Gulla vs.

Labrador ■ Labradors have priority of using

FACTS the land because although it is
● Lot No. 520 is in dispute outside the titled property, they
○ Located in Zambales are the owners of the adjoining
○ Adjacent to Labrador’s lot facing the sea property
● Accion Publiciana - Gulla filed complaint
against Labrador for Cancellation of Tax ISSUE: Whether or not the Labradors had the right
Declaration and Recovery of Possession with to possess the land through right by accession
Damages (Article 440)
● Labrador’s Contention
○ Lot 520 was declared under their names HELD
for tax purposes
○ Gulla occupied a portion of the property No.
fronting the China Sea as well as a lot ● Lot 520 is part of public domain and beyond the
within the salvage area (easement for commerce of men and not capable of
public use) registration
○ Verification survey of lands claimed by ● Article 440 does not apply considering that the
Gulla lot is a foreshore land adjacent to the sea which
■ 562 sqm - outside titled property is alternately covered and left dry by the ordinary
but within salvage zone flows of the tide
■ 820 sqm - within titled property ● Land is not available for private ownership until
and within salvage zone declared by the government to be no longer
■ 1506 sqm - within property needed for public use
covered by OCT P-13350 ● Real Party in interest: Government of the
● Gulla’s Contention Philippines
○ They had been in possession of the lot
since 1984
○ Declared the property for taxation
purposes under their names
○ They applied for sales patent, certified
as alienable and disposable land by
barangay captain
● MTC’s Ruling - Labrador Wins, Ordered Gulla
to vacate
○ Labrador was able to establish
ownership, evidenced by their title
○ Gulla is not riparian owner (person who
owns land bounding upon a river, lake,
or other water course) of the salvage
zone
● RTC’s Ruling - MTC affirmed
○ Applied Article 440 - Labrador’s had the
right to possess the land:
■ Land was inseparably attached
to the titled property as an
accessory
■ Natural justice demands that the
owner of the principal should
also own the accessory
● CA’s Ruling - MTC and RTC affirmed
○ Gulla claims that property is Res Nullius
(Belongs to nobody) and could not be
acquired by anybody
○ Ruling
Equatorial Realty Development vs. Mayfair
FACTS
● Carmelo and Bauermann owned a
parcel of land with a 2-storey building.
● Lease contract
○ 1st Lease
■ Entered into with
Mayfair Theatre
■ 20 years
■ Used as movie house
(Maxim Theatre)
○ 2nd Lease
■ Used as another theater
(Miramar Theater)
■ 20 years
○ Right of First Refusal
■ Stated in the lease that
Mayfair had this right to
purchase the properties
● Carmelo sold the property to Equitorial,
without offering it to Mayfair
● Initial Petition
○ RTC Manila
■ Mayfair filed for the
annulment of the deed
of absolute sale,
specific performance
and damages
■ RULING - In favor of
Carmelo and
Equitorial
○ Court of Appeals Reversed
○ Supreme Court affirmed
decision of CA
■ Deed of Sale is
Rescinded
■ Order to allow Mayfair
to buy
● Motion for Execution
○ Granted to Mayfair
○ Mayfair deposited payment to
the Clerk of Court
○ Was issued deed of
reconveyance
○ Certificate of Title is issued to
Mayfair
● Action for Collection of Sum of
Money
○ Filed by Equitorial, claiming
rentals or reasonable
compensation by Mayfair for
using the premises after their
lease expired
○ Claiming as the owner when the
lease expired, it claimed rentals
for Mayfair’s occupation
○ RTC Ruling - Denied
■ Rescinded contract is
void ab initio, thus
equitorial was not the
owner and could not
enjoy the fruits
○ Petitioner filed for
reconsideration
ISSUE: Whether or not Equatorial is entitled to the
rental payments
HELD
No.
● Rent is a civil fruit that belongs to the owner of
the property producing it by the right by
accession.
● Petitioner never acquired possession of the land
(actual control and possession)
● Due to recission, obligation to return the things
which were object of the contract, together with
fruits
● The fact that Mayfair paid rentals to equatorial is
of no moment.
○ This was done in order for Mayfair to
maintain physical possession during the
pending cases
○ It had no choice but to pay.
○ Made to avoid eviction
● Sake was not consummated by a legally
effective delivery of the property sold
Sulo sa Nayon vs. Nayong Pilipino Foundation ○ Introduction of valuable improvements
do not strip the petitioner of its right to
FACTS avail recourses in case of breach
● Nayong Pilipino Foundation owns a parcel of
land known as Nayong Pilipino Complax ISSUE: Whether or not the rules of accession,
● Lease Agreement particularly Article 448, apply to the case
○ Respondent leased a portion of said
land to petitioner for the construction HELD
and operation of a hotel building No.
(Philippine Village Hotel) ● Article 448 only applies to cases where on
○ 21 years, renewable for another 25 builds, plants or sows on land in which he
years believes himself to have a claim of title and not
○ Renew Contract - New Agreement to lands where the only interest of the builder,
■ Signed by Senior Executive VP planter or sower is that of a holder.
Kose Marcel Panillio ● Petitioners had no adverse claim or title to the
■ Monthly rental - Php. 20.00/sqm land.
with increase of 20% at every ○ They recognized the respondents as the
end of 3 years owner
● Petitioners defaulted. ● Improvements introduced does not give
● Respondent demanded payment of arrears and petitioners the right of retention and
vacate the premises. reimbursement which belongs to builders in
○ Last demand letter sent on March 26, good faith.
2001. ○ Such situation may allow the lessee to
● MTC easily improve the lessor out of its
○ Respondent filed for Unlawful Detainer property
■ Arrears = Php. 26,183,225.14
■ Ruling
● Defendant defaulted.
Upon failure, lessor may
rescind and sue to eject
the lessee
● Improvements are not
valid reasons for
retention of land
● RTC Ruling - Modified the MTC ruling
○ Applied Article 448
■ Ruled that appellants as
builders have acted in good faith
because it was with the written
consent and knowledge of
appellees
■ Only choices of appelle was:
● Appropriate the building
(upon payment of
indemnity)
● Compel the appellants
to purchase the land
■ No right to remove or demolish
the building
● CA Ruling - reversed RTC ruling
○ As lessees, respondents cannot validly
claim that they are builders in good faith
Padilla vs. Malicsi ● De Mossesssgeld was a complete stranger to
them. The lack of blood relation should have
FACTS been enough to put respondents on guard and
● Spouses Padilla bought a parcel of land (valued not rely on claim of ownership.
at 20,000.) ● No presumption of good faith.
● Spouses Padilla discovered that respondents ● No proof of payment of rentals to Mossessgeld,
were occupying the lot and constructed their nor was the latter presented in court.
houses therein. ● Builders in bad faith:
● Petitioners made repeated verbal and written ○ Have no right to recover expenses
demands to vacate the premises and pay made
rentals. But the respondents refused. ○ Petitioners as landowners became the
● Recovery of Possession owners of the improvement of the
○ Filed by petitioners buildings constructed by the
○ Respondent’s claim respondents
■ They were in good faith that the ○ Choices of petitioners:
lot belonged to De ■ Appropriate the improvements +
Mossessgeld. damages
■ They only built lands after ■ Compel the demolition +
receiving Mossessgels’d damages; or
permission. ■ Compel respondents to pay the
■ She would also sell them the price of the land } damages
areas, provided that pending full
payment, they would pay her
Php. 40.00.
○ Computation of Value of Property =
5,000 per sqm
● Article 448 - Option to sell was exercised by
Spouses Padilla.
○ Not accepted by respondents.
○ Respondents held that petitioners
recognized their standing as builders in
good faith.
● RTC Ruling
○ They cannot be considered as builders
in good faith.
● CA ruling
○ Reversed the decision.
○ Gave credence to the allegation that the
petitioner’s relied on the representation
that De Mossessgeld’s made that she
owned the lot.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondents are builders

in good faith

HELD
No.
● As early as 1963, the property was titled to
petitioner’s mother. They only entered in 1980.
● Petitioner is merely giving respondents some
liberalities by allowing them to but the lots they
occupy, but the latter refused.
Macasaet vs. Macasaet  Provision covers only cases in which builders,
sowers or planters believe themselves to be
FACTS owners of the land or at least have a claim of
 Petitioner is the son of the respondents title
 Respondents filed an ejectment suit against the  This case is an exception – beyond limited
children definition
o Respondent’s Contention o The established facts of this case show
 They were the owner of the lots that respondents fully consented to the
 Petitioners occupied the lops by improvements introduced by petitioners.
way of verbal lease agreement o In fact, because the children occupied
and used them as residence the lots upon their invitation, the parents
and construction of their certainly knew and approved of the
business construction of the improvements
 Petitioners failed to pay rental introduced thereon.
despite repeated demands
o Petitioner’s Contention
 No verbal lease agreement
 Respondents invited them to
construct their residence and
business on the subject lots so
that they could live nearby
o MTC Ruling
 In favor of respondents
 Occupation by petitioners is by
mere tolerance
 They were bound by an implied
promise to vacate the lots upon
demand
o RTC Ruling – Upheld MTC
 But allowed respondents to
appropriate the building and
other improvements after
payment of indemnity
 Basis: Article 448.
 Respondents could:
 Oblige petitioners to
purchase the land
(unless value is more
than the building)
 If land value is more
than building,
petitioners should pay
rent, petitioners choose
not to appropriate
building.
o CA Ruling – Sustained the two lower
courts
 Article 448 is not applicable.
 Article 1678 (reimbursement of
one half)

ISSUE: Whether or not Article 448 is applicable

HELD: Yes.