This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2014-01-15 |
PERLAS-BERNABE, J. |
||||
| To be deemed a builder in good faith, it is essential that a person asserts title to the land on which he builds, i.e., that he be a possessor in concept of owner, and that he be unaware that there exists in his title or mode of acquisition any flaw which invalidates it.[60] Good faith is an intangible and abstract quality with no technical meaning or statutory definition, and it encompasses, among other things, an honest belief, the absence of malice and the absence of design to defraud or to seek an unconscionable advantage. It implies honesty of intention, and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought to put the holder upon inquiry.[61] As for Sps. Sarili, they knew or at the very least, should have known from the very beginning that they were dealing with a person who possibly had no authority to sell the subject property considering the palpable irregularity in the subject SPA's acknowledgment. Yet, relying solely on said document and without any further investigation on Ramos's capacity to sell, Sps. Sarili still chose to proceed with its purchase and even built a house thereon. Based on the foregoing, it cannot be seriously doubted that Sps. Sarili were actually aware of a flaw or defect in their title or mode of acquisition and have consequently built the house on the subject property in bad faith under legal contemplation. The case is therefore remanded to the court a quo for the proper application of the above-cited Civil Code provisions. | |||||
|
2009-10-28 |
PERALTA, J. |
||||
| The choice belongs to the owner of the land, a rule that accords with the principle of accession that the accessory follows the principal and not the other way around.[37] Even as the option lies with the landowner, the grant to him, nevertheless, is preclusive. He must choose one. He cannot, for instance, compel the owner of the building to instead remove it from the land.[38] | |||||