etc.. Here the plaintiffs have chosen to take the improvements introduced on the land and are disposed to pay the amount of the necessary and useful expenses incurred by the defendant. Inasmuch as the retentionist, who is not exactly a posessor in good faith with in the meaning of the law, seeks to be reimbursed for the necessary and useful expenditures, it is only just that he should account to the owners of the estate for any rents, fruits, or crops he has gathered from it.
ROBLES AND MARTIN v. LIZZARAGA HERMANOS, et.al. G.R. No. L-16736, 22 December 1921
[L. FERNANDO] FACTS:
Anastasia de la Rama died leaving six children, one of whom was Evarista Robles, and some properties, among which was house No. 4 on Iznart Street in Iloilo City. The heirs of Anastasia then entered into partnership with Lizarraga Hermanos (“LH”) in liquidation and settlement of their accounts, by virtue of which the court awarded to said partnership the properties left by the deceased, including the aforesaid house No.4.
Evarista, since before the death of her mother Anastasia, has been with her husband occupying house No. 4, at the beginning, by permission of her mother, later on by the consent of her coheirs, and lastly by agreement with the partnership, LH, to whom it had been awarded, paying to said partnership P40 monthly as rent of the upper story.
Sometime, LH notified Evarista that the rent would be raised to P60 a month. Evarista refused to pay the new rate and to vacate the house. LH brought suit against her for ejectment while Evarista sued LH to recover the value of the improvements she introduced in house no.4. Evarista claims that LH agreed to sell her the said house, the deed of sale to be executed later; that by virtue of this contract she remained in the occupation of the building and made the improvements; that, as one of the stipulations in the contract of sale of the estate, Evarista assumed the liability of several encumbrances on the estate all of which payments were made through LH.
ISSUE: Is Evarista Robles the owner of the aforesaid improvements and has
the right to demand payment of their value?
RULING:
YES. Under Article 453 (now Article 546) of the Civil Code, a possessor in good faith who makes useful improvements on the estate possessed is entitled to demand payment of the value thereof and to retain estate until the expenditures incurred therein are paid to him. Here, the presumption of good faith in favor of Evarista Robles' possession at the time she made the improvements on the property was neither disputed nor discussed, but on the contrary, there is positive evidence sufficient to support the conclusion that when she made the improvements on the aforesaid building she was possessing it in good faith. Moreover, the expenditures incurred in these
improvements consisting of the addition of a dining room, kitchen, closet, and bathroom in the lower and upper stories of the house, and a stable, suitable as a coach house and dwelling were not necessary inasmuch as without them the house would have continued to stand just as before, but were useful, inasmuch as with them the house better serves the purpose for which it was intended, being used as a residence.
If the improvements are useful and Evarista Robles possession was in good faith, the conclusion set out in article 453 of the Civil Code, supra, is inevitable; Evarista Robles is the owner of such improvements, and entitled to reimbursement therefor, and to retain the building until the same is made
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. L-54526, 25 August 1986 [JAVIER]
FACTS:
The City of Dagupan filed a complaint against the former NAWASA (now MWSS), for recovery of the ownership and possession of the Dagupan Waterworks System.
NAWASA interposed as one of its special defenses R.A. 1383 which vested upon it the ownership, possession and control of all waterworks systems throughout the Philippines and as one of its counterclaims the reimbursement of the expenses it had incurred for necessary and useful improvements amounting to P255,000.00.
The trial court found that useful expenses were made in utter bad faith for they were instituted after the complaint was filed and after numerous Supreme Court decisions were promulgated declaring unconstitutional the taking by NAWASA of the patrimonial waterworks systems of cities, municipalities and provinces without just compensation.
In support of its claim for removal of said useful improvements, MWSS argues that the pertinent laws on the subject, particularly Articles 546, 547 and 549 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, do not definitely settle the question of whether a possessor in bad faith has the right to remove useful improvements.
ISSUE: Does a possessor in bad faith have the right to remove useful
improvements?
RULING:
NO. Article 449 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that "he who
builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity." As a builder in bad faith, NAWASA lost whatever useful improvements it had made without right to indemnity
Moreover, under Article 546 of said code, only a possessor in good faith shall be refunded for useful expenses with the right of retention until reimbursed; and under Article 547 thereof, only a possessor in good faith may remove useful improvements if this can be done without damage to the principal thing and if the person who recovers the possession does not exercise the option of reimbursing the useful expenses.
The right given a possessor in bad faith is to remove improvements applies only to improvements for pure luxury or mere pleasure, provided the thing suffers no injury thereby and the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they have at the time he enters into possession (Article 549, Id.).