G.R. No. 167017 Case Digest

G.R. No. 167017, June 22, 2009

Serafin Cheng

vs Spouses Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini

Ponente: Corona

Facts:

Cheng agreed to lease his property located in Mandaluyong City to the spouses who intended to put a restaurant thereon, they agreed to a monthly rental of 17k to commence in December 1990. Bearing an interim grant of authority executed by Cheng, spouses proceeded to introduce improvements in the premises.

But before the business could take off and before final lease agreement could be drafted and signed, the parties began to have serious disagreements regarding the terms and conditions. Cheng then demanded for the deposits and rentals with the intention of not continuing with the lease. The spouses ignored the demand and continued to occupy the premises until their caretaker voluntarily surrendered the property to Cheng.

Spouses then filed an action for specific performance and damages with a prayer for the issues of writ of preliminary injunction in RTC Pasig. Respondents prayed that petitioner be ordered to execute a written lease contract for five years, deducting from the deposit and rent the cost of repairs in the amount of P445,000, or to order petitioner to return their investment in the amount of P964,000 and compensate for their unearned net income of P200,000 with interest, plus attorney’s fees.

Petitioner denied the claims and sought for moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. RTC favored the Cheng.

Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) which, in its decision[5] dated March 31, 2004, recalled and set aside the RTC decision, and entered a new one ordering petitioner to pay respondents the amount of P964,000 representing the latter’s expenses incurred for the repairs and improvements of the premises.

Issue: spouses possessors in good faith?

Held:

The relationship between petitioner and respondents was explicitly governed by the Civil Code provisions on lease, which clearly provide for the rule on reimbursement of useful improvements and ornamental expenses after termination of a lease agreement. Article 1678 states:

If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary.

With regard to ornamental expenses, the lessee shall not be entitled to any reimbursement, but he may remove the ornamental objects, provided no damage is caused to the principal thing, and the lessor does not choose to retain them by paying their value at the time the lease is extinguished.

Contrary to respondents’ position, Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code did not apply.  Under these provisions, to be entitled to reimbursement for useful improvements introduced on the property, respondents must be considered builders in good faith.  Articles 448 and 546, which allow full reimbursement of useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, apply only to a possessor in good faith or one who builds on land in the belief that he is the owner thereof.  A builder in good faith is one who is unaware of any flaw in his title to the land at the time he builds on it.

Respondents are not entitled to reimbursement for the ornamental expenses under the express provision of Article 1678.  Moreover, since they failed to remove these ornaments despite the opportunity to do so when they vacated the property, then they were deemed to have waived or abandoned their right of removal.

(1) petitioner Serafin Cheng is ORDERED to pay  respondents, spouses Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini, the amount of P171,650.95 as indemnity for the useful improvements; and

(2) respondents, spouses Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini, are ORDERED to pay petitioner Serafin Cheng the following sums: (a) P100,000.00 moral damages; (b) P50,000.00 exemplary damages and (c) P25,000.00 attorney’s fees.