You are on page 1of 3

Macasaet vs Macasaet G.R.

renovation of their parents

154391 92 September 30, 2004 house.
4. The parents filed an
ejectment suit against their
Facts: children for failure to pay the
agreed rental despite
1. Involved in this case are 1st repeated demands.
degree relatives, where Ismael 5. The MTCC ruled in favor of the
(children) is the son of the parents and ordered the
respondents. The parents children to vacate the
alleged that they were the premises. It opined that the
owners of two (2) parcels of children had occupied the
situated in Banay-banay, Lipa lots, not by virtue of a verbal
City; that by way of a verbal lease agreement but by
lease agreement, their son tolerance of the parents. As
and his wife occupied these their stay was by mere
lots in March 1992 and used tolerance, the children were
them as their residence and necessarily bound by an
the situs of their construction implied promise to vacate the
business. lots upon demand.
2. Ismael and Teresita denied the 6. The MTCC dismissed their
existence of any verbal lease contention that one lot had
agreement and that their been allotted as an advance
parents had invited them to inheritance, on the ground
construct their residence and that successional rights were
business on the subject lots. inchoate. It disbelieved that
They added that it was the other parcel had been
allotted as an advance grant given as payment for
of inheritance. construction material.
3. Thus, they contended that the 7. On appeal, the RTC upheld
1st lot had been given to the findings of the MTCC. RTC
Ismael as an advance allowed the parents to
inheritance. On the other appropriate the building and
hand, the 2nd lot was allegedly other improvements
given to petitioners as introduced by the children,
payment for construction after payment by indemnity
materials used in the provided for by Article 448 in
relation to Article 546 and 548 children to use the lots, it can be
of the Civil Code. safely concluded that the
8. On an appeal the CA agreement subsisted as long as the
sustained the finding of the parents and the children benefitted
lower courts. Thus, possession from the arrangement. Effectively,
of the subject lots by the there is a resolutory condition existing
children became illegal upon between the parties occurs like a
their receipt of letter to vacate change of ownership, necessity,
it. The CA modified the RTC death of either party or unresolved
Decision by declaring that conflict or animosity the
Article 448 of the Civil Code agreement maybe deemed
was inapplicable. The CA terminated. When persistent conflict
opined that under Article 1678 and animosity overtook the love and
of the same Code, the solidarity between the parents and
children had the right to be the children, the purpose of the
reimbursed for one half of the agreement ceased. The children
value of the improvements had any cause for continued
made. possession of the lots. Their right to
9. Not satisfied with the CAs use became untenable. It ceased
ruling, the children brought the upon their receipt of the notice to
case to the Supreme Court. vacate. And because they refused
to heed the demand, ejectment
was the proper remedy against
Issues: them.

1. W/N the children can be The children had no right to

ejected retain possession. The right of the
children to inherit from their parents
2. W/N Article 1678 of the Civil is merely inchoate and is vested only
Code should apply to the upon the latters demise. Rights of
case on the matters of succession are transmitted only from
improvements. the moment of death of the
decedent. Assuming that there was
an allotment of inheritance,
ownership nonetheless remained
HELD with the parents.
1. Yes. Based on the parents love
reasons for gratuitously allowing the
The childrens allegation that
the indebtness of their parent to
them has been paid through
dation cannot be given credence
as there were no sufficient proof of a
settlement or contract of dation to
settle the alleged debt, and is
inconsistent of the separate action
by the children to recover the same

As a rule, the right of ownership

carries with it the right of possession.

2. No. As applied to the present

case, accession refers to the right of
owner to everything that is
incorporated or attached to the
property. Accession industrial
building, planting and sowing on an
immovable is governed by Articles
445 to 456 of the Civil Code.

As the court found that the

children possession of the two lots
was not by mere tolerance, the
applicable rule would be Article 448.
This article has been applied to
cases wherein a builder had
constructed improvements with the
consent of the owner.