Case Digest | Macasaet v. Macasaet
Macasaet v. Macasaet
439 SCRA 625
Facts:
The present case involves a dispute between parents and children. The children were invited by the parents to occupy the latters two lots, out of parental love and a desire to foster family solidarity. Unfortunately, an unresolved conflict terminated this situation. Out of pique, the parents asked them to vacate the premises. Thus, the children lost their right to remain on the property. They have the right, however, to be indemnified for the useful improvements that they constructed thereon in good faith and with the consent of the parents. In short, Article 448 of the Civil Code applies.
Petitioners and respondents are first-degree relatives. On December 10, 1997, the parents filed with the Municipal Trial Court an ejectment suit against the children. Respondents alleged that they were the owners of two (2) parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title; that by way of a verbal lease agreement, petitioners occupied these lots in March 1992 and used them as their residence and the sites of their construction business; and that despite repeated demands, petitioners failed to pay the agreed rental of P500 per week.
Petitioners denied the existence of any verbal lease agreement. They claimed that respondents had invited them to construct their residence and business on the subject lots in order that they could all live near one other. They added that it was the policy of respondents to allot the land they owned as an advance grant of inheritance in favor of their children.
The MTCC ruled in favor of respondents and ordered petitioners to vacate the premises. It opined that petitioners had occupied the lots, not by virtue of a verbal lease agreement, but by tolerance of respondents. As their stay was by mere tolerance, petitioners were necessarily bound by an implied promise to vacate the lots upon demand. The MTCC dismissed their contention that one lot had been allotted as an advance inheritance, on the ground that rights by succession were inchoate. Moreover, it disbelieved petitioners allegation that the other parcel had been given as payment for construction materials. The RTC affirmed the decision but allowed respondents to appropriate the building and other improvements introduced by petitioners, after payment of the indemnity provided for by Article 448 in relation to Articles 546 and 548 of the Civil Code
The CA sustained the finding of the two lower courts.
Issue:
Whether or not Article 1678 of the Civil Code should apply to the case on the matters of improvements, or is it Article 447 of the Civil Code in relation to the Article 453 and 454 thereof that should apply, if ever to apply the Civil Code.
Held:
The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed with the following modifications:
The portion requiring Spouses Vicente and Rosario Macasaet to reimburse one half of the value of the useful improvements, amounting to P475,000, and the right of Spouses Ismael and Rosita Macasaet to remove those improvements (if the former refuses to reimburse) is deleted. The case is remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings to determine the facts essential to the proper application of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code.
Related posts:
- Property Case Digest | Reynaldo Villafuerte and Peralta Villafuerte v. Court Of Appeals
- Property Case Digest | Masongsong v. Flores
- Case Digest | Bernardo v. Bataclan
- Property Case Digest | Victoria Arambulo and Miguel Arambulo III v. Emerenciana Gungab
- Case Digest | Del Campo v. Abesia
- Case Digest | Solis v. Court of Appeals
- Case Digest | Lavarro v. Labitoria
- Case Digest | De La Cruz v. Ramiscal
- Case Digest | Sps. Gulla v. Heirs of A. Labrador
- Case Digest | Vda. De Nazareno v. Court of Appeals
