Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Carrascoso JR v. CA

    Uploaded by

    James Gregory A. Villasis
    13 views1 page
    Carrascoso purchased land from El Dorado and was allowed to mortgage the property after an initial payment. Carrascoso then entered an agreement to sell the land to PLDT. However, El Dorado informed Carrascoso they wanted to rescind the contract due to unpaid balances. PLDT argued improvements should be governed by civil code as they were builders in good faith. The court found PLDT was a builder in good faith until served notice of litis pendens, at which point they ceased being a builder in good faith. El Dorado was entitled to exercise right of appropriation or sell property to PLDT.

    Original Description:

    Carrascoso Digest

    Original Title

    Carrasco So

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Carrascoso purchased land from El Dorado and was allowed to mortgage the property after an initial payment. Carrascoso then entered an agreement to sell the land to PLDT. However, El Dorado informed Carrascoso they wanted to rescind the contract due to unpaid balances. PLDT argued improvements should be governed by civil code as they were builders in good faith. The court found PLDT was a builder in good faith until served notice of litis pendens, at which point they ceased being a builder in good faith. El Dorado was entitled to exercise right of appropriation or sell property to PLDT.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views1 page

    Carrascoso JR v. CA

    Uploaded by

    James Gregory A. Villasis
    Carrascoso purchased land from El Dorado and was allowed to mortgage the property after an initial payment. Carrascoso then entered an agreement to sell the land to PLDT. However, El Dorado informed Carrascoso they wanted to rescind the contract due to unpaid balances. PLDT argued improvements should be governed by civil code as they were builders in good faith. The court found PLDT was a builder in good faith until served notice of litis pendens, at which point they ceased being a builder in good faith. El Dorado was entitled to exercise right of appropriation or sell property to PLDT.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    1. Carrascoso Jr v.

    CA

    Facts:
    Carrascoso purchased by installment a 1300 ha of land from El Dorado. It
    was agreed that upon payment of the first installment, Carrascoso is free to
    mortgage such property. Upon downpayment, Carrascoso entered into an
    agreement to buy and sell with the PLDT. However, prior to this, El Dorado
    informed Carrascoso that they wanted to rescind the contract between them due to
    the failure of the latter to pay the outstanding balance despite demands. A notice of
    litis pendens was served to PLDT. PLDT then contends that the improvement they
    made with the property should be governed by the civil code since they are builders
    in good faith.

    Issue: WON PLDT is a builder in good faith

    Held:
    PLDT is a builder in good faith with regards to the moment they bought the
    property from Carrascoso with a belief that they are holding a flawless title.
    However, the moment notice of litis pendens was served, PLDT ceases to be a
    builder in good faith.
    Hence, El dorado should exercise his right of appropriation or to sell the
    property to PLDT.

    You might also like