LEVISTE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner, v.

 LEGASPI TOWERS After the parties had presented and formally offered their respective
200, INC., AND VIVIAN Y. LOCSIN AND PITONG MARCORDE, pieces of evidence, but before the rendition of a judgment on the main case, the
RESPONDENTS. RTC found the application of Article 448 of the Civil Code and the ruling in
ENGR. NELSON Q. IRASGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL BUILDING the Depra vs. Dumlao (hereafter "Depra Case") to be proper.
OFFICIAL OF MAKATI, METRO MANILA AND HON. JOSE P. DE JESUS, IN HIS Lemans moved for reconsideration [DENIED]. The RTC further ruled that
CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS AND LEMANS is not the owner of the air space above its unit. Its claim of ownership
HIGHWAYS, THIRD PARTY, Respondents. is without basis in fact and in law. The air space which it claims is not on top of
G.R. No. 199353 / April 04, 2018 / LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. its unit but also on top of the condominium itself, owned and operated by
___________________________________________________________________________________________ defendant Legaspi Towers.

LEGASPI TOWERS 200, INC., Petitioner, v. LEVISTE MANAGEMENT From the foregoing Lemans filed a petition for certiorari with the CA.
SYSTEM, INC., ENGR. NELSON Q. IRASGA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS MUNICIPAL [DENIED], no grave abuse of discretion found.
BLDG. OFFICIAL OF MAKATI, METRO MANILA, AND HON. JOSE P. DE JESUS,
IN HIS CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC Meanwhile, Lemans adduced evidence before the RTC to establish that the
WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, Respondents. actual cost for the construction of Concession 4 was Eight Hundred Thousand
G.R. NO. 199389 / April 04, 2018 / LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. Eight Hundred Ninety-seven and 96/100 Pesos (PhP800,897.96) and that the
fair market value of Concession 4 was Six Million Pesos (PhP6,000,000.00).
TOPIC: Property
The RTC rendered the decision ordering Legaspi towers to exercise its
“Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code on builders in good faith are therefore option to appropriate the additional structure constructed on top of the
inapplicable in cases covered by the Condominium Act where the  owner of the penthouse owned by Lemans. [MR denied] Appealed to the CA.
land and the builder are already bound by specific legislation on the subject
property, (Condominium Act) and by contract (Master Deed and By-Laws of the The CA held that while Concession 4 is indeed a nuisance, LEMANS has
condominium corp.)” been declared a builder in good faith, and noted that Legaspi Towers failed to
contest this declaration. Since Concession 4 was built in good faith, it cannot be
FACTS: demolished.

Legaspi Towers is a condominium building located at Paseo de Roxas, ISSUE: WON Art. 448 and the ruling in Depra v. Dumlao case are applicable in
Makati City. It consists of seven (7) floors, with a unit on the roof deck and two this case.
levels above said unit called Concession 2 and Concession 3. Concession 3 was
originally owned by Leon Antonio Mercado. On 9 March 1989, Leviste DECISION: NO, Art. 448 and the Depra ruling are not applicable in this
Management System, Inc. (LEMANS), through Mr. Conrad Leviste, bought case.
Concession 3 from Mercado.
The ruling of this Court in Depra v. Dumlao extensively cited by both
Lemans decided to build another unit (hereafter "Concession 4") on the parties pertains to the application of Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code,
roof deck of Concession 3. Despite Legaspi Corporation's notice that the which respectively provide:
construction of Concession 4 was illegal, Lemans refused to stop its
construction. Due to this, Legaspi Corporation forbade the entry of Lemans' Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built,
construction materials to be used in Concession 4 in the condominium. 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
Lemans filed a Complaint with the RTC, praying among others that a writ provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or
of mandatory injunction be issued to allow the completion of the construction planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper
of Concession 4. The RTC issued the writ prayed for by Lemans. rent. However, the builder 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 on the subject property, (Condominium Act) and by contract (Master Deed and
to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties By-Laws of the condominium corp.). This Court has ruled that upon acquisition
shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the of a condominium unit, the purchaser not only affixes his conformity to the
court shall fix the terms thereof. sale; he also binds himself to a contract with other unit owners.
Art. 546. Necessary expenses shall be refunded to every In accordance therefore with the Master Deed, the By-Laws of Legaspi
possessor; but only the possessor in good faith may retain the thing Towers, and the Condominium Act, the relevant provisions of which were
until he has been reimbursed therefor. already set forth above, Legaspi Towers is correct that it has the right to
demolish Concession 4 at the expense of LEMANS. Indeed, the application of
Useful expenses shall be refunded only to the possessor in good faith Article 448 to the present situation is highly iniquitous, in that an owner, also
with the same right of retention, the person who has defeated him in found to be in good faith, will be forced to either appropriate the illegal
the possession having the option of refunding the amount of the structure (and impliedly be burdened with the cost of its demolition) or to
expenses or of paying the increase in value which the thing may have allow the continuance of such an illegal structure that violates the law and the
acquired by reason thereof. Master Deed, and threatens the structural integrity of the condominium
building upon the payment of rent. The Court cannot countenance such an
Legaspi Towers also argues that Concession 4 is an illegal construction, unjust result from an erroneous application of the law and jurisprudence.
for being in violation of the Condominium Act and the By Laws of Legaspi
Towers. Legaspi Towers stresses that LEMANS failed to comply with the DISPOSITIVE PORTION: WHEREFORE, the Petition in G.R. No. 199353 is
Condominium Act, which requires the consent of the registered owners of the hereby DENIED for lack of merit. The Petition in G.R. No. 199389
condominium project for the amendment of the Master Deed. is GRANTED. The Decision dated May 26, 2011 and Resolution dated
November 17, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 88082
Lemans, however, argues that it had an internal arrangement with the are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Leviste Management System, Inc.
then President of Legaspi Towers allowing the former to construct concession is ORDERED to remove Concession 4 at its own expense.
4. Lemans further argues that this shows its good faith in the construction of
Concession 4, and claims the application of the aforementioned Articles 448 No pronouncement as to costs.
and 546 of the Civil Code.
SO ORDERED.
Firstly, it is recognized in jurisprudence that, as a general rule, Article 448
on builders in good faith does not apply where there is a contractual relation
between the parties. Morever, in several cases, this Court has explained that
the raison d'etre for Article 448 of the Civil Code is to prevent the
impracticability of creating a state of forced co-ownership.

In the case at bar, however, the land belongs to a condominium

Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code on builders in good faith are
therefore inapplicable in cases covered by the Condominium Act where
the owner of the land and the builder are already bound by specific legislation