SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Search for www.chanrobles.com

PLEASE CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST ➔ SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

G.R. No. L-47896 April 8, 1941

AURELIO MONTINOLA, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JOSE P. BANTUG, Defendant-Appellant.

Ramon Z. Tiongco for appellant.
Vicente Hidalgo for appellee.

MORAN, J.:

The stipulation of facts discloses that from or about November 30, 1919, defendant Jose P. Bantug had been occupying a lot of about 376.7 square meters of the "Hacienda Vito Cruz, under a contract of lease with the Philippine Realty Corporation, a subsidiary of the Roman Catholic Archbishop thereon a house of strong materials worth P6,000. On about June 29, 1938, plaintiff, Aurelio Montinola, thereof, he served, on July 4, 1938, notice to the defendant to either vacate the premises within thirty (30) or to pay a new rental of ten centavos (P0.10) per square meter. Upon refusal of the defendant to do either, an ejectment proceeding was instituted by the plaintiff in the Municipal Court of Manila, wherein judgment was rendered in his favor. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, defendant was condemned to vacate the premises and to pay plaintiff a monthly rental of P15 from June 29, 1938.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

From this judgment defendant appealed, and now contends that articles 361 and 453 of the civil Code are the laws applicable to the case and that in accordance therewith, he, as possessor in good faith, is entitled to either the retention of the land or the reimbursement of the sum of P6,000 representing the value of his house built thereon. We have, however, ruled that "the right of a lessee who has been holding land under a rental contract is governed not by articles 361 and 453 of the Civil Code, but by articles 1573 and 487 of the same Code. Upon termination of the lease, the lessee is entitled to remove the improvements made by him, provided he leaves the property in substantially the same condition as when he entered upon it." (Fojas vs. Velasco, 51 Phil., 520, 521; Rivera vs. Trinidad, 48 Phil., 396), but that "he will have no right for indemnification therefor." (Alburo vs. Villanueva, 7 Phil., 277; Cotes vs. Ramos, 46 Phil., 184; 3 Manresa, 215-216.)chanrobles virtual law library

Judgment is affirmed, with costs against appellant.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary chanrobles virtual law library

Imperial, Diaz, Laurel, and Horrilleno, JJ., concur.