To prefer the NHAs survey to MSBFs survey will strip MSBF of most of its main

To prefer the nhas survey to msbfs survey will strip

This preview shows page 12 - 14 out of 41 pages.

To prefer the NHA’s survey to MSBF’s survey will strip MSBF of most of its main facilities. Only the main building of MSBF will remain with MSBF since the main building is near the corner of EDSA and Quezon Avenue. The rest of MSBF’s main facilities will be outside the seven-hectare area. On the other hand, this Court cannot countenance MSBF’s act of exceeding the seven-hectare portion granted to it by Proclamation No. 1670. A usufruct is not simply about rights and privileges. A usufructuary has the duty to protect the owner’s interests. One such duty is found in Article 601 of the Civil Code which states: ART. 601. The usufructuary shall be obliged to notify the owner of any act of a third person, of which he may have knowledge, that may be prejudicial to the rights of ownership, and he shall be liable should he not do so, for damages, as if they had been caused through his own fault. A usufruct gives a right to enjoy the property of another with the obligation of preserving its form and substance, unless the title constituting it or the law otherwise provides. 22 This controversy would not
Image of page 12
have arisen had MSBF respected the limit of the beneficial use given to it. MSBF’s encroachment of its benefactor’s property gave birth to the confusion that attended this case. To put this matter entirely to rest, it is not enough to remind the NHA to respect MSBF’s choice of the location of its seven-hectare area. MSBF, for its part, must vacate the area that is not part of its usufruct. MSBF’s rights begin and end within the seven-hectare portion of its usufruct. This Court agrees with the trial court that MSBF has abused the privilege given it under Proclamation No. 1670. The direct corollary of enforcing MSBF’s rights within the seven-hectare area is the negation of any of MSBF’s acts beyond it. The seven-hectare portion of MSBF is no longer easily determinable considering the varied structures erected within and surrounding the area. Both parties advance different reasons why their own surveys should be preferred. At this point, the determination of the seven-hectare portion cannot be made to rely on a choice between the NHA’s and MSBF’s survey. There is a need for a new survey, one conducted jointly by the NHA and MSBF, to remove all doubts on the exact location of the seven-hectare area and thus avoid future controversies. This new survey should consider existing structures of MSBF. It should as much as possible include all of the facilities of MSBF within the seven-hectare portion without sacrificing contiguity. A final point. Article 605 of the Civil Code states: ART. 605. Usufruct cannot be constituted in favor of a town, corporation, or association for more than fifty years . If it has been constituted, and before the expiration of such period the town is abandoned, or the corporation or association is dissolved, the usufruct shall be extinguished by reason thereof. (Emphasis added) The law clearly limits any usufruct constituted in favor of a corporation or association to 50 years. A usufruct is meant only as a lifetime grant. Unlike a natural person, a corporation or association’s
Image of page 13
Image of page 14

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 41 pages?

  • Fall '18
  • Appellate court, Trial court, MSBF

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture