Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 834 views

    Case Digest NHA v. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation (MSBF)

    Uploaded by

    Divina Gracia Hinlo
    NHA owns 120 hectares of land that was partially reserved for MSBF's use. MSBF occupied 16 hectares, exceeding the 7 hectares granted. NHA sued MSBF to vacate the excess land and pay rent. The court ruled that as MSBF occupied land beyond the 7 hectares without permission, it was a possessor in bad faith. As such, MSBF must reimburse NHA for any profits from leasing the excess land. However, MSBF will be refunded necessary expenses to preserve the excess land.

    Copyright:

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

    Case Digest NHA v. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation (MSBF)

    Uploaded by

    Divina Gracia Hinlo
    834 views2 pages
    NHA owns 120 hectares of land that was partially reserved for MSBF's use. MSBF occupied 16 hectares, exceeding the 7 hectares granted. NHA sued MSBF to vacate the excess land and pay rent. The court ruled that as MSBF occupied land beyond the 7 hectares without permission, it was a possessor in bad faith. As such, MSBF must reimburse NHA for any profits from leasing the excess land. However, MSBF will be refunded necessary expenses to preserve the excess land.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    NHA owns 120 hectares of land that was partially reserved for MSBF's use. MSBF occupied 16 hectares, exceeding the 7 hectares granted. NHA sued MSBF to vacate the excess land and pay rent. The court ruled that as MSBF occupied land beyond the 7 hectares without permission, it was a possessor in bad faith. As such, MSBF must reimburse NHA for any profits from leasing the excess land. However, MSBF will be refunded necessary expenses to preserve the excess land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    834 views2 pages

    Case Digest NHA v. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation (MSBF)

    Uploaded by

    Divina Gracia Hinlo
    NHA owns 120 hectares of land that was partially reserved for MSBF's use. MSBF occupied 16 hectares, exceeding the 7 hectares granted. NHA sued MSBF to vacate the excess land and pay rent. The court ruled that as MSBF occupied land beyond the 7 hectares without permission, it was a possessor in bad faith. As such, MSBF must reimburse NHA for any profits from leasing the excess land. However, MSBF will be refunded necessary expenses to preserve the excess land.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    NHA v. Manila Seedling Bank Foundation (MSBF), G.R. No.

    183543 [June 20, 2016])

    Facts:

    NHA is the owner of a 120-hectare piece of government property in Diliman, Quezon City,
    reserved for the establishment of the National Government Center. By virtue of Proclamation
    No. 1670 issued by President Ferdinand Marcos reserved a seven-hectare area thereof and
    granted respondent usufructuary rights over it.

    MSBF occupied a total of 16 hectares, thereby exceeding the seven-hectare area it was allowed
    to occupy. It leased the excess to private tenants.

    Memorandum Order No. 127 was issued by President Corazon Aquino revoking the reserved
    status of the remaining 50 hectares of the 120-hectare property. NHA was expressly authorized
    to commercialize the area and sell it to the public through bidding. President Fidel Ramos
    subsequently issued Executive Order No. 58 creating an inter-agency executive committee
    composed of petitioner and other government agencies to oversee the comprehensive
    development of the remaining 50 hectares, therein referred to as the North Triangle Property.

    As MSBF occupied a prime portion of the North Triangle Property, the Executive Committee
    proposed the transfer of MSBF to areas more suitable to its operations.

    NHA prayed that MSBF be ordered to vacate the seven-hectare area and the excess, and to
    pay rent therefor on top of exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.

    Issue: Whether or not NHA it is entitled to recover rent from MSBF.

    Ruling:

    This Court agrees with the trial court that MSBF has abused the privilege given it under
    Proclamation No. 1670.  Since MSBF had no right to act beyond the confines of the seven-
    hectare area granted to it, and since it was fully aware of this fact, its encroachment of nine
    additional hectares of NHA’s property rendered it a possessor in bad faith as to the excess.

    While respondent may have been allowed by then Minister of Natural Resources Ernesto
    Maceda to lease the excess to various establishments, such authority did not come from NHA,
    who is the owner.

    Under Article 549 in relation to Articles 546 and 443 of the Civil Code, a possessor in bad faith
    has a specific obligation to reimburse the legitimate possessor for everything that the former
    received, and that the latter could have received had its possession not been interrupted. Article
    443 of the Civil Code states:

    Article 443. He who receives the fruits has the obligation to pay the expenses made by a
    third person in their production, gathering, and preservation.

    As provided in the law, NHA shall be made to account for the fruits it received from the time it
    took possession until the time it surrendered the excess to petitioner. Having leased out the
    excess to various establishments and earned profits therefrom, it is bound to pay the
    corresponding amounts to NHA.
    However, MSBF shall be entitled to a refund of the necessary expenses it incurred. Necessary
    expenses are those made for the preservation of the land occupied,[40] or those

    You might also like