CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)
CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST
MINA VS.
PASCUAL
25 PHIL. 540
(1923)
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Commodatum is essentially
gratuitous.
ADDITIONAL
NOTE
A sale of land belonging
to another, on which a building of the vendors is located, is null and void,
for the vendor cannot sell or transfer property that does not belong to him.
Mina vs. Pascual., as prescribed by article 361, the owner of the land on which
a building has been erected by another in good faith has the option either to
appropriate and pay for the building, under articles 453 and 454, or to oblige
the builder to purchase the land.
FACTS
Andres
Fontanilla, with the consent of his brother Francisco, erected a warehouse on a
part of the lot belonging to Francisco, embracing 14 meters of its frontage by
11 meters of its depth. Francisco Fontanilla did not fix any definite period of the time during which Andres Fontanilla could have the use of the lot whereon the
latter was to erect a stone warehouse of considerable value, and so it is that
for the past thirty years, the lot has been used by both Andres and his
successors in interest.
The
court ordered the sale of the building and lot occupied by the building by the defendants,
heirs of Andres, to Cu Joco for P2,890. Plaintiff, heirs of Francisco opposed.
ISSUE
Whether the sale of the house
and lot is null and void and of no effect.
RULING
The
court ruled in the affirmative.
The
court held that Commodatum is essentially gratuitous. It is an essential
feature of the Commodatum that the use of the thing belonging to another shall
be for a certain period. Otherwise, state, the owner may exercise his right to Precarium.
Here,
since Francisco Fontanilla did not fix any definite period of time during which
Andres Fontanilla could have the use of the lot whereon the latter was to erect
a stone warehouse of considerable value, and so it is that for the past thirty
years the lot has been used by both Andres and his successors in interest, It
appears more likely that Francisco intended to allow his brother Andres a
surface right, but this right supposes the payment of annual rent, and
Andres had only the gratuitous use of the lot. Hence, the sale of the lot in
question is held to be null and void and of no force or effect.