21.buccat v dispo

8/19/2019 21.Buccat v Dispo

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/21buccat-v-dispo 1/5

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION

G.R. No. L-44338 April 15, 1988

ROSARIO C. BUCCAT, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.

LIBRADA ROSALES DISPO, Ai!"# $% &"r &'$()# PROCESO DISPO, defendants-

appellants.

SARMIENTO, J.:

cont!act, ce!tain p!ovisions of "hich a!e not "ell-defined, could lead to a p!ot!acted and e#pensive

liti$ation. %he case at ba! is a distinct e#a&ple.

So&eti&e in 'eb!ua!( )*+, plaintiff-appellee Rosa!io uccat and defendant-appellant ib!ada

Dispo ente!ed into a cont!act of lease, the e#pi!ation date of "hich "as u$ust ), )*/0, ove! the

fo!&e!1s +23-s4ua!e &ete! lot situated at o. Catban$en, San 'e!nando, a 5nion. ( vi!tue of the

said cont!act, the defendant-appellant const!ucted the National usiness Institute, a s&all vocational

school on the pa!cel of land sub6ect of the lease a$!ee&ent. In )*+7, nine (ea!s befo!e the

e#pi!ation of the cont!act, the pa!ties ente!ed into anothe! lease a$!ee&ent ove! the sa&e pa!cel of

land substantiall( &odif(in$ the du!ation of the lease as sho"n b( the follo"in$ p!ovision, to "it8

Pa!. 8 %hat the lease cont!act shall !e&ain in full fo!ce and effect as lon$ as the land

"ill se!ve the pu!pose fo! "hich it is intended as a school site of the National

usiness Institute but the !entals no" stipulated shall be sub6ect to !evie" eve!( afte!

ten 9):; (ea!s b( &utual a$!ee&ent of the pa!ties. 1

On Ma( , )*/7, o! ei$ht &onths afte! the supposed e#pi!ation date of the fi!st cont!act, the plaintiff-

appellee filed a co&plaint fo! 5nla"ful Detaine! a$ainst the defendant-appellant, the basis of "hich

"as the e#pi!ation of the fi!st lease cont!act, as the second a$!ee&ent, acco!din$ to the plaintiff-

appellee, "as null and void fo! bein$ si&ulated and fo! "ant of conside!ation. %he second cont!act

"as alle$edl( e#ecuted onl( afte! <defendant-appellant app!oached the plaintiff-appellee and

!evealed to the latte! thei! p!oble&s and difficult( in secu!in$ the official !eco$nition b( the$ove!n&ent of the National usiness Institute< * if the fi!st lease a$!ee&ent "as not a&ended. %he

plaintiff-appellee, in he! desi!e to help the defendant-appellant, consented to the a&end&ent of the

cont!act believin$ that the sa&e "as void and that the fi!st cont!act "as bindin$. %he case 3 fo! unla"ful

detaine!, "hich ulti&atel( !eached the Cou!t of ppeals "as !esolved in favo! of the validit( of the second

lease cont!act, but the p!ovision as to the du!ation of the cont!act "as inte!p!eted b( the Cou!t of ppeals

as one that "as left to the "ill of the defendant-appellant so that the pe!iod of lease "as indefinite. It "as

fo! this !eason that the Cou!t of ppeals su$$ested to the plaintiff-appellee the filin$ of a case fo! the

fi#in$ of the pe!iod of the lease as contained in the dispositive po!tion of the decision, to "it8



=ERE'ORE, the o!de! of the lo"e! Cou!t dis&issin$ the co&plaint, "ithout

p!onounce&ent as to costs and "ithout p!e6udice to the filin$ of an app!op!iate action

to fi# the te!& of the lease is he!eb( ''IRMED. =ith p!onounce&ent as to costs. 4

Pu!suant to the said decision, the plaintiff-appellee filed a case fo! the 'i#in$ of the Du!ation of the

Pe!iod of a Cont!act 95nde! !ticle ))*0, Civil Code of the Philippines; "ith the then Cou!t of 'i!stInstance of a 5nion 5"hich !ende!ed a decision + the dispositive po!tion of "hich !eads8

IN VIE= O' %>E 'ORE?OIN?, this Cou!t !ende!s 6ud$&ent as follo"s8

). 'i#in$ the du!ation o! pe!iod of the second cont!act of lease of u$ust, )*+7

ente!ed into bet"een the plaintiff and the defendant, to %=EN%@ 93:; (ea!s f!o&

u$ust, )*+7, the date of the e#ecution of the second cont!act, e#pi!ed on the last

da( of u$ust, )*07A

3. Inc!easin$ the p!esent &onthl( !ental of P+:.:: to a !easonable a&ount of

P)+:.::, to be paid b( the defendant fo! the use of the land sub6ect of the secondcont!act of lease.

Pa!ties shall bea! thei! o"n costs.

SO ORDERED.

%he t!ial cou!t1s decision is no" "ith us on appeal as ce!tified to this Cou!t b( the Cou!t of ppeals

since onl( 4uestions of la" a!e involved.

%he defendants-appellants assi$ned the follo"in$ e!!o!s8

I

%>E %RI CO5R% ERRED IN DISRE?RDIN? %>E ISS5E O' PRESCRIP%ION O' C%IONS

S N ISS5E IN %>E CSE % R ND IN >ODIN? %>% PRESCRIP%ION O' C%IONS

SED ON =RI%%EN CON%RC% IS NO% PPICE ND CONSEB5EN%@ ERRED IN

NO% DISMISSIN? %>E COMPIN%, %>E C%ION >VIN? PRESCRIED.

II

%>E %RI CO5R% ERRED IN RENDERIN? 5D?MEN% ON %>E PEDIN?S PREC5DIN?

%>E DE'ENDN%S 'ROM DD5CIN? EVIDENCE COVERIN? %>E IMPOR%N% POIN%S NO% DMI%%ED IN %>E RESPONSIVE PEDIN?S NDOR NO% COVERED @ %>E S%IP5%ION

O' 'C%S.

III



%>E %RI CO5R% ERRED IN 'INDIN? %>% %>E 5SINESS O' %>E DE'ENDN% CONSIS%

IN %>E MIN%ENNCE ND MN?EMEN% O' RE%IVE@ SM VOC%ION

INS%I%5%E =I%>O5% %>E RECEP%ION O' EVIDENCE.

IV

%>E %RI CO5R% ERRED IN 'INDIN? ND >ODIN? %>% %>E ESE CON%RC%

EN%ERED IN%O @ PIN%I'' ND DE'ENDN% EEC5%ED ON 5?5S% )*+7 IS ESE

=I%>O5% PERIOD OR IS ESE %>E PERIOD O' =>IC> IS DEPENDEN% 5PON %>E

SOE =I O' %>E ESSEE, %>E DE'ENDN%, ND CONSEB5EN%@ ERRED IN 'IIN? %>E

PERIOD %>EREO' %O %=EN%@ @ERS.

V

%>E %RI CO5R% ERRED IN INCRESIN? %>E MON%>@ REN% O' P+:.:: S

S%IP5%ED IN %>E ESE CON%RC% %O P)+:.:: =I%>O5% SIS IN = ND

EVIDENCE.8

). In o!de! to !esolve "hethe! o! not the p!esent action has p!esc!ibed, it is necessa!( to fi!st

dete!&ine "hen the !i$ht of action fo! the fi#in$ of the pe!iod of lease acc!ued. Should it be !ecFoned

f!o& the ti&e "hen the pa!ties ente!ed into the second cont!act of lease "hich "as in u$ust )*+7

as the defendants-appellants clai& o! at the ti&e "hen the decision of the Cou!t of ppeals

upholdin$ the validit( of the second cont!act of lease "as p!o&ul$ated "hich "as in Nove&be! )*03

as the plaintiff-appellee clai&sG

=e hold that it "as onl( in Nove&be! )*03 that the cause of action fo! the fi#in$ of the pe!iod of

lease acc!ued. %his is as it should be because p!io! to that, the validit( of the second cont!act of

lease "as bein$ challen$ed. %he case fo! unla"ful detaine! filed b( the plaintiff-appellee beca&e infact a case 4uestionin$ the validit( of the second cont!act on the $!ounds that the said cont!act "as

si&ulated and that the!e "as no conside!ation. %he plaintiff-appellee could not have been e#pected

to file an action fo! the fi#in$ of the pe!iod of the lease befo!e the Cou!t of ppeals p!o&ul$ated its

decision because she "as not (et a"a!e that the said pa!a$!aph of the second cont!act "as a

p!ovision that called fo! an indefinite pe!iod. 'o! the !eason that the ve!( e#istence, and

subse4uentl(, the inte!p!etation of the second cont!act of lease, pa!ticula!l( pa!. the!eof, "e!e put

in issue in the unla"ful detaine! case, the cou!t t!(in$ the case "as !e4ui!ed to inte!p!et the

p!ovisions of, and conse4uentl(, !ule on the validit( of the said cont!act. %his "as p!ecisel( "hat the

t!ial cou!t1s decision "hich "as affi!&ed b( the Cou!t of ppeals, in fact, !esolved. nd in confo!&it(

"ith the su$$estion of the said cou!t, the plaintiff-appellee filed the p!esent case. %he !e&ed( o! the

cause of action fo! the filin$ of a case fo! the fi#in$ of a pe!iod in the cont!act, the!efo!e, onl(acc!ued "hen the cou!t finall( decla!ed the second cont!act valid but that the p!ovision as to the

pe!iod "as indefinite and hence, an action fo! the fi#in$ of the pe!iod of the cont!act had to be filed.

'u!the!&o!e, should the plaintiff-appellee have opted to file a case fo! the fi#in$ of the pe!iod of the

lease cont!act befo!e the te!&ination of the unla"ful detaine! case, the latte! case "ould have been

!ende!ed &oot and acade&ic and the plaintiff-appellee "ould have inevitabl( and un"ittin$l( !atified

the second cont!act. No pe!son in his !i$ht &ind "ould have done such.



3. %he second, thi!d, and fifth assi$n&ents of e!!o! bein$ !elated "ith one anothe! shall be discussed

6ointl(.

%he 6ud$&ent on the pleadin$s of the lo"e! cou!t is assailed b( the defendants-appellants fo! the

!easons that thei! ans"e! <tende!ed issues on the factual and le$al inte!p!etation of the clause of the

lease cont!act in 4uestion, ... the natu!e and e#tent of the business di!ectl( affected b( the fi#in$ of the pe!iod ... as "ell as on the inc!ease of !entals,< 9 and that <the fi#in$ of the pe!iod ... entails a

6udicious !eception of evidence ...< 1 >ence, 6ud$&ent on the pleadin$s acco!din$ to the defendants-

appellants "as not p!ope!. =e find nothin$ ob6ectionable o! i!!e$ula! in the decision of the lo"e! cou!t

based on the pleadin$s. 'i!st, the defendants-appellants the&selves, in a &anifestation dated Ma( )),

)*02, a$!eed to the &otion of the plaintiff-appellee fo! a 6ud$&ent on the pleadin$s. %he defendants-

appellants &ust have been full( a"a!e of the conse4uences of thei! &anifestation. Secondl(, the lo"e!

Cou!t did not fi# the pe!iod no! inc!ease the !entals "ithout bases. %he stipulation of the facts of the

pa!ties in the p!e-t!ial confe!ence, pa!ticula!l(8

). %hat the land involved in this cont!act of lease "hich is no" the sub6ect &atte! of

this case is situated alon$ the national !oad 9Mac!thu! >i$h"a(; and it is about 2::

to +:: &ete!s a"a( f!o& the to"n plaHa of San 'e!nando, a 5nionA

3. %hat the buildin$ e!ected on the said lot is &ade of &i#ed &ate!ials, &ostl( "ood

and conc!ete p!oductsA

. %hat the buildin$ "as const!ucted b( the defendant in )*+ and the defendant has

been usin$ the buildin$ fo! 3) (ea!s fo! school pu!pose. 11

### ### ###

"e!e sufficient c!ite!ia fo! the inc!ease of the !ental. 'u!the!&o!e, the inc!ease in the a&ount of

!ental f!o& P+:.:: to P)+:.:: cannot be conside!ed un!easonable. %he Cou!t1s decision "as

!ende!ed in )*02 and the inc!ease tooF effect onl( on the said date. P!io! the!eto, the defendants-

appellants1 vocational school had been ope!atin$ on the land fo! so&e 3: (ea!s at the &easl( !ental

of P+:.::. 5ndoubtedl(, du!in$ all those (ea!s, the standa!d of livin$ had definitel( !isen. =e

liFe"ise taFe note of the fact that San 'e!nando, a 5nion "as then, and still is the p!ovincial capital

of a 5nion, as "ell as the !e$ional cente! of Re$ion I. ein$ such and conside!in$ the fact that the

cou!t is situated so&e 2:: to +:: &ete!s f!o& the school, the cou!t &ust have been a"a!e of the

e#istence, location, siHe, and othe! facts conce!nin$ the school.

. nent the fou!th assi$n&ent of e!!o! "hich involves the inte!p!etation of the thi!d pa!a$!aph of the

second lease a$!ee&ent, the sa&e has al!ead( been settled b( the Cou!t of ppeals in the unla"ful

detaine! case "hen it !uled, and co!!ectl( "e sa(, that the pe!iod of the lease "as indefinite and

hence, the plaintiff-appellee "as advised to file a case fo! the fi#in$ of the pe!iod. Inas&uch as the

Cou!t of ppeals decision has lon$ beco&e final and e#ecuto!(, the!e is, the!efo!e, no necessit( fo!

us to belabo! the &atte!.

2. 'inall(, it appea!s that the defendants-appellants1 inte!est in the land sub6ect of the cont!ove!s(

has no" beco&e &otivated &o!e b( thei! selfish desi$n 6ust to p!event the plaintiff-appellee f!o&

usin$ the sa&e than b( a since!e desi!e to utiliHe the land fo! school pu!poses. 'o! the( neve!



bothe!ed to const!uct anothe! school buildin$ on the sa&e site afte! the National usiness Institute

had been totall( !aHed b( fi!e in Nove&be! )*02. 1* Neithe! did the( &anifest thei! intention of buildin$

one at a late! date. In fact, the land had been left Idle and useless fo! &o!e than )+ (ea!s no". %he

plaintiff-appellee, the la"ful o"ne! of the land, has been p!ecluded f!o& usin$ and en6o(in$ it fo! &uch

too lon$ no".

=>ERE'ORE, in vie" of the fo!e$oin$, the appeal is DISMISSED and the decision of the t!ial cou!t

is he!eb( REINS%%ED. =ith costs a$ainst the defendants-appellants.

%his decision is IMMEDI%E@ EEC5%OR@.

Yap, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Paras and Padilla, JJ., concur.

21.buccat v dispo

Documents