PLEASANTVILLE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, WILSON KEE, C.T. TORRES ENTERPRISES, INC. and ELDRED JARDINICO, respondents.
G.R. No. 79688 | February 1, 1996
Doctrine
Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title.—Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. And as good faith is presumed, petitioner has the burden of proving bad faith on the part of Kee. At the time he built improvements on Lot 8, Kee believed that said lot was what he bought from petitioner. He was not aware that the lot delivered to him was not Lot 8. Thus, Kee’s good faith. Petitioner failed to prove otherwise.
Violation of the Contract of Sale on Installment may not be the basis to negate the presumption that Kee was a builder in good faith.—Such violations have no bearing whatsoever on whether Kee was a builder in good faith, that is, on his state of mind at the time he built the improvements on Lot 9. These alleged violations may give rise to petitioner’s cause of action against Kee under the said contract (contractual breach), but may not be bases to negate the presumption that Kee was a builder in good faith.
Rights may be waived unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals or good customs or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.—We do not agree with the interpretation of petitioner that Kee contracted away his right to recover damages resulting from petitioner’s negligence. Such waiver would be contrary to public policy and cannot be allowed. “Rights may be waived, unless the waiver is contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good customs, or prejudicial to a third person with a right recognized by law.”
AGENCY: The rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of the agent, done within the scope of his authority, and should bear the damage caused to third persons. On the other hand, the agent who exceeds his authority is personally liable for the damage. Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10, G.R. No. 79688 February 1, 1996
Facts
Edith Rubillo purchased a lot from the petitioner designated as Lot 9, Phase II, and located at Taculing Road, Pleasantville Subdivision, Bacolod City. After sometime, Eldred Jardinico bought rights over the vacant lot from Robillo. Upon completing payments, Jardinico secured from Register of Deeds of Bacolod City a Transfer of Certificate of Title in his name for the said lot, but discovered as well that there were improvements introduced on Lot 9 by Wilson Kee, who had taken possession thereof.
It appears that Wilson Kee bought Lot 8, but there was a misdelivery from petitioner’s agent, C.T. Torres Enterprises Inc. (CTTEI), when its employee/agent pointed Lot 9 instead of Lot 8 during lot inspection. After the discovery, Jardinico confronted Kee. The parties tried to amicably settle but it failed.
Thus, Jardinico’s lawyer wrote a demand letter demanding Kee to remove improvements and vacate Lot 9. Kee refused.
Jardinico filed with MTCC a complaint for ejectment with damages against Kee. The latter, in turn, filed a third party complaint against Pleasantville and CTTI.
MTCC ruled in favour of Jardinico holding that there was an erroneous delivery of Lot 9 to Kee, and attributed it to CTTEI. Thus, Kee has to vacate the property, pay rentals, and CTTEI and Pleasantvill to pay Jardinico attorney’s fees and cost of litigation.
On appeal to RTC, it ruled that petitioner and CTTEI were not at fault or negligent there being no preponderant evidence that they directly participated in the delivery of Lot 9 to Kee. Kee was found a builder in bad faith.
After a denied motion for reconsideration, Kee appealed. The appellate court reversed the assailed decision, declaring Kee a builder in good faith and imputed the erroneous delivery to petitioner and CTTEI. Petitioner filed the instant petition to SC averring that Kee is a builder in bad faith.
Issue
(1) Whether or not Wilson Kee is a builder in good faith.
(2) Whether or not Zenaida Octaviano is liable.
Ruling
Ruling:
(1) Kee is a builder in good faith. It was CTTEI’s employee, Octaviano, who authoritatively declared that the land she was pointing to was indeed Lot 8. Having full faith and confidence in the reputation of CTTEI, and because of the company’s positive identification of the property, Kee saw no reason to suspect that there had been a misdelivery. Thus, at the time he built improvements on Lot 8, Kee believed that said lot was what he bought from petitioner. He was not aware that the lot delivered to him was not Lot 8.
Good faith consists in the belief of the builder that the land he is building on is his and his ignorance of any defect or flaw in his title. And as good faith is presumed, petitioner has the burden of proving bad faith on the part of Kee. At the time he built improvements on Lot 8, Kee believed that said lot was what he bought from petitioner. He was not aware that the lot delivered to him was not Lot 8. Thus, Kee’s good faith. Petitioner failed to prove otherwise.
(2) Yes. The rule is that the principal is responsible for the acts of the agent, done within the scope of his authority, and should bear the damage caused to third persons. On the other hand, the agent who exceeds his authority is personally liable for the damage. Pleasantville Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, 253 SCRA 10, G.R. No. 79688 February 1, 1996.
Read Full Cases
