BATASnatin LIVE Free Legal Advice
BATASnatin Live! Visit our YouTube channel for more details!
TECHNOGAS PHIL. V. CA 268 SCRA 5
TECHNOGAS PHIL. V. CA
268 SCRA 5
FACTS:Technogas owned property with buildings and walls. Uy bought an adjacent property. There was an agreement for Technogas to demolish the wall. Uy filed a complained but the case was dismissed. This prompted him to dig a hole along the wall, which led to the partial collapse of the wall. A case for malicious mischief was filed against Uy.
1. Unless one is versed in the science of surveying, no one can determine the precise extent or location of the property by merely examining his proper title.
2. The supervening awareness of the encroachment by petitioner doesn't militate against its right to claim the status of builder in good faith.
3. Bad faith isn’t imputable to a registered owner of a land when a part of his building encroaches upon a builder’s land