SPS. MACASAET vs SPS. MACASAET G.R. 154391-92 Sept. 30, 2004Facts: Petitioners Ismael and Teresita Macasaet and Respondents Vicente and Rosario Macasaet are first-degree relatives. Ismael is the son of respondents and Teresita is his wife. On December 1! 1""#! the parents filed with the MT$ of %ipa an e&ectment s'it against the children. Respondents alleged that the( were the owners of ) parcels of land! sit'ated at *ana(-bana(! %ipa $it(+ that b( wa( of a verbal lease agreement! Ismael and Teresita occ'pied these lots in Mar. 1"") and 'sed them as their residence and the sit's of their constr'ction b'siness+ and that despite repeated demands! petitioners failed to pa( the agreed rental of P,. Ismael and Teresita denied the e-istence of an( verbal lease agreement. The( claimed that respondents had invited them to constr'ct their residence and b'siness on the s'b&ect lots in order that the( co'ld all live near one another! emplo( marivic! the sister of Ismael! and help in resolving the problems of the famil(. The( added that it was the polic( of respondents to allot the land the( owned as an advance grant of inheritance in favor of their children. The MT$$ r'led in favor of respondents and ordered petitioners to vacate the premises. It opined that Ismael and Teresita had occ'pied the lots! not b( virt'e of a verbal lease agreement! b't b( tolerance of Vicente and Rosario. .s their sta( was merel( tolerance! petitioners were necessaril( bo'nd b( an implied promise to vacate the lots 'pon demand. On appeal! the regional trial co'rt 'pdheld the findings fo the MT$$. /owever! the RT$ allowed the respondents to appropriate theb'ilding and other improvements introd'ced b( petitioners! after pa(ment of the indemnit( provided for b( .rt. 001 in relation to .rt.,02 and ,01 of the 3$$. The $. s'stained the finding of the two lower co'rts that Ismael and Teresita had been occ'p(ing the s'b&ect lots onl( b( the tolerance of Vicente and Rosario. $iting $al'ba(an v. pasc'al! the $. f'rther r'led that petitioners stat's was analogo's to that of a lessee or a tenant whose term of lease had e-pired! b't whose occ'panc( contin'ed b( tolerance of the owner. $onse4'entl( ! in ascertaining the right of the petitioners to be reimb'rsed for the improvements the( had introd'ced on respondents properties! the appellate co'rt applied the $ivil $odes provisions on lease.Issue:5.O.3.the co'rts sho'ld fi- the d'ration of possession.e!": That Ismael and Teresita had a right to occ'p( the lots is therefore clear! the iss'e is the d'ration of possession. In the absence of a stip'lation on this point! .rt. 11"# of the civil $ode allows the co'rts to fi- the d'ration or the period. .rticle 11"#. If the obligation does not fi- a period! b't from its nat're and the circ'mstances it can be inferred that a period was intended! the co'rts ma( fi- the d'ration thereof. The co'rts shall also fi- the d'ration of the period when it depends 'pon the will of the debtor. .rticle 11"#! however! applies to a sit'ation in which the parties intended a period. 6'ch 4'alification cannot be inferred from the facts of the present case. The mere fail're to fi- the d'ration of their agreement does not necessaril( &'stif( or a'thori7e the co'rts to do so It can be safel( concl'ded that the agreement s'bsisted as long as the parents and the children m't'all( benefited from the arrangement. 8ffectivel(! there is a resol'tor( condition in s'ch an agreement. Their possession which was originall( lawf'l became 'nlawf'l when the reason therefore 9 love and solidarit( 9 ceased to e-ist between them.