Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 106 views

    Municipality of Oas v. Roa

    Uploaded by

    queshem
    The Municipality of Oas brought action against Roa to recover a tract of land, claiming it was part of the town's public square. Roa alleged he owned the property, though he admitted in writing that he knew the land belonged to the Municipality and that the person he bought it from did not actually own it. When Roa constructed a building on the land after acquiring it, the Municipality did not oppose the construction. The court held that the Municipality owns the land since Roa was not a purchaser in good faith. Both parties acted in bad faith, so their rights will be determined as if they acted in good faith based on civil code provisions regarding construction on another's land by mistake. The court declared the Municipality the

    Copyright:

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

    Municipality of Oas v. Roa

    Uploaded by

    queshem
    106 views1 page
    The Municipality of Oas brought action against Roa to recover a tract of land, claiming it was part of the town's public square. Roa alleged he owned the property, though he admitted in writing that he knew the land belonged to the Municipality and that the person he bought it from did not actually own it. When Roa constructed a building on the land after acquiring it, the Municipality did not oppose the construction. The court held that the Municipality owns the land since Roa was not a purchaser in good faith. Both parties acted in bad faith, so their rights will be determined as if they acted in good faith based on civil code provisions regarding construction on another's land by mistake. The court declared the Municipality the

    Original Title

    municipality of oas v. roa

    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 Municipality of Oas brought action against Roa to recover a tract of land, claiming it was part of the town's public square. Roa alleged he owned the property, though he admitted in writing that he knew the land belonged to the Municipality and that the person he bought it from did not actually own it. When Roa constructed a building on the land after acquiring it, the Municipality did not oppose the construction. The court held that the Municipality owns the land since Roa was not a purchaser in good faith. Both parties acted in bad faith, so their rights will be determined as if they acted in good faith based on civil code provisions regarding construction on another's land by mistake. The court declared the Municipality the

    Copyright:

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

    Municipality of Oas v. Roa

    Uploaded by

    queshem
    The Municipality of Oas brought action against Roa to recover a tract of land, claiming it was part of the town's public square. Roa alleged he owned the property, though he admitted in writing that he knew the land belonged to the Municipality and that the person he bought it from did not actually own it. When Roa constructed a building on the land after acquiring it, the Municipality did not oppose the construction. The court held that the Municipality owns the land since Roa was not a purchaser in good faith. Both parties acted in bad faith, so their rights will be determined as if they acted in good faith based on civil code provisions regarding construction on another's land by mistake. The court declared the Municipality the

    Copyright:

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

    MUNICIPALITY OF OAS vs ROA

    FACTS
    The Municipality brought the action for the recovery of a tract of land in the pueblo of Oas,
    claiming that it was a part of the public square of the said town, while Roa alleged that he was
    the owner of the property. The defendant admitted in writing that he knew that the land is
    owned by the Municipality and that Jose Castillo, whom he bought the property from did not
    own the land. When Roa constructed a substantial building on the property questioned after he
    "acquired" the property from Castillo, the Municipality did not oppose the construction.
    ISSUE
    WON the municipality owns the land.
    HELD
    Yes. The defendant was not a purchaser in good faith. The plaintiff, having permitted the
    erection by the defendant of a building on the land without objection, acted in bad faith. The
    rights of the parties must, therefore, be determined as if they both had acted in good faith.
    Provision of the civil code are applicable to the case, which relates to the construction by one
    person of a building upon land belonging to another. Article 364 (now Art 453) of the NCC, "
    when there has been bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, sowed, or planted
    on another's land, but also on the part of the owner of the latter, the rights of both shall be the
    same as if they had acted in good faith". The Supreme Court declared the Municipality as the
    owner of the land and that it has the option of buying the building thereon, which is the
    property of the defendant, or of selling to him the land on which it stands.

    You might also like