ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
November-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 137968 November 6, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRE DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. Nos. 123138-39 November 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. HONESTO LLANDELAR

  • A.M. MTJ-01-1375 November 13, 2001 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT IN THE MTCs of CALASIAO. BINMALEY

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 November 13, 2001 - ELIEZER A. SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN v. ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA

  • G.R. No. 104629 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JULIUS KINOK

  • G.R. No. 134498 November 13, 2001 - CELIA M. MERIZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL

  • G.R. Nos. 135454-56 November 13, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODERICK SANTOS

  • A.M. No. CA-01-10-P November 14, 2001 - ALDA C. FLORIA v. CURIE F. SUNGA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1518 November 14, 2001 - ANTONIO A. ARROYO v. SANCHO L. ALCANTARA

  • G.R. No. 122736 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FROILAN PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 123819 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. STEPHEN MARK WHISENHUNT

  • G.R. No. 133877 November 14, 2001 - RIZAL COMMERCIAL BANKING CORPORATION v. ALFA RTW MANUFACTURING CORPORATION

  • G.R. No. 133910 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE VIRREY y DEHITO

  • G.R. No. 135511-13 November 14, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ENTICO MARIANO y EXCONDE

  • G.R. No. 137613 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALITO CABOQUIN

  • G.R. No. 138914 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN MANTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142870 November 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DINDO F. PAJOTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 143513 & 143590 November 14, 2001 - POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES v. COURT OF APPEALS and FIRESTONE CERAMICS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1599 November 15, 2001 - TRANQUILINO F. MERIS v. JUDGE FLORENTINO M. ALUMBRES

  • G.R. No. 123213 November 15, 2001 - NEPOMUCENA BRUTAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126584 November 15, 2001 - VALLEY LAND RESOURCES, INC., ET AL. v. VALLEY GOLF CLUB INC.

  • G.R. No. 127897 November 15, 2001 - DELSAN TRANSPORT LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129018 November 15, 2001 - CARMELITA LEAÑO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136017 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY BANTILING

  • G.R. No. 136143 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGAPITO CABOTE a.k.a. "PITO"

  • G.R. No. 137255 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL MAMALAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137369 November 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALIAS KOBEN VISTA

  • G.R. No. 141811 November 15, 2001 - FIRST METRO INVESTMENT CORPORATION v. ESTE DEL SOL MOUNTAIN RESERVE

  • G.R. No. 145275 November 15, 2001 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LA CAMPANA FABRICA DE TABACOS

  • G.R. No. 148326 November 15, 2001 - PABLO C. VILLABER Petitioner v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS and REP. DOUGLAS R. CAGAS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1382 November 16, 2001 - MARIO W. CHILAGAN v. EMELINA L. CATTILING

  • A.M. No. P-00-1411 November 16, 2001 - FELICIDAD JACOB v. JUDITH T. TAMBO

  • G.R. No. 120274 November 16, 2001 - SPOUSES FRANCISCO A. PADILLA and GERALDINE S. PADILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES CLAUDIO AÑONUEVO and CARMELITA AÑONUEVO

  • G.R. No. 127003 November 16, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. FAUSTINO GABON

  • G.R. Nos. 132875-76 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO G. JALOSJOS

  • G.R. No. 132916 November 16, 2001 - RUFINA TANCINCO v. GSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133437 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RONALD SAMSON

  • G.R. No. 134486 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLEMENTE DAYNA

  • G.R. No. 135038 November 16, 2001 - ROLANDO Y. TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142654 November 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. ROLANDO MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 143802 November 16, 2001 - REYNOLAN T. SALES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129175 November 19, 2001 - RUBEN N. BARRAMEDA, ET AL. v. ROMEO ATIENZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130945 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO CONDINO

  • G.R. No. 132724 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RENIEL SANAHON

  • G.R. Nos. 138358-59 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLAUDIO B. DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 138661 November 19, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERSON E. ACOJEDO

  • G.R. No. 140920 November 19, 2001 - JUAN LORENZO B. BORDALLO, ET AL. v. THE PROFESSIONAL REGULATIONS COMMISSION AND THE BOARD OF MARINE DECK OFFICERS

  • G.R. No. 148560 November 19, 2001 - JOSEPH EJERCITO ESTRADA v. SANDIGANBAYAN (Third Division) and PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 91486 November 20, 2001 - ALBERTO G. PINLAC v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122276 November 20, 2001 - RODRIGO ALMUETE ET AL., v. MARCELO ANDRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126204 November 20, 2001 - NAPOCOR v. PHILIPP BROTHERS OCEANIC

  • G.R. Nos. 126538-39 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. RODELIO MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 129234 November 20, 2001 - THERMPHIL v. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140032 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGEL C. BALDOZ and MARY GRACE NEBRE

  • G.R. No. 140692 November 20, 2001 - ROGELIO C. DAYAN v. BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144401 November 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL GALISIM

  • A.M. No. MTJ-99-1207 November 21, 2001 - NBI v. FRANCISCO D. VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. P- 01-1520 November 21, 2001 - MARILOU A. CABANATAN v. CRISOSTOMO T. MOLINA

  • A.M. Nos. RTJ-00-1561 & RTJ-01-1659 November 21, 2001 - CARINA AGARAO v. Judge JOSE J. PARENTELA

  • G.R. No. 125356 November 21, 2001 - SUPREME TRANSLINER INC. v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132839 November 21, 2001 - ERIC C. ONG v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • G.R. No. 133879 November 21, 2001 - EQUATORIAL REALTY DEVELOPMENT v. MAYFAIR THEATER

  • G.R. No. 136748 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUANITO ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137457 November 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROSAURO SIA

  • G.R. No. 141881 November 21, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGILIO BERNABE y RAFOL

  • A.M. No RTJ-01-1664 November 22, 2001 - ALFREDO CAÑADA v. VICTORINO MONTECILLO

  • G.R. No. 109648 November 22, 2001 - PH CREDIT CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS and CARLOS M. FARRALES

  • G.R. Nos. 111502-04 November 22, 2001 - REYNALDO H. JAYLO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 113218 November 22, 2001 - ALEJANDRO TECSON v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113541 November 22, 2001 - HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORP. EMPLOYEES UNION v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118462 November 22, 2001 - LEOPOLDO GARRIDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123893 November 22, 2001 - LUISITO PADILLA , ET AL. v. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129660 November 22, 2001 - BIENVENIDO P. JABAN and LYDIA B. JABAN v. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130628 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO LEONAR

  • G.R. No. 132743 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCIAL CAÑARES Y ORBES

  • G.R. No. 133861 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO SO

  • G.R. Nos. 135853-54 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OPENIANO LACISTE

  • G.R. No. 135863 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VlRGILIO LORICA

  • G.R. Nos. 136317-18 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO YAOTO

  • G.R. No. 136586 November 22, 2001 - JON AND MARISSA DE YSASI v. ARTURO AND ESTELA ARCEO

  • G.R. No. 139563 November 22, 2001 - THE PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.. v. AMADOR BISMONTE y BERINGUELA

  • G.R. Nos. 139959-60 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEOGRACIAS BURGOS

  • G.R. No. 141602 November 22, 2001 - PACSPORTS PHILS. v. NICCOLO SPORTS, INC.

  • G.R. No. 142316 November 22, 2001 - FRANCISCO A.G. DE LIANO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143939 November 22, 2001 - HEIRS OF ROSARIO POSADAS REALTY v. ROSENDO.BANTUG

  • G.R. No. 145475 November 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EUSEBIO PUNSALAN

  • G.R. No. 145851 November 22, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. THE SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146683 November 22, 2001 - CIRILA ARCABA v. ERLINDA TABANCURA VDA. DE BATOCAEL, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1562 November 23, 2001 - CAVITE CRUSADE FOR GOOD GOVERNMENT v. JUDGE NOVATO CAJIGAL

  • G.R. No. 126334 November 23, 2001 - EMILIO EMNACE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128886 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS JULIANDA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142044 November 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TOBECHUKWU NICHOLAS

  • G.R. No. 144309 November 23, 2001 - SOLID TRIANGLE SALES CORPORATION and ROBERT SITCHON v. THE SHERIFF OF RTC QC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1662 November 26, 2001 - VICTOR TUZON v. LORETO CLORIBEL-PURUGGANAN

  • G.R. No. 138303 November 26, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELROSWELL MANZANO

  • G.R. Nos. 100940-41 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. AGUSTIN LADAO y LORETO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128285 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ANTONIO PLANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130409-10 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSUE B. DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. 130907 November 27, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. HON. CESAR A MANGROBANG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130963 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIANO PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 133381 November 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMULO VILLAVER, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 140858 November 27, 2001 - SPOUSES PAPA and LOLITA MANALILI v. SPOUSES ARSENIO and GLICERIA DE LEON

  • G.R. No. 142523 November 27, 2001 - MARIANO L. GUMABON, ET AL. v. AQUILINO T. LARIN

  • G.R. No. 144464 November 27, 2001 - GILDA G. CRUZ and ZENAIDA C. PAITIM v. THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001 - RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. 128516 November 28, 2001 - DULOS REALTY and DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET. AL.

  • A.M. No. P-01-1485 November 29, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. MARIE YVETTE GO, ET AL

  • A.M. No. P-01-1522 November 29, 2001 - JUDGE ANTONIO J. FINEZA v. ROMEO P. ARUELO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1665 November 29, 2001 - ROSAURO M. MIRANDA v. JUDGE CESAR A MANGROBANG

  • G.R. No. 119707 November 29, 2001 - VERONICA PADILLO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 121703 November 29, 2001 - NATIVIDAD T. TANGALIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126524 November 29, 2001 - BPI INVESTMENT CORP. v. D.G. CARREON COMMERCIAL CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129282 November 29, 2001 - DMPI EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOPERATIVE v. ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129609 & 135537 November 29, 2001 - RODIL ENTERPRISES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 130326 & 137868 November 29, 2001 - COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS AND MANILA TOBACCO TRADING v. THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 132066-67 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BALAS MEDIOS

  • G.R. No. 132133 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. WILLIAM ALPE y CUATRO

  • G.R. No. 136848 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RENATO T. RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 137815 November 29, 2001 - JUANITA T. SERING v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138489 November 29, 2001 - ELEANOR DELA CRUZ, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 139470 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SPO2 ANTONIO B. BENOZA

  • G.R. No. 140386 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY ACOSTA

  • G.R. No. 141386 November 29, 2001 - COMMISSION ON AUDIT OF THE PROVINCE OF CEBU v. PROVINCE OF CEBU

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 November 29, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC and MARTHA Z. SINGSON

  • G.R. No. 142606 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NESTOR MUNTA

  • G.R. No. 143127 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL RUBARES Y CAROLINO

  • G.R. No. 143703 November 29, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JOSE V. MUSA

  •  





     
     

    G.R. No. 136586   November 22, 2001 - JON AND MARISSA DE YSASI v. ARTURO AND ESTELA ARCEO

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [G.R. No. 136586. November 22, 2001.]

    JON AND MARISSA DE YSASI, Petitioners, v. ARTURO AND ESTELA ARCEO, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    This is a petition for review of the decision, 1 dated August 31, 1998, of the Court of Appeals, affirming the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Pasig City, which dismissed petitioners’ amended complaint for damages and ordered them instead to pay respondents back rentals and attorney’s fees, as well as the appeals court’s resolution, 2 dated November 27, 1998, denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

    The antecedent facts are as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    On October 1, 1988, petitioner spouses Jon and Marissa de Ysasi leased from spouses Arturo and Estela Arceo, respondents herein, the latter’s premises located at No. 91 East Capitol Drive, Barrio Kapitolyo, Pasig, Metro Manila in order to carry on their business of handpainting and finishing services. Petitioners paid P5,000.00 as goodwill money and P15,000.00 as deposit for three months.chanrob1es virtua1 law library

    It appears that due to heavy rains, the roof of the building leaked and the premises were flooded, as a result of which the schedule of the delivery of handpainted mouldings to petitioners’ customers was disrupted. Although petitioners asked respondents to make the necessary repairs, the latter repaired only a portion of the leased premises. Consequently, petitioners stopped paying rent as well as their share of the electric, water, and telephone bills from December 1988 up to the time they vacated the leased premises in June 1989.

    Respondents in turn filed an ejectment suit against petitioners in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 71, Pasig City. In its decision, the MeTC, while ruling that petitioners were justified in suspending the payment of rent, ordered the deposits made by them to be applied to the payment of rentals up to June 1989 and directed them to pay them electric and water bills. 3 On appeal to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 156, Pasig City, the decision was modified inasmuch as petitioners were ordered to pay P20,000.00 as balance of their rentals up to the time they vacated the premises. 4

    Petitioners then filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 67, Pasig City, for specific performance or rescission of contract with damages, which they subsequently changed to a claim for damages in view of the expiration of the lease contract. 5 The trial court, however, dismissed the complaint and ordered petitioners to pay respondents the sums of P5,000.00 as attorney’s fees and P20,000.00 as back rentals, with interest at the legal rate. 6 On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision was affirmed. Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied. Hence this appeal.

    Petitioners contend that:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A CLEAR ERROR IN INTERPRETING THAT UNDER THE CONTRACT OF LEASE DATED 1 OCTOBER 1988 THERE WAS AN IMPLIED WAIVER OF REPAIRS INCLUDING REPAIRS FOR HIDDEN AND UNKNOWN DEFECTS.

    II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS ARE NOT LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO PETITIONERS INASMUCH AS THE FAILURE OF THE FORMER TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS ON THE SUBJECT PREMISES WAS NOT THE DIRECT AND PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE DAMAGES SUSTAINED BY THE LATTER.

    III. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING THAT PETITIONERS SHOULD BE HELD LIABLE TO PAY DAMAGES TO PRIVATE RESPONDENT PARTICULARLY THE SUM OF TWENTY THOUSAND (P20,000.00) PESOS REPRESENTING THE ALLEGED UNPAID RENTALS. 7

    After reviewing the records of this case, we affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals dismissing petitioners’ amended complaint for damages and ordering the payment of attorney’s fees to respondents. However, the order for payment of unpaid rentals with interest to respondents should be deleted.

    First. Petitioners anchor their complaint for damages on respondents’ failure, as lessors, to make the necessary repairs on the leased premises as provided in Art. 1654(2) of the Civil Code. 8 The Court of Appeals held that under the contract of lease of the parties, there was an implied waiver of right to demand repairs to be made by the lessee. 9

    The records show that respondent Mrs. Arceo caused certain repairs to be done on the leased premises at the request of petitioners, 10 although the latter alleged that the repairs made were inadequate. 11 This fact indicates that there was no implied waiver of repairs on the part of the lessee. For Art. 1371 of the Civil Code provides that "In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties, their contemporaneous and subsequent acts should be principally considered."cralaw virtua1aw library

    Petitioners contend that respondents were liable for hidden defects and, for this purpose, cite the following provisions of the Civil Code:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Art. 1566. The vendor is responsible to the vendee for any hidden faults or defects in the thing sold, even though he was not aware thereof.

    This provision shall not apply if the contrary has been stipulated, and the vendor was not aware of the hidden faults or defects in the thing sold.

    Art. 1653. The provisions governing warranty, contained in the Title on Sales, shall be applicable to the contract of lease.

    Petitioners’ contention is without merit. Petitioner Jon de Ysasi admitted on cross-examination that he inspected the premises three or four times before signing the lease contract. 12 During his inspection, he noticed the rotten plywood on the ceiling which in his opinion was caused by leaking water or "anay" (termites). Yet, he decided to go through with the lease agreement. 13 Hence, respondents cannot be held liable for the alleged warranty against hidden defects. What we said in Coca-Cola Bottlers Philippines, Inc. v. Court of Appeals 14 applies mutatis mutandis to this case:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Considering that the representatives of the petitioner were given every opportunity to visit and inspect the premises prior to the execution of the contract of lease, we cannot impute bad faith on the part of respondents for having allegedly withheld the information that the leased land was a former fishpond.

    x       x       x


    Accordingly, private respondents cannot be held liable for the alleged warranty against defects under Art. 1561 of the Civil Code.

    Under Arts. 1561 and 1653 of the Civil Code, the lessor is responsible for warranty against hidden defects, but he is not answerable for patent defects or those which are visible. Such appears to be the case here.

    Second. Petitioners contend that respondents’ obligation to make the necessary repairs on the premises was fixed in the decision both of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) and the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in the ejectment case and that such is now conclusive on the parties. 15

    We disagree. Although the MeTC held respondents responsible for repairs, it does not appear that the RTC affirmed the same on appeal. The RTC in fact decided the case in favor of respondents. Instead of holding petitioners justified in refusing to pay rentals because of respondents’ alleged failure to comply with their obligation to make repairs, the RTC in fact ordered them to pay respondents the sum of P20,000.00, representing the balance of the rentals from the time they withheld payment up to the time they vacated the leased premises in June 1989. 16

    Nor is there any basis for petitioners’ claim of P41,007.35 as damages for improvements allegedly made, consisting of tables and chairs, considering that the said pieces of furniture were removed by them when they transferred to another place. 17 As regards the business losses allegedly incurred by petitioners as a result of the cancellation of job orders in the amount of P100,000.00, such damages have not been sufficiently established by them as attributable to respondents’ fault or neglect. 18

    It has not been duly proven in the case that respondents failed to fulfill their obligations as lessors or that they acted with fraud or bad faith. As heretofore mentioned, respondents did cause repairs to be made on the leased premises upon petitioners’ request, but the latter claimed that the repairs made were inadequate.

    For the foregoing reasons, there is no basis for petitioners’ claim for actual, moral, and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Third. Petitioners deny that they are liable for unpaid rentals to respondents in the amount of P20,000.00. 19

    We find merit in this contention. The appeals court erred in affirming the ruling of the trial court which went beyond its jurisdiction in ordering petitioners to pay unpaid rentals to respondents. The trial court held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    In the case at bar, there is no evidence to show that the defendants were liable to repair the roof and ceiling of the leased premises. They [are] also not liable for the alleged damages sustained by the plaintiffs. On the other hand, defendants had not sufficiently established that they sustained damages to warrant the award for moral and exemplary damages. However, it is unfortunate that the plaintiffs had filed the instant action for which they should pay attorney’s fees to the defendants in the amount of P5,000.00. Plaintiffs should also pay the sum of P20,000.00 representing the balance of their rentals up to the time they vacated the leased premises in June 1989 with interest at the legal rate starting from January 1991. 20

    This ruling is based on the final judgment of the MeTC in the ejectment case which ordered thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    WHEREFORE, the Court hereby renders judgment modifying the judgment of the lower court in the sense that defendants are adjudged to pay plaintiffs the amount of P20,000.00 representing the balance of their rentals up to the time they vacated the leased premises in June, 1989. 21

    It would seem that the judgment in the ejectment case, particularly the payment of unpaid rentals, had not yet been enforced. 22 Consequently, the proper remedy of respondents herein was to file a motion for issuance of a writ of execution within five years from date of entry, or, after five years, to file an action for revival of judgment, pursuant to Rule 39, 6 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Thus, when the trial court ordered the payment of unpaid rentals, it decided an issue which had already been adjudicated with finality by another court. It had no jurisdiction to do so. As correctly pointed out by petitioners, respondent did not claim payment of unpaid rentals in their "Answer with Counterclaim" dated October 23, 1989. 23 The ruling of this Court in Lazo v Republic Surety & Insurance Co., Inc. 24 is apropos:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    The actuation of the trial court was not legally permissible, especially because the theory on which it proceeded involved factual considerations neither touched upon the pleadings nor made the subject of evidence at the trial. Rule 6, Section 1, is quite explicit in providing that "pleadings are the written allegations of the parties of their respective claims and defenses submitted to the court for trial and judgment." This rule has been consistently applied and adhered to by the courts.

    "The subject matter of any given case is determined . . . by the nature and character of the pleadings submitted by the parties to the court for trial and judgment." Belandres v. Lopez Sugar Central Mill Co., Inc., 97 Phil. 100, 103.

    "It is a fundamental principle that judgments must conform to both the pleadings and the proof, and must be in accordance with the theory of the action upon which the pleadings were framed and the case was tried; that a party can no more succeed upon a case proved, but not alleged, than upon one alleged but not proved." (Ramon v. Ortuzar, 89 Phil. 730, 742).

    "It is a well-known principle in procedure that courts of justice have no jurisdiction or power to decide a question not in issue." (Lim Toco v. Go Fay, 80 Phil. 166)

    "A judgment going outside the issues and purporting to adjudicate something upon which the parties were not heard, is not merely irregular, but extrajudicial and invalid" (Salvante v. Cruz, 88 Phil. 236, 244.)

    Fourth. Petitioners contend that there is no basis for the award of attorney’s fees. This matter, however, was not raised by them in the Court of Appeals. Consequently, they cannot now raise it for the first time on appeal.25cralaw:red

    WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the order for payment of unpaid rentals with interest to respondents is deleted.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Per Justice Mariano M. Umali and concurred in by Justices Romeo T. Callejo Sr., and Salvador Valdez, Jr.

    2. Id.

    3. Rollo, pp. 6o64.

    4. RTC Records, pp. 329328; Exh. 8. The RTC decision on the ejectment case became final when petitioners herein failed to appeal.

    5. RTC Records, pp. 44 52.

    6. RTC Decision, pp. 34; RTC Records, pp. 399 400.

    7. Petition, p. 10; Rollo, p. 20.

    8. Art. 1654. The lessor is obliged:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    x       x       x


    (2) To make on the same during the lease all the necessary repairs in order to keep it suitable for the use to which it has been devoted, unless there is a stipulation to the contrary; . . .

    9. CA Decision, pp. 7-9; Rollo, pp. 47-49.

    10. TSN (Jon de Ysasi III), pp. 15-16, Aug. 30, 1990; TSN (Mrs. Estela Arceo), p. 10, Oct. 13, 1993.

    11. TSN (Jon de Ysasi III), p. 15, Nov. 22, 1990.

    12. TSN (Jon de Ysasi III), p. 6, Nov. 22, 1990.

    13. Id., pp. 13-14.

    14. 229 SCRA 533, 541 (1994).

    15. Petition, pp. 13-15; Rollo, pp. 23-25.

    16. RTC Decision (Ejectment case), pp. 1-4; RTC Records, pp. 325-328; Exh. 8.

    17. CA Decision, p. 9; Rollo, p. 49; See also TSN (Jon de Ysasi III), p. 10, July 24, 1991.

    18. Id., p. 10; Id, p. 50; RTC Decision, p. 2; RTC Records, p. 398.

    19. Petition, pp. 21-22; Rollo, pp. 32-33.

    20. RTC Decision, p. 3; RTC Records, p. 399.

    21. RTC Decision (Ejectment case), p. 4; RTC Records, p. 328.

    22. TSN (Jon de Ysasi III) pp. 3-5, July 24, 1991.

    23. See RTC Records, pp. 12-16.

    24. 31 SCRA 329, 334 (1970).

    25. Tan Chun Suy v. Court of Appeals, 229 SCRA 151 (1994).

    G.R. No. 136586   November 22, 2001 - JON AND MARISSA DE YSASI v. ARTURO AND ESTELA ARCEO


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED