Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Issue:
1. WON Floreza was entitled to reimbursement of the cost of his house. NO.
2. WON he (his heirs who replaced him) should pay rental of the land. YES.
Held/Ratio:
1. Issue of reimbursement is not moot because if Floreza has no right of
retention, then he must pay damages in the form of rentals.
Agree with CA that Art. 448 is inapplicable because it applies only when the
builder is in good faith (he believed he had a right to build).Art. 453 is also
not applicable because it requires both of the parties to be in bad faith.
Neither is Art. 1616 applicable because Floreza is not a vendee a retro. The
house was already constructed in 1945 (light materials) even before the
pacto de retro was entered into in 1949.
2. From the time the redemption price was paid in January 3, 1955, Floreza’s
right to use the residential lot without rent ceased. He should be held liable
for damages in the form of rentals for the continued use of the lot for P10
monthly from January 3, 1955 until the house was removed and the property
vacated by Floreza or his heirs.