Usero v CA Digest

G.R. No. 152115, 26 January 2005

Property Law

Facts: This is a consolidated petition assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals (CA). Petitioners and the private respondent are registered owners of neighboring parcels of land wherein between the lots is a low-level strip of land with stagnant body of water. Whenever there is a storm or heavy rain, the water therein would flood thereby causing damage to houses of the Polinars prompting them to build a concrete wall on the bank of the strip of land about 3meters from their house and riprapped the soil in that portion.

The Useros claimed ownership of the strip, demanded the halt of the construction but the Polinars never heeded believing that the strip is part of a creek. However, the Polinars offered to pay for the land. As the parties still failed to settle, both filed separate complaints for forcible entry. The Municipal Trial Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, while the regional trial court reversed and ordered the dismissal of the complaint and confirmed the existence of the creek between the lots.

Issue: Whether or not the disputed strip of land is part of the creek hence part of public domain

Held: YES. Art. 420 of the Philippine New Civil Code (NCC) provides for properties which are part of public domain. A creek is included in the phrase "and others of similar character". A creek, which refers to a recess or arm of a river is a property belonging to the public domain, therefore not susceptible of private ownership. Being a public water, it cannot be registered under the Torrens system under the name of any individual.

Mindanao Bus Co. v. City Assessor Digest

G.R. No. L-17870 29 September 1962

Facts: Petitioner is a public utility company engaged in the transport of passengers and cargo by motor vehicles in Mindanao with main offices in Cagayan de Oro (CDO). Petitioner likewise owned a land where it maintains a garage, a repair shop and blacksmith or carpentry shops. The machineries are placed thereon in wooden and cement platforms. The City Assessor of CDO then assessed a P4,400 realty tax on said machineries and repair equipment. Petitioner appealed to the Board of Tax Appeals but it sustained the City Assessor's decision, while the Court of Tax Appeals (CTA) sustained the same.

Note: This is merely a case digest to aid in remembering the important points of a case. It is still advisable for any student of law to read the full text of assigned cases.

Issue: Whether or not the machineries and equipments are considered immobilized and thus subject to a realty tax

Held: The Supreme Court decided otherwise and held that said machineries and equipments are not subject to the assessment of real estate tax.

Said equipments are not considered immobilized as they are merely incidental, not esential and principal to the business of the petitioner. The transportation business could be carried on without repair or service shops of its rolling equipment as they can be repaired or services in another shop belonging to another
.

Balucanag v Francisco Digest

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner bought a lot owned by Mrs. Charvet which was then previously leased by the latter to one Richard Stohner. The said lease contract provided that the lessee may erect structures and improvements which shall remain as lessee's property and he may remove them at any time. It further provided that should the lessee fail to remove the same structures or improvements withing two months after the expiration of the lease, the lessor may remove them or cause them to be removed at the expense of the lessee. Stohner made fillings on the land and constructed a house. When he failed to pay the rent, the petitioner, through counsel, sent Stohner a demand letter ordering him to vacate the lot. The lessee contended that he is a 'builder in good faith.'

Issue: Is the lessee a builder in good faith?

Ruling: No, the lessee cannot be considered a builder in good faith. The provision under Art. 448 of the New Civil Code (Philippine) on a builder of good faith applies only to the owner of the land who believes he is the rightful owner thereof, but not to a lessee who's interest in the land is derived only from a rental contract. Neither can Stohner be considered a 'possessor in good faith'. A possessor in good faith is a party who possesses property believing that he is its rightful owner but discovers later on a flaw in his title that could indicate that he might not be its legal owner. It cannot apply to a lessee because he knows right from the start that he is merely a lessee and not the owner of the premises.

As a mere lessee, he introduces improvements to the property at his own risk such that he cannot recover from the owner the reimbursements nor he has any right to retain the premises until reimbursements. What applies in this case is Art. 1678 (NCC) which provides that, " if the lessee, makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay the lessee 1/2 of the value of the improvements at the time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the improvements even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. He shall not. however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary."