Scribd
Upload
100 views1 page

Depra vs. Dumlao

Francisco Depra owned land that was partially encroached on by Agustin Dumlao's kitchen which was constructed on his adjoining lot. Depra sued for unlawful detainer after discovering the 34 square meter encroachment. The municipal court found Dumlao was a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court held that as a builder in good faith, Dumlao was entitled to remove the improvement only if Depra opted to sell the land and Dumlao refused to pay. Res judicata did not apply as the first case was for ejectment while the second was for quieting of title.

Uploaded by

Jewel Ivy Balabag Dumapias
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
100 views1 page

Depra vs. Dumlao

Francisco Depra owned land that was partially encroached on by Agustin Dumlao's kitchen which was constructed on his adjoining lot. Depra sued for unlawful detainer after discovering the 34 square meter encroachment. The municipal court found Dumlao was a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court held that as a builder in good faith, Dumlao was entitled to remove the improvement only if Depra opted to sell the land and Dumlao refused to pay. Res judicata did not apply as the first case was for ejectment while the second was for quieting of title.

Uploaded by

Jewel Ivy Balabag Dumapias
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

9.

Depra vs Dumlao
FACTS:
Francisco Depra, is the owner of a parcel of land registered, situated in the municipality of Dumangas,
Iloilo. Agustin Dumlao, defendant-appellant, owns an adjoining lot. When DUMLAO constructed his
house on his lot, the kitchen thereof had encroached on an area of thirty four (34) square meters of
petitioners property, After the encroachment was discovered in a relocation survey of petitioners lot
made on November 2,1972, his mother, Beatriz Depra after writing a demand letter asking DUMLAO to
move back from his encroachment, filed an action for Unlawful Detainer. Said complaint was later
amended to include DEPRA as a party plaintiff. After trial, the Municipal Court found that respondent
was a builder in good faith, and applying Article 448 of the Civil Code. DEPRA did not accept payment
of rentals so that DUMLAO deposited such rentals with the Municipal Court. In this case, the Municipal
Court, acted without jurisdiction, its Decision was null and void and cannot operate as res judicata to the
subject complaint for Queting of Title. The court conceded in the MCs decision that Dumlao is a builder
in good faith.
Held: Owner of the land on which improvement was built by another in good faith is entitled to removal
of improvement only after landowner has opted to sell the land and the builder refused to pay for the
same. Res judicata doesnt apply wherein the first case was for ejectment and the other was for quieting
of title.
ART. 448. 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 works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity
provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the
land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent.
However, the builder or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than
that of the building or trees. In 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 fix the terms thereof.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy