This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2009-06-22 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| Being mere lessees, respondents knew that their right to occupy the premises existed only for the duration of the lease.[24] Cortez v. Manimbo[25] went further to state that:If the rule were otherwise, it would always be in the power of the tenant to improve his landlord out of his property. | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Thus, to be entitled to reimbursement for improvements introduced on the property, the petitioner must be considered a builder in good faith. Further, Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code, which allow full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, apply only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds on land with the belief that he is the owner thereof. A builder in good faith is one who is unaware of any flaw in his title to the land at the time he builds on it.[35] In this case, the petitioner cannot claim that she was not aware of any flaw in her title or was under the belief that she is the owner of the subject premises for it is a settled fact that she is merely a lessee thereof. | |||||