More on property, read also: MAY AN AGENT PURCHASE THE PROPERTY ENTRUSTED TO HIM BY THE PRINCIPAL?
-
The law may allow a person to enjoy the property of another
-
Enjoying the property of another may be the will of the owner
-
The right to enjoy the property of another is coupled with the obligation to preserve the same
Man has too long forgotten that the earth was given to him for usufruct alone, not for consumption, still less for profligate waste. That is according to George Perkins Marsh.
It is a fact that not every property or right (in some instances) that we enjoy are ours. Some are borrowed. Some are temporarily granted. In other words, the property belongs to another person. Correlative with the right to enjoy a property or right is the obligation to preserve the same unless the law provides otherwise.
The law says:
The right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance is called usufruct. This is however subject to the title constituting it or when the law provides otherwise. Generally, usufruct is temporary in nature unless the owner of the property eventually decides to sell or donate the same to the one enjoying his property.
For a better appreciation, let us take the case of Mercedes Moralidad vs. Spouses Diosdado Pernes and Arlene Pernes, G.R. No. 152809, August 3, 2006.
In this case, Mercedes Moralidad who is single and had been working abroad would usually stay in the house of her niece Arlene every time she comes home to the Philippines. Back in America, received news from Arlene that their place in Davao City was infested by NPA rebels and many women and children were victims of crossfire between government troops and the insurgents.
Shocked and saddened by the incident, Mercedes immediately sent money with the instructions to look for a lot in Davao City where Arlene and her family could transfer and settle down. This is why she bought a parcel of land covered by a Transfer of Certificate of Title. Here, it is clear that Mercedes acquired the lot initially for the purpose of letting Arlene to move to Davao City proper but she wanted the property to be also available to any of her kins wishing to live and settle in Davao City. This intention of Mercedes was made known in a document that she executed.
Following the retirement of Mercedes, she came back to the Philippines and stayed with Arlene’s house which was built on lot of Mercedes. However, due to strained relations, Mercedes, being the registered owner of the land, filed a case against Arlene to recover the same.
May Mercedes recover the land? Is there a case of usufruct in this case?
The Supreme Court says:
Yes, to the both questions.
The relationship between Mercedes and Arlene with respect to the land is one of owner and usufructuary. Clearly, the Mercedes is the owner and Arlene is the usufructuary. Mercedes from the very beginning allowed Arlene to enjoy the land. Mercedes did not donate the land.
Usufruct, in essence, is nothing else but simply allowing one to enjoy another’s property. It is also defined as the right to enjoy the property of another temporarily, including both the right to use and the right to fruits, with the owner retaining the right to dispose or the power to alienate the same.
Alburo Alburo and Associates Law Offices specializes in business law and labor law consulting. For inquiries, you may reach us at info@alburolaw.com, or dial us at (02)7745-4391/0917-5772207.
All rights reserved.
SUBSCRIBE NOW FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES!
[email-subscribers-form id=”4″]