Legal question: who has rights to the property, the land owner or the house/building owner?

[iron_cross]

---

Ok, here is the scenario:
property has been foreclosed by the bank

person A is the owner of the lot(he has all the legal documents of the land).
person B is the owner of the house built on the property of person A.

both persons were informed about the foreclosure and person A purchased the lot from the bank.

Can person A claim ownership of the house of person B?



please share your thoughts.

thanks,

[MollyMillions]

The bank owned the lot as I understand it.

Therefore it is the bank's responsibility to ensure that when the sale took place it is free of all encumbrances including the house built on it.

If the bank is not aware of that and its not reflected in the lot title then good as squatter na ang nag nanag iyah sa bahay.

person A can have the right to claim ownership of the lot and evict the owner (Person B).

Ok, here is the scenario:
property has been foreclosed by the bank

person A is the owner of the lot(he has all the legal documents of the land).
person B is the owner of the house built on the property of person A.

both persons were informed about the foreclosure and person A purchased the lot from the bank.

Can person A claim ownership of the house of person B?



please share your thoughts.

thanks,

[iron_cross]

The bank owned the lot as I understand it.

Therefore it is the bank's responsibility to ensure that when the sale took place it is free of all encumbrances including the house built on it.

If the bank is not aware of that and its not reflected in the lot title then good as squatter na ang nag nanag iyah sa bahay.

person A can have the right to claim ownership of the lot and evict the owner (Person B).

thanks and furthermore inquiry, what should owner A do to evict person B? like court hearings, eviction notice and police assistance during eviction?

[<SMILE>]

SECTION 2. - Right of Accession with Respect
to Immovable Property

Art. 445. Whatever is built, planted or sown on the land of another and the improvements or repairs made thereon, belong to the owner of the land, subject to the provisions of the following articles. (35
Art. 446. All works, sowing, and planting are presumed made by the owner and at his expense, unless the contrary is proved. (359)

Art. 447. The owner of the land who makes thereon, personally or through another, plantings, constructions or works with the materials of another, shall pay their value; and, if he acted in bad faith, he shall also be obliged to the reparation of damages. The owner of the materials shall have the right to remove them only in case he can do so without injury to the work constructed, or without the plantings, constructions or works being destroyed. However, if the landowner acted in bad faith, the owner of the materials may remove them in any event, with a right to be indemnified for damages. (360a)

Art. 448. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, 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 provided for in Articles 546 and 548, or to oblige the one who built or planted to pay the price of the land, and the one who sowed, the proper 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 to appropriate the building or trees after proper indemnity. The parties shall agree upon the terms of the lease and in case of disagreement, the court shall fix the terms thereof. (361a)

Art. 449. He who builds, plants or sows in bad faith on the land of another, loses what is built, planted or sown without right to indemnity. (362)

Art. 450. The owner of the land on which anything has been built, planted or sown in bad faith may demand the demolition of the work, or that the planting or sowing be removed, in order to replace things in their former condition at the expense of the person who built, planted or sowed; or he may compel the builder or planter to pay the price of the land, and the sower the proper rent. (363a)

Art. 451. In the cases of the two preceding articles, the landowner is entitled to damages from the builder, planter or sower. (n)

Art. 452. The builder, planter or sower in bad faith is entitled to reimbursement for the necessary expenses of preservation of the land. (n)

Art. 453. If there was bad faith, not only on the part of the person who built, planted or sowed on the land of another, but also on the part of the owner of such land, the rights of one and the other shall be the same as though both had acted in good faith.

It is understood that there is bad faith on the part of the landowner whenever the act was done with his knowledge and without opposition on his part. (354a)

Art. 454. When the landowner acted in bad faith and the builder, planter or sower proceeded in good faith, the provisions of article 447 shall apply. (n)

Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay.

This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor. (365a)

Art. 456. In the cases regulated in the preceding articles, good faith does not necessarily exclude negligence, which gives right to damages under article 2176. (n)

BOOK II (FULL TEXT) : CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES : CHAN ROBLES VIRTUAL LAW LIBRARY

[MollyMillions]

Try sa guro baranggay sir para ma settle ug tarung, if dili madala ug istoryah.

Then if dili, ask na help Atty.

I suggest to consult a lawyer to know ur options.

thanks and furthermore inquiry, what should owner A do to evict person B? like court hearings, eviction notice and police assistance during eviction?

[lifebook11]

Question: But the the building was there before the purchase was made, does that fall on this:

Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay.

This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor. (365a)



I am learning here... thank you mga sir

[bizz_dakk]

Question: But the the building was there before the purchase was made, does that fall on this:

Art. 455. If the materials, plants or seeds belong to a third person who has not acted in bad faith, the owner of the land shall answer subsidiarily for their value and only in the event that the one who made use of them has no property with which to pay.

This provision shall not apply if the owner makes use of the right granted by article 450. If the owner of the materials, plants or seeds has been paid by the builder, planter or sower, the latter may demand from the landowner the value of the materials and labor. (365a)



I am learning here... thank you mga sir

so the property goes to the land owner i think..but still needs to compensate the building owner..

[iron_cross]

so the property goes to the land owner i think..but still needs to compensate the building owner..

here is the situation, it is a 120 sq. meter lot with duplex house (two houses on it), the developer divided this lot in two, 48 sq meter and 72 sq meter, respectively. however, this is just according to the developer and this never made it to city assessor's office.
the developer went bankrupt (due to mismanagement), the bank took over. the property was declared foreclosed and back to post number one.

[lstorya]

Whether youre A or B, have the other party killed. Mao nay current trend karon specially kung bahin na sa yuta ang gigubutan, bisan pa parente mo, mag igsuon, parents, ig agaw... dead! Already seen 2 cases on this, my teacher before gipatay iya mama, papa and cousin niya by his dad's own brother tungod lang sa yuta, and mind you, nakuha ang yuta and wala naunsa iya uncle (it was like a mafia hit, his uncle had goons with him and stormed the house and killed everyone). Another one is a family friend was killed by her own brother kay wala nagkasinabot sa pagbahin sa yuta (another mafia like hit), ending is nakuha ang yuta and wala gihapon naunsa ang nagkasala. Moral lesson, if you cant beat them, kill them.

[Xian120]

Ok, here is the scenario:
property has been foreclosed by the bank

person A is the owner of the lot(he has all the legal documents of the land).
person B is the owner of the house built on the property of person A.

both persons were informed about the foreclosure and person A purchased the lot from the bank.

Can person A claim ownership of the house of person B?



please share your thoughts.

thanks,

There is no way to make a legal assessment on this matter because the facts are incomplete..

just because person A bought a lot, that does not automatically mean he retains full ownership on immovable properties situated therein, there are conditions to look at before this can be done..

1. that the sale should include the house.. otherwise he'll have to pay for the value of the house..
2. that the value of the lot is greater that the house built upon it otherwise person A cannot deprive person B, but of course with proper indemnities from the latter.
3. that person A bought the property in good faith, and by good faith i mean that he have no knowledge of the encumbrances of the property.. this bit is hard to prove because person A had knowledge of the foreclosure

Person B, cannot be prejudiced for the developer's fault, that is to say if he can present the proper legal documents that proves that he have an a priori right on the house and the property, he can assert his right over said property, otherwise there's nothing he can do but run after the developer..

because person B was in good faith, he can always seek proper indemnities.. he cannot be out-rightly evicted without being indemnified..