Contract to sell, possession of the property?

The late Senator Arturo M. Tolentino, a leading expert in Civil Law,

explains:
This article [Article 448] is manifestly intended to apply
only to a case where one builds, plants, or sows on land in which
he believes himself to have a claim of title, [10] and not to lands
where the only interest of the builder, planter or sower is that of a
holder, such as a tenant.[11]
We affirm the ruling of the CA that introduction of valuable
improvements on the leased premises does not give the petitioners the right
of retention and reimbursement which rightfully belongs to a builder in good
faith. Otherwise, such a situation would allow the lessee to easily improve
the lessor out of its property. We reiterate the doctrine that a lessee is neither
a builder in good faith nor in bad faith[12]that would call for the application of
Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code. His rights are governed by Article
1678 of the Civil Code, which reads:
Art. 1678. 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.
Sulo sa Nayon v. Nayong Pilipino Foundation, G.R. No. 170923,
January 20, 2009

Jurisprudence is replete with cases[21] which categorically declare that Article

448 covers only cases in which the builders, sowers or planters believe
themselves to be owners of the land or, at least, have a claim of title thereto,
but
not
when
the
interest
is
merely
that of a holder, such as a mere tenant, agent or usufructuary. A tenant cannot
be said to be a builder in good faith as he has no pretension to be owner.
[Parilla v Pilar, G.R. No. 167680, November 30, 2006]