Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 275 views

    BALUCANAG vs. FRANCISCO

    Uploaded by

    Trisha Paola Tangan
    Stohner leased land from Charvet for 5 years in 1952 to build a house valued at P35,000. When Stohner failed to pay rent, the new landowner, Balucanag, ordered Stohner to vacate. Stohner claimed to be a builder in good faith and proposed to buy the land or be reimbursed. When no agreement was reached, Balucanag filed an ejectment suit. The trial court ordered Stohner to pay rent and vacate, but the respondent judge ruled Stohner was a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 448 on builders in good faith does not apply to lessees. As a lessee, Stohner

    Copyright:

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

    BALUCANAG vs. FRANCISCO

    Uploaded by

    Trisha Paola Tangan
    275 views2 pages
    Stohner leased land from Charvet for 5 years in 1952 to build a house valued at P35,000. When Stohner failed to pay rent, the new landowner, Balucanag, ordered Stohner to vacate. Stohner claimed to be a builder in good faith and proposed to buy the land or be reimbursed. When no agreement was reached, Balucanag filed an ejectment suit. The trial court ordered Stohner to pay rent and vacate, but the respondent judge ruled Stohner was a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 448 on builders in good faith does not apply to lessees. As a lessee, Stohner

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Stohner leased land from Charvet for 5 years in 1952 to build a house valued at P35,000. When Stohner failed to pay rent, the new landowner, Balucanag, ordered Stohner to vacate. Stohner claimed to be a builder in good faith and proposed to buy the land or be reimbursed. When no agreement was reached, Balucanag filed an ejectment suit. The trial court ordered Stohner to pay rent and vacate, but the respondent judge ruled Stohner was a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 448 on builders in good faith does not apply to lessees. As a lessee, Stohner

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    275 views2 pages

    BALUCANAG vs. FRANCISCO

    Uploaded by

    Trisha Paola Tangan
    Stohner leased land from Charvet for 5 years in 1952 to build a house valued at P35,000. When Stohner failed to pay rent, the new landowner, Balucanag, ordered Stohner to vacate. Stohner claimed to be a builder in good faith and proposed to buy the land or be reimbursed. When no agreement was reached, Balucanag filed an ejectment suit. The trial court ordered Stohner to pay rent and vacate, but the respondent judge ruled Stohner was a builder in good faith. The Supreme Court ruled that Article 448 on builders in good faith does not apply to lessees. As a lessee, Stohner

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    BALUCANAG vs.

    FRANCISCO and RICHARD STOHNER


    FACTS:
    In 1952, Charvet the original owner of the land, leased her lot to respondent
    Stohner for a period of five years. In which the lease contract provides that the
    ownership of the improvements introduced by lessee shall remain to be the
    property of the lessee and may not be removed two months after the expiration
    of the contract. It was agreed that the lessor may cause the improvement to be
    removed at the expense of lessee.
    Respondent Stohner built a house thereon valued at P35,000. Charvet later on
    sold the land to petitioner Balucanag. Since respondent Stohner failed to pay
    rents upon demand, petitioner Balucanag then ordered Stohner to vacate the
    premises.
    However, Stohner claimed that he was a builder in good faith, thereby he
    proposed to buy Balucanag’s lot or petitioner will reimburse the improvements
    introduced on his own land. Since no agreement was reach, petitioner filed an
    ejectment suit.
    The trial court ordered Stohner to pay rentals and to vacate the premises.
    Meanwhile, the respondent judge Francisco ruled otherwise. The CIF ruled that
    Stohner was a builder in good faith because he had constructed the residential
    house with the consent of Charvet, the former owner of the land. Therefore,
    Stohner who is a builder in good faith cannot be ejected until he is reimbursed of
    the value of improvements.

    ISSUE:
    1. Whether the Stohner who is a lessee is a builder in good faith.
    RULING:
    Article 448 of the Civil Code finds no application in this case, consequently,
    Stohner cannot be considered a builder in good faith.
    Article 448 only applies to a case where one builds on land in the belief that he I
    the owner thereof. It does not apply where one’s only interest in the land is that
    of a lessee under a rental contract.
    In this case, it is not disputed the relationship between the parties is that of a
    lessor and lessee.
    It was held by the Court in Lopez vs. Phil. And Eastern Trading Co. that the
    principle of possessor in good faith refers only to a party who occupies the
    property in the belief that he is the owner thereof. It cannot apply to a lessee
    because he is not the owner of the leased premises.
    The correct law to apply is Article 1678 of the Civil Code which provides:
    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 to
    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 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. (n)

    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