PNB v.

De jesus disagreements regarding its terms and

Facts: condition
Pet filed in RTC for recovery of ownership Cheng wrote to donini to pay the deposit
and possession with damages over the and rentals donini fails and continued to
queationed property occupy the premises until their caretaker
Res astated that he acquired the parcel of voluntarily surrendered the property to
land with tct and he had caused the pet.
verification of land and discovered that it
was encroached by a building of a Issue:
petitioner 124 sq m, they sent demand Right of cheng and donini as to the
letters but petitioner failed and refuse to improvemants, reimbursed for expenses
vacate and the right to retain the property
Pet asserted it acquired it to mayor
Ignacio, mayor offer to sell it the sale Ruling:
however did not materialized without the Art 1678 50% or return
knowledge and consent of petitioner . The fact that petitioner will benefit from
mayor mortgage it to the development the improvements introduced by
bank of th PH , pet also contends he is a respondents is beside the point. In the
builder in good faith first place, respondents introduced these
improvements at their own risk as lessees.
ISSUE: GF? Respondents were not forced or obliged
to splurge on the leased premises as it was
Ruling: a matter of necessity as well as a business
NO. petitioner fall much too short from its strategy. In fact, had respondents only
claim of good faith, pet is aware and complied with their obligation to pay the
indeed advise prior to its acquisition of deposit/rent, there would have been no
land and building from Ignacio that a part dispute to begin with. If they were able to
of the building was sold to it stood on th shell out more than a million pesos to
land not covered by the land conveyed to improve the property, the measly P34,000
it. deposit demanded by petitioner was a
mere drop in the bucket, so to speak.
GF? Concept of ones own mind, honesty of More importantly, the unequivocal terms
intention and freedom of knowledge of of Article 1678 of the Civil Code should be
circumstances which ought to put the the foremost consideration.
holder upon inquiry. No right to reimbursed the ornaments
they failed to remove it it is deemed
Chengv. Spouses donini waived
Facts:
In oral lease agreement cheng agreed to
lease his property to donini who intented
to put up a restaurant the donini introduce
improvements
Before final lease agreement could be
drafted the parties have serious
 therefore null and void thus builders in
bad faith they lose whatever has been
Spouses maximo Espinoza v. spouses built over the land
Antonio mayandoc Respondent offer to buy the land the
petitioner has no intention of selling it
Facts: RTC- pet sell the land to res
Parcel of land in Dagupan owned by Pet appealed to CA but CA affirms
Eusebio Espinoza- died
Divided to pastora, domingo and Pablo Builders in good faith
Maximo is the son of domingo Bad faith should be established by clear
Pastora executed deed of sale for her and convincing evidence since the law
share to respondents presumes good faith
on the same date fictitious deed of sale Pet failed to establish bad faith
was executed by maximo conveying the ¾ Bad faith dishonest purpose or some
share in the estate in favor of Erlinda moral obliquity and conscious doing of
Cayabyab mayondoc’s parents a tct was wrong
issued in her name 2 options appropriate building upon
Another fictitious title was executed by payment of indemnity(court ascertain the
nemesio Cayabyab, candida cruz and amount of the building) or to sell the land
petitoners over land in favor of (court ascertain the value of the subject
respondents tct was issued property, building and rent)
Pet filed an action for annulment of Must be remanded to court a quo for
document with prayer for the nullification further proceedings to asses current fair
of both tct market value for appropriate applications
RTC favor of petitioners and for of Art. 448, 546 and 548
respondents to reconvey the land in
dispute
CA-afirmed
Respondent filed for reimbursement for Office of Paranaque v. Mario ebio
useful expenses pursuant to art.448 and
546 that the house was built in good faith Facts:
they believe they are the owner of the Res claim they are the absolute owners of
land and a parcel of land covered by tax declaration
never prevented by petitioners in in the name of respondent
constructing house with this they claim Said land was an accretion of cut-cut creek
that they are entitled to reimbursement of That the original occupant was their
the construction cost of the house grandfather Jose vitalez he gave it to his
P800,000.00, the house was constructed son pedro he executed an affidavit
they were possessor in good faith having declaring possession and occupancy he
lived there for many years was able to obtain tax declaration
Petitioner argued they can never be Respondent married daughter of pedro
considered builders in good faith because Zenaida upon pedro’s advice they
they were aware of the deed of sale over occupied the said lot
the land in question were fictitious
Mario secured buildings permit from Shanker Khemani is her duly
Paranaque municipal office for the representative
construction of their house Subject is the 340 square meter lot 107
Pedro executed notarized transfer of which heirs of Trinidad were claiming
rights in favor of Mario tax dec of pedro ownership that they openly, peacefully,
was cancelled and issued on marios name publicly and adversely possessed the land
Road project by sangguniang barangay in the concept of an owner
access road along cutcut creek all Lot107-109 constitute lot no 355 were part
residents affected evacuate respondents of public domain I has original area of 1500
opposed the project was temporarily awarded to larrabaster by national land
suspended settlement administration he sold his
Several officials cut 8 coconut trees from rights and interest to Jose Pena the area
the lot increased to 3,616.93 sq m due to
Res letter of complaints to office of the accretion
mayor DILG regional director of bureau of Pena requested to adjust the area of the
lands, meeting with the officials but no lot awarded to him but denied by bureau
agreement of lands bec accretion belongs to govt
City administrator sent letter to vacate Appealed to office of the president
within 30 days BOL that lot 108 be his land 107-109 be
Res went to RTC for writ of preliminary allocated to Mendoza and roxas
injunction denied in progress yung sales of OP agreed but the entire area of lot no 355
patent sa DENR belong to pena not to the govt
CA- reversed, GRANTED Mendoza claims he was denied due
Owned by guarantee homes donated to process he owns lot 107 by miscellaneous
government of Paranaque acquisitive sales application he filed with the BOL
prescription before GH registered it as its filed for petition for review on certiorari
property fifty years ng nandun si pedro
ISSUE:
ISSUE: is the creek part of public domain To whom should the accretion belong?

Ruling: NO, it was form through alluvial Ruling:

deposits that gradually settled along The accretion shall belong not to the
banks of cut-cut creek under art 457 it Government.
belongs to the owner of the estate where It appears from the records that in
it is added the case in 1989, the BOL issued a
More than 30 years that the GH and lgu of Patent on September 20, 1993 in
Paranaque fails to register the accreted favor of the Peña Heirs which
land became the basis for the issuance
of OCT No. P-33658 covering Lot
Khemani v. heirs of Trinidad No. 107.
Facts: However, as held in the case, Lot
Khemani is the registered owner she No. 107—as accretions to the
purchased it from the heirs of Jose Pena, original lot (Lot No. 355) awarded
to Larrabaster on July 10, 1950—“
 no longer belonged to the they became the owner by accession of
Government, the subdivision the respective land they openly and
thereof by the BoL into three lots adverslt occupied it, they introduced
as well as the allocation of the said improvements by constructing irrigation
lots to other individuals was canals and planting trees and agricultural
beyond the scope of its authority.” crops and converted it into a productive
As a result, while Lot No. 107 may land
no longer be acquired under the Pet filed a complaint againg Dir of Lands
provisions of the Public Land Act, it ang spouses agpoon the land was granted
does not absolutely foreclose the by the government to agpoon by free
possibility that, as a private patent is null and void because it is of
property, a portion thereof (the private ownership and cannot be subject
Disputed Property) may have been to public land grant
acquired by respondents through
acquisitive prescription under the Issue:
Civil Code. These matters, Ruling:
however, are the proper subject of Petitioners herein became owners of
a separate action should one be aliquot portions of said abandoned river
filed subject, of course, to such bed as early as 1920, when the Agno River
claims and defenses that either changed its course, without the necessity
party may have under relevant of any action or exercise of possession on
laws. their part, it being an admitted fact that
the land in dispute, prior to its
Agnes v. director of lands registration, was an abandoned bed of the
Agno River and that petitioners are the
Facts: riparian owners of the lands adjoining the
The land subject matter was originally said bed.
covered by free patent in the name of if at the time the free patents were issued
herminigildo Agpoon with OCT the land covered therein were already
Presentacion Gascon inherited it with TCT private property of another and,
and tax dec therefore, not part of the disposable land
Res filed civil case for recovery of of the public domain, then applicants
possession and damages against pet they patentees acquired no right or title to the
are the reg owners of the land that during land.
Japanese occupation pet taking
advantage of abnormal situation took The long and continued possession of
possession of the land by fraud stealth petitioners under a valid claim of title
strategy and intimidation, that they cannot be defeated by the claim of a
repeatedly demanded the surrender of the registered owner whose title is defective
property from the beginning.
Pet the land was formerly a part of river
bed of agno-chico river because of big
flood it changes its bed by Art 370 of the
Spanish civil code applicable law that time