Scribd
Upload
719 views

Macasaet Vs Macasaet

This case involves a dispute over ownership of two parcels of land between petitioners Ismael and Teresita Macasaet and respondents Vicente and Rosario Macasaet. The respondents claim they own the land and allowed the petitioners to live there through a verbal lease agreement, while the petitioners claim they were invited to construct their home and business on the land. The lower courts ruled in favor of the respondents. The issue is whether Articles 447, 453 and 454 of the Civil Code apply. The Supreme Court rules that Article 447 does not apply as it relates to using another's materials, not building on another's land. Article 448 applies instead as the respondents consented to the petitioners

Uploaded by

markleonard23
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
719 views

Macasaet Vs Macasaet

This case involves a dispute over ownership of two parcels of land between petitioners Ismael and Teresita Macasaet and respondents Vicente and Rosario Macasaet. The respondents claim they own the land and allowed the petitioners to live there through a verbal lease agreement, while the petitioners claim they were invited to construct their home and business on the land. The lower courts ruled in favor of the respondents. The issue is whether Articles 447, 453 and 454 of the Civil Code apply. The Supreme Court rules that Article 447 does not apply as it relates to using another's materials, not building on another's land. Article 448 applies instead as the respondents consented to the petitioners

Uploaded by

markleonard23
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Macasaet vs Macasaet

Facts:
Petitioners Ismael and Teresita Macasaet and Respondents Vicente and
Rosario Macasaet are first degree relatives.Ismael is the son of respondents,
and Teresita is his wife. Petitioners filed and ejectment suit against
respondents. Respondents alleged that they were the ownersd of the two
parcels of land and that by way of verbal lease agreement, respondents
occupied these lots as their residence and the situs of their construction
business. Ismael and Teresita denied the existence of any verbal lease
agreement and claimed that they were invited to construct their residence
and business on the subject lots in order that they could all live near on
another.Respondents added that the land they woned was an advance grant
of inheritance in favor of their children.MTCC ruled in favor of
respondents.RTC upheld the findings.
Issue: WON Art 447 of the Civil Code in relation to the Art 453 and 454
should apply.
Ruling: No. Art 447 is not applicable, because it relates to the rules that apply
when then owner of the property uses the materials of another. It does not
refer to the instance when a possessor builds on the property of another,
which is the factual milieu here. Art 448 applies to the present factual milieu.
The established facts of this case show that respondents fully consented to
the improvements introduced by petitioners. In fact, because the children
occupied the lots upon their invitation, the parents certainly knew and
approved of the construction of the improvements introduced thereon. Thus
petitioners may be deemed to have been in good faith when they built the
structures on those lots. The structures built by petitioners were useful
improvements, because they augmented the value or income of the bare
lots. Thus, the indemnity to be paid by respondents under Art 448 is
provided for by Art 546, which we quote: Art 546. Necessary expenses shall
be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in god faith may
retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.

You might also like