1 The original petitioners were Fidela P. Dizon, Regina Dizon, Amparo D. Bartolome, Ester A. Dizon, Alice A. Dizon and Fidelina D. Balza.
2 Per Judge Fernando Gorospe, Jr.
3 The Intermediate Appellate Court took cognizance over the case after it was referred by the Supreme Court.
4 Penned by Justice Simeon M. Gopengco and concurred in by Justices Lino M. Patajo, Jose F. Racela, Jr. and Fidel P. Purisima; Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo, p. 60.
5 "Whatever claims petitioner (private respondent herein) may have as to what it allegedly paid to and received by private respondent Fidela Dizon, under the receipt issued by Mrs. Alicia Dizon, or with regard to the enforceability or non-enforceability of its stated option to buy, against the private respondents (petitioners herein), which were matters merely raised as defenses of the petitioner in the unlawful detainer suit filed against it may be better presented for ultimate resolution in a separate suit and before the proper forum"; Annex "A" of Petition in G.R. No. 124741; Rollo, p. 48.
6 Per Judge Wilhelmo C. Fortun.
7 Per Judge Ignacio L. Salvador.
8 Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 25153-54, entitled "OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant vs. FIDELA P. DIZON, ET.AL., Defendants-Appellees."
9 CA Decision (Eighth Division) dated March 29, 1994, penned by Justice Eubulo G. Verzola, and concurred in by Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, Chairman and Justice Serafin V.C. Guingona; Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 57-72.
10 CA Resolution (Thirteenth Division) dated October 19, 1995, penned by Justice Eubulo G. Verzola, and concurred in by Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr., Chairman and Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili; Annex "B" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 74-78.
11 See note 2.
12 Per Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion, ruling that:
"After evaluating the evidence and arguments presented by the parties during the hearing of this case, the Court believes that the petitioner (herein private respondent) will suffer an irreparable injury unless a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the respondents (herein petitioners) or any person acting in their behalf from implementing the execution of the Judgment and the Resolution of the MTC, Br. 38 of Quezon City. Likewise, in view of the pendency of cases before the Court of Appeals under CA-G.R. No. 25153-54 for Specific Performance and for Annulment and Relief of Judgment, following the ruling of Supreme Court in the case of Vda. de Sayman vs. Court of Appeals, 121 SCRA 650, 'That it is the rule when a petition for relief is filed, the Court may issue preliminary injunction as may be necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties.' Further, it said that 'The judgment of the trial court, the enforcement of which is sought to be restrained has not yet attained the status of being beyond modification or reversal. Hence, the enforcement of the same at this stage of the proceedings is premature'." (Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 50-51)
13 Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 33113, entitled "AMPARO DIZON, ET.AL., Petitioners vs. HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, as RTC Judge of Quezon City, Branch 104 and OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES, INC., Respondents."
14 CA Decision (Thirteenth Division) dated December 11, 1995, penned by Justice Eubulo G. Verzola, and concurred in by Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr., Chairman and Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili; Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 46-53.
NOTE: CA-G.R. SP No. 33113 was transferred to the Thirteenth Division by virtue of the Resolution from the Fifteenth Division dated January 16, 1994 (pursuant to Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals) which states that a Special Case may be consolidated to the Justice to whom the civil case is assigned for study or report when the cases involve the same parties and/or related questions of fact and/or law.
15 Ibid., Rollo, p. 52.
16 CA Resolution (Special Former Thirteenth Division) dated April 23, 1997, penned by Justice Eubulo G. Verzola, and concurred in by Justice Jaime M. Lantin (New member vice J. Torres, Jr.) and Justice B.A. Adefuin-dela Cruz (Vice J. Agcaoili, pursuant to Office Order No. 19-96-DP); Annex "B" of Petition; Rollo, pp. 55-57.
17 Ibid., Rollo, pp. 56-57.
18 Article 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed; it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily.
19 Heirs of Manuel T. Suico v. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 444, 456 , citing Rantael v. Court of Appeals, 97 SCRA 453, 460 ; Cruz v. Puno, 120 SCRA 497, 502 ; Lesaca vs. Cuevas, 125 SCRA 384, 388 ; Baens v. Court of Appeals, 125 SCRA 634, 644 ; Zablan v. Court of Appeals, 154 SCRA 487, 493 .
"Article 1673. The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the following causes:
(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the duration of lease under Articles 1682 and 1687, has expired; x x x."
20 Ibid., citing Racaza v. Susan Realty, Inc., 18 SCRA 1172, 1176-1177 .
21 Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:
(1) Upon a written contract;
x x x x x x.
22 "Article 1670. If at the end of the contract, the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given, it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but for the time established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original contract shall be revived."
23 Dizon vs. Magsaysay, 57 SCRA 250, 254 .
25 Villanueva v. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 89, 101 .
26 See Bordador vs. Luz, 283 SCRA 374, 382 .
27 Article 1868. By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another, with the consent or authority of the latter.
28 245 SCRA 460, 467 citing the cases of Pineda vs. Court of Appeals, 226 SCRA 754 , Veloso v. La Urbana, 58 Phil. 681 , Harry E. Keller Electric Co. v. Rodriguez, 44 Phil. 19 , Deen v. Pacific Commercial Co., 42 Phil. 738 , and Strong v. Repide, 6 Phil. 680 .