B2022 REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL 32 [August 6, 1991]

Manila Public School Teacher’s Assoc v Laguio, Jr Manila Public School Teacher’s Assoc v Laguio, Jr

I. Recit-ready summary II. Facts of the case

Moralidad is Filipino citizen residing in the USA. She studied in the In her younger days, petitioner taught in Davao City, Quezon City and
US and worked there. During those years, she would come home to the Manila. While teaching in Manila, she had the good fortune of furthering her
Philippines to spend her two-month summer vacation in her hometown in studies at the University of Pennsylvania, U.S.A. Thereafter, she worked at
Davao City. When she’s in the Philippines, she would stay with her niece the Mental Health Department of said University for the next seventeen (17)
Arlene Pernes. years.
Sometime in 1986, she received news from Arlene that Mandug at the During those years, she would come home to the Philippines to spend
outskirts of Davao City was infested by NPA rebels and many women and her two-month summer vacation in her hometown in Davao City. Being
children were victims of crossfire between government troops and the single, she would usually stay in Mandug, Davao City, in the house of her
insurgents. Shocked and saddened about this development, she immediately niece, respondent Arlene Pernes, a daughter of her younger sister, Rosario.
sent money to Araceli, Arlene’s older sister, with instructions to look for Sometime in 1986, she received news from Arlene that Mandug at the
a lot in Davao City where Arlene and her family could transfer and settle outskirts of Davao City was infested by NPA rebels and many women and
down. This was why she bought the parcel of land subject of this case children were victims of crossfire between government troops and the
Moralidad acquired the lot property initially for the purpose of insurgents. Shocked and saddened about this development, she immediately
letting Arlene move from Mandug to Davao City proper but later she sent money to Araceli, Arlene’s older sister, with instructions to look for
wanted the property to be also available to any of her kins wishing to live a lot in Davao City where Arlene and her family could transfer and settle
and settle in Davao City. down. This was why she bought the parcel of land subject of this case
After retirement, she went back to the Philippines. In the course of time, Moralidad acquired the lot property initially for the purpose of
their relations turned sour because members of the Pernes family were letting Arlene move from Mandug to Davao City proper but later she
impervious to her suggestions and attempts to change certain practices wanted the property to be also available to any of her kins wishing to live
concerning matters of health and sanitation within their compound and settle in Davao City.
Moralidad filed with the MTCC of Davao City an unlawful detainer suit Following her retirement in 1993, Moralidad came back to the
against the respondent spouses. Petitioner alleged that she is the registered Philippines to stay with the respondents’ on the house they build on the
owner of the land on which the respondents built their house. MTCC granted subject property. In the course of time, their relations turned sour because
her petition but reversed when elevated to CA. Hence this petition. members of the Pernes family were impervious to her suggestions and
ISSUE: WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED attempts to change certain practices concerning matters of health and
IN APPLYING ARTICLES 448 AND 546 AND THE PROVISIONS OF sanitation within their compound
THE CODE ON USUFRUCT INSTEAD OF ARTICLE 1678 OF THE Moralidad filed with the MTCC of Davao City an unlawful detainer suit
CIVIL CODE – Court agrees that was constituted between the parties herein against the respondent spouses. Petitioner alleged that she is the registered
is one of usufruct over a piece of land, but it cannot agree with CA’s ruling owner of the land on which the respondents built their house. In their defense,
that that the action for unlawful detainer must be dismissed on ground of the respondents alleged having entered the property in question, building
prematurity. their house thereon and maintaining the same as their residence with
In fine, the occurrence of any of the following: the loss of the petitioner’s full knowledge and express consent. To prove their point, they
atmosphere of cooperation, the bickering or the cessation of harmonious invited attention to her written declaration of July 21, 1986, supra, wherein
relationship between/among kin constitutes a resolutory condition which, she expressly signified her desire for the spouses to build their house on her
by express wish of the petitioner, extinguishes the usufruct. property and stay thereat for as long as they like.
MTCC, resolving the ejectment suit in petitioner’s favor, declared that
the respondent spouses, although builders in good faith vis-à-vis the house

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J

Manila Public School Teacher’s Assoc v Laguio, Jr Manila Public School Teacher’s Assoc v Laguio, Jr

they built on her property, cannot invoke their bona fides as a valid excuse piece of land, with the petitioner being the owner of the property
for not complying with the demand to vacate. upon whom the naked title thereto remained and the respondents
Dissatisfied, the respondent spouses appealed to the RTC of Davao being two (2) among other unnamed usufructuaries who were
City. simply referred to as petitioner’s kin. The Court, however, cannot
RTC reversed that of the MTCC, holding that respondents’ possession go along with the CA’s holding that the action for unlawful
of the property in question was not, as ruled by the latter court, by mere detainer must be dismissed on ground of prematurity.
tolerance of the petitioner but rather by her express consent. It further ruled
2. Usufruct is defined under Article 562 of the Civil Code in the
that Article 1678 of the Civil Code on reimbursement of improvements
following wise:
introduced is inapplicable since said provision contemplates of a lessor-
lessee arrangement, which was not the factual milieu obtaining in the case.
a. Since the defendants-appellees [respondents] are admittedly ART. 562. Usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another
possessors of the property by permission from plaintiff [petitioner], and with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the
builders in good faith, they have the right to retain possession of the property title constituting it or the law otherwise provides.
subject of this case until they have been reimbursed the cost of the
improvements they have introduced on the property. 3. Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but simply allowing one to
CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC. The CA, while conceding the enjoy another’s property. It is also defined as the right to enjoy the
applicability of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code to the case, ruled that property of another temporarily, including both the jus utendi and
it is still premature to apply the same considering that the issue of whether the jus fruendi, with the owner retaining the jus disponendi or the
respondents’ right to possess a portion of petitioner’s land had already power to alienate the same.
expired or was already terminated was not yet resolved. To the CA, the 4. It is undisputed that petitioner, in a document dated July 21, 1986,
unlawful detainer suit presupposes the cessation of respondents’ right to supra, made known her intention to give respondents and her other
possess. The CA further ruled that what governs the rights of the parties is kins the right to use and to enjoy the fruits of her property. There
the law on usufruct but petitioner failed to establish that respondents’ right to can also be no quibbling about the respondents being given the
possess had already ceased. On this premise, the CA concluded that the right "to build their own house" on the property and to stay thereat
ejectment suit instituted by the petitioner was premature. The appellate court "as long as they like."
thus affirmed the appealed RTC decision,
5. However, determinative of the outcome of the ejectment case is
III. Issue/s
the resolution of the next issue, i.e., whether the existing usufruct
WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN
may be deemed to have been extinguished or terminated. If the
APPLYING ARTICLES 448 AND 546 AND THE PROVISIONS OF
question is resolved in the affirmative, then the respondents’ right
THE CODE ON USUFRUCT INSTEAD OF ARTICLE 1678 OF THE
to possession, proceeding as it did from their right of usufruct,
CIVIL CODE – Court agrees that was constituted between the parties
likewise ceased. In that case, petitioner’s action for ejectment in
herein is one of usufruct over a piece of land, but it cannot agree with
the unlawful detainer case could proceed and should prosper.
CA’s ruling that that the action for unlawful detainer must be dismissed
6. The term or period of the usufruct originally specified provides
on ground of prematurity.
only one of the bases for the right of a usufructuary to hold and
retain possession of the thing given in usufruct. There are other
IV. Ratio/Legal Basis
modes or instances whereby the usufruct shall be considered
1. The Court is inclined to agree with the CA that what was terminated or extinguished.
constituted between the parties herein is one of usufruct over a 7. he Civil Code enumerates such other modes of extinguishment:

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J

Manila Public School Teacher’s Assoc v Laguio, Jr Manila Public School Teacher’s Assoc v Laguio, Jr

ART. 603. Usufruct is extinguished: 12. Given the foregoing perspective, respondents will have to be
ordered to vacate the premises without any right of reimbursement.
(1) By the death of the usufructuary, unless a contrary intention clearly If the rule on reimbursement or indemnity were otherwise, then the
appears; usufructuary might, as an author pointed out, improve the owner
out of his property. The respondents may, however, remove or
(2) By expiration of the period for which it was constituted, or by the destroy the improvements they may have introduced thereon
fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in the title creating the without damaging the petitioner’s property.
usufruct; 13. Out of the generosity of her heart, the petitioner has allowed the
(3) By merger of the usufruct and ownership in the same person; respondent spouses to use and enjoy the fruits of her property for
(4) By renunciation of the usufructuary; quite a long period of time. They opted, however, to repay a noble
(5) By the total loss of the thing in usufruct; gesture with unkindness. At the end of the day, therefore, they
(6) By the termination of the right of the person constituting the usufruct;
really cannot begrudge their aunt for putting an end to their right of
(7) By prescription. (Emphasis supplied.)
usufruct. The disposition herein arrived is not only legal and called
8. The document executed by the petitioner dated July 21, 1986
for by the law and facts of the case. It is also right.
constitutes the title creating, and sets forth the conditions of, the
usufruct. Paragraph #3 thereof states "[T]hat anyone of my kins
may enjoy the privilege to stay therein and may avail the use V. Disposition
thereof. Provided, however, that the same is not inimical to the
purpose thereof" GRANTED
9. What may be inimical to the purpose constituting the usufruct may
be gleaned from the preceding paragraph wherein petitioner made
it abundantly clear "that anybody of my kins who wishes to stay on
the aforementioned property should maintain an atmosphere of
cooperation, live in harmony and must avoid bickering with one
another."
10. That the maintenance of a peaceful and harmonious relations
between and among kin constitutes an indispensable condition for
the continuance of the usufruct is clearly deduced from the
succeeding Paragraph #4 where petitioner stated "[T]hat anyone of
my kins who cannot conform with the wishes of the undersigned
may exercise the freedom to look for his own."
11. In fine, the occurrence of any of the following: the loss of the
atmosphere of cooperation, the bickering or the cessation of
harmonious relationship between/among kin constitutes a
resolutory condition which, by express wish of the petitioner,
extinguishes the usufruct.

G.R. NO: 177056 PONENTE: Chico Nazario, J