ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[G.R. No. 116652. February 16, 2004]

NAIAA vs. CA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 16 2004 .

G.R. No. 116652 (Ninoy Aquino International Airport Authority (NAIAA), vs. Court of Appeals, United Bus Lines and Jose M. Silva.)

RESOLUTION

Before this Court is private respondents' Motion for Reconsideration of its March 10, 2003 Decision in the above entitled case.

In its decision, which affirmed with modification that of the Court of Appeals, this Court disposed:

WHEREFORE, the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby AFFIRMED with the modification that the ten-year extension of the term of the lease granted in favor of respondents should be reckoned from May 8, 1990, and as respondents had continuously been in possession of the leased property during the pendency of this case, their right to the extension or up to May 8, 2000 had been enforced. The lease contract between petitioner and respondents is now, therefore, deemed terminated. (Underscoring supplied)

By the present motion, private respondents claim that during the duration of the original and the 10-year extended period of lease, they were "unable to use and possess the 90% of the leased property, [hence], it cannot be said that the judgment of the trial court should be deemed enforced simply because the private respondents have been in continuous and uninterrupted possession of the 10% portion of the premises since the promulgation thereof."

Private respondents accordingly pray that this Court's decision be partially reconsidered and set aside and another rendered declaring that the 10-year extension of the lease shall commence upon the finality of the trial court's decision.

The claim of private respondents about their possession of only 10% of the leased premises during the duration of the original and extended term of lease was never raised in the proceedings below. This is the first time it is raised. It is impermissible.

WHEREFORE , private respondents' motion for reconsideration is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE