LAW ON PROPERTY | METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM VS. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. L-54526, AUGUST 25, 1988.
METROPOLITAN WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE SYSTEM VS. COURT OF
APPEALS,
G.R. NO. L-54526, AUGUST 25,
1988.
TOPIC/DOCTRINE
Article 449 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that “he who builds, plants or sows
in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown
without right to indemnity.” The right given a possessor in bad faith is
to remove improvements applies only to improvements for pure luxury or
mere pleasure, provided the thing suffers no injury thereby and the lawful
possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value they may have
at the time he enters into possession (Article 549, Id.).
FACTS
The City of Dagupan (City)
filed a case for recovery of ownership, possession and control of the
Dagupan Waterworks System (DWS) against National Waterworks and Sewerage
Authority (NAWASA) now known as Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage
System (MWSS).
In NAWASA’s counterclaim: 1) it assailed that it is entitled to
the expenses and improvements it provided for DWS, and 2) Under R.A. 1383
it is entitled to have control to all national waterworks systems in the
Philippines.
The lower court ruled in favor of the City. On appeal, the Court
of Appeals ruled in favor of the City citing that NAWASA is in bad faith
and therefore not entitled to any monetary claim under the law.
ISSUE
Can MWSS be entitled to the
improvements that its former personality (NAWASA) has introduced to the DWS
despite the fact that it was found out in bad faith.
RULING
No.
The court ruled that Article 449 of the Civil Code of the
Philippines provides that “he who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on
the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to
indemnity.” Rights of a possessor in good faith and a possessor in bad faith—Moreover,
under Article 546 of said code, only a possessor in good faith shall be
refunded for useful expenses with the right of retention until reimbursed;
and under Article 547 thereof, only a possessor in good faith may remove
useful improvements if this can be done without damage to the principal
thing and if the person who recovers the possession does not exercise the
option of reimbursing the useful expenses. The right given a possessor in
bad faith is to remove improvements applies only to improvements for pure
luxury or mere pleasure, provided the thing suffers no injury thereby and
the lawful possessor does not prefer to retain them by paying the value
they may have at the time he enters into possession (Article 549, Id.).
Here, the court ruled that as a builder in bad faith, NAWASA lost
whatever useful improvements it had made without right to indemnity
(Santos vs. Mojida, Jan. 31, 1969, 26 SCRA 703).