ZOSIMA vs Salimbagat.docx

8/11/2019 ZOSIMA vs Salimbagat.docx

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/zosima-vs-salimbagatdocx 1/4

ZOSIMA INC. VS LILIA SALIMABAGAT

G.R. NO. 174376 - September 12, 2012

FACTS:

In 1993, Zosima Inc. entered into a contract with Lilia Salimbagat for the lease of office buildingon a yearly basis that is subject to annual increase. In March 2000, no monthly fee was paid because thecontract of lease was allegedly not renewed.

On June 20, 2003, Zosima, through counsel, sent a formal letter of demand to Salimbagat,requiring her to pay her arrears and to vacate the property. However, Salimbagat refused to vacate and to

pay her alleged rental obligation.

On November 5, 2003, Zosima filed a case for unlawful detainer a against Salimbagat allegingthat from Aprill 2000 to October 2003, Salilmbagat had accumulated arrears in her rental paymentsamounting to 628,703.00. In her answer, she alleged that although she was using the same address, shewas not occupying the property of Zosima but a warehouse that she bought for P300,000 on a dried esterolocated at the back of the office building that Zosima owned. She further argued that the office buildingwhich belonged to Zosima was demolished to pave the way for the construction of the Light Rail Transit(LRT) Line II Project.

On May 4, 2005, the MeTC rendered a decision in favor of Zosima. On appeal, the RTC fullyaffirmed the decision of the MTC. Salimbagat elevated the case to the CA which reversed the RTCdecision and dismissed the case for unlawful detainer on the ground that the court was not convinced thatSalimbagat had unlawfully possessed the property from April 2000 to June 2003. Zosima moved forreconsideration however it was denied, hence this petition.

ISSUE: WON there is implied new lease or tacita reconduccion.

RULING:

The Supreme Court said the plaintiff failed to prove its case by preponderance of evidence.Although the lease contract had already expired, the principle of implied new lease or tacita reconduccionexisted by operation of law is not correct. An implied new lease will set in if it is shown that (a) the termof the original contract of lease has expired; (b) the lessor has not given the lessee a demand to vacate;and (c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor.This acquiescence may be inferred from the failure of the lessor to serve notice to vacate upon the lesseeas provided for in Article 1670 which provides:

Article 1670. If at the end of the contract of lease the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a contrary by either party has previously beengiven, it is understood that there is 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.

The cited Article 1687, on the other hand, provides:

Article 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if therent is to be paid 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 id to be paid daily. However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no

period for the lease has been set, the courts ,ay fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupiedthe premises for over one year. If the rent id weekly, the court may likewise determine a longer periodafter the lessee has been in possession for over 6 months. In case of daily rent, the courts may fix a longer

period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one month.

Since Zosima failed to adduce any additional evidence to rebut the allegation that by April 2000,no office building stood to be leased because it has been demolished to pave way for the construction ofthe LRT Line II Project, and that Salimbagat was able to produce tax declarations and a copy of the Deedof Conditional Sale as proof of her right to possess the warehouse adjoining the demolished building sheused to lease.

Wherefore, the court denied the petition for lack of merit and affirmed the decision of CA.



VIEGELY SAMELO vs MANOTOK SERVICES, INC.G.R. NO. 170509 – June 27, 2012

FACTS:

On January 31, 1997, the respondent entered into a contract with the petitioner for the lease of a portion of the lot for a period of 1 year. Upon the expiration of the lease contract on December 31, 1997,the petitioner continued occupying the subject premises without paying the rent. On August 5, 1998, therespondent sent a letter to the petitioner demanding that she vacate the subject premises and paycompensation for its use and occupancy however, petitioner refused to heed these demands.

On November 18, 1998, the respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the petitioner befor the MeTC praying that the petitioner be ordered to vacate the subject premises and to paycompensation for its use and occupancy.

In her answer, the petitioner alleged that the respondent had no right to collect rentals because thesubject premises are located inside the property of the Philippine national Railways (PNR). She alsoadded that the petitioner had no certificate of title over the subject premises and further claimed that hersignature in the contract of lease was obtained through respondent’s misrepresentation and likewisemaintained that she is now the owner of the subject premises as she had been in possession since 1944.

The MeTC decided in favor of the respondent and held that the only issue to be resolved in anunlawful detainer case is physical possession or possession de facto, and that the respondent hadestablished its right of possession over the subject premises. It added that th e petitioner’s right under thelease contract already ceased upon the expiration of the said contract. It further ruled that the petitioner isalready stopped from questioning the right of the respondent over the subject premises when she enteredinto a contract of lease with the respondent.

On appeal, the RTC set aside the decision of the MeTC and dismissed the complaint for unlawfuldetainer. The RTC held that the respondent had no right to collect rentals as it failed to show that it had

authority to administer subject premises and to enter into a contract of lease with the petitioner.

Aggrieved by the reversal, the respondent filed a petition for review with the CA which reversedand set aside the RTC decision and reinstated the MeTC judgment. The CA held that the petitioner is nowestopped from questioning the right of the respondent over the subject property. It explained that in anaction involving the possession of the subject premises, a tenant cannot controvert the title of his landlordor assert any right adverse to that title, without first delivering to the landlord the premises acquired byvirtue of the agreement between themselves. It further held that the only issue in an ejectment suit is

physical or material possession. The issue of ownership is not required to determine the issue of possession since the petitioner tacitly admitted that she is a lessee of the subject premises.

Petitioner moved for reconsideration but the CA denied her in its motion, hence this petition.

RULING:

The SC held that an action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds possession of any land or building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or other persons, after theexpiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied.The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is physical or material possession of the

property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by any of the parties involved. Thus, anyattempt of the parties to inject the question pf ownership into the case is futile, except insofar as it mightthrow light on the right of possession.

In the instant case, the lease contract was for the period of one year with a monthly rental of

P3,960 commencing on January 31, 1997 and expiring on December 31, 1997. It bears emphasis that itwas only on August 5, 1998 that a notice to vacate was sent and the petitioner continued enjoying thesubject premises for more than 15 days, without objection from the respondent. By the inaction of therespondent as lessor, there can be no inference that it intended to discontinue the lease contract therefore,an implied new lease was therefore created pursuant to Article 1670 of the Civil Code which provides:

Article 1670. If at the end of the contract of lease the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a contrary by either party has previously been



given, it is understood that there is implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but forthe time established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original contract shall be revived.

An implied new lease or tacita reconduccion will set in when the following requisites are found to exist:(a) the term of the original contract of lease has expired;(b) the lessor has not given the lessee a demand to vacate; and(c) the lessee continued enjoying the thing leased for 15 days with the acquiescence of the lessor.

Article 1687 of the CC on implied new lease provides:

Article 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if therent is to be paid 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 id to be paid daily. However, even though a monthly rent is paid, and no

period for the lease has been set, the courts ,ay fix a longer term for the lease after the lessee has occupiedthe premises for over one year. If the rent id weekly, the court may likewise determine a longer periodafter the lessee has been in possession for over 6 months. In case of daily rent, the courts may fix a longer

period after the lessee has stayed in the place for over one month.

Since the rent was paid on a monthly basis, the period of lease is considered to be from month tomonth. A lease from month to month is considered to be one with a definite period which expires at theend of each month upon a demand to vacate by the lessor. When the respondent sent a letter to vacate tothe petitioner on August 5, 1998, the tacita reconduccion was aborted, and the contract of lease is deemedto have expired at the end of that month. A notice to vacate constitutes an express act on the part of thelessor that it no longer consents to the continued occupation by the lessee of its property. After suchnotice, lessee’s right to continue in possession ceases and her possession becomes one of detainer.

Wherefore, petition was denied and the decisions of CA were affirmed with modification on theunpaid rentals due.

ZOSIMA vs Salimbagat.docx

Documents

Transcript of ZOSIMA vs Salimbagat.docx