8/12/2019 Programme vs. Province of Battan

1/4

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. 144635 June 26, 2006

PROGRAMME INCORPORATED, Petitioner,vs.PROVINCE OF ATAAN,1Responent.

D E C I S I O N

CORONA, J.:

In this petition file uner Rule !" of the Rules of Court, petitioner Pro#ra$$e Incorporate

contests the Court of %ppeals &C%' ecision(an resolution)upholin# responent Provinceof *ataan+s onership of Pia--a otel an the lan on hich it stans. /he assaileecision in C%0.R. CV No. !21)" affir$e the ecision of the Re#ional /rial Court &R/C',*ranch !, *alan#a, *ataan in a suit for preli$inar3 in4unction an su$ of $one3 file b3petitioner a#ainst *ataan Ship3ar an En#ineerin# Co., Inc. &*%SECO'. /he case asoc5ete as Civil Case No. 1(20M6. /he ispositive portion of the trial court ecision rea7

8ERE9ORE, in vie of all the fore#oin# consierations, 4u#$ent is hereb3 renereis$issin# the co$plaint, ithout pronounce$ent as to costs.

Si$ilarl3, :*%SECO+s; counterclai$ is is$isse.

On the co$plaint in intervention, 4u#$ent is hereb3 renere orerin# :petitioner; to pa3:responent; the rentals for the lease pre$ises in one &*EP>' Co$poun inMariveles, *ataan, at the rate of si= thousan five hunre pesos &P?,"@@.@@' per $onth forboth establish$ents, startin# in %u#ust 12A2 ith le#al interest at ?B per annu$, up to anuntil the le#al arreara#es shall have been full3 pai, an to pa3 the succeein# rentalstherefor at the sa$e rate.

SO ORDERED.!

/he controvers3 arose fro$ the folloin# facts.

*%SECO as the oner of Pia--a otel an Mariveles 6o#e, both locate in Mariveles,*ataan.

On Ma3 1!, 12A?, *%SECO #rante petitioner a contract of lease over Pia--a otel at a$onthl3 rental of P?,"@@ for three 3ears, i.e., fro$ anuar3 1, 12A? to anuar3 1, 12A2,sub4ect to reneal b3 $utual a#ree$ent of the parties. %fter the e=piration of the three03ear

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt4http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt1http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt2http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt3http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt4

8/12/2019 Programme vs. Province of Battan

2/4

lease perio, petitioner as alloe to continue operatin# the hotel on $onthl3 e=tensionsof the lease.

In %pril 12A2, hoever, the Presiential Co$$ission on oo overn$ent &PC' issuea se

8/12/2019 Programme vs. Province of Battan

3/4

C%.2Onl3

8/12/2019 Programme vs. Province of Battan

4/4

*esies, as beteen lessor an lessee, the Coe applies specific provisions esi#ne tocover their ri#hts.

ence, the lessee cannot clai$ rei$burse$ent, as a $atter of ri#ht, for usefuli$prove$ents he has $ae on the propert3, nor can he assert a ri#ht of retention untilrei$burse. is onl3 re$e3 is to re$ove the i$prove$ent if the lessor oes not choose topa3 its valueF but the court cannot #ive hi$ the ri#ht to bu3 the lan. ()

Petitioner+s assertion that Pia--a otel as constructe at &its' e=pense foun no supportin the recors. Neither i an3 ocu$ent or testi$on3 prove this clai$. %t best, hat asconfir$e as that petitioner managed and operatedthe hotel. /here as no evience thatpetitioner as the one hich spent for the construction or renovation of the propert3. %nsince petitioner+s alle#e e=penitures ere never proven, it coul not even see5rei$burse$ent of one0half of the value of the i$prove$ents upon ter$ination of the leaseuner %rticle 1?A(!of the Civil Coe.

9inall3, both the trial an appellate courts eclare that the lan as ell as the i$prove$ent

thereon &Pia--a otel' belon#e to responent. 8e fin no reason to overturn this factualconclusion.

Since this petition for revie on certiorari as clearl3 ithout le#al an factual basis,petitioner+s counsel shoul not have even file this appeal. It is obvious that the intentionas $erel3 to ela3 the isposition of the case.

"7EREFORE, the petition is hereb3 DENIED./he ecision an resolution of the Court of%ppeals in C%0.R. CV No. !21)" are AFFIRMED.

Costs a#ainst petitioner. Sa$e costs a#ainst %tt3. *enito R. Cuesta I, petitioner+s counsel,

for filin# this fli$s3 appeal, pa3able ithin ten &1@' a3s fro$ finalit3 of this ecision.

SO ORDERED.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt24http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt23http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2006/jun2006/gr_144635_2006.html#fnt24