Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

SPS. ISMAEL AND TERESITA MACASAET v. SPS. VICENTE AND ROSARIO MACASAET

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 175399 2009-10-27	OPHELIA L. TUATIS v. SPS. ELISEO ESCOL CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
According to the aforequoted provision, the landowner can choose between appropriating the building by paying the proper indemnity for the same, as provided for in Articles 546[41] and 548[42] of the Civil Code; or obliging the builder to pay the price of the land, unless its value is considerably more than that of the structures, in which case the builder in good faith shall pay reasonable rent.[43]
	GR NO. 150654 2007-12-13	HEIRS OF ANACLETO B. NIETO v. MUNICIPALITY OF MEYCAUAYAN NACHURA, J.
This Court has consistently held that those who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, are necessarily bound by an implied promise that the occupants will vacate the property upon demand.[18] The status of the possessor is analogous to that of a lessee or tenant whose term of lease has expired but whose occupancy continues by tolerance of the owner. In such case, the unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession is to be counted from the date of the demand to vacate.[19] Upon the refusal to vacate the property, the owner's cause of action accrues.
	GR NO. 171277 2007-02-15	ALMARIO BEJAR v. MARICEL CALUAG SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J.
A suit for unlawful detainer will prosper if the complaint sufficiently alleges that there is a withholding of possession or refusal to vacate the property by a defendant.[10] The cause of action arises from the expiration or termination of the defendant's right to continue possession which is upon plaintiff's demand to vacate the premises. The complaint for unlawful detainer must then be instituted within one year from the date of the last demand.[11] All these incidents are present in the instant case.
	GR NO. 167680 2006-11-30	SAMUEL PARILLA v. DR. PROSPERO PILAR CARPIO MORALES, J.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases[21] which categorically declare that Article 448 covers only cases in which the builders, sowers or planters believe themselves to be owners of the land or, at least, have a claim of title thereto, but not when the interest is merely that of a holder, such as a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. A tenant cannot be said to be a builder in good faith as he has no pretension to be owner.[22]
	GR NO. 140798 2006-09-19	MARCELITO D. QUEVADA v. CA AZCUNA, J.
ARTICLE 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. The above-cited article "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 x x x that of x x x a mere tenant x x x."[40] However, it is also applied to cases where a builder has "constructed improvements with the consent of the owner."[41]
	GR NO. 145470 2005-12-09	SPS. LUIS V. CRUZ AND AIDA CRUZ v. SPS. ALEJANDRO FERNANDO AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
In a contract to sell, there being no previous sale of the property, a third person buying such property despite the fulfillment of the suspensive condition such as the full payment of the purchase price, for instance, cannot be deemed a buyer in bad faith and the prospective buyer cannot seek the relief of reconveyance of the property. There is no double sale in such case. Title to the property will transfer to the buyer after registration because there is no defect in the owner-seller's title per se, but the latter, of course, may be sued for damages by the intending buyer.[21] (Emphasis supplied) A person who occupies the land of another at the latter's forbearance or permission without any contract between them is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand.[22]