Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

VERONA PADA-KILARIO v. CA

This case has been cited 4 times or more.

	GR No. 152423 2010-12-15	SPS. MARCOS R. ESMAQUEL AND VICTORIA SORDEVILLA v. MARIA COPRADA PERALTA, J.
Respondent's argument does not hold water. Since respondent's occupation of the subject property was by mere tolerance, she has no right to retain its possession under Article 448 of the Civil Code. She is aware that her tolerated possession may be terminated any time and she cannot be considered as builder in good faith.[22] It is well settled that both Article 448[23] and Article 546[24] of the New 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. Verily, persons whose occupation of a realty is by sheer tolerance of its owners are not possessors in good faith.[25] At the time respondent built the improvements on the premises in 1945, she knew that her possession was by mere permission and tolerance of the petitioners; hence, she cannot be said to be a person who builds on land with the belief that she is the owner thereof.
	GR NO. 128338 2005-03-28	TINING RESUENA v. CA TINGA, J.
All six (6) petitioners claim the right to be reimbursed "necessary expenses" for the cost of constructing their houses in accordance with Article 546 of the Civil Code.[21] It is well-settled that while the Article 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. Verily, persons whose occupation of a realty is by sheer tolerance of its owners are not possessors in good faith.[22]
	GR Nos. 154391-92 2004-09-30	SPS. ISMAEL AND TERESITA MACASAET v. SPS. VICENTE AND ROSARIO MACASAET PANGANIBAN, J.
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.[65] It does not apply when the interest is merely that of a holder, such as a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary.[66] 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.[67]
	GR Nos. 150820-21 2003-04-30	SPS. ANTONIO AND GENOVEVA BALANON-ANICETE AND SPS. ANDRES AND FILOMENA BALANON-MANANQUIL v. PEDRO BALANON YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.
Considering that petitioners were in possession of the subject property by sheer tolerance of its owners, they knew that their occupation of the premises may be terminated any time. Persons who occupy the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that they will vacate the same upon demand, failing in which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against them.[13]