Landowner & owner of materials in bad faith

Guys, db it is a basic priciple of accession that when both parties are in bad faith (i.e. Landowner&owner of materials) you will treat them as if they are in good faith. What if the the landowner doesn't want to reimburse the owner of materials? Is it okay to say na he totally lost the materials kasi they cannot go to court to sue due to the principle of in pari delicto. What can you say?

Paki check nga if they will both be considered in good faith. Parang "the court will just leave them as they are" without ruling whether they are both in good faith or not. I like to be enlightened too.

Yes, that is true regarding art. 447. You can find that in the book of Paras. It is as if na-neutralize nila yung act nila since both of them are in bad faith. My opinion kasi is yun nga the court will let them be and neither of them can recover in case ayaw ni landowner mgreimburse. Im not sure though if that is the only remedy.

Apply the principles as if they are both in good faith. The owner of the materials is entitled to removal provided that there is no substantial injury is caused.

If both of them are in bad faith (Landowner and BPS), Article 448 applies pursuant to Article 453, which states that if both the landowner and the BPS are in bad faith, Article 448 applies.

Now, Article 448 provides that the landowner has two options: whether (1)to appropriate the improvements provided he must pay for the necessary and useful expenses OR (2) compel the builder or planter to pay for the price of the land or the sower the proper rent.

If the landowner doesn't want to reimburse the BPS, then he can sell the property under the 2nd option. If, however, he wants to appropriate for himself the improvements, he must respect the BPS' right to retain the properties until the latter is reimbursed for the expenses.

I think the principle of in pari delicto is not applicable here because the instant case does not involve a contract (note that Article 1412 speaks of void contracts while in this case, there is no mention of any contract). Moreover, assuming arguendo that this principle is indeed applicable, by virtue of statutory construction, the rule embodied in a specific provision applies over the general principle. In this case, the specific provision here is Article 453 of the civil code while the general principle is the in pari delicto rule.

If you're talking about Owner of Materials and Landowner who is also the BPS, there is no specific provision that would apply. And I have not encountered any case yet that has the same instances. Note that the bad faith-bad faith rule is applicable if it's the Landowner and the BPS, and not the owner of materials (see article 453). Perhaps, we can use Articles 447, 448 and 453 in analogy. If that is so and he does not want to reimburse the owner of the materials, the owner of the materials can recover the materials provided such removal does not cause injury to the work constructed or without the plantings and sowings destroyed.

Regarding Paras' book: in our class, we were cautioned from using his commentaries. Marami daw mali.