Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 32 views

    PECSON V CA - Week 8

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Archille
    The document discusses a case where a property owner lost ownership of his land due to failure to pay taxes. The land was then sold, but the new owners also claimed ownership of the apartment building on the land. The court had to determine whether Article 448 or 546 of the Civil Code applied regarding ownership of improvements made by a previous owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PECSON V CA - Week 8

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Archille
    32 views1 page
    The document discusses a case where a property owner lost ownership of his land due to failure to pay taxes. The land was then sold, but the new owners also claimed ownership of the apartment building on the land. The court had to determine whether Article 448 or 546 of the Civil Code applied regarding ownership of improvements made by a previous owner.

    Original Title

    PECSON-v-CA_week-8

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case where a property owner lost ownership of his land due to failure to pay taxes. The land was then sold, but the new owners also claimed ownership of the apartment building on the land. The court had to determine whether Article 448 or 546 of the Civil Code applied regarding ownership of improvements made by a previous owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    32 views1 page

    PECSON V CA - Week 8

    Uploaded by

    Ivan Archille
    The document discusses a case where a property owner lost ownership of his land due to failure to pay taxes. The land was then sold, but the new owners also claimed ownership of the apartment building on the land. The court had to determine whether Article 448 or 546 of the Civil Code applied regarding ownership of improvements made by a previous owner.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    115814 May 26, 1995


    PEDRO P. PECSON, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES JUAN NUGUID and ERLINDA NUGUID,
    respondents.

    Facts:

    Petitioner Pedro P. Pecson was the owner of a commercial lot located in Kamias Street, Quezon City, on which he
    built a four-door two-storey apartment building. For his failure to pay realty taxes, the lot was sold at public
    auction. In turn, the property was sold it on to the private respondents, the spouses Juan Nuguid and Erlinda Tan-
    Nuguid.

    The petitioner challenged the validity of the auction sale. Upon close examination of the record, it shows that there
    was no mention of the building thereon. Needless to say, as it was only the land without any building which
    Nepomuceno had acquired at the auction sale, it was also only that land without any building which he could have
    legally sold to the Nuguids. However, the private respondents filed with the trial court a motion for delivery of
    possession of the lot and the apartment building, citing article 546 of the Civil Code.

    Issue:
    Which between Articles 448 and 546 is applicable in this case?

    Ruling:

    Article 546 is the applicable rule in this case. Article 448 does not apply to a case where the owner of the land is
    the builder, sower, or planter who then later loses ownership of the land by sale or donation.

    Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may
    retain the thing until he has been reimbursed therefor.

    Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith with the same right of retention, the person
    who has defeated him in the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the expenses or of paying
    the increase in value which the thing may have acquired by reason thereof. (453a).

    The trial court also erred in ordering the petitioner to pay monthly rentals equal to the aggregate rentals paid by
    the lessees of the apartment building. Since the private respondents have opted to appropriate the apartment
    building, the petitioner is thus entitled to the possession and enjoyment of the apartment building, until he is paid
    the proper indemnity, as well as of the portion of the lot where the building has been constructed. This is so
    because the right to retain the improvements while the corresponding indemnity is not paid implies the tenancy or
    possession in fact of the land on which it is built, planted or sown. The petitioner not having been so paid, he was
    entitled to retain ownership of the building and, necessarily, the income therefrom.

    You might also like