This case has been cited 6 times or more.
|
2013-11-27 |
SERENO, C.J. |
||||
| Upon perusal of the records, however, we hold that petitioner is not a builder in good faith. A builder in good faith is "one who builds with the belief that the land he is building on is his, or that by some title one has the right to build thereon, and is ignorant of any defect or flaw in his title."[67] Since petitioner only started occupying the property sometime in 1995 (when his predecessor-in-interest executed an Affidavit in his favor), or about seven years after Tuason was promulgated, he should have been aware of the binding effect of that ruling. Since all judicial decisions form part of the law of the land, its existence should be "[o]n one hand, x x x matter of mandatory judicial notice; on the other, ignorantia legis non excusat."[68] He thus loses whatever he has built on the property, without right to indemnity, in accordance with Article 449 of the Civil Code.[69] | |||||
|
2012-11-14 |
DEL CASTILLO, J. |
||||
| Article 448 of the Civil Code applies when the builder believes that he is the owner of the land or that by some title he has the right to build thereon,[60] or that, at least, he has a claim of title thereto.[61] Concededly, this is not present in the instant case. The subject property is covered by a Contract to Sell hence ownership still remains with petitioner being the seller. Nevertheless, there were already instances where this Court applied Article 448 even if the builders do not have a claim of title over the property. Thus: This Court has ruled that this provision covers only cases in which the builders, sowers or planters believe themselves to be owners of the land or, at least, to have a claim of title thereto. It does not apply when the interest is merely that of a holder, such as a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. From these pronouncements, good faith is identified by the belief that the land is owned; or that by some title one has the right to build, plant, or sow thereon. | |||||
|
2009-10-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| Where the builder, planter or sower has acted in good faith, a conflict of rights arises between the owners, and it becomes necessary to protect the owner of the improvements without causing injustice to the owner of the land. In view of the impracticability of creating a state of forced co-ownership, the law has provided a just solution by giving the owner of the land the option to acquire the improvements after payment of the proper indemnity, or to oblige the builder or planter to pay for the land and the sower the proper rent. He cannot refuse to exercise either option. It is the owner of the land who is authorized to exercise the option, because his right is older, and because, by the principle of accession, he is entitled to the ownership of the accessory thing.[40] | |||||
|
2005-12-14 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Should El Dorado then opt to appropriate the improvements made by PLDT on the 1,000 hectare portion of the property, it should only be made to pay for those improvements at the time good faith existed on the part of PLDT or until March 15, 1977,[110] to be pegged at its current fair market value.[111] | |||||