Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 412 views

    53 Gabrito Vs CA G R No 77976 November 24 1988

    Uploaded by

    Raymart L. Maralit
    The spouses Tan owned property in Olongapo City that the defendants Gabrito were leasing and had built structures on. When the Tans wanted to build on the property, they notified Gabrito to vacate within 3 months. Gabrito asked for an extension but then stopped paying rent. The Tans sued for unlawful detainer. Gabrito claimed they were builders in good faith but the court held that as lessees who recognized the Tans' right of possession by paying rent, they could not claim such status or refuse to vacate. The proper action was therefore one for unlawful detainer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    53 Gabrito Vs CA G R No 77976 November 24 1988

    Uploaded by

    Raymart L. Maralit
    412 views1 page
    The spouses Tan owned property in Olongapo City that the defendants Gabrito were leasing and had built structures on. When the Tans wanted to build on the property, they notified Gabrito to vacate within 3 months. Gabrito asked for an extension but then stopped paying rent. The Tans sued for unlawful detainer. Gabrito claimed they were builders in good faith but the court held that as lessees who recognized the Tans' right of possession by paying rent, they could not claim such status or refuse to vacate. The proper action was therefore one for unlawful detainer.

    Original Title

    365588617-53-Gabrito-vs-CA-G-R-No-77976-November-24-1988-docx.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The spouses Tan owned property in Olongapo City that the defendants Gabrito were leasing and had built structures on. When the Tans wanted to build on the property, they notified Gabrito to vacate within 3 months. Gabrito asked for an extension but then stopped paying rent. The Tans sued for unlawful detainer. Gabrito claimed they were builders in good faith but the court held that as lessees who recognized the Tans' right of possession by paying rent, they could not claim such status or refuse to vacate. The proper action was therefore one for unlawful detainer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    412 views1 page

    53 Gabrito Vs CA G R No 77976 November 24 1988

    Uploaded by

    Raymart L. Maralit
    The spouses Tan owned property in Olongapo City that the defendants Gabrito were leasing and had built structures on. When the Tans wanted to build on the property, they notified Gabrito to vacate within 3 months. Gabrito asked for an extension but then stopped paying rent. The Tans sued for unlawful detainer. Gabrito claimed they were builders in good faith but the court held that as lessees who recognized the Tans' right of possession by paying rent, they could not claim such status or refuse to vacate. The proper action was therefore one for unlawful detainer.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Gabrito vs CA

    G.R. No. 77976 November 24, 1988

    Facts: The spouses Roberto Tan and Benita Ching-Tan filed a complaint against defendants Maximo
    Gabrito, et al., alleging that they are the possessors and legal owners of the property situated in Olongapo
    City. The defendants are leasing portions of this parcel of land, each paying the corresponding monthly
    rentals due thereon. On the leased portion, the defendants constructed buildings and have allowed other
    persons to sublease the same for commercial purposes. The spouses Tan wanted to construct a residential
    house on the subject property; and so, the spouses Tan notified the defendants and gave defendants three
    (3) months to vacate the premises and remove the structures and improvements which defendants had
    constructed thereon.

    Defendants requested for an extension of time within which to vacate, which was granted by the spouses
    Tan. However, from that time on, defendants also stopped paying monthly rentals due on the land they
    leased. Hence, the Tans filed an action for unlawful detainer with damages against Gabrito, et al.

    In answer to the complaint, defendants Gabrito, et al. denied the material allegations of the complaint and
    alleged that: they are builders in good faith over the land; the land where the houses of defendants were
    built is a public land, not yet awarded nor titled to anybody; plaintiffs have never been in possession of the
    land while the defendants are in actual physical possession thereof; defendants admitted that they entered
    the premises as lessees and had been paying rentals for the use of the land to Gloria Carillo, private
    respondents' predecessor-in-interest.

    Issue: W/N an action for unlawful detainer is the proper action to oust petitioners from their occupation of
    the land in dispute?

    Held: Yes. Defendants admitted that they entered the premises as lessees and had been paying rentals
    for the use of the land to Gloria Carillo, private respondents' predecessor-in-interest. When requested to
    vacate the premises, petitioners asked for an extension of time which request was granted. However,
    petitioners failed to vacate the premises and also stopped paying rentals. In view of said admissions,
    petitioners had unquestionably recognized private respondents' prior right of possession over the
    questioned property. Petitioners allegation that they are builders in good faith over the land as provided for
    in Article 448 of the Civil Code is untenable for it applies only where one builds on land in the belief that he
    is the owner of the land, but does not apply where one's interest in the land is that of a lessee under a rental
    contract.

    In the case of Bocaling vs Laguna (54 SCRA 243, 250 [1973]), this Court held that: "The rule is well-settled
    that lessees, like petitioner, are not possessors in good faith, because he knew that their occupancy of
    the premises continues only during the life of the lease, and they cannot as a matter of right, recover the
    value of their improvements from the lessor, much less retain the premises until they are reimbursed. Their
    rights are governed by Article 1678 of the Civil Code which allows reimbursement of lessees up to one-half
    of the value of their improvements if the lessor so elects."

    You might also like