author

On the contrary, they cannot be held builders in good faith. The term "good faith" is not to be applied in its generic application. Good faith, as to be under Art 448, consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his, and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title (Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10). This means that he must have built, planted or sown on the land in the concept of an owner. Thus, Art. 448 is not in point.

 

The situation falls properly under the contract of commodatum, more precisely under its sub-category, precarium. The applicable provisions of the New Civil Code are:

 

Art. 1933. By the contract of loan, one of the parties delivers to another, either something not consumable so that the latter may use the same for a certain time and return it, in which case the contract is called a commodatum; or money or other consumable thing, upon the condition that the same amount of the same kind and quality shall be paid, in which case the contract is simply called a loan or mutuum.

 

Art. 1935. The bailee in commodatum acquires the use of the thing loaned but not its fruits; if any compensation is to be paid by him who acquires the use, the contract ceases to be a commodatum.

 

Art. 1937. Movable or immovable property may be the object of commodatum. (n)

 

Art. 1947. The bailor may demand the thing at will, and the contractual relation is called a precarium, in the following cases:

 

(1) If neither the duration of the contract nor the use to which the thing loaned should be devoted, has been stipulated; or

(2) If the use of the thing is merely tolerated by the owner. (1750a)

 

The use of the land in question properly falls under these provisions because the "builders" were merely allowed to build on it not subject to any other contract or obligation. At any rate, the contract or obligation is what the law says it is and not what the parties to the contract call it. If they pay for their use of the land,then it is a lease and these provisions will not apply.

 

As the owners of the land have the right to demand its return at will, the occupants have no option but to return the property lest they be liable for unlawful detainer and we all know how that changes the complexion of the case. The offer of the landowner to sell his land, therefore, is not an option but in fact an act of generosity.

 

The waiver being mentioned is not even needed. The owner merely wants to have it so that he can sell the land easier to prospective buyers who who might be shooed away by "squatters".

 

The better option is for the family to buy the land by obtaining a loan from PAG-IBIG or other financial institutions (the former is better because the interest rates have been set lower). They may also convince the the landowner if they can just pay rent on the use of the land until they are able to buy the land or better yet, to buy the land on installment terms.

Fauxhead and rocco 69, sirs, thanks a lot for the replies. I talked to my friend again and he said that from the start, their family have been paying a monthly rent to the lot owners. They have been renting the lot for a few decades now so they really are not 'squatters.' Would this work in their (my friend's) favor? I mean, do they stand a chance in court just in case? And do the owners really have the right to force them to buy the land or evict them if they refuse?

The day the owner told them that they have to buy the lot or else, they would be evicted, they(the lot owners) even collected the monthly rent from them. I'm not sure of this but I think the lot owners want them to pay in cash, just in case they decide to buy the land.

We have got to know first how they became "owners" of the house, as their good faith or bad faith determines the rights of the owners of the house and of the lot. Also, how much is the house, as its value vis-a-vis the land may also be impt.

Thanks for the reply. The original owners of the house was my friend's grandparents. The grandparents built it on that lot with the landowner's permission several decades ago. The house was then given to my friend's parents. The house had underwent several renovations and is probably around 1.5 million pesos worth now.

Need an advice about this situation, a friend and his family own a house but not the land where it is situated. The owner of the land has been harassing them, asking them to buy the land but they refuse, saying that they can't afford it. Now, the owner of the land wants them to sign a waiver which declares that they agree to the landowner's plan to sell the land to an interested buyer, saying that once the sale is done, the new owner of the land can evict them anytime. Is this true? Do my friend and his family have the right to refuse to sign the waiver? Can the original landowners evict them? My friend's family have been on that land for almost forty years now. They want to own the land(priced at almost two million) but they just can't afford it. Is there a way for them to acquire the land that won't be too much of a financial burden for them?

Libidinous

One of the most depressing songs of all time...

Alone Again, Naturally

(Gilbert O'Sullivan)

In a little while from now,

If I'm not feeling any less sour.

I promised myself, to treat myself,

And visit a nearby tower ..........

And climbing to the top,

Would throw myself off,

In an effort to, make clear to whoever,

What it's like when you’re shattered .......

Left standing in a lurch,

In a church with people saying .....

My God, that's tough, she stood him up,

No point in us remaining .......

I may as well go home,

As I did on my own,

Alone again, naturally.

To think that only yesterday,

I was cheerful, bright and gay.

Looking forward to, and who wouldn’t do,

The role I was about to play.

But as if to knock me down,

Reality came around,

And without so much as a mere touch,

Cut me into little pieces.

Leaving me to doubt, all about God and His mercy,

Oh, if He really does exist,

Why did He desert me?

And in my hour of need,

I truly am, indeed,

Alone again, naturally.

It seems to me that there are more hearts,

Broken in the world that can’t be mended,

Left unattended, what do we do?

What do we do?

Now looking back over the years,

And whatever else that appears.

I remember I cried when my father died,

Never wishing to hide the tears.

At sixty-five years old,

My mother, God rest her soul,

Couldn’t understand why the only man,

She had ever loved had been taken.

Leaving her to start, with a heart so badly broken,

Despite encouragement from me,

No words were ever spoken.

And when she passed away,

I cried and cried all day,

Alone again, naturally .....

Alone again ................................. naturally.

98

PINK FLOYD (Roger, David, Rick and Nick line-up). The best rock band of all time.

Out of the BLUE by David Gilmour

12:28 am

See Emily Play by Pink Floyd

If you're into rock, try Pink Floyd. All of their albums will give you a mind-blowing listening experience. If you're into rock chicks, Tori Amos' music will surely please you. If you're into heavy metal, give the old classic albums of Metallica a spin and if you're into boy bands, forget it, I don't listen to this stuff.

Sonnet by The Verve

Roxanne by The Police

Ursula Andress

Timbuktu or Tombouctou

Jack

Ottawa

Dear Ana by J Brothers

Oh Marie by Sheryl Crow

clay

Dolphy

The Hook by Donald E. Westlake

Lakambini by Tropical Depression

Greedy

Miss Emma Peel by Dishwalla