Scribd
Upload
255 views1 page

Property Dispute: Lessees vs. Owners

The respondents built a house on a lot they were leasing from the petitioners. They claimed they should be allowed to buy the land because the petitioners had promised to sell it to them and because they were builders in good faith. However, the court ruled that the respondents were not builders in good faith as they knew their lease would eventually end. Additionally, any alleged promise to sell the land was not in writing as required. As mere lessees, Article 1678 applies, allowing them to remove improvements but not claim reimbursement or retain the land.

Uploaded by

aziz
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
255 views1 page

Property Dispute: Lessees vs. Owners

The respondents built a house on a lot they were leasing from the petitioners. They claimed they should be allowed to buy the land because the petitioners had promised to sell it to them and because they were builders in good faith. However, the court ruled that the respondents were not builders in good faith as they knew their lease would eventually end. Additionally, any alleged promise to sell the land was not in writing as required. As mere lessees, Article 1678 applies, allowing them to remove improvements but not claim reimbursement or retain the land.

Uploaded by

aziz
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

Geminiano vs CA than the alleged promise by petitioner, respondents

had no other evidence to prove their claim.


Lessor in good faith and Builders in Good faith are not
synonymous. Article 1678 may apply to the former’s case
and Art 448 may apply to the latter’s case. If a person 2) They are mere lessees in good faith; therefore Art
knew that his stay would likely end or that he knew 1678 may apply if the lessor chooses to appropriate
somehow that he is not the owner of the land then he is
the improvements. But since the petitioners refused
not a BPS in good faith.
to exercise that option, the private respondents
FACTS: cannot compel them to reimburse the one-half value
of the house and improvements. Neither can they
The lot in question was originally owned by retain the premises until reimbursement is made.
the mother of the petitioner. Petitioner sold their The private respondents’ sole right then is to remove
unfinished bungalow to the respondents for P6,000, the improvements without causing any more
with a promise to sell the lot to the latter. impairment upon the property leased than is
The property was later leased to the necessary.
respondents for 7 years evidenced by their written
lease contract. The respondents built their house
and introduced some improvements in the lot.
In 1985 petitioner’s mother refused receiving
monthly rentals. It turned out that the lot in question
was subject to litigation which resulted to its
acquisition by Dionisio spouses. The property
eventually came back to the petitioner when the
Dionisio spouses executed a Deed of Quitclaim. As
such, the lot was registered in the latter’s names.
(petitioners never lost possession of the land
because Lee and company never issued a writ of
possession against them).
Petitioners wrote a letter to respondents
demanding them to vacate the premises and when
the latter refused, petitioners filed in court.
Respondents claim that they should be entitled to
buy the land because of the promise of the
petitioners to sell them the land and because they
were builders in Good faith.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not the respondents were builders in
good faith?
2) Whether Art 448 or 1678 should be applied?
RULING:
1) No, they were not builders in good faith. The
respondents knew that their stay would end after the
lease contract expires. They can’t bank on the
promise, which was not in writing, of the petitioners
that the latter will sell the land to them. According to
1403, an agreement for the sale of real property or
an interest therein is unenforceable, unless some
note or memorandum thereof be produced. Other

You might also like