Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

FEDERICO GEMINIANO v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 176212 2010-10-20	CENTURY SAVINGS BANK v. SPS. DANILO T. SAMONTE AND ROSALINDA M. SAMONTE LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Finally, the Court agrees with the RTC that respondents are already estopped from challenging the validity of the foreclosure sale, after entering into a Contract of Lease with petitioner over one of the foreclosed properties. The title of the landlord is a conclusive presumption as against the tenant or lessee. According to Section 2(b), Rule 131 of the Rules of Court, "[t]he tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them." The juridical relationship between petitioner as lessor and respondents as lessees carries with it a recognition of the lessor's title. As lessees, then respondents are estopped to deny their landlord's title, or to assert a better title not only in themselves, but also in some third person while they remain in possession of the leased premises and until they surrender possession to the landlord. This estoppel applies even though the lessor had no title at the time the relation of lessor and lessee was created, and may be asserted not only by the original lessor, but also by those who succeed to his title.[30]
	GR NO. 133564 2007-07-10	SERGIO BARBOSA v. PILAR HERNANDEZ CORONA, J.
Unfortunately for petitioners, Article 448 applies only to a possessor in good faith, that is, one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof.[17] Petitioners cannot be considered builders in good faith as they never had any pretension to be owners of the disputed lot. Thus, they cannot avail of the benefits of Article 448.
	GR NO. 167680 2006-11-30	SAMUEL PARILLA v. DR. PROSPERO PILAR CARPIO MORALES, J.
In a plethora of cases,[23] this Court has held that Articles 448 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 546 of the same Code, which allows full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, applies only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof. It does not apply where one's only interest is that of a lessee under a rental contract; otherwise, it would always be in the power of the tenant to "improve" his landlord out of his property. [24] (Underscoring supplied)
	GR NO. 163429 2006-03-03	JOHNNY JOSEFA v. LOURDES SAN BUENAVENTURA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The issue of whether a lessee may be considered a builder in good faith was resolved by the Court in Geminiano v. Court of Appeals.[36] The Court stressed that the private respondents therein, being mere lessees, knew that their occupation of the premises would continue only for the life of the lease, and as such, could not be considered as possessors nor builders in good faith.
	GR No. 145416 2001-09-21	GOLDEN HORIZON REALTY CORPORATION v. SY CHUAN YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
In Geminiano v. Court of Appeals,[13] we stated:The private respondents, as lessees who had undisturbed possession for the entire term under the lease, are then estopped to deny their landlord's title, or to assert a better title not only in themselves, but also in some third person while they remain in possession of the leased premises and until they surrender possession to the landlord. This estoppel applies even though the lessor had no title at the time the relation of lessor and lessee was created, and may be asserted not only by the original lessor, but also by those who succeed to his title. (Emphasis ours)