house is built, claiming they were builders in good faith and entitled to
    purchase the land under Article 448 of the Civil Code.

    The plaintiffs claim that they currently occupy approximately 384 square meters, or half of Lot
    1095. Out of this area, they believe they own 256 square meters, inherited from Romualdo Solis,
    the father of plaintiff Ruperta Solis. Romualdo became the owner of this portion through a verbal
    extrajudicial partition made in 1924 with his sister, Agapita Solis, who later sold the entire Lot
    1095 to the defendants.

    On the other hand, defendants contended that plaintiffs were mere lessees and not builders in
    good faith, and the rental rate was already adjudicated in the prior case, which was final and
    executory.

    ISSUE:
    Can the plaintiffs compel the landowners to sell them the portion of the lot where their house is
    built?

    RULING:
    No, the plaintiffs cannot compel the landowners to sell the lot.
    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. This is assuming that the
    plaintiffs are builders in good faith. However, plaintiffs are not builders in good faith.

    Article 448 of the New Civil Code, relied upon by plaintiffs, is intended to apply only to a case
    where one builds, or sows, or plants on land in which he believes himself to have a claim of title
    and not to lands wherein one's interest is that of the tenant, under a rental contract, which is the
    present case. The tenant cannot be said to be a builder in good faith as he has no pretension to be
    owner.

    Thus, plaintiffs cannot compel the defendants to pay for the improvements the former made on
    the property or to sell the latter's land. Plaintiffs' only right, is to remove the improvements, if it
    is possible to do so, without damage to the land.

    WHEREFORE, the order appealed from is affirmed.

    You might also like