ALEJANDRO QUEMUEL and RUPERTA SOLIS v. ANGEL S. OLAES and JULIANA PRUDENTE G.R. No.

L-11084 April 29, 1961 Nature Appeal from the order of the trial court dismissing the complaint of plaintiffs to compel respondents to reduce the monthly rental and to sell to the former the portion of the lot where the plaintiffs house was erected. Facts The Olaes spouses sued in the CFI of Cavite the Quemel spouses for recovery of possession of a parcel of land. The Quemel spouses admitted plaintiffs o wnership but contended that their occupation was gratuitous. In 1954, the trial court ordered the Quemel spouses to return the possession of the land to the Olaes spouses and to pay the latter Php20.00 a month from January 1954, until they shall have vacated the premises. The Quemel, to forestall execution of the judgment, filed a complaint against the Olaes spouses seeking to reduce the monthly rental and to compel the Olaes spouses to sell to them the portion of the lot. But the trial court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Olaes spouses, to which the Quemel spouses appealed from, and as certified by the appellate court the appeal went to the Supreme Court. Issue Can the Quemel spouses invoke as their basis of cause of action Article 448 in connection with Article 546 of the Civil Code? Held No. The decision appealed from is affirmed. Ratio A cursory reading of these provisions, however, will show that they are not applicable to plaintiffs' case. Under Article 448, the 1) right to appropriate the works or improvements or 2) to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land belongs to the owner of the land. The only right given to the builder in good faith is the right to reimbursement for the improvements; the builder, cannot compel the owner of the land to sell such land to the former. This is assuming that the plaintiffs are builders in good faith. But the plaintiffs are not builders in good faith . From the pleadings and the documentary evidence submitted, it is indisputable that the land in question originally belonged to the government as part of the Friar Lands Estate and the title thereto was in the name of the government, until it was purchased by Agapita Solis who applied, thru the Bureau of Lands, to purchase the land by installments. The

corresponding Sale Certificate No. 531, effective July 1, 1909 was executed. In defendants' complaint before the CFI, they alleged that they are the owners of lot and that plaintiffs, have been occupying southeastern half portion thereof, without any right thereto, except the tolerance of defendants , which were admitted expressly and under oath, in the answer of plaintiffs herein. It would, therefore, appear that plaintiffs herein were not unaware of the flaw in their title, if any, and that their true relation with the herein defendants was that of tenant and landlord, and that their rights are governed by Article 1573 in relation to article 487 of the old Civil Code.* It can clearly be inferred that plaintiffs cannot compel the defendants to pay for the improvements the former made on the property or to sell the latter's land. Plaintiffs' only right, is to remove improvements, if it is possible to do so, without damage to the land.

*Art. 1573. A lessee shall have with respect to useful a voluntary improvements, the same right which are granted the usufructuaries. Art. 487. The usufructuary may make on the property in usufruct any improvements, useful or recreative, which may deem proper, provided he does not change its form or substance, but he shall have no right to be indemnified thereof. He may, however, remove such improvements, should it possible to do so without injury to the property.