ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[G.R. No. 160701.
BAYLON vs. AMADOR
THIRD DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this
Court dated
G.R. No. 160701 (em>Fulton Baylon vs. Terencio Amador.)
Petitioner assails the
On
On
In retaliation, petitioner filed Civil Case No. 91-5663 before the Sorsogon RTC for specific performance alleging that their contract of lease also contained an option to buy through which private respondent gave petitioner the preferential right to purchase the subject property in the event the same was put on sale.
In the meantime, private respondent's ex
parte
motion for execution of judgment in the ejectment case was granted and on
To prevent imminent ejectment, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition and mandamus with prayer for issuance of temporary restraining order (TRO) at the Sorsogon RTC, docketed as Civil Case No. 92-5747.
Meanwhile, without notice to private respondent, petitioner acquired a "3/9 portion" of the subject property from one of the co-owners.
Trial of both Civil Case Nos. 91-5653 and 92-5747 ensued.
Thereafter the Sorsogon RTC, Branch 52 rendered the
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiff (Civil Case No. 5633), the petitioner in Civil Case No. 5747 and against the defendant in (Civil Case No. 5633) and the respondent in (Civil Case No. 5747).
1.Finding that the plaintiff has .the preferential right to acquire the property in question in the event defendant sells/alienate the remaining portion of the property in question.
2.To permanently enjoin the lower court from enforcing the alias writ of execution in Civil Case 183.
3.Declaring plaintiff to be co-owner of the house and lot in question for having acquired by purchase at least 3/9 portion of the questioned property.
4.Ordering the defendant to pay plaintiff the sum of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees and the sum of P5,000.00 as litigation expenses.
5. The counterclaim of defendant is hereby dismissed.
6.Defendant shall pay the cost of the suit. [2] cralaw
Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals.
On
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the appealed decision dated
(1)The plaintiff-appellee has lost his preferential right to buy the property in question; and
(2)The defendant-appellant be given a period of thirty (30) days from finality of this judgment within which to redeem that portion which had been acquired by the plaintiff-appellee;
but AFFIRMED in all other respects. No costs. Let the records be remanded to the court a quo for appropriate action. [3] cralaw
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied on
Petitioner argues that the appellate court committed reversible error when it declared him to have lost his preferential right to buy the subject property and gave private respondent 30 days from finality of judgment to redeem the "3/9 portion" of the disputed property acquired by petitioner from private respondent's co-owner.
The petition is without merit.
As correctly ruled by the appellate court, even if the parties originally had a contract of lease with option to buy, when the lease contract expired, the tacit renewal of the contract was limited only to those terms of the contract which were germane to the petitioner's right of continued lease over the property and did not extend to alien matters like the option to buy the leased premises. [4] cralaw
The Court has ruled that, in case of implicit renewal of a contract of lease on a monthly basis, the terms of the original lease contract which are revived in the implied new lease under Article 1670 of the New Civil Code are only those terms germane to the lessee's right of continued possession and enjoyment of the property leased. Therefore, in this case, the implied new lease did not ipso facto carry with it the revival of petitioner's option to buy the leased premises because said option was alien to the lease. Stated differently, petitioner's right to exercise the option to purchase expired with the termination of the original contract of lease. [5] cralaw
Regarding private respondent's right of redemption, Article 1088 of the New Civil Code explicitly states that, should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within the period of one month from the time they were notified in writing by the vendor.
The requirement of a written notice is mandatory. This Court has long established the rule that, notwithstanding actual knowledge of a co-owner, the latter is still entitled to a written notice from the selling co-owner in order to remove all uncertainties about the sale, its terms and conditions as well as its efficacy and status. [6] cralaw
Private respondent was never given such written notice. He thus still has the right to redeem said one-third portion of the subject property. On account of the lack of written notice of the sale by the other co-heirs, the 30-day period never commenced.
All told, the Court finds no reversible error committed by the appellate court in rendering the assailed decision.
WHEREFORE, petition is hereby denied due course.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) JULIETA Y. CARREON
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr. and concurred in by Associate Justices Roberto A. Barrios and Edgardo P. Cruz of the Fourth Division.
[2] cralaw Rollo, pp. 30-31.
[3] cralaw Rollo, p. 39.
[4] cralaw Vda. De Chua vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 229 SCRA 99 [1993].
[5] cralaw Dizon vs. Court of Appeals, 302 SCRA 288, [1999].
[6] cralaw Verdad vs. Court of Appeals, 256 SCRA 593, [1996].
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
