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).







Popular posts from this blog

CRIMINAL LAW II CASE DIGEST/ BACLAYON V. MUTIA, 129 SCRA 148

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW I CASE DIGEST | THE DIOCESE OF BACOLOD V. COMELEC G.R. No. 205728, January 21, 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTIONS CASE DIGEST/ BPI FAMILY BANK VS. FRANCO/ G. R. NO. 123498/ 23 NOVEMBER 2007

REMEDIAL LAW | Riviera Golf Club v. CCA G.R. No. 173783, June 17 2015

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ MINA VS. PASCUAL/ 25 PHIL. 540 (1923)

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ QUINTOS VS. BECK/ 69 PHIL. 108 (1939)

LAW ON PROPERTY | ACOSTA V. OCHOA, ET AL., G.R. NO. 211559; G.R. NO. 215634, OCTOBER 15, 2019

ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION | HYGIENIC PACKAGING CORPORATION VS. NUTRI-ASIA, INC ., G.R. NO. 201302, JANUARY 23, 2019

LEGAL ETHICS | MAURICIO C. ULEP VS. THE LEGAL CLINIC, INC Bar Matter No. 553. June 17, 1993

CREDIT TRANSACTION CASE DIGEST/ DELOS SANTOS VS. JARRA/ G. R. NO. L-4150/ 10 FEBRUARY 1910/ 15 PHIL. 147