Macasaet vs Macasaet

Macasaet vs Macasaet

G.R. 154391 – 92 September 30, 2004

Facts: 1. Petitioners Ismael and Teresita Macasaet and Respondents Vicente and Rosario Macasaet are first-degree relatives. Ismael is the son of respondents, and Teresita is his wife. 2. The parents alleged that they were the owners of two (2) parcels of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-78521 and T-103141, situated in Banay-banay, Lipa City; that by way of a verbal lease agreement, their son and his wife occupied these lots in March 1992 and used them as their residence and the situs of their construction business. 3. Ismael and Teresita denied the existence of any verbal lease agreement. They claimed that their parents had invited them to construct their residence and business on the subject lots. They added that it was the policy of their parents to allot the the land owned as an advance grant of inheritance in favor of their children. Thus, they contended that the lot covered by TCT no. T-103141 had been allotted to Ismael as advance inheritance. On the other hand, the lot covered by TCT-78521 was allegedly given to petitioners as payment for construction materials used in the renovation of their parent’s house. 4. On December 10, 1997, the parents filed with the MTCC of Lipa City an ejectment suit against their children for failure to pay the agreed rental despite repeated demands. 5. The MTCC ruled in favor of the parents and ordered the children to vacate the premises. It opined that the children had occupied the lots, not by virtue of a verbal lease agreement but by tolerance of the parents. As their stay was by mere tolerance, the children were necessarily bound by an implied promise to vacate the lots upon demand. The MTCC dismissed their contention that one lot had been allotted as an advance inheritance, on the ground that succcesional rights were inchoate. It disbelieved that the other parcel had been given as payment for construction material. 6. On appeal, the RTC upheld the findings of the MTCC. RTC allowed the parents to appropriate the building and other improvements introduced by the children, after payment by indemnity provided for bt Article 448 in relation to Article 546 and 548 of the Civil Code. 7. On an appeal by both parties to the CA which were consolidated, the CA sustained the finding of the lower courts that the children had been occupying the subject lots only by the tolerance of their parent. Thus, possession of the subject lots by the children became illegal upon their receipt of letter to vacate it. The CA modified the RTC Decision

by declaring that Article 448 of the Civil Code was inapplicable. The CA opined that under Article 1678 of the same Code, the children had the right to be reimbursed for one half of the value of the improvements made. 8. Not satisfied with the CA’s ruling, the children brought the case to the Supreme Court.

Issues: 1. WON the children can be ejected a. Based on the parent’s love reasons for gratuitously allowing the children to use the lots, it can be safely concluded that the agreement subsisted as long as the parents and the children benefitted from the arrangement. Effectively, there is a resolutory condition existing between the parties occurs – like a change of ownership, necessity, death of either party or unresolved conflict or animosity – the agreement maybe deemed terminated. When persistent conflict and animosity overtook the love and solidarity between the parents and the children, the purpose of the agreement ceased. The children had any cause for continued possession of the lots. Their right to use became untenable. It ceased upon their receipt of the notice to vacate. And because they refused to heed the demand, ejectment was the proper remedy against them. b. The children had no right to retain possession. The right of the children to inherit from their parents is merely inchoate and is vested only upon the latter’s demise. Rights of succession are transmitted only from the moment of death of the decedent. Assuming that there was an “allotment” of inheritance, ownership nonetheless remained with the parents. c. The children’s allegation that the indebtness of their parent to them has been paid through dation cannot be given credence as there were no sufficient proof of a settlement or contract of dation to settle the alleged debt, and is inconsistent of the separate action by the children to recover the same debt. d. As a rule, the right of ownership carries with it the right of possession.

2. Rights of a Builder in Good faith a. As applied to the present case, accession refers to the right of owner to everything that is incorporated or attached to the property. Accession industrial – building, planting and sowing on an immovable – is governed by Articles 445 to 456 of the Civil Code.

b. As the court found that the children possession of the two lots was not by mere tolerance, the applicable rule would be Article 448. This article has been applied to cases wherein a builder had constructed improvements with the consent of the owner.