100%(1)100% menganggap dokumen ini bermanfaat (1 suara)
268 tayangan3 halaman
1. The case involves a dispute between parents and their children over two parcels of land occupied by the children. The parents claim they allowed the children to use the lots under a verbal lease agreement, while the children deny any such agreement.
2. The lower courts ruled in favor of the parents, finding the children occupied the lots by mere tolerance, not under any lease. As such, the children were bound to vacate upon demand by the parents.
3. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, concluding that when conflict arose between the parents and children, the agreement for the children to use the lots ceased. The children had no right to continued possession and must vacate as demanded.
1. The case involves a dispute between parents and their children over two parcels of land occupied by the children. The parents claim they allowed the children to use the lots under a verbal lease agreement, while the children deny any such agreement.
2. The lower courts ruled in favor of the parents, finding the children occupied the lots by mere tolerance, not under any lease. As such, the children were bound to vacate upon demand by the parents.
3. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, concluding that when conflict arose between the parents and children, the agreement for the children to use the lots ceased. The children had no right to continued possession and must vacate as demanded.
1. The case involves a dispute between parents and their children over two parcels of land occupied by the children. The parents claim they allowed the children to use the lots under a verbal lease agreement, while the children deny any such agreement.
2. The lower courts ruled in favor of the parents, finding the children occupied the lots by mere tolerance, not under any lease. As such, the children were bound to vacate upon demand by the parents.
3. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, concluding that when conflict arose between the parents and children, the agreement for the children to use the lots ceased. The children had no right to continued possession and must vacate as demanded.
154391 92 September 30, 2004 house. 4. The parents filed an ejectment suit against their Facts: children for failure to pay the agreed rental despite 1. Involved in this case are 1st repeated demands. degree relatives, where Ismael 5. The MTCC ruled in favor of the (children) is the son of the parents and ordered the respondents. The parents children to vacate the alleged that they were the premises. It opined that the owners of two (2) parcels of children had occupied the situated in Banay-banay, Lipa lots, not by virtue of a verbal City; that by way of a verbal lease agreement but by lease agreement, their son tolerance of the parents. As and his wife occupied these their stay was by mere lots in March 1992 and used tolerance, the children were them as their residence and necessarily bound by an the situs of their construction implied promise to vacate the business. lots upon demand. 2. Ismael and Teresita denied the 6. The MTCC dismissed their existence of any verbal lease contention that one lot had agreement and that their been allotted as an advance parents had invited them to inheritance, on the ground construct their residence and that successional rights were business on the subject lots. inchoate. It disbelieved that They added that it was the other parcel had been allotted as an advance grant given as payment for of inheritance. construction material. 3. Thus, they contended that the 7. On appeal, the RTC upheld 1st lot had been given to the findings of the MTCC. RTC Ismael as an advance allowed the parents to inheritance. On the other appropriate the building and hand, the 2nd lot was allegedly other improvements given to petitioners as introduced by the children, payment for construction after payment by indemnity materials used in the provided for by Article 448 in relation to Article 546 and 548 children to use the lots, it can be of the Civil Code. safely concluded that the 8. On an appeal the CA agreement subsisted as long as the sustained the finding of the parents and the children benefitted lower courts. Thus, possession from the arrangement. Effectively, of the subject lots by the there is a resolutory condition existing children became illegal upon between the parties occurs like a their receipt of letter to vacate change of ownership, necessity, it. The CA modified the RTC death of either party or unresolved Decision by declaring that conflict or animosity the Article 448 of the Civil Code agreement maybe deemed was inapplicable. The CA terminated. When persistent conflict opined that under Article 1678 and animosity overtook the love and of the same Code, the solidarity between the parents and children had the right to be the children, the purpose of the reimbursed for one half of the agreement ceased. The children value of the improvements had any cause for continued made. possession of the lots. Their right to 9. Not satisfied with the CAs use became untenable. It ceased ruling, the children brought the upon their receipt of the notice to case to the Supreme Court. vacate. And because they refused to heed the demand, ejectment was the proper remedy against Issues: them.
1. W/N the children can be The children had no right to
ejected retain possession. The right of the children to inherit from their parents 2. W/N Article 1678 of the Civil is merely inchoate and is vested only Code should apply to the upon the latters demise. Rights of case on the matters of succession are transmitted only from improvements. the moment of death of the decedent. Assuming that there was an allotment of inheritance, ownership nonetheless remained HELD with the parents. 1. Yes. Based on the parents love reasons for gratuitously allowing the The childrens 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.
As a rule, the right of ownership
carries with it the right of possession.
2. No. 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.
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.