Unted Reaty Co.

v CA
G.R. No. L-62603 March 27, 1990
Facts:
Unted Reaty Corporaton, pettoner, entered nto a separate ease contract over
two apartments ocated at 913-E and 913-F |osefna St., Sampaoc, Mana wth
prvate respondent, Rev. Father |ose Torraba Sy wth a monthy rent of two hundred
pesos (P200.00), unt termnaton of ease. Prvate respondent then after converted
the apartment unts nto a Buddhst Chape.
Then on 1975, pettoner sent a etter to prvate respondent nformng hm of the
ncrease of hs monthy rent from P200 to P500 or P1000 for the two unts eased by
the prvate respondent, wth a request that the repy be gven f respondent agrees
wth the rent ncrease. Respondent Sy however fed a compant before the
Department of Pubc Informaton that the renta ncrease was n voaton of PD no
20, whch the atter rued that t was not, snce the pace of worshp s not protected
by the sad decree.
Then after, pettoner demanded that respondent eave the vacate the two
premses, whch the atter faed to do. Thus a compant for unawfu detaner was
fed aganst Rev. Fr. Sy, the court however dsmssed the petton, whch was ater
affrmed by the CA but wth modfcaton fndng that respondent s entted to
damages. Hence the petton.
Issue:
Whether the contract of ease s for a defnte or ndefnte perod of tme
Rung:
The court rued that the ease agreement s for a defnte perod, per the stpuaton
that the agreement woud be termnated when ether party gves a notce n fve (5)
days n wrtng. Snce the ease agreement n queston s for a defnte perod t
foows that pettoner has a rght to |udcay e|ect prvate respondent from the
premses as an excepton to the genera rue provded for n Secton 4 of P.D. No. 20
whch provdes as foows:
Except when the ease s for a defnte perod, the provsons of paragraph (1) of
Artce 1673 of the Cv Code of the Phppnes nsofar as they refer to dweng unt
or and on whch another's dweng s ocated sha be suspended unt otherwse
provded; but other provsons of the Cv Code and the Rues of Court of the
Phppnes on ease contracts nsofar as they are not n confct wth the provsons
of ths Act, sha appy.
Moreover, under Secton of 5(f) of B.P. Bg. 25 one of the grounds for e|ectment s
the expraton of the perod of a wrtten ease contract. In ths case, because of the
faure of the prvate respondent to pay the ncreased renta demanded by
pettoner, pettoner eected to termnate the contract and asked the prvate
respondent to vacate the premses. A ease contract may be termnated at the end
of any month, whch sha be deemed termnated upon the refusa to pay the
ncreased monthy renta demanded by the pettoner, provded the same s not
exorbtant.
Legar Management & Reaty Co. v. CA
G.R. No. 117423 |anuary 24, 1996
Facts:
Spouses Augusto and Cea Legasto entered nto a wrtten contract of ease of ther
budng wth no defnte perod wth prvate respondents Pascua and Ancheta.
Sometme n 1987, the Legasto spouses and ther chdren organzed Legar
Management & Reaty Corporaton, and transferred and assgned thereto a ther
rghts, nterests, and prveges over certan propertes, ncudng the sub|ect
apartment budng.
Thereafter, pettoner aowed prvate respondents to contnue occupyng ther
apartment unt by vrtue of a verba contract of ease whch was renewabe on a
month-to-month bass. Pursuant to ther verba ease agreement, prvate
respondents were to pay pettoner a monthy renta of One Thousand Fve Hundred
Forty-Fve Pesos (P1,545.00).
On Apr 21, 1992, pettoner wrote prvate respondent Pascua a forma notce of
termnaton, requestng hm to vacate unt 318-T by the end of May, 1992. A smar
forma notce was sent to prvate respondent Ancheta on |une 4, 1992, demandng
vacaton of the same unt by the end of |une, 1992. Both refused to heed
pettoner's demand and dd not vacate the sub|ect premses.
Thus an e|ectment case was nsttuted aganst the prvate respondents wth the MTC
that rued that the verba ease contract between the partes, beng on a month-to-
month bass, s for a defnte perod, and may be termnated at the end of any
month. Upon appea however, RTC reversed the sad decson, hodng that "the
mere expraton of the month-to-month ease perod n accordance wth Artce 1687
of the New Cv Code does not automatcay gve rse to an e|ectment n cases
governed by the Rent Contro Law, n vew of Secton 6 of Batas Pambansa Bg. 877,
as amended. Sad decson was uphed by CA rung that under the sad aw, the
owner/essor cannot e|ect the tenant by reason of the expraton of the perod of
ease as fxed or determned under Artce 1687 of the Cv Code. Even f n the
nstant case the month-to-month perod s deemed to have expred at the end of the
month after notce of demand to vacate . . . , (prvate) respondents' evcton cannot
be aowed wthout regard to the grounds for e|ectment enumerated n Secton 5 of
Batas Pambansa Bg. 877. Hence the petton.
Issue:
Whether the essee of a resdenta property covered by the Rent Contro Law can
be e|ected on the bass aone of the expraton of the verba ease contract under
whch rentas are pad monthy.
Rung:
The court rued n the affrmatve. "ecton 6 of Batas Pambansa Bg. 877 provdes
that provsons of par. 1 of the A.1673 of the Cv Code of the Phppnes referrng
to resdenta unts covered by the sad act sha be suspended durng the effectvty
of the act, and the other provsons of the Cv Code and the Rues of Court on ease
contracts, nsofar as they are not n confct wth the provsons of the Act sha
appy.
Aso, Art. 1687 of the same code provdes that "If the perod for the ease has not
been fxed, t s understood to be from year to year, f the rent agreed upon s
annua; from month to month, f t s monthy; from week to week, f t s weeky;
and from day to day, f the rent s to be pad day. However, even though a monthy
rent s pad, and no perod for the ease has been set, the courts may fx a onger
term for the ease after the essee has occuped the premses for over one year. If
the rent s weeky, the courts may kewse determne a onger perod after the
essee has been n possesson for over sx months. In case of day rent, the courts
may fx a onger perod after the essee has stayed n the pace for over one month.'
In the case at bench, t was found by a three ower courts that the ease over the
sub|ect property was on a month-to-month bass, and that there was proper notce
of non-renewa of contract and demand for vacaton of premses made by
pettoners on prvate respondent. Unquestonaby, therefore, the verba ease
agreement entered nto by prvate respondent and pettoners' father and
predecessor-n-nterest has been vady termnated.
GUZMAN, BOCALING & CO. v BONNEVIE
G.R. No. 86150 March 2, 1992
Facts:
Afrca Vadez de Reynoso eased a parce of and wth two budngs constructed
thereon to Raou S. Bonneve and Chrstopher Bonneve, for a perod of one year
begnnng August 8, 1976, at a monthy renta of P4,000.00, wth an agreement that
shoud Afrca decde to se the property, the respondent essee sha be gvent the
frst prorty to purchase the same.
Then on November 1976, Afrca sent a etter to the respondents that she was seng
the property for the amount of P600,000 ess a mortgage oan of P100,000, gvng
them 30 days to exercse ther rght of frst prorty. Faure to exercse the sad
rght, respondents shoud vacate the property not ater than March 1977. Then on
|anuary 1977, Afrca nformed that the property have been sod to the pettoner,
because respondents faed to exercse ther rght to do such.
Respondent s on the other hand nformed Afrca that they have not receved ther
etter and refused to vacate the property. And on Apr of the same year, Afrca
demanded that they vacate the property for faure to pay rent for four months,
whch they refused. Hence a compant for e|ectment was fed aganst them. Durng
the pendency of the e|ectment case, respondent fed an acton for annument of the
sae between Afrca and the heren pettoner and for the canceaton of the transfer
certfcate of tte n the name of the atter. Askng aso that Afrca be requred to se
the property to them under the same terms and condtons agreed upon n the
Contract of Sae n favor of the pettoner.
Then on May 1980, the Cty Court rued that the respondent to vacate the premses,
and dever possesson of the property to the pettoner as we as pay the rent due
to them. Upon appea to the Court of Frst Instance of Mana, affrmed the sad
e|ecton case wth modfcaton and granted respondents petton to cance the Deed
of Sae executed between Afrca and the pettoner and ordered her to se the
property to respondent, and for pettoner and Afrca to pay respondent for
damages. CA affrmed the sad decson but wth modfcaton on the amount of
damages. Hence the petton.
Issue:
WON the respondent court erred n rung that the grant of frst prorty to purchase
the sub|ect propertes by the |udca admnstratrx needed no authorty from the
probate court;
WON the Contract of Sae executed between the partes was not vodabe but
rescssbe;
WON pettoner s a buyer n bad fath.
Rung:
On the frst ssue, Afrca faed to show that the etter sent by regstered ma was
receved by the respondents, ony a photocopy of the etter wthout any recevng
sgnature comng from the atter. Furthermore, even f the atter receved the etter
and dd not exercse ther rght of frst prorty, Afrca woud st be guty of voatng
Paragraph 20 of the Contract of Lease whch specfcay stated that the prvate
respondents coud exercse the rght of frst prorty, "a thngs and condtons beng
equa." Snce Afrca had offered a esser amount to the pettoner and more
advantageous offer than that was offered to the respondent. Aso, respondent court
s correct that t was not necessary to secure the approva by the probate court of
the Contract of Lease because t dd not nvove an aenaton of rea property of the
estate nor dd the term of the ease exceed one year so as top make t fa under
Artce 1878(8) of the Cv Code.
In the second ssue, prvate respondents have the rght to rescnd the contract of
sae because Afrca had faed to compy wth her duty to gve them frst opportunty
to purchase the sub|ect property.
The pettoner argues that assumng the Contract of Sae to be vodabe, ony the
partes thereto coud brng an acton to annu t pursuant to Artce 1397 of the Cv
Code. It s stressed that prvate respondents are strangers to the agreement and
therefore have no personaty to seek ts annument.
The respondent court correcty hed that the Contract of Sae was not vodabe but
rescssbe. Under Artce 1380 to 1381 (3) of the Cv Code, a contract otherwse
vad may nonetheess be subsequenty rescnded by reason of n|ury to thrd
persons, ke credtors. The status of credtors coud be vady accorded the
Bonneves for they had substanta nterests that were pre|udced by the sae of the
sub|ect property to the pettoner wthout recognzng ther rght of frst prorty
under the Contract of Lease.
Rescsson s a remedy granted by aw to the contractng partes and even
to thrd persons, to secure reparaton for damages caused to them by a contract,
even f ths shoud be vad, by means of the restoraton of thngs to ther condton
at the moment pror to the ceebraton of sad contract. It s a reef aowed for the
protecton of one of the contractng partes and even thrd persons from a n|ury
and damage the contract may cause, or to protect some ncompatbe and preferent
rght created by the contract. Recsson mpes a contract whch, even f ntay
vad, produces a eson or pecunary damage to someone that |ustfes ts
nvadaton for reasons of equty.
It s true that the acquston by a thrd person of the property sub|ect of the
contract s an obstace to the acton for ts rescsson where t s shown that such
thrd person s n awfu possesson of the sub|ect of the contract and that he dd not
act n bad fath. However, ths rue s not appcabe n the case before us because
the pettoner s not consdered a thrd party n reaton to the Contract of Sae nor
may ts possesson of the sub|ect property be regarded as acqured awfuy and n
good fath. Pettoner was aware f the ease n favor of the Bonneves, who were
actuay occupyng the sub|ect property at the tme t was sod to t. Athough the
Contract of Lease was not annotated on the transfer certfcate of tte n the name
of the ate |ose Reynoso and Afrca Reynoso, the pettoner cannot deny actua
knowedge of such ease whch was equvaent to and ndeed more bndng than
presumed notce by regstraton.
A purchaser n good fath and for vaue s one who buys the property of another
wthout notce that some other person has a rght to or nterest n such property and
pays a fu and far prce for the same at the tme of such purchase or before he has
notce of the cam or nterest of some other person n the property. Good fath
connotes an honest ntenton to abstan from takng unconscentous advantage of
another. Tested by these prncpes, the pettoner cannot tenaby cam to be a
buyer n good fath as t had notce of the ease of the property by the Bonneves
and such knowedge shoud have cautoned t to ook deeper nto the agreement to
determne f t nvoved stpuatons that woud pre|udce ts own nterests.
Pettoners nsstence that t was not aware of the rght of frst prorty granted by
the Contract of Lease, If Guzman-Bocang faed to nqure about the terms of the
Lease Contract, whch ncudes Par. 20 on prorty rght gven to the Bonneves, t
had ony tsef to bame. Havng known that the property t was buyng was under
ease, t behooved t as a prudent person to have requred Reynoso or the broker to
show to t the Contract of Lease n whch Par. 20 s contaned.
ETCUBAN v CA
G.R. No. L-45164 March 16, 1987
Facts:
Pettoner nherted a pece of and together wth hs co-hers, eeven n tota, from
ther deceased father. Thereafter the 11 co-hers executed n favor of prvate
respondents 11 deeds of sae of ther respectve shares n the co-ownershp for the
tota sum of P26,340.00. It s not dsputed that the earest of the 11 deeds of sae
was made on December 9, 1963 and the ast one n December 1967.
Pettoner fed a compant for ega redempton aganst the respondents before the
Tra Court upon knowedge that hs co-hers sod the and n queston to the prvate
respondents. Aegng that he shoud have been gven notce frst before sae to
respondents as he had nformed hs co-hers hs desre to buy ther respectve
shares. Defendant n response stated that the pantff has no cause of acton
aganst them, and that the acton s barred by prescrpton or aches, pettoners n-
acton after knowedge of the sad sae caused hm to ose hs rght to redeem under
Art. 1623 of the new Cv Code because the rght of redempton may be exercsed
ony wthn 30 days from notce of sae and pantff was defntey notfed of the
sae years ago as shown by the records. Court however n favor of the pettoner,
hence the petton.
Issue:
WON ower court erred n hodng that pettoner s not barred from fng a
compant for ega redempton when the atter faed to make an offer to redeem
the property.
Rung:
Whe t s true that wrtten notce s requred by the aw (Art. 1623), t s equay
true that the same "Art. 1623 does not prescrbe any partcuar form of notce, nor
any dstnctve method for notfyng the redemptoner. " So ong, therefore, as the
atter s nformed n wrtng of the sae and the partcuars thereof, the 30 days for
redempton start runnng, and the redemptoner has no rea cause to compan.
In the Cone|ero case, We rued that the furnshng of a copy of the dsputed deed of
sae to the redemptoner, was equvaent to the gvng of wrtten notce requred by
aw n "a more authentc manner than any other wrtng coud have done," and that
We cannot adopt a stand of havng to sacrfce substance to techncaty. More so n
the case at bar, where the vendors or co-owners of pettoner stated under oath n
the deeds of sae. that notce of sae had been gven to prospectve redemptoners
n accordance wth Art. 1623 of the Cv Code. "A sworn statement or cause n a
deed of sae to the effect that a wrtten notce of sae was gven to possbe
redemptoners or co-owners mght be used to determne whether an offer to
redeem was made on or out of tme, or whether there was substanta compance
wth the requrement of sad Art. 1623.
In resume, We fnd that pettoner (defendant) faed to substantay compy wth
the requrements of Art. 1623 on ega redempton and We see no reason to reverse
the assaed decson of the respondent court.
SPS. CLUTARIO v CA
G.R. No. 76656 December 11, 1992
Facts:
Prvate respondents, Spouses Mequades Ganda and Mara V. Ganda, owned a
two-storey resdenta apartment ocated whch they eased to the pettoners
verbay for a monthy renta of P150.00 snce 1961. Then on May 1980,
respondents, through ther counse, wrote a etter to the pettoners gvng them
nnety (90) days to vacate the premses, n order for them to occupy the entre
apartment, due to ther advanced age and fang heath. Pettoners however dd
not heed the demand etter and vacate the premses. Hence a compant for
e|ectment was fed aganst them, snce they faed to pay the rentas snce August
1980 and respondents need to occupy the premses. Pendng the compant,
pettoners pad ther back rentas from August 1980 up to May 1981. MTC on the
other had dsmssed the compant on the ground they faed to support ther cause
of acton wth substanta evdence. RTC however reversed sad decson and rued
that pettoners' non-payment of rentas for more than three months and prvate
respondents' genune need for the eased premses are suffcent causes for
pettoners' e|ectment. Affrmed by CA wth modfcaton. Hence the petton.
Issue:
WON CA erred n affrmng RTCs rung.
Rung:
Court rued on the negatve. In the case at bar, respondents nvoked two of the sx
grounds for e|ectment provded under sec 5 of BP 25 (1979), namey: (1) arrears n
payment of rent for three (3) months at any one tme; and (2) need of the essors to
repossess ther property for ther own use or for the use of any mmedate member
of ther famy as resdenta unt.
Pettoners payment of the back rentas and acceptance of the respondent does not
consttute a waver or abandonment of ther cause of acton for e|ectment aganst
the atter. Respondents showed through ther conduct, subsequent to the
acceptance of the back rentas, that they have no ntenton of to wave ther rght to
e|ect the pettoners. Snce they contnued on wth the compant and dd not notfy
the tra court of ther ntenton to have the sad compant dsmssed.
Aso, the acton of e|ectment started before ther payment to respondent, not after
payment of e|ectment. Hence t fas under the sad grounds for e|ectment under sec
5 of BP 25.
In reaton to the second ground rased by the respondent, the essor s abe to
vady e|ect the essee on the ground of need for the eased property; however t
must be shown that there s no other avaabe resdenta unt to satsfy that
need. The non-avaabty must exst at the tme of the demand by the essor on the
essee to vacate the property, whch decared to be occuped by the RTC. MTCs
decson rung nfavor of pettoners, was because the pettoners had aready
occuped the upper foor of the unt, dscountng respondents age and fang heath.
However, the SC fnds that the decson of prvate respondents to occupy both the
ower and upper portons of the property sprang not ony from mere convenence,
but from necessty as we, due to ther advanced age and the poor heath of
respondent Mequades Ganda.
YEK SENG CO. v CA
G.R. No. 87415 |anuary 23, 1992
Pettoners have entered nto a verba contract of ease over a porton of a budng
owned by the respondents wth an agreed monthy renta of P3,000.00. They have
been usng the premses for ts genera merchandse busness for more than twenty
years. Then after respondents nformed that they are termnatng the ease n order
to renovate the budng and use t for themseves. Pettoner on the otherhand
refused to vacate the property. Hence a compant for e|ectment was fed aganst
the pettoner, whe pettoner fed a petton for consgnaton of the monthy
rentas whch t camed had been refused by the essors. The court rued nfavor of
the respondent and ordered pettoner to vacate the property and dened pettoners
petton for consgnaton for ack of mert. RTC and CA affrmed the sad decson.
Hence the ssue:
Issue:
WON the court erred n not gvng an extenson of ts ease n accordance wth
Artce 1687 of the Cv Code.
Rung:
As earer stated, the contract of Rcardo Cruz, beng on a month-to-month bass, s
a ease wth a defnte perod. Snce the contract of ease s for a defnte term, the
essee cannot ava of the benefts under Artce 1687 whch appes ony f there s
no defnte term. And even assumng arguendo that Artce 1687 appes, Rcardo
Cruz woud st not be entted to have the term fxed for a onger perod snce hs
acton was fed ony after the contract had expred.
Under ths provson, f the perod of a ease contract has not been specfed by the
partes theren, t s understood to be from month to month, f the rent agreed upon
s monthy, as n the cases at bar. Consequenty, the contract expres at the end of
such month, uness, pror thereto, the extenson of sad term has been sought by
approprate acton and |udgment s eventuay rendered theren grantng sad reef.
Defendants hereto mantan that the ease contracts dd not, and coud not, come to
an end unt after the court has fxed ts fetme and the term thus fxed has
expred. Ths vew s, to our mnd, untenabe. To begn wth, defendants assume that
ther contracts are wthout term, pror to the |udca acton authorzed n sad Artce
1687, whereas the same provdes that the duraton of ease contracts sha be
yeary, monthy, weeky or day dependng upon whether the renta agreed upon s
annua, monthy, weeky, or day. In other words, sad contracts have a term fxed
by aw, and are not ndefnte n duraton, before sad |udca nterventon.
Secondy, sad Artce 1687 merey gves the court dscreton to extend the perod of
the ease. The court s not bound to extend sad term. It may egay refuse to do so,
f the crcumstances surroundng the case warrants such acton. . . . (Emphass
reproduced)
Conformaby, we hod that as the renta n the case at bar was pad monthy and the
term had not been expressy agreed upon, the ease was understood under Artce
1687 to be termnabe from month to month. At the tme the pettoner was asked to
vacate the eased premses, the ease contract had aready expred and therefore,
foowng the above-quoted decsons, coud no onger be extended. In fact, even f
such contract had not yet expred, ts extenson woud st be sub|ect to the sound
dscreton of the court and was by no means obgatory upon t as a merey
mnstera duty.
YAP v CRUZ
G.R. No. 89307 May 8, 1992
Facts:
Dr. Verge G. Cruz, the prvate respondent n ths case was the bonafde tenant of
Amado O. Bugayon, |r. for amost fve years n the premses n queston |ust before
ths controversy started. He regousy pad the monthy rentas of P1,400.00,
ntroduced severa mprovements and operated a veternary cnc known as Maate
Veternary Cnc. Sometme n the atter part of |uy, 1985, he offered for sae the
goodw of the veternary cnc and some of ts equpment to Dr. Wendeyn V. Yap,
Evea H. Badagan, Teresta A. Baadad and Forenca C. de Vera, the pettoners
heren. Durng the perod of negotatons, prvate respondent Cruz ntroduced to the
andord Dr. Wendeyn V. Yap at the person nterested n takng over the cnc.
However, the negotatons dd not materaze but the pettoners managed to enter
nto a contract of ease for the sad premses at a monthy renta of P1,800.00 wth
the andord. As a resut, prvate respondent Cruz brought an acton for "Forcbe
Entry wth Damages" wth the Metropotan Tra Court of Mana, Branch 27 aganst
pettoners heren and the andord, MTC rued n favor of Cruz orderng the
pettoners to vacate the premses and surrender ts possesson to the respondent.
Hence the ssue.
Issue:
WON CA erred n affrmng the ower courts decson.
Rung:
The court rued that when the pettoners and the andord executed a new contract
of ease, the ease of prvate respondent was st vad and subsstng. There s no
queston that prvate respondent has not effectvey renqushed hs easehod
rghts over the premses n queston n vew of the faure of negotatons for the sae
of the goodw. Ceary, the transfer of the easehod rghts s condtona n nature
and has no force and effect f the condton s not comped wth.
True, the ease of prvate respondent s on a month-to-month bass and may be
termnated at the end of any month after proper notce or demand to vacate has
been gven, however, the ack of proper notce or demand to vacate upon the
prvate respondent s ceary evdent. In the absence of such notce, the ease of
prvate respondent contnues to be n force and cannot be deemed to have expred
as of the end of the month automatcay. Nether can the non-payment of the rent
for the month of August, 1985 be a ground for termnaton of the ease wthout a
demand to pay and to vacate.