Usufruct Dispute: Moralidad vs. Pernes
Uploaded by
Regalado AguhayonUsufruct Dispute: Moralidad vs. Pernes
Uploaded by
Regalado Aguhayon1.
The essence of a usufruct of allowing one to enjoy
another’s property.
USUFRUCT: Moralidad vs. Pernes
FACTS:
This case is a petition for certiorari filed by petitioner assailing the decision of CA, affirming the
decision of the RTC, which reversed the decision of the MTCC in an action for unlawful
detainer commenced by the petitioner.
This controversy stemmed from a parcel of land located in Davao City and owned by petitioner
Mercedes Moralidad. While working abroad, she bought said property for the purpose of
letting Arlene Pernes, her niece and one of the respondents, to move in Davao City proper as
the latter told her that the outskirts of Davao City was infested by NPA rebels. She executed a
document permitting the respondents to build their house therein and stay long as they like.
She also made said property available to any of her kins wishing to live and settle in Davao
City, with condition that they should maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, live in harmony
and must avoid bickering with one another.
When petitioner retired, she went back to the Philippines to stay with the respondents.
However, their relationship turned sour. The respondent’s family became impervious to her
suggestions. She even experienced harassment, threat, and defamation from said family. She
went to the Lupon ng Barangay to seek remedy. The Lupon favored her and ordered Pernes
family to vacate petitioner’s property but not after they are reimbursed for the value of the
house they built thereon. The parties could not agree on the amount.
Petitioner filed with the MTCC of Davao City an unlawful detainer suit against the respondent
spouses. The MTCC, resolved the ejectment suit in petitioner’s favor and declared that the
respondents spouses, although builders in good faith vis-à-vis the house they built on her
property, cannot invoke their bona fides as a valid excuse for not complying with the demand
to vacate. To the MTCC, respondents’ continued possession of the premises turned unlawful
upon their receipt of the demand to vacate, such possession being merely at petitioner’s
tolerance, and without any rental.
Respondents appealed to the RTC and the former reversed the MTCC decision. It held that
respondents’ possession of the property in question was not by mere tolerance of the petitioner
but rather by her express consent, making Articles 448 and 546 of the NCC applicable.
Petitioner went to the CA, which affirmed the RTC decision as regards the applicability of
Articles 448. But it ruled that it is still premature to apply the same considering that the issue of
whether respondents’ right to possess a portion of petitioner’s land had already expired or was
already terminated was not yet resolved. It further ruled that what governs the rights of the
parties is the law on usufruct but petitioner failed to establish that respondents’ right to possess
had already ceased.
Petitioner appealed to the SC.
ISSUES:
1. WON the existing usufruct may be deemed to have been extinguished.
2. WON Respondents has the right to be reimbursed on the improvements they have built.
HELD:
1. YES. The document executed by the petitioner constitutes the title creating, and sets
forth the conditions of the usufruct. The loss of the atmosphere of cooperation, the
bickering, or the cessation of harmonious relationship between/among kin constitutes a
resolutory condition which, by express wish of the petitioner, extinguishes the usufruct.
2. NO. If the builder is a usufructuary, his rights will be governed by Arts. 579 and 580. By
express provision of law, respondents, as usufructuary, do not have the right to
reimbursement for the improvements they may have introduced on the property. The
respondents may, however, remove or destroy the improvements they may have
introduced thereon without damaging the petitioner’s property.