G.R. No. 152809,
August 3, 2006, 529 PHIL 523-538
Doctrine
A usufructuary is not entitled to reimbursements of the improvements he made on the property subject of the usufruct. However, he may remove such improvements provided it will not cause injury to the principal thing.
Facts
Petitioner works abroad. She bought a land in Davao City, Philippines for the purpose of letting her niece, respondent Arlene, to move from Mandug to Davao City and build their house therein and stay as long as they like. Later on, she wanted the property to be also available to any of her kins wishing to live and settle in Davao City. Petitioner’s intention was made known in a document she executed on July 21, 1986. Thereafter, Arlene built a house in the lot bought by the petitioner.
When petitioner retired, she came back to the Philippines and lived with respondent Arlene’s house which they built on the subject property. However, the relationship between petitioner and respondent turned sour.
Thereafter, petitioner filed an unlawful detainer case against respondents. Petitioner alleged that she is the registered owner of the land on which the respondents built their house; that through her counsel, she sent the respondent spouses a letter demanding them to vacate the premises and to pay rentals therefor, which the respondents refused to heed.
In their defense, the respondents alleged having entered the property in question, building their house thereon and maintaining the same as their residence with petitioner’s full knowledge and express consent. To prove their point, they invited attention to her written declaration of July 21, 1986, supra, wherein she expressly signified her desire for the spouses to build their house on her property and stay thereat for as long as they like.
The MTCC ruled in favor of petitioner. But, the RTC and the Court of Appeals reversed the decision. The CA ruled that the ejectment suit is still premature since the unlawful detainer suit presupposes the cessation of respondents’ right to possess. The CA 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’s statement that respondents can ‘stay as long as they like’ indicates that that she is allowing respondents to occupy portion of her land as long as the latter want to. Considering that respondents still want to occupy the premises, petitioner clearly cannot eject respondents.
Issues
- Whether or not the unlawful detainer case is still premature since the usufruct is not yet terminated.
- Whether or not the respondents, as usufructuary, is entitled to reimbursement of the improvements (i.e. house) they made on the property subject of usufruct.
Ruling
1. No, the unlawful detainer case in not premature.The term or period of the usufruct originally specified provides only one of the bases for the right of a usufructuary to hold and retain possession of the thing given in usufruct. There are other modes or instances whereby the usufruct shall be considered terminated or extinguished under Article 603 of the Civil Code. One of these is the the fulfillment of any resolutory condition provided in the title creating the usufruct.
The document executed by the petitioner dated July 21, 1986 constitutes the title creating, and sets forth the conditions of, the usufruct. Paragraph #3 thereof states “[T]hat anyone of my kins may enjoy the privilege to stay therein and may avail the use thereof. Provided, however, that the same is not inimical to the purpose thereof” (Emphasis supplied). What may be inimical to the purpose constituting the usufruct may be gleaned from the preceding paragraph wherein petitioner made it abundantly clear “that anybody of my kins who wishes to stay on the aforementioned property should maintain an atmosphere of cooperation, live in harmony and must avoid bickering with one another.” That the maintenance of a peaceful and harmonious relations between and among kin constitutes an indispensable condition for the continuance of the usufruct is clearly deduced from the succeeding Paragraph #4 where petitioner stated “[T]hat anyone of my kins who cannot conform with the wishes of the undersigned may exercise the freedom to look for his own.” In fine, the occurrence of any of the following: 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.
Thus, the continuing animosity between the petitioner and the respondent and the violence and humiliation she was made to endure, despite her advanced age and frail condition, are enough factual bases to consider the usufruct as having been terminated.
2. No. Under Article 579 of the Civil Code, respondents, as usufructuary, do not have the right to reimbursement for the improvements they may have introduced on the property.
Given the foregoing perspective, respondents will have to be ordered to vacate the premises without any right of reimbursement. If the rule on reimbursement or indemnity were otherwise, then the usufructuary might, as an author pointed out, improve the owner out of his property. The respondents may, however, remove or destroy the improvements.