GR 199353; (April, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. 199353 APRIL 4, 2018
LEVISTAE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, INC., Petitioner, vs. LEGASPI TOWERS 200, INC., and VIVAN Y. LOCSIN and PITONG MARCORDE, Respondents.
FACTS
Legaspi Towers 200, Inc. is a condominium corporation. Petitioner Leviste Management System, Inc. (LEMANS) purchased a unit, Concession 3, located on the roof deck. In 1989, LEMANS decided to construct an additional unit, Concession 4, on the airspace above its owned unit. It secured a building permit and commenced construction. Legaspi Towers objected, asserting the construction was illegal and violated the condominium’s Master Deed. It forbade the entry of construction materials and sought cancellation of the permit. LEMANS filed a complaint for mandatory injunction to complete construction. Legaspi Towers filed a third-party complaint against the building officials to nullify the permit. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) found both parties in good faith and applied Article 448 of the Civil Code on builders in good faith, ordering Legaspi Towers to choose between appropriating the structure or leasing the land. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
ISSUE
Whether the provisions of the Civil Code on builders in good faith (Article 448) are applicable to a dispute between a condominium unit owner and the condominium corporation regarding an unauthorized structure built on common areas.
RULING
No. The Civil Code provisions on builders in good faith are inapplicable. The legal logic is clear: Article 448 presupposes two distinct persons—an owner of the land and a builder—who are not bound by any specific legislation or contract governing the subject property. This case is governed by the Condominium Act (Republic Act No. 4726) and the contractual framework established by the Master Deed and By-Laws of the condominium corporation. The airspace above a condominium unit is not owned by the unit owner but is part of the common areas owned by the condominium corporation. The relationship between LEMANS and Legaspi Towers is contractual, defined by the Master Deed and the Condominium Act, not merely that of a landowner and a builder. Therefore, the rights and obligations of the parties must be determined under this special law and their contractual covenants, not under the general provisions of the Civil Code on accession. The RTC and CA erred in applying Article 448. The proper resolution hinges on whether LEMANS violated the Master Deed and the Condominium Act by constructing on common area property without the requisite consent.