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

Please log in to request a case brief.

5 Phil. 147

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




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
on 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 follows:

“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.”

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

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.

Date created: April 28, 2014


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Apply Filters