FLOREZA v EVANGELISTA

G.R. No. L-25462

Topic: Landowner and Builder/Planter/Sower are both in Bad Faith
Jannica Niña G. Papelleras

FACTS:

● Plaintiffs Maria de Evangelista and Sergio Evangelista, who are mother

and son, are the owners of a residential lot in Rizal with an area of 204.08 sq.
ms., assessed at P410.00.
● May 1945: EVANGELISTAS borrowed from FLOREZA the amount of P100.00
● November 1945, with the consent of the EVANGELISTAS, FLOREZA occupied the
above residential lot and built thereon a house of light materials (barong-barong) without
any agreement as to payment for the use of said residential lot owing to the fact that the
EVANGELISTAS has then a standing loan of P100.00 in favor of FLOREZA.
● Additional Loans made by the Evangelistas: Sept. 1946 – P100, August 1947 –P200,
January 1949 – P200, April 1949 – P140. TOTAL = P740 (including first loan)
● January 10, 1949: FLOREZA demolished this house of light materials and
in its place constructed one of strong materials assessed in his name at
P1,410.00 under Tax Declaration No. 4448. FLOREZA paid no rental as
before
● August 1949: Evangelistas sold, with a right to repurchase within 6 years,their land to
Floreza for P1000.
● January 2, 1955, or seven months before the expiry of the repurchase
period, the EVANGELISTAS paid in full the repurchase price of P1,000.00.
● On April 25, 1956, the EVANGELISTAS, through their counsel, wrote
FLOREZA a letter asking him to vacate the premises.
● On May 4, 1956, the EVANGELISTAS made a formal written demand to
vacate, within five days from notice, explaining that they had already fully
paid the consideration for the repurchase of the lot.
● Floreza refused to vacate the lot unless he was first reimbursed for the value of the
house he built.
● Evangelistas filed a complaint. CFI ruled based on Art, 448 of the Civil Codesaying that
Evangelistas have the choice between purchasing the house orselling the land to
Floreza.
● CA ruled that Art. 448 was inapplicable and that Floreza was not entiled tothe
reimbursement of his house and could remove the same at his own expense.

ISSUES:

1. Whether Floreza was entitled to reimbursement of the cost of his house.

 2. Whether he (his heirs who replaced him) should pay rental of the land.

RULING:

1. No. Issue of reimbursement is not moot because if Floreza has no right of retention, then
he must pay damages in the form of rentals.

SC agrees 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. Floreza
cannot be classified as a builder in good faith nor a vendee a retro,who made useful
improvements during the pacto de retro, he has no right to reimbursement of the value of
the house, much less to the retention of the premises until he is paid
His rights are more akin to a usufructury under Art. 579, who may make on
the property useful improvements but with no right to be indemnified thereof, He may,
however, remove such improvements should it be possible to do so without damage to
the property.

2. Yes. 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. Judgment
affirmed with modification.