CALEON, petitioner vs.

AGUS DEV CORP & CA, respondents

G.R. No. 77365 | April 7, 1992.

TOPIC: Nature and Effect of Obligations > In obligations to give specific thing

FACTS:
 Agus Development Corporation (ADC) is the owner of a parcel of land located at
Sampaloc, Manila.
 ADC leased the land to Rita Caleon for P180 per month.
 Caleon constructed a 4-door apartment building on the lot.
 Without the consent of ADC, Caleon sub-leased two of the four doors of the
apartment to Rolando Guevarra and Felicisima Estrada for a monthly rental of
P350 each.
 Upon learning of the sub-lease, ADC demanded in writing that Caleon must vacate
the leased premises.
 Caleon failed to comply with ADC’s demand. ADC filed a complaint for ejectment
against Caleon, citing the provisions of Batas Pambansang Blg. 25 Section 5,
which is the unauthorized sub-leasing of part of the leased premises to third
persons without securing the consent of the lessor within the required 60-day
period from the promulgation of the new law.
 After trial, the court rendered its decision ordering petitioner and all persons
claiming possession under her to vacate the premises alluded to in the complaint,
to remove whatever improvement she introduced on the property, to pay ADC
P2000 as attorney’s fees and to pay the costs.

a. Petitioner’s Arguments - LOST

 Caleon is of the view that Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 is not applicable because
what she leased was her own apartment house which does not include a
sublease of the lot she leased from private respondent on which the apartment
is constructed.
 b. Respondent’s Arguments - WON
 Petitioner Caleon and all persons claiming possession under her must comply
with the court’s decision and demand to vacate the leased premises alluded to
in the complaint, remove whatever improvement she introduced on the
property, pay ADC P2000 as attorney’s fees, and pay the costs.

ISSUE:
Whether or not Petitioner Caleon is subject to comply with the demands of ADC.

FINDINGS OF THE Lower Court:

YES, petitioner is subject to comply with ADC’s demands.

FINDINGS OF THE Court of Appeals:

Affirmed RTC ruling.

SC RULING:
Affirmed CA ruling. Petitioner Caleon is ejected. Petition for review on seeking the
reversal of lower court’s decision is DENIED.

Rule:
 Section 5 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 enumerates the grounds for judicial
ejectment, among which is the subleasing of residential units without the written
consent of the owner/lessor. (Petitioner has violated this provision)
 Art. 1166, NCC: “The obligation to give a determinate thing includes that of
delivering all its accessions and accessories, even though they may not have
been mentioned.”
Application:
Petitioner Caleon must deliver all accessions and accessories of the things, even though
they may not have been mentioned. In this case, respondent ADC demanded in writing
for her to vacate the premises. The lower court also enumerated her obligations as debtor
to give respondent ADC what is due to them.

Conclusion:
Petitioner is expected to deliver to respondent what is due to them and comply with the
lower court’s decision.