Lessees Beware: Improvements Don’t Guarantee Ownership Rights

G.R. No. 108222, May 05, 1997

Imagine investing in a building on leased land, believing you have a right to stay indefinitely. Many lessees make this assumption, only to find their rights are far more limited than they thought. The Supreme Court case of Henry L. Sia vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals and Torre de Oro Development Corporation clarifies the rights and obligations of lessees concerning improvements made on leased property, emphasizing that Article 1678 of the Civil Code, not Articles 448 and 546, governs such situations. This case serves as a crucial reminder for both lessors and lessees to understand their respective rights and responsibilities regarding improvements made during the lease period.

Legal Context: Lease Agreements and Building Rights

In the Philippines, lease agreements are governed primarily by the Civil Code. Article 1678 specifically addresses improvements made by a lessee on the leased property. Understanding this provision is crucial for anyone entering into a lease agreement where improvements are contemplated.

Article 1678 of the Civil Code states:

“If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements at that time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may remove the improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon the property leased than is necessary.”

This article outlines the rights of the lessee to be reimbursed for one-half of the improvement’s value or to remove the improvement if the lessor refuses reimbursement. It’s important to note the distinction between this and Articles 448 and 546, which apply to builders in good faith who believe they own the land, a scenario not applicable to lessees who knowingly lease the property. For example, if a tenant builds a commercial structure on leased land with the lessor’s consent and the lease expires, Article 1678 dictates the tenant’s rights regarding that structure, not the provisions concerning good faith ownership.

Case Breakdown: Sia vs. Torre de Oro

The case began with Atty. Rodolfo Pelaez leasing land to Henry L. Sia’s parents, who built a commercial building on it. After Pelaez’s death, his son sold the land to Torre de Oro Development Corp. Henry Sia succeeded his parents as lessee. In 1988, Sia entered into a lease contract with Torre de Oro. When the corporation decided not to renew the lease, it sought Sia’s ejectment, citing subleasing without consent. Sia refused to leave, claiming rights as a builder in good faith under Articles 448 and 546 of the Civil Code.

The case proceeded through the following steps:

• The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) initially ruled in favor of Sia, but the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed this decision, ordering Sia’s ejectment.
• The RTC held that the lease had expired and that Sia was not a builder in good faith.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision but modified the computation of monthly rentals and deleted the award of attorney’s fees.

The Supreme Court ultimately upheld the CA’s decision, emphasizing that Article 1678 of the Civil Code governed the rights of the lessee concerning improvements on the leased property. The Court stated:

“Petitioner stubbornly insists that he may not be ejected from private respondent’s land because he has the right, under Articles 448 and 546 of the New Civil Code, to retain possession of the leased premises until he is paid the full fair market value of the building constructed thereon by his parents. Petitioner is wrong, of course.”

The Court further clarified that lessees are not considered builders in good faith as contemplated under Articles 448 and 546 because they know they do not own the land. Their rights are limited to those provided under Article 1678.

Practical Implications: Rights, Risks, and Responsibilities

This case has significant implications for both lessors and lessees. Lessees must understand that investing in improvements on leased land does not grant them ownership rights or the right to retain possession indefinitely. Their rights are primarily governed by Article 1678, which offers limited protection. Lessors, on the other hand, have the option to either reimburse the lessee for half the value of the improvements or allow the lessee to remove them.

Key Lessons:

• Lessees: Before making significant improvements, negotiate terms in the lease agreement regarding ownership, reimbursement, or removal of improvements upon termination.
• Lessors: Clearly define the terms regarding improvements in the lease agreement to avoid disputes upon termination.
• Both: Understand that Article 1678, not Articles 448 and 546, typically governs improvements made by lessees.

For example, a business owner leasing a space for a restaurant should negotiate terms regarding kitchen equipment and renovations. The lease should specify whether the lessor will purchase these improvements at the end of the lease or if the lessee can remove them. Without such stipulations, the lessee may lose a significant investment.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the difference between Article 448 and Article 1678 of the Civil Code?

A: Article 448 applies to builders in good faith who believe they own the land they are building on. Article 1678 applies specifically to lessees making improvements on leased property.

Q: What rights does a lessee have regarding improvements made on leased property?

A: Under Article 1678, the lessee is entitled to either one-half of the value of the improvements from the lessor, or the right to remove the improvements if the lessor refuses to reimburse.

Q: Can a lessee claim ownership of the land due to improvements made?

A: No, a lessee cannot claim ownership of the land simply because they made improvements. The lessee is presumed to know that they do not own the land.

Q: What should a lessee do before making significant improvements on leased property?

A: A lessee should negotiate with the lessor and include specific terms in the lease agreement regarding the improvements, including ownership, reimbursement, or removal rights upon termination.

Q: What if the lease agreement is silent about improvements?

A: If the lease agreement is silent, Article 1678 of the Civil Code will govern, granting the lessee the right to reimbursement of half the value of the improvements or the right to remove them.

Q: How is the value of the improvements determined?

A: The value of the improvements is determined at the time of the termination of the lease.

Q: What happens if the lessor wants the lessee to leave before the lease expires?

A: This is a breach of contract and the lessee may have grounds for legal action. The lease agreement should specify the conditions under which the lessor can terminate the lease early.

ASG Law specializes in property law and lease agreements. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.