Case Digest (G.R. No. 182754)
Facts:
In Spouses Crispin Aquino and Teresa V. Aquino (represented by their attorney-in-fact Amador D. Ledesma) v. Spouses Eusebio Aguilar and Josefina V. Aguilar, the petitioners are registered owners of a house and lot at No. 6948 Rosal Street, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City (TCT No. 148338). Since 1981 respondents, who are the sister and brother-in-law of Teresa Aquino, occupied the property with petitioners’ consent and demolished the original house, erecting a three-storey building. Respondents lived rent-free on half of the third floor for about 20 years. On 22 September 2003, petitioners demanded that respondents vacate within ten days to accommodate an immediate family member. When respondents failed to comply, petitioners filed an ejectment complaint in the barangay and later in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City on 19 November 2003, praying for respondents’ ejectment and payment of reasonable rentals. Respondents counterclaimed, alleging co-ownership of the builCase Digest (G.R. No. 182754)
Facts:
- Ownership and Possession
- Petitioners Crispin and Teresa Aquino own a lot and house at No. 6948 Rosal Street, Guadalupe Viejo, Makati City (TCT No. 148338).
- Since 1981, respondents Eusebio and Josefina Aguilar (Teresa’s sister and spouse) occupied the property with petitioners’ consent while petitioners resided abroad.
- Improvements and Demand to Vacate
- Respondents demolished the old house and built a three-storey building, occupying half of the third floor rent-free for 20 years.
- On 22 September 2003, petitioners demanded surrender within 10 days due to a relative’s need; respondents did not comply.
- Procedural History
- Petitioners filed ejectment before the barangay captain; no settlement was reached (Sec. 412, LGC).
- On 19 November 2003, petitioners filed ejectment (MeTC Makati): respondents counterclaimed co-ownership and reimbursement for contributions to construction (approx. ₱1 Million cash plus supervision).
- MeTC (12 Nov 2004) ruled for petitioners: respondents were bad-faith builders, not co-owners, no indemnity, ordered to vacate and pay ₱7,000/month from 22 Oct 2003.
- RTC (3 Jan 2006) affirmed: respondents’ occupancy by tolerance, warned in 1983 not to build, no good faith, no co-ownership, no reimbursement.
- CA (25 Apr 2008) affirmed no good faith or co-ownership but remanded to determine reimbursement under Arts. 1678 and 546 CC for necessary and useful expenses; awarded monthly ₱7,000 rent.
- Petitioners filed Rule 45 petition to SC challenging remand for useful improvements reimbursement.
Issues:
- Builder’s Good Faith and Co-ownership
- Whether respondents can be considered builders in good faith (Art. 448 CC).
- Whether respondents are co-owners of half the third floor by virtue of their contributions.
- Entitlement to Reimbursement
- Whether Articles 1678 and 546 CC apply to occupants by mere tolerance.
- Whether respondents, as bad-faith builders, are entitled to useful or necessary expenses.
- Damages and Remedies
- Whether petitioners may recover actual damages (rent) from date of demand until surrender.
- Whether petitioners are entitled to attorney’s fees.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)