SPS AQUINO V.
SPS AGUILAR
Right of Accession
RECIT-READY:
Aquinos filed an ejectment case v. Aguilars who claims reimbursement for the expenses of
improvement they introduced to the former’s property. Courts ruled that they are builders in bad faith
since despite prohibition of the owner not to introduce improvement, they continued with the
construction of the 3 storey building. A builder in bad faith is entitled to recoup the necessary expenses
incurred for the preservation of the land. However, a builder in bad faith does not have the right of
retention over the premises.
FACTS:
 Sps. Crispin and Teresa Aquino are the owners of a house and lot which was occupied by
Teresa’s sister, Josefina Aguilar together with her spouse Eusebio and their family, with the
consent and approval of Sps Aquino who were then residing in US. Aquinos sent a letter to
Aguilars informing them not to construct anything on the premises as they planned to sell
the same. Despite the prohibition, Aguilars demolished the house previously constructed and
built a three-storey building and occupied half of the 3rd floor. Aquinos sent another letter to
Aguilars demanding them to vacate the property, however the latter failed to heed the
demand.
 Aquinos then filed a complaint for ejectment before the office of the barangay captain but
failed to reach an amicable settlement. Aquinos then filed a complaint with the MeTC.
Aguilars claimed that they have contributed to the property’s improvement to which Aquinos
agreed in exchange for their exclusive use of the building’s portion making them co-owners
and builders in good faith since Aquinos never objected to the same – consequently, they had
the right to be compensated for the current value of their contribution.
 MeTC: In favor of Aquinos. Aguilars were builders in bad faith – as they were asked to refrain
from constructing on the property – thus not entitled to recover their purported expenses.
 RTC: Affirmed. Cannot be builders in good faith, Aquinos informed them the intention to
eventually dispose of the property and never consented to the construction.
 CA: Affirmed. Nevertheless, Aquilars should be reimbursed for the necessary and useful
expenses pursuant to Arts. 1678 & 548. Case remanded for determination of the cost of
expenses.
 Aquinos appealed to the SC assailing the remand of the case on the ground that since Aguilars
were builders in bad faith, they are not entitled to reimbursement. Aguilars no longer
appealed the CA decision. Hence, the finding that the Aguilars were builders in bad faith is no
longer an issue.
ISSUE:
Whether Aguilars – builders in bad faith – may recover the necessary expenses incurred.
HELD:
Yes. Under Art. 452 of the Civil Code, a builder in bad faith is entitled to recoup the necessary expenses
incurred for the preservation of the land. However, a builder in bad faith does not have the right of
retention over the premises.
Builder in bad faith – Aguilars in this case – may recover the money spent on maintenance of the
property, which Aquinos acknowledged and promised to reimburse to them. Since evidence failed to
establish the amount of necessary expenses incurred by Aguilars, CA’s order to remand the case is
proper.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is PARTLY GRANTED.
The Court of Appeals Decision dated 25 April 2008 is REVERSED insofar as it ordered: (a) the
reimbursement of the useful expenses incurred by respondents while in possession of the property;
and (b) the determination of the cost of these useful improvements by the court of origin. The rest of
the Decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED.
Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the court of origin for the determination of the necessary
expenses of preservation of the land, if any, incurred by respondent spouses Eusebio and Josefina
Aguilar while they were in possession of the property, which expenses shall be reimbursed to them by
petitioner spouses Crispin and Teresa Aquino. Aquinos have the right to appropriate what has been built on the property without any obligation to
On the other hand, respondents and all persons claiming rights under them are ordered, upon finality pay indemnity and Aguilars have no right to a refund of the improvement built pursuant to Arts. 449
of this Decision without awaiting the resolution of the matter of necessary expenses by the trial court, and 4503.
to immediately VACATE the subject property and DELIVER its peaceful possession to petitioners.
Respondents are likewise ordered to PAY petitioners P7,000 as monthly rental plus interest thereon
at the rate of 6% per annum, to be computed from 22 October 2003 until the finality of this Decision.

Note:
Art. 16781 not applicable
The provision applies only to lessees who build useful improvements on the leased property and not
to those who possess property by mere tolerance of the owners, without a contractual right. The
analogy between them lies in their implied obligation to vacate the premises upon the owner’s
demand.

Here, no evidence of any lease contract nor allegation that they were lessees as they insisted to be co-
owners and builders in good faith. Moreover, as they were being builders in bad faith, they are not
entitled to reimbursement of useful expenses. Absence of good faith bars invocation of Art. 1678.

Art. 4482 not applicable

Builder in good faith refers to one who builds on that land, believing himself to be its owner and
unaware of the defect in his title or mode of acquisition. The essence of good faith lies in an honest
belief in the validity of one’s right, ignorance of a superior claim, and absence of intention to overreach
another.

1 Article 1678. If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable to the use for which the lease is
intended, without altering the form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay
the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee
may remove the improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any
more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary.
or planter cannot be obliged to buy the land if its value is considerably more than that of the building or trees. In such case, he
shall pay reasonable rent, if the owner of the land does not choose to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity.
The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof.
3 Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right of

With regard to ornamental expenses, the lessee shall not be entitled to any reimbursement, but he may remove the ornamental
objects, provided no damage is caused to the principal thing, and the lessor does not choose to retain them by paying their
value at the time the lease is extinguished.
2 Article 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, sown or planted in good faith, shall have the right to
appropriate as his own the works, sowing or planting, after payment of the indemnity provided for in articles 546 and 548, or to
oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper rent. However, the builder
indemnity.
Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of
the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the
person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the
proper rent.