Aquino vs Aguilar The Sps Aguilar also have no right to

refund of any improvement built therein pursuant

Facts:
Sps Aquino are owners of the house and
lot. They were residing in the US.
Sps. Aguilar was given consent and
approval by the Sps Aquino to stay on the
property.
to Article 449 and 450 of the Civil Code.
However, they may recover the
necessary expenses incurred for the preservation
of the property pursuant to Article 452.

On said property, a three-story building

was built on the lot. Sps Aguilar stayed in the
property for 20 years without rental.

In 2003, Aquino demanded from the

Aguilar to vacate the propery to be used by an
immediate family member.

Sps Aguilar alleged that they had made

contributions in the construction of the building.

Issue:

WON Article 448 shall apply. NO.

Ruling:

No. Aguilar is not a builder in good faith

on account of their admission that the subject lot
belonged to the Sps Aquino when they
constructed the building. They were aware of the
flaw on their title.

Moreover, the SC ruled that although

there are some instances that the SC applied Art.
448 to a builder who has constructed on the land
of another with the consent of the owner, 448
here still does not apply.

In those cases, the SC found out that the

owners knew and approved of the construction of
improvements on the property. Hence, they were
held in good faith.

However, although the factual

circumstances are somewhat similar, there is one
crucial factor here. There was evidence that
Aquino prohibited Aguilar from building their own
structure on the property. There was this letter
warning in 1983 prohibiting them from building.
They were forewarned that the property is slated
to be sold as it was only bought for investment
purposes.

Therefore, the Sps Aguilar were not in

good faith. Article 448 does not apply.