Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lessee Builder in Bad Faith

    Uploaded by

    Bnl Nina
    103 views1 page
    This Supreme Court case discusses whether a lessee can claim reimbursement for improvements made to a property after the lease expires. The Court determined that under the Civil Code, the reimbursement provisions only apply to possessors in good faith, not lessees. As the petitioner was merely a lessee, he could not claim to be a builder in good faith or compel the owner to reimburse him for improvements. The petitioner's only right was to remove improvements without damaging the property, as the owner refused to appropriate them.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This Supreme Court case discusses whether a lessee can claim reimbursement for improvements made to a property after the lease expires. The Court determined that under the Civil Code, the reimbursement provisions only apply to possessors in good faith, not lessees. As the petitioner was merely a lessee, he could not claim to be a builder in good faith or compel the owner to reimburse him for improvements. The petitioner's only right was to remove improvements without damaging the property, as the owner refused to appropriate them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    103 views1 page

    Lessee Builder in Bad Faith

    Uploaded by

    Bnl Nina
    This Supreme Court case discusses whether a lessee can claim reimbursement for improvements made to a property after the lease expires. The Court determined that under the Civil Code, the reimbursement provisions only apply to possessors in good faith, not lessees. As the petitioner was merely a lessee, he could not claim to be a builder in good faith or compel the owner to reimburse him for improvements. The petitioner's only right was to remove improvements without damaging the property, as the owner refused to appropriate them.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    [ G.R. NO.

    163429, March 03, 2006 ]


    JOHNNY JOSEFA, PETITIONER, VS. LOURDES SAN BUENAVENTURA, REPRESENTED
    BY ATTORNEYS-IN- FACT, TERESITA SAN BUENAVENTURA AND/OR RAUL SAN
    BUENAVENTURA, RESPONDENTS.

    In a plethora of cases, this Court has held that Article 448 of the Civil Code, in relation to Article 546 of the same
    Code, which 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. It does not apply where one's only interest is that of a lessee under a rental contract; otherwise, it would
    always be in the power of the tenant to "improve" his landlord out of his property. 
    In this case, there is no question that petitioner was initially a lawful possessor because his entry into the
    property is by virtue of a lease contract with respondent. However, as a mere lessee whose possession after the
    expiration of the contract is at the sufferance of the owner of the property, he cannot claim to be a builder in good
    faith. Under Article 1678 of the New Civil Code, petitioner is entitled to one-half of the value of the improvements
    only if respondent, as the owner, decides to appropriate the improvements. Since respondent refused to
    [38]
    appropriate the improvements, petitioner cannot compel her to reimburse to him one-half their value.   The sole
    right of petitioner under Article 1678 is to remove the improvements without causing any more damage upon the
    [
    property leased than is necessary. 

    In this case, there is no question that petitioner was initially a lawful possessor because his entry into the
    property is by virtue of a lease contract with respondent. However, as a mere lessee whose possession after the
    expiration of the contract is at the sufferance of the owner of the property, he cannot claim to be a builder in good
    faith. Under Article 1678 of the New Civil Code, petitioner is entitled to one-half of the value of the improvements
    only if respondent, as the owner, decides to appropriate the improvements. Since respondent refused to
    [38]
    appropriate the improvements, petitioner cannot compel her to reimburse to him one-half their value.   The sole
    right of petitioner under Article 1678 is to remove the improvements without causing any more damage upon the
    [39]
    property leased than is necessary. 

    You might also like