Scribd
Upload
61 views3 pages

Mores v. Yu-Go

This case involves an injunction suit filed by the Yu siblings against the Mores spouses. The Yu siblings allege that the Mores demolished improvements on leased property without permission. The trial court ruled in favor of the Mores, finding they removed improvements as good faith possessors. However, the appellate court disagreed, finding the relationship was one of lessor-lessee under Article 1678. It ordered the Mores to pay moral damages, denying that they removed improvements in good faith as tenants cannot claim ownership of leased property. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's application of Article 1678, finding no moral damages were due as the Mores removed improvements after the Yu siblings refused reimbursement.

Uploaded by

Maria Michelle Moraca
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
61 views3 pages

Mores v. Yu-Go

This case involves an injunction suit filed by the Yu siblings against the Mores spouses. The Yu siblings allege that the Mores demolished improvements on leased property without permission. The trial court ruled in favor of the Mores, finding they removed improvements as good faith possessors. However, the appellate court disagreed, finding the relationship was one of lessor-lessee under Article 1678. It ordered the Mores to pay moral damages, denying that they removed improvements in good faith as tenants cannot claim ownership of leased property. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's application of Article 1678, finding no moral damages were due as the Mores removed improvements after the Yu siblings refused reimbursement.

Uploaded by

Maria Michelle Moraca
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Mores v.

Yu-go, 625 SCRA 291 (2010)


DOCTRINE:
FACTS:
• This case is an injunction suit filed by plaintiff-appellants Yu-go
et.al, alleging that, appellees Mores, pleaded to appellants that
they were already in need of the subject property. However,
appellees begged that they be given more time. Extensions of time
were repeatedly given to appellee but, instead of heeding such
demand, appellees hired some laborers and started demolishing
the improvements on the subject property on January 20, 1999.
• Consequently, appellants instituted the said action for injunction
where they also prayed for the reimbursement of the value of the
residential building illegally demolished.
• Appellees filed their Answer where they denied the material
averments of the complaint. They claimed that appellees were the
ones who caused its renovation consisting of a 3-bedroom annex,
a covered veranda and a concrete hollow block fence, at their own
expense, and with appellants’ consent, which renovation was
made without altering the form and substance of the subject
property. Also, appellees argued that what they removed was
merely the improvements made on the subject property, which
removal had not caused any substantial damage thereto as, in
fact, it remained intact. By way of counterclaims, they demanded
payment of actual damages, attorney’s fees and litigation
expenses.

ISSUE:
Whether or not appellants are subject to reimbursement.

RULING:
• The petition has merit.
• The trial court promulgated its Decision in favor of the spouses
Mores ruling that Defendants, who are possessors in good faith,
were able to prove by preponderance of evidence that they
removed only the improvements they introduced without
destroying the principal building, after the plaintiffs refused to pay
them the reasonable value of the improvements. x x x
• However, the appellate court disagreed that spouses Mores were
in good faith, believing that the relationship between the Yu
siblings and the spouses Mores is one between a lessor and a
lessee, making Article 1678 of the Civil Code applicable to the
present case. The options given by Article 1678, the right of
appropriating the useful improvements after reimbursing 50% of its
value or the right of removal of the useful improvements, are given
by law to the lessor - the Yu siblings. Hence the appellate court
ordered the spouses Mores to pay the Yu siblings moral damages
worthP100,000 and denied Mores’ Motion for Reconsideration for
want of merit.

• The good faith referred to by Alida Mores was about the building of
the improvements on the leased subject property. However,
tenants like the spouses Mores cannot be said to be builders in
good faith as they have no pretension to be owners of the
property. Indeed, 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.
• The appellate court is correct in ruling that Article 1678 of the Civil
Code should apply in the present case. Article 1678 reads:
• If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are
suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering
the form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the
termination of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value
of the improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to
reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the improvements,
even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. He
shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon the property
leased than is necessary.
• With regard to the ornamental expenses, the lessee shall not be
entitled to any reimbursement, but he may remove the ornamental
objects, provided no damage is caused to the principal thing, and
the lessor does not choose to retain them by paying their value at
the time the lease is extinguished.
• There is thus no reason for the appellate court’s award of moral
damages to the Yu siblings. We agree with the trial court’s finding
that the spouses Mores "removed only the improvements they
introduced without destroying the principal building, after the [Yu
siblings] refused to pay them the reasonable value of the
improvements." When the spouses Mores demanded
reimbursement, the Yu siblings should have offered to pay the

You might also like