TAYAG VS YUSECO 97 PHIL 712 Facts: •
• •
• •
•
• •
• •
•
Yuseco Yuseco had been rendering professional services without compensation to Lim. Lim oered to Yuseco, to build a house within their lot. Yuseco Yuseco accepted the oer (believing that the same was a donation or was compensation for the services rendered) rendered) Yuseco Yuseco built a house thereon. thereon. Lim sold to her daughter(Tayag) the lots where Yuseco’s house stood. Tayag Tayag ased Yuseco Yuseco to remove their house from the lots or pay a monthly rental.Yuseco refused. Tayag !led an action of e"ection for restitution of the lots. The case reached the #$ and remanded the case to the Trial court to give an opportunity to Tayag to e%ercise their choice and option whether they would appropriate the buildings and pay Yuseco Yuseco for the value thereof &' compel Yuseco to pay for the value of the lots. n a manifestation, Tayag chose to appropriate the buildings. T$ T$ issued a writ of e%ecution e%ecution to collect from Tayag the sum for the building. Tayag Tayag uestion said writ, contending that she still retain the right of opti option on and and even even if sh she e alr already eady had had made made her her choi choice ce,, sh she e cannot be compelled to pay the price !%ed by the court because of her !nancial inability.
Issue: *+T+ *+T+' ' &' -&T TY/ 0Y 0Y #TLL #TLL '123 '123 T +# L$T L$T&&- T& 11'&1'T T+ 42L3-/#.
Law Applicale: rt. 556. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to appropriate as his own the wors, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in rticles 758 and 756, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. +owever, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. n such case, he shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The
parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall !% the terms thereof. (98:a)
!uli"#: -&. &nce a choice is made by the landowner, it is generally irrevocable.Thus, if the landowner has opted;elected to appropriate the building but he is unable to pay for the indemnity or amount, the landowner $--&T afterwards opt;elect to sell the land. #ince Tayag’s !rst choice had already been communicated to the court and she had already been ordered to pay, her duty has been converted into a monetary obligation which can be enforced by a writ of e%ecution.
Opi"i$": agree with the decision of the #$. Yuseco is a possessor in good faith, as she believed the land given was a donation or was compensation for the services rendered.
GALLA! VS HUSSAI% L&2'9() *AY 2)+ 19,7 Facts: +usains in this case are the heirs of Teodoro +usain. Teodoro +usain sold the land under dispute for 9< pesos to #erapio $hichirita with the right to repurchase within 8 years. Teodoro transferred his right to his sister, /raciana +usain. /raciana paid the redemption price and later sold the land to lias /allar for a cattle. 1ossession of the land, together with the owner=s duplicate of the certi!cate of title of Teodoro +usain, was delivered on the same occasion to /allar, who since then has been in possession of the land. couple of years after, /allar !led this suit in the $ourt of nstance of loilo on &ctober :<, :>8< to compel +ermenegilda and 4onifacio +usain, as heirs of Teodoro +usain, to e%ecute a deed of conveyance in his favor so that he could get a transfer certi!cate of title. +e also ased for damages. The +usains countered by saying that /raciana already paid the redemption price thus their father had already reacuired ownership over the same. They also claim that the action of lias has already 1'#$'43.
Issue: :) *+T+' &' -&T &*-'#+1 *# T'-#?''3 T& /LL'. @) *+T+' &' -&T T+ $T&- +# L'3Y 1'#$'43.
Law Applicale: rt. 5A8. *henever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or eective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be pre"udicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to uiet the title. n action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein.
!uli"#: :) Y#, ownership has been transferred to /allar. The right of repurchase may be e%ercised only by the vendor in whom the right is recogniBed by contract or by any person to whom the right may have been transferred. /raciana +usain must, therefore, be deemed to have acuired the land in her own right, sub"ect only to Teodoro +usain=s right of redemption. s the new owner she had a perfect right to dispose of the land as she in fact did when she e%changed it for a cattle with /allar. @) -&, the action is imprescriptible. This action is not for speci!c performanceC all it sees is to uiet title, to remove the cloud cast on appellee=s ownership as a result of appellant=s refusal to recogniBe the sale made by their predecessor. nd, as plaintiDappellee is in possession of the land, the action is imprescriptible. ppellant=s argument that the action has prescribed would be correct if they were in possession as the action to uiet title would then be an action for recovery of real property which must be brought within the statutory period of limitation governing such actions.
Opi"i$": agree with the decision of the #upreme $ourt. The owner has the right to en"oy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law. n action to uiet title to property in one’s possession is imprescriptible. The rationale for this rule has been aptly stated thusE FThe owner of real property who is in possession thereof may wait until his possession is invaded or his title is attaced before taing steps to vindicate his right. person claiming title to real
property, but not in possession thereof, must act aGrmatively and within the time provided by the statute.
S-Y.O!L/ CO%/O*I%IU* O.%E!S ASSO0 VS SEC 211 SC!A (,( 1992 Facts: Two petitions were !led against the petitioner #$&, one of them contesting the e%istence of the petitioner as an entity, and the other, for a writ of preliminary in"unction praying that the petitioner be stopped from e%ercising the prerogatives of a condominium corporation. The !rst petition was !led on ugust 6, :>68 by $4$ before the #$ doceted as #$ -o. 9<97. The second was !led on &ctober >, :>68 before the 'egional Trial $ourt of 4aguio, 4ranch H ($ivil $ase -o. >:7D') by the respondent 4aguio #yworld $ondominium $orporation (4#$$) which was organiBed at the instance of $4$ and registered with the #$ on #eptember :>, :>68. hearing was conducted on #eptember ::, :>6> by the 13 with 0r. -orberto 'uiB as the hearing oGcer. The counsels of the two parties were present. &n 3ecember :@, :>6>, the 13 issued a resolution ordering the revocation of the certi!cate of registration of the #$&. The resolution was prepared by 0r. -orberto 'uiB after studying the substantial evidence he received and the arguments of the parties in the memoranda submitted by the parties to him. &n the same date, the resolution was presented by 13 3irector lnora dviento before the $ommission en banc which approved the same.
Issue: *+T+' &' -&T T+ 'H&$T&- &? T+ $'T?$T &? '/#T'T&- *# HL3.
Law applicale: !A )72, Secti$" 1'0 *henever the common areas in a condominium pro"ect are held by a condominium corporation, such corporation shall constitute the management body of the pro"ect. The corporate purposes of such a corporation shall be limited to the holding of the common areas, either in ownership or any other interest in real property recogniBed by law, to the management of the pro"ect, and to
such other purposes as may be necessary, incidental or convenient to the accomplishment of said purposes. The articles of incorporation or byDlaws of the corporation shall not contain any provision contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this ct, the enabling or master deed, or the declaration of restrictions of the pro"ect. 0embership in a condominium corporation, regardless of whether it is a stoc or nonD stoc corporation, shall not be transferable separately from the condominium unit of which it is an appurtenance. *hen a member or stocholder ceases to own a unit in the pro"ect in which the condominium corporation owns or holds the common areas, he shall automatically cease to be a member or stocholder of the condominium corporation.
!uli"#: Yes. The revocation was valid.The $ourt, thus, upholds the !nding of the $ommission that the indispensable reuirement that all incorporators of a condominium corporation must be shareholders thereof was not satisfactorily complied with by the petitioner at the time a certi!cate of registration was applied for. (#ection 7, $orporation $ode of the 1hilippines I4atas 1ambansa 4lg. 86JC #ection :<, $ondominium ct I'ep. ct. 5A@8J. To be a shareholder, one must necessarily be an owner of a condominium unit. (#unset Hiew $ondominium $orporation v. $ampos, Kr., :<5 #$' @>7 I:>6:J). n the case at bar, it was found by the #$ that only one, ngel 4autista, was considered to be an owner of a unit in the #yworld $ondominium at the time of incorporation.
Opi"i$": agree with the #$, when the language of the law is plain and clear, there is no room for interpretation.
PU%ALA% VS 3OO% LIAT )) PHIL 42' Facts: 1laintis (@: men) and one of the defendants named hamad, found a whale and uartered it. They found a great uantity of ambergris in its abdomen and placed it in three sacs (@ sacs were full and the third is only halfDfull). The sacs were taen to the house of 0ahara"a 4utu and left it to the care of hamad. ll @@ persons made an agreement that they were to be the sole owners of the ambergris and that none of
them could sell it without the consent of the rest. #ome went to amboanga to sell the ambergris and eventually sold a half sac. 0eanwhile, 0r. +enry Tec oered to purchase the ambergris remaining with hamad, who refused to sell. 0r. Tec insisted telling hamad not to be afraid of his companions and that he would answer for whatever might happen. *ith this promise of protection, hamad agreed to sell the amber.
Issue: *+T+' &' -&T T+ #L *# HL3 +H-/ -T'3 -T& *T+&2T T+ $&-#-T &? T+ &T+' $&D&*-'#.
Law Applicale: A5ticle )6(0 The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void. The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co- ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved.
!uli"#: The sale was valid. 3efendants should deliver to the plaintis the amber in uestion or in default thereof, to pay them the value of the amber or 1 8<,<<<. There was an agreement between the coDowners not to sell the amber without the consent of all. 4oth sales having been made without the consent of all owners, the same have no eect, e%cept as to the portion pertaining to those who made them.
Opi"i$": agree with the decision of the #$. The sale will aect only his own share but not those of the other coMowners who did not consent to the sale. sale of the entire property by one coMowner without the consent of the other coMowners is not null and void but aects only his undivided share.
