Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1905 > October 1905 Decisions > G.R. No. 2238 October 19, 1905 - LEONCIA LIUANAG v. YU-SON-QUIAN

005 Phil 147:



[G.R. No. 2238. October 19, 1905. ]

LEONCIA LIUANAG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. YU-SON-QUIAN, Defendant-Appellant.

Chicote, Miranda & Sierra, for Appellant.

Pineda & Escueta, for Appellee.


1. REALTY; LEASE; CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS; ACCESSION. — The fact that one uses material belonging to another in constructing a building upon land leased by the former, does not make the latter the owner of any part of the building. (Civil Code, art. 360.)



Yu-Chingco left Manila for China on the 23d day of August, 1901, and died there on the 30th of October of the same year. After his death Yu-Chiocco entered into a lease with the owner thereof, of certain land and Calle Lemery, in Tondo, and erected certain buildings thereon. The lease of the land was taken by Yu-Chiocco in his own name. He erected the buildings under a license issued to him by the city of Manila, and he carried on the business of a carpenter shop therein, under an industrial license issued to him. In none of these papers was any mention made of Yu-Chingco, or of his administratrix or heirs.

This action was brought in the court below by the plaintiff as administratrix of Yu-Chingco, and she alleged in her complaint that the property in Tondo, hereinbefore described, belonged to the estate of Yu-Chingco. Yu-Chiocco died in August, 1902, and the action was brought against his executor. The court below, in its decision, found as a fact that Yu-Chiocco performed all the necessary labor in erecting these buildings, and that the material necessary for and used in their construction belonged to the estate of Yu-Chingco. Upon these facts he decided that the plaintiff, as administratrix of Yu-Chingco was the owner of one-half of the buildings. We do not think that this judgment can be sustained. What the facts are in regard to the use in the buildings of material belonging to the estate of Yu-Chingco, and the amount and value thereof, we do not determine. It is enough to say that, if such material was used therein, it does not follow, as a conclusion of law, that the owner of the material thereby became the owner of any part of the buildings.

Article 360 of the Civil Code is as

"The owner of the soil who shall make thereon, in person or through another, plantings, constructions, or works with material belonging to another person, is obliged to pay their value; and should he have acted in bad faith he shall, furthermore, be obliged to indemnify for loss and damage. The owner of the material shall have the right to remove it only in case he can do so without injury to the work constructed, or without destroying the plantings, constructions, and work done."cralaw virtua1aw library

We think that this article is applicable to a leasehold in real estate. Upon the most favorable view of the case for the plaintiff she has a claim for the value of the material which belonged to the estate of Yu-Chingco, and which was actually used in the construction of the building.

The judgment of the court below in this case, No. 1517 in that court, is reversed, and after the expiration of twenty days the case should be remanded, with directions to enter judgment in favor of the defendant, with costs, and without prejudice to the right of plaintiff to present her aforesaid claim against the person or estate bound to pay it, and without costs in this appeal.

Arellano, C.J., Torres, Mapa, Johnson and Carson, JJ., concur.

Back to Home | Back to Main

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc.

ChanRobles Professional Review, Inc. :
ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review :
ChanRobles CPA Review Online

ChanRobles CPALE Review Online :
ChanRobles Special Lecture Series

ChanRobles Special Lecture Series - Memory Man :

October-1905 Jurisprudence                 


    005 Phil 120

  • G.R. No. 2124 October 7, 1905 - SIMEON DU-YUNGCO v. MACARIO BARRERA

    005 Phil 125

  • G.R. No. 2137 October 9, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. DOMINGO BALUYUT

    005 Phil 129

  • G.R. No. 1273 October 10, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. BENITO VARGAS, ET AL.

    005 Phil 136

  • G.R. No. 1700 October 12, 1905 - MIGUEL PICCIO ARANETA v. JOSE GARRIDO

    005 Phil 137

  • G.R. No. 1962 October 12, 1905 - JOSE PINEDA, ET AL. v. GABINO GASATAYA

    005 Phil 139

  • G.R. No. 2054 October 14, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. MATIAS BUNAGAN

    005 Phil 141


    005 Phil 142

  • G.R. No. 2238 October 19, 1905 - LEONCIA LIUANAG v. YU-SON-QUIAN

    005 Phil 147

  • G.R. No. 2284 October 20, 1905 - UNITED STATES v. JOSE PARAISO

    005 Phil 149

  • G.R. No. 2631 November 18, 1905 - EDWIN H. WARNER v. 771 OBJECTORS

    005 Phil 153

  • G.R. No. 2631 October 21, 1905 - EDWIN H. WARNER v. 771 OBJECTORS

    005 Phil 330

  • G.R. No. 1847 October 23, 1905 - VIDAL CAUSIN v. DIONISIO JAKOSALEM

    005 Phil 155

  • G.R. No. 2536 October 23, 1905 - SILVINA LEGASPI v. JOHN C. SWEENEY

    005 Phil 157

  • G.R. No. 1442 October 24, 1905 - JOSE REGALADO v. MARIA GONZAGA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 159

  • G.R. No. 1750 October 26, 1905 - GUILLERMO BAXTER, ET AL. v. ZOSIMO ZUAZUA, ET AL.

    005 Phil 160

  • G.R. No. 1923 October 26, 1905 - IGNACIO DE ICAZA, ET AL. v. MATEO O. PEREZ

    005 Phil 166

  • G.R. No. 2346 October 26, 1905 - ALBINO SANTOS, ET AL. v. SIMPLICIO DEL ROSARIO

    005 Phil 171

  • G.R. No. 1403 October 27, 1905 - JOSE E. ALEMANY, ET AL. v. JUANA MORENO

    005 Phil 172

  • G.R. No. 2599 October 27, 1905 - CARMEN P. LINART v. MARIA JUANA I. UGARTE

    005 Phil 176

  • G.R. No. 2651 October 27, 1905 - MACARIO CASTRO v. CARMEN CASTRO

    005 Phil 180

  • G.R. No. 1595 October 28, 1905 - CARMEN AYALA DE ROXAS v. JUANA VALENCIA

    005 Phil 182

  • G.R. No. 2353 October 28, 1905 - ZOILO GARCIA VASQUEZ v. P.B. FLORENCE

    005 Phil 183

  • G.R. No. 2945 October 28, 1905 - B.H. MACKE, ET AL. v. JOSE CAMPS

    005 Phil 185