Pada Kilario v Court of Appeals GR No.

134329
Picot, Praisah Marjorey F.

FACTS: Spouses Pada-Kilario occupied a house located at the northern portion of Cadastral lot
No.5581 since 1960 by sheer tolerance of Jacinto Pada the owner of the land. Upon the death of
Jacinto his heirs entered into an extrajudicial partition of his estate. As a result Cadastral Lot No. 5581
was allocated to Anianas and Marciano. Subsequently the said land was sold to Engr Paderes and
Silverio Pada. By virtue of the sale Silverio Pada demanded Spouses Pada-Kilario to vacate but they
refused so he filed and ejectment case against them. On the other hand Spouses Pada-Kilario
contended that they are possessors in good faith because they have been occupying the property
long before the sale took place. And as possessors in good they are entitled to have full
reimbursement of the useful expenses and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made

ISSUE: Whether or not Spouses Pada-Kilario are entitled to be reimbursed for the useful expenses

RULING: NO.
It is well-settled that both Art 448 and Article 546 of the New Civil Code which allow full
reimbursement of useful expenses and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, apply
only to a possessor in good faith—one who builds or occupies a land with the belief that he is the
owner thereof.

In this case, Spouses Pada-Kilario are not possessors in good faith but rather they are possessors in
a concept of a holder. In fact, the Pada-Kilario’s admitted that they had been occupying the property
without paying any rentals as they relied on the liberality and tolerance of the Pada Family.

Verily, persons whose occupation of a realty by sheer tolerance of its owners are not
possessors in good faith.