Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1966 > August 1966 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19376 August 31, 1966 TE ATTA UY VDA. DE CAJUCOM v. MANILA REMNANT CO., INC., ET AL.:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19376. August 31, 1966.]

TE ATTA UY VDA. DE CAJUCOM, Petitioner, v. MANILA REMNANT CO., INC., and THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Jose I. Uy & Associates for Petitioner.

V. E. del Rosario and Associates for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


REYES, J.B.L., J.:


Before us is a petition to review and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, in its Case CA-GR No. 28241-R, that affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila, requiring petitioner herein, Te Atta Uy Vda. de Cajucom, to vacate certain premises in Nueva, Street, Manila, and remove her improvements thereon within three months from notice of the decision, restoring possession to the Manila Remnant Co., Inc., plus costs.

The facts, as found by the Court of Appeals, are not in dispute. Petitioner-appellant Te Atta was the lessee of a parcel of land in Binondo, Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15515, upon which she had erected a building designated as Nos. 471-75, Nueva Street. The lease had not been recorded. Upon purchasing the lot from its former owners, the Grey family, in April, 1957, the respondent- appellee Manila Remnant Co., Inc. demanded of the lessee that she vacate the land within 90 days from notice, but she objected. Negotiations ultimately resulted in a written agreement, on October, 1957, substantially stipulating as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"WHEREAS, the LESSOR is the absolute owner of the land located at 461-74 Nueva Street, Manila, more particularly described under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 15515, of the Registry of Deeds of Manila, and the LESSEE is the absolute owner of a house of strong materials on the said land.

WHEREAS, the parties have mutually agreed as they hereby agree to authorize A. U. Valencia & Co., authority to sell the property hereinabove described for the amount to (sic) Three hundred Seventy Thousand Pesos (P370,000.00) to be apportioned as follows: P310,000.00 to be paid to the LESSOR and P60,000.00 clean to be paid on (sic) the LESSEE, representing the value of the land and improvements respectively, provided however, in the event that the property may be sold at a higher price, the proportionate ratio six to one on the over price will be divided between the parties.

WHEREAS, the parties have mutually agreed as they hereby agree that until and after property mentioned above shall have been actually sold and the price thereof paid, the LESSEE shall pay the LESSOR by way of rentals the sum of P1,750.00 a month; and.

WHEREAS, the LESSEE tenders and the LESSOR accepts the full payment of P10,000.00, P9,000.00 in cash and P1,000.00 promissory note payable from the proceeds, of the purchase price of the building, representing the rental in arrears, including the month of October, 1957."cralaw virtua1aw library

About three months afterward, broker Valencia wrote resigning the commission given him to sell the tenement due to allegedly unreasonable price fixed for the improvements. One month later, on February 24, 1958 the landowner (respondent-appellee) notified the lessee and required her to vacate the property and remove the improvements within 60 days. Appellant answered that the demand was premature, and violated their contract. As a result respondent- appellee filed action for illegal detainer in the Municipal Court of Manila but that court sustained the lessee and dismissed the action. On appeal to the Court of First Instance, the decision was reversed, the lessee ordered to restore possession, as heretofore noted. That judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

In this Supreme Court, appellant insists that the 1957 contract gave her the right to remain in possession at a monthly rental of P1,750.00 until the property was sold, and that the sale was a condition precedent for the recovery of possession by the lessor.

We find this appeal untenable. Construing the agreement in its entirety, it is apparent that the stipulation therein (third "whereas") —

"that until and after (the) property mentioned above shall have been actually sold and the price thereof paid, the LESSEE shall pay the LESSOR by way of rentals the sum of P1,750.00 a month."

could only refer to the power to sell given to A. U. Valencia & Co. in the paragraph immediately preceding. Assuming that the quoted clause entitled the appellant to remain in possession, it did so only with an ad interim character until the agent appointed was able to make the sale, for the price stated, or it became clear that the property could not be sold. Since Valencia resigned his commission and manifested his inability to sell the property on the terms specified, the 1957 contract became thereafter functus oficio and its binding force terminated, its objective having become impossible of attainment for all intents and purposes. To make another sale would require a new agreement and a new price. But none was ever agreed upon or contemplated.

The consequence of the purported sale becoming impossible is that the situation of the parties reverted to what it was before the 1957 agreement: that is to say, that the respondent corporation became entitled to terminate the lease of petitioner Te Atta Uy Vda. de Cajucom, since her lease was without a definite period, and hence, was on a month to month basis because the rental was monthly (Art. 1687, Civil Code). While that article also empowers the court to fix a longer term if the lessee, on a monthly basis, has been in occupation for more than a year, the Court of First Instance already had exercised that power when it gave the herein petitioner-appellant, as lessee, three months to vacate (Decision, Rec. App., p. 52). That period has already elapsed with considerable excess, and there is no warrant for extending it further.

The decision of the Court of Appeals is therefore, affirmed. Petitioner to pay the costs in all instances.

Concepcion, C.J., Barrera, Dizon, Makalintal, J.P. Bengzon, Zaldivar and Sanchez, JJ., concur.

Regala, J., on leave, did not take part.

Castro, J., did not take part.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






August-1966 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 15905 August 3, 1966 NICANOR T. JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. BARTOLOME CABANGBANG

  • G.R. No. L-17838 August 3, 1966 NASIPIT LABOR UNION v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21885 August 3, 1966 GOVERNMENT OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO ABIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-14044 August 5, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENEDICTO BALILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20938 August 9, 1966 NEW HAMPSHIRE FIRE INSURANCE CO. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-22534 August 9, 1966 INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA v. MARITIME COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-13896 August 10, 1966 IN RE: ERNESTO TING v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-16488 August 12, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN RAQUINIO

  • G.R. No. L-19520 August 12, 1966 FELIPE NACORDA, ET AL. v. NICASIO YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24672 August 12, 1966 REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. MODESTO R. RAMOLETE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25660 August 12, 1966 LEOPOLDO VENCILAO, ET AL. v. TEODORO VAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-11077 August 23, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LI BUN JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20020 August 23, 1966 TAN TE BUNTIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-17243 August 23, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO VILLALBA

  • G.R. No. L-19832 August 23, 1966 IN RE: BERNARDO YAP v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-21768 August 23, 1966 BACHRACH TRANSPORTATION CO., INC., ET AL. v. RURAL TRANSIT EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-23286 August 23, 1966 QUERUBIN PERFECTO v. ALFREDO SAPICO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-25635 August 23, 1966 JOSE C. ZULUETA, ET AL. v. CECILIA MUÑOZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-5796 August 29, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CAPADOCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-24439 August 29, 1966 HADJI ARSAD SALI v. BENJAMIN ABUBAKAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18454 August 29, 1966 MARIANO CABILAO, ET AL. v. JUDGE OF THE CFI OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21230 August 29, 1966 GOLD STAR MINING CO., INC. v. SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21376 August 29, 1966 LUZ M. GIGARE v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

  • G.R. No. L-21796 August 29, 1966 NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21287 August 31, 1966 ENRILE INTON v. JULIAN VILLANUEVA MATUTE

  • G.R. No. L-21930 August 31, 1966 AGAPITA PAJARILLO, ET AL. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-16759 August 31, 1966 RAFAEL MORALES v. COLLECTOR OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-23635 August 31, 1966 TEODORO M. CASTRO v. RUFINO G. HECHANOVA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18726 August 31, 1966 THOMAS M. GONZALEZ v. DEMETRIO B. ENCARNACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18961 August 31, 1966 ATLANTIC MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. v. CEBU STEVEDORING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-19376 August 31, 1966 TE ATTA UY VDA. DE CAJUCOM v. MANILA REMNANT CO., INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19833 August 31, 1966 IN RE: COSME GO TIAN AN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20809 August 31, 1966 IN RE: LIM ENG YU v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20821 August 31, 1966 BEATRIZ M. VDA. DE CASTILLO, ET AL. v. BLANCA CASTILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21055 August 31, 1966 CALTEX (PHILIPPINES.) INC. v. MANILA PORT SERVICE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-21223 August 31, 1966 PHILIPPINE BLOOMING MILLS CO., INC. v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. L-21442 August 31, 1966 SALUD S. PAPA v. GERVACIO S. BANAAG

  • G.R. No. L-21512 August 31, 1966 PROSPERO SABIDO, ET AL. v. CARLOS CUSTODIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-21703-04 August 31, 1966 MATEO H. REYES, ET AL. v. MATEO RAVAL REYES

  • G.R. No. 21969 August 31, 1966 INDUSTRIAL TEXTILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. SOFIA REYES FLORZO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25994 and L-26004 to L-26046 August 31, 1966 BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-26376 August 31, 1966 PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AURELIO BALISACAN