legal Free Legal Advice

[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.

[Dr_PepPeR]

That is precisely why my answer states that "in METRO MANILA, law enforcers may not confiscate a driver's license if he is caught committing a traffic violation. In Metro Manila, it is PD 1605 which governs, rather than RA 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) since PD 1605 transfers all the powers of the LTO/LTFRB to the MMDA (with regarda to Metro Manila) and then goes on to specifically state in Section 5 thereof that licenses may not be confiscated here in Metro Manila.

 

Note that in Solicitor General v. MMA (Dec. 11, 1991) the Supreme Court noted that police authorities had been confiscating drivers licenses in Metro Manila. It then declared, in the dispositive portion of Solicitor General v. MMA that judgment is hereby declared enjoining ALL law enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Manila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI 43) and CONFISCATING DRIVER LICENSES for traffic violations within the said area.

 

As for the argument that RA7924 grants the MMDA the power to “install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and CONFISCATE and suspend or revoke DRIVER’S LICENSES in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, THE PROVISIONS OF Rep. Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING," MMDA v. Garin has specifically declared that the MMDA has no police power and in the absence of any other law allowing them to confiscate drivers licenses, they cannot do so (in the Metro Manila area).

 

However, there is no argument that in other parts of the country, law enforcers may validly confiscate driver's licenses.

 

That's great! Now all we have to do is educate the Metro Manila traffic law enforcers about this and tell the Binay Yellowshirts and their deputies that Makati IS part of Metro Manila.

[Butsoy]

Hi!

 

How can you cancel a Phil. Passport pag impostor ang gumamit ng pangalan mo? Kaya di ako ma release-release ng aking passport application, eh may gumamit daw ng pangalan o identity ko (siyempre ibang picture). Pang apat na beses akong pumuntang DFA.

 

Please help. Salamat!

 

 

Just PM me if you need any legal help before the Passport division

 

Butsoy

[Aspire10]

hmmm....

please try to install that device in another PC using WinXP.

if it works, then probably, your operating system has some problem.

if it does not, then the device can be defective.

salamat po,sa reply.i will try it. sana maayos na

[M16A2]

That is precisely why my answer states that "in METRO MANILA, law enforcers may not confiscate a driver's license if he is caught committing a traffic violation. In Metro Manila, it is PD 1605 which governs, rather than RA 4136 (Land Transportation and Traffic Code) since PD 1605 transfers all the powers of the LTO/LTFRB to the MMDA (with regarda to Metro Manila) and then goes on to specifically state in Section 5 thereof that licenses may not be confiscated here in Metro Manila.

 

Note that in Solicitor General v. MMA (Dec. 11, 1991) the Supreme Court noted that police authorities had been confiscating drivers licenses in Metro Manila. It then declared, in the dispositive portion of Solicitor General v. MMA that judgment is hereby declared enjoining ALL law enforcement authorities in Metropolitan Manila from removing the license plates of motor vehicles (except when authorized under LOI 43) and CONFISCATING DRIVER LICENSES for traffic violations within the said area.

 

As for the argument that RA7924 grants the MMDA the power to “install and administer a single ticketing system, fix, impose and collect fines and penalties for all kinds of violations of traffic rules and regulations, whether moving or nonmoving in nature, and CONFISCATE and suspend or revoke DRIVER’S LICENSES in the enforcement of such traffic laws and regulations, THE PROVISIONS OF Rep. Act No. 4136 and P.D. No. 1605 TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING," MMDA v. Garin has specifically declared that the MMDA has no police power and in the absence of any other law allowing them to confiscate drivers licenses, they cannot do so (in the Metro Manila area).

 

However, there is no argument that in other parts of the country, law enforcers may validly confiscate driver's licenses.

 

While reading your first sentence I noticed that you used the word "may" instead of "shall". So does this mean if I am caught by a policeman it is up to his discretion whether he confiscate my driver's license or not? How about PNCC enforcers, can they validly confiscate your driver's license?

[kenji_1989]

Tanong lang guys. Yung current PC ko kasi (AMD setup), ang nadedetect lang ng Windows ay 137GB. Sabi daw, kailangan SP2 ng WinXP para madetect yung buong 160GB. Yung installer ko kasi ng XP, wala siyang integrated na SP2. Kapag bumili ba ako ng Windows XP na may SP2 Integrated, automatic na niya ba madedetect yung buong hard disk size? Yaw ko kasi magpartition sana e hatiin sa tig 80GB. Sayang.

[psyfher]

recommended laptops and notebooks::

 

intel core 2 duo processors po.. thx

 

pwd po makikilagay na rin ng price range and kng san po available thx

[rocco69]

While reading your first sentence I noticed that you used the word "may" instead of "shall". So does this mean if I am caught by a policeman it is up to his discretion whether he confiscate my driver's license or not? How about PNCC enforcers, can they validly confiscate your driver's license?

 

Sorry for the confusion, but it should be mandatory for a policeman NOT TO CONFISCATE YOUR LICENSE when you are in Metro Manila (although as pointed out by Dr. Pepper, we do need to educate law enforcers about this, in other words, makikipag-away ka talaga at makikipagmatigasan muna sa pulis tungkol dito, kasi karamihan sa kanila di alam ito).

 

As for PNCC enforcers, following the rules enunciated by the Supreme COurt, pag labas na ng Metro Manila, pwede na silang magconfiscate.

[rocco69]

Thanks, fauxhead, for enlightening me on this one. It does seem that the situation where a person, out of the goodness of his heart, without any other obligation whatsoever, allows someone else to live on his lot (and to build his residence thereon) is a precarium, which under Art. 1950, does not give him the right to be reimbursed for whatever he builds on the lot.

 

As a sidebar, though, in Pajuyo v. CA, the SC said that if there are obligations expected of the builder (in said case, to maintain the property in good condition), it cannot be a commodatum. This pronouncement could be impt. since in most situations, the builder is expected to be a "caretaker" of the lot that he builds on.

 

Anyway, according to author, his friend has been paying rentals on the property from the beginning, hence the situation would actually be governed by the provisions of lease - which under Art. 1678 of the Civil Code - states that if there are improvements on the property leased, the lessor must pay 1/2 of the value of the improvements, otherwise the lessee can remove this improvement.

 

And, assuming that there is no written lease agreement, the lease terminates at the end of each month (since rentals are on a monthly basis) thereby authorizing the owner, or his buyer, if he sells it later on, to evict the tenants on the land (although they still have the right to be reimbursed 1/2 of the value of the building). The fact that they have been living there for over 40 years do not make them owners of the land (in fact, by paying rentals, they admit that they are not owners of the land) nor does it give them more rights other than this. The waiver being asked by the owner is actually superfluous, as correctly pointed out by fauxhead.

 

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.

[emergc]

Wala bang makakabigay ng siguradong solution?

 

In my experience, nawawala yun laman ng My Documents at bumabalik sa dati or default setting ang Windows when a user's profile is "unreadable" or may problem. Dito kasi sa user profile naka store yun mga settings na specific sa isang tao na nagla login sa Windows. Kasama na dito yun My Documents folder by default.

 

Normally, ang user profile mo ay nasa C:\Documents and Settings na folder. Kung ang username mo sa Windows, for example ay SPIDERMAN, ang user profile mo ay nasa c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN. Yun naman My Documents mo ay nasa c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN\My Documents na folder. Gagamitin natin ito as an example.

 

So pag nasira or hindi ma load ng Windows yung c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN na folder, babalik sa default yung Windows at mag a appear na nawala yun My Documents mo. Kung ang habol mo ay makuha yung contents ng My Documents mo, pwede ka mag login as a different user to examine yung c:\Documents and settings na folder. Check mo kung nandon yung SPIDERMAN na folder, or in your case, yun folder na kapangalan ng username mo. Kailangan lang mag login ka as a user na may administrative rights sa lahat ng folder sa drive C. Otherwise, hindi mo mao open kahit nandun pa yung folder mo.

 

Once makita at ma open mo yung c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN\My Documents (example lang ito remember), pwede mo na i copy sa ibang folder or sa ibang drive yung contents. Pag nagawa mo yun, solve na problem mo.

So paano kung wala yun c:\Documents and settings\SPIDERMAN na folder? Kailangan mo na gumamit ng unerase program para subukan ma retrieve yun files mo. Pwede dyan yung freeware na PC Inspector File Recovery or yung may bayad na GetDataBack for NTFS or GetDataBack for FAT depende sa type ng file system ng Windows mo. Pero ang important thing to remember ay hwag mo i install ang mga program na ito sa drive na dating kinalalagyan ng files mo. Lalo mo lang hindi maibabalik ang My Documents mo or files na gusto mo ma recover pag na overwrite sila ng new programs.

 

Eh paano naman kung nandun nga yun profile mo pero hindi mo naman ma open? Kailangann i -check mo yung access rights mo dun sa folder. Kaya very important na mag login ka as an administrator sa Windows para magawa mo ito. Yung administrator lang at yung owner lang nung folder by default ang pwede kasi gumawa nun.

 

Sana nakatulong kahit paano.

 

 

For more information, FREE articles and answers visit freeboxofinfo.com

[Guest protocol]

pwede pa ba sumali dito?

[emergc]

nagawa ko na po yon sinabi nyo.kaya lang di pa rin gumana.my laptop model is Acer Aspire 3004 WLMi.baka naman po meron makakatulong sakin pls. :hypocritesmiley: :goatee:

 

 

Ok na na ngayon? Kung hindi pa, dati ba gumagana tapos bigla na lang nasira?

 

Nag iinstall ka ba ng updates na galing sa Microsoft? Minsan yun ang dahilan kung bakit bigla na lang di gagana ang isang device. Meron scanner sa office namin bigla na lang din nasira.

 

Try mo mag download ng updated na driver galing sa manufacturer. Or kung meron ka friend name kapareho mo ng unit, swap mo kung made detach mo yun drive para ma isolate ang problem kung sa drive ba or sa Windows or sa mismong laptop na.

 

Try mo muna yun updated na device driver. Or kaya hanap ka ng livecd ng Ubuntu Linux para malaman mo kung defective ba talaga yung drive o hindi.

[bolbitz]

is there anyone here who can help me?

im planning to file an annullment kasi

but andito ako sa qatar

[JustSmile=)]

WAAAAAHHH!!! SOMEONE HELP ME....

 

When I tried connecting a new hard disk to my PC, in the secondary, the other secondary disk lost all of it's files.

 

When I checked the disk again, the files were still there, but windows cannot read it because all of the extensions in that disk were changed to .CHK

 

Even FILE-MAINTENANCE software wasnt able to read the files therefore i cannot create a back up for the disk.

 

Is there any possible way to recover these files and regain their original extensions (i.e. .mp3, .xls)

 

I really need those files and any help would be well appreciated.

 

Hope somebody can help me. :cry: :cry:

 

THANKS!!!

[fauxhead]

With the disclosure of the facts that the instant case is a lease, i agree with you.

 

But for the sake of argument and discussion, I would caution those who would rely on the pronouncement made by the SC in the case of Pajuyo vs CA regarding the inapplicability of the contract of commodatum if there are obligations expected of the bailee. It has all the badges of being an obiter dictum. The issue of whether the contract is commodatum or not is not the central issue and can be decided on without discussing it.

 

Further, consider the following wording of the SC in the same case:

 

The Kasunduan reveals that the accommodation accorded by Pajuyo to Guevarra was not essentially gratuitous. While the Kasunduan did not require Guevarra to pay rent, it obligated him to maintain the property in good condition. The imposition of this obligation makes the Kasunduan a contract different from a commodatum. The effects of the Kasunduan are also different from that of a commodatum. Case law on ejectment has treated relationship based on tolerance as one that is akin to a landlord-tenant relationship where the withdrawal of permission would result in the termination of the lease. The tenant’s withholding of the property would then be unlawful. This is settled jurisprudence.

 

Even assuming that the relationship between Pajuyo and Guevarra is one of commodatum, Guevarra as bailee would still have the duty to turn over possession of the property to Pajuyo, the bailor. The obligation to deliver or to return the thing received attaches to contracts for safekeeping, or contracts of commission, administration and commodatum.These contracts certainly involve the obligation to deliver or return the thing received.

 

On whether such contract loses its character as commodatum if there are obligations attached, the good justices must have missed the following provisions of the New Civil Code enumerating the obligations of a bailee in a contract of commodatum:

 

Art. 1941. The bailee is obliged to pay for the ordinary expenses for the use and preservation of the thing loaned.

 

Art. 1949. The bailor shall refund the extraordinary expenses during the contract for the preservation of the thing loaned, provided the bailee brings the same to the knowledge of the bailor before incurring them, except when they are so urgent that the reply to the notification cannot be awaited without danger.

 

If the extraordinary expenses arise on the occasion of the actual use of the thing by the bailee, even though he acted without fault, they shall be borne equally by both the bailor and the bailee, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary.

 

Commodatum is not exactly obligation-free. To hold otherwise is to run counter to the dictates of experience. Pag pinahiram mo ang isang bagay na walang kaukulang obligasyon, parang binigay mo na rin yun. The bailee then can always claim "wala na, nasira na." Yari tayo dyan.

 

 

As a sidebar, though, in Pajuyo v. CA, the SC said that if there are obligations expected of the builder (in said case, to maintain the property in good condition), it cannot be a commodatum. This pronouncement could be impt. since in most situations, the builder is expected to be a "caretaker" of the lot that he builds on.