8/9/2019 sps omar

1/7

8/9/2019 sps omar

2/7

pre-ter4inate this Contract the0 shall pa0 therentals for the unused 4onth or period 70 wa0of li/uidated da4ages in favor of the ?BSS;R.

#. hat this Contract of ?ease is for si9 (=) 0rs.

onl0 starting fro4 Dece47er NNNNN, '""" or up toDece47er NNNNNN, +$$1.

H HBSS BRB;6, the parties have hereuntoa39ed their hands this NNNth da0 of Dece47er, '"""at Cit0 of 5anila, Philippines.

(sgd.) (sgd.)ROS"&I P"&"'"*(HU" !OSHIR"&"TI) ? B S S ; R ? B SS B B

(sgd.)O!"R &"TI)

? B S S B B

SIGND IN TH PRSN( O):

(sgd.) (sgd.) 1. D#+- (. R#o 2.)er%+$#$% (. (/#Repu7lic of the Philippines)C i t 0 o f 5 a n i l a )s.s.

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T

*B6;RB 5B, a otar0 Pu7lic for and in the Cit0

of 5anila personall0 appeared the following persons%Rosalie P. Chua with CC o. $1="$=at Paraa/ue Cit0 on +E'E""2 5oshiera ?atief with CC o.'+!!1=1 at Paraa/ue Cit0 on ''E''E""2 ;4ar ?atiefwith CC o. '+!!1=1# Paraa/ue Cit0 on ov. '', '""".Lnown to 4e and to 4e Lnown to 7e the sa4e personswho e9ecuted this instru4ent consisting of two (+) pagesdul0 signed 70 the4 and the two (+) instru4entalwitnesses and acLnowledged to 4e that the sa4e is theirfree and voluntaril0 acts and deeds.

H 6AH AD BSH5; BRB;6, H havehereunto a39ed 40 hand and otarial Seal this NNNNth da0of Dece47er, '""" at the Cit0 of 5anila, Philippines.

Doc. o. NNNNN ATTY. CALIXTRO B.RAMOSPage o. NNNNN ;AR PJ*?HC*ooL o. ?F Jntil Dece47er #',

+$$$Series of '""" PR O #'1-'E''E""E-5la. H*P O $$+=+-?ife5e47er&

A 0ear after the co44ence4ent of the lease and with Spouses ?atipalread0 occup0ing the leased cu7icles, Rosalie, through counsel, sent thespouses a letter de4anding pa04ent of 7acL rentals and should the0 failto do so, to vacate the leased cu7icles. hen Spouses ?atip did not heedRosalies de4and, she instituted the aforesaid co4plaint.

Hn their Answer, Spouses ?atip refuted Rosalies clai4s. he0 averredthat the lease of the two (+) cu7icles had alread0 7een paid in full asevidenced 70 receipts showing pa04ent to Rosalie of the total a4ountof P+,1$,$$$.$$. he three (#) receipts, in Rosalies handwriting, read%

'. H received the a4ount of P+,$$$,$$$.$$ (two 4illionpesos) fro4 &;4ar ?atip I 5oshi&era ?atip for thepa04ent of + cu7icles located at '1! :uirino Ave. cornerRede4ptorist Rd.&, *aclaran P&araa/ue Cit0.R;6BR?AD&1*ldg. with the ter4s = 0rs. Contract.P+,$$$,$$$.$$ NNNNNN(sgd.)

NNNNNNCBC@ O

#="+ Rosalie Chua6AR BAS *A@

NNNNNN(sgd.)

NNNNNN 6erdinand Chua+. Received cash P1$$,$$$.$$ 6ro4 5oshiera ?atip

(sgd.)

'+E'$E"" Rosalie Chua Received 70

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177809.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177809.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177809.htm#_ftn7http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177809.htm#_ftn8

8/9/2019 sps omar

3/7

#. Received cash P$,$$$.$$ fro4 5oshiera ?atip '+-''-""

NNNN(sgd.)NNN Received 70%&=

Spouses ?atip asseverated that so4eti4e in ;cto7er '""", Rosalieo8ered for sale lease rights over two (+) cu7icles in Rofer9ane *ldg. avingin 4ind the 7risL sale of goods during the Christ4as season, the0 readil0accepted Rosalies o8er to purchase lease rights in Rofer9ane *ldg., whichwas still under construction at the ti4e. According to Spouses ?atip, thei44ediate pa04ent of P+,1$,$$$.$$ would 7e used to >nish constructionof the 7uilding giving the4 >rst priorit0 in the occupation of the >nishedcu7icles.

hereafter, in Dece47er '""", as soon as two (+) cu7icles were

>nished, Spouses ?atip occupied the4 without waiting for the co4pletionof >ve (1) other stalls. Spouses ?atip averred that the contract of leasethe0 signed had 7een novated 70 their purchase of lease rights of thesu7Qect cu7icles. hus, the0 were surprised to receive a de4and letter fro4Rosalies counsel and the su7se/uent >ling of a co4plaint against the4.

he 5eC ruled in favor of Rosalie, viz.%

BRB6;RB, pre4ises considered, the &Spouses?atip and all persons clai4ing rights under the4 arehere70 ordered to ACAB the propert0 su7Qect of this caselocated at the 'stand +ndMoors of a Rofer9ane *uildingsituated at o. '1! :uirino Avenue corner Rede4ptoristRoad, *aranga0 *aclaran, Paraa/ue Cit0. he &Spouses?atip are also ordered to PA &Rosalie the a4ount ofSBB JDRBD B ;JSAD PBS;S

(P+$,$$$.$$) as rent arrearages for the period ofDece47er '""" to Dece47er +$$$ and thereafter to PA&Rosalie the a4ount of SBB ; ;JSAD PBS;S(P+,$$$.$$) per 4onth fro4 ed and supple4ented2 and the entire lease rentals for thetwo (+) cu7icles for si9 (=) 0ears had alread0 7een paid 70 Spouses ?atip inthe a4ount of P+,1$,$$$.$$. As to Rosalies clai4 that her receiptof P+,1$,$$$.$$ was si4pl0 goodwill pa04ent 70 prospective lessees totheir lessor, and not pa04ent for the purchase of lease rights, the RC shotthis down and pointed out that, apart fro4 her 7are allegations, Rosalie didnot adduce evidence to su7stantiate this clai4. ;n the whole, the RCdeclared an e9istent lease 7etween the parties for a period of si9 (=) 0ears,and alread0 full0 paid for 70 Spouses ?atip. hus, Spouses ?atip could not7e eQected fro4 the leased pre4ises until e9piration of the lease period.

he RC disposed of the appeal, viz.%

BRB6;RB, all the foregoing considered, theappealed decision of the &5eC dated

8/9/2019 sps omar

4/7

S; ;RDBRBD.&!

Hn 0et another turn of events, the CA, as previousl0 4entioned,reversed the RC and reinstated the decision of the 5eC. he CA ruledthat the contract of lease, al7eit lacLing the signature of 6erdinand and notnotaried, re4ained a co4plete and valid contract. As the 5eC had, theCA liLewise found that the alleged defects in the contract of lease did notrender the contract ine8ective. ;n the issue of whether the a4ount

of P+,1$,$$$.$$ 4erel0 constituted pa04ent of goodwill 4one0, the CAtooL Qudicial notice of this co44on practice in the area of *aclaran,especiall0 around the Rede4ptorist Church. According to the appellatecourt, this Qudicial notice was 7olstered 70 the

8/9/2019 sps omar

5/7

Qudiciall0 noticed, provided the0 are of such universalnotoriet0 and so generall0 understood that the0 4a0 7eregarded as for4ing part of the co44on Lnowledge ofever0 person.&''

e reiterated the re/uisite of notoriet0 for the taLing of Qudicialnotice in the recent case of %&pertravel ' Tours Inc. v. Court o( Appeals&'+which cited State Prosecutors%

Generall0 speaLing, 4atters of Qudicial notice havethree 4aterial re/uisites% (') the 4atter 4ust 7e one ofco44on and general Lnowledge2 (+) it 4ust 7e well andauthoritativel0 settled and not dou7tful or uncertain2 and(#) it 4ust 7e Lnown to 7e within the li4its of theQurisdiction of the court. he principal guide in deter4iningwhat facts 4a0 7e assu4ed to 7e Qudiciall0 Lnown is thatof notoriet0. ence, it can 7e said that Qudicial notice isli4ited to facts evidenced 70 pu7lic records and facts ofgeneral notoriet0. 5oreover, a Qudiciall0 noticed fact 4ust7e one not su7Qect to a reasona7le dispute in that it iseither% (') generall0 Lnown within the territorial Qurisdictionof the trial court2 or (+) capa7le of accurate and read0deter4ination 70 resorting to sources whose accurac0cannot reasona7l0 7e /uestiona7le.

hings of co44on Lnowledge,T of which courtstaLe Qudicial notice, 4a0 7e 4atters co4ing to theLnowledge of 4en generall0 in the course of the ordinar0e9periences of life, or the0 4a0 7e 4atters which aregenerall0 accepted 70 4anLind as true and are capa7le ofread0 and un/uestioned de4onstration. hus, facts whichare universall0 Lnown, and which 4a0 7e found inenc0clopedias, dictionaries or other pu7lications, areQudiciall0 noticed, provided, the0 are such of universalnotoriet0 and so generall0 understood that the0 4a0 7e

regarded as for4ing part of the co44on Lnowledge ofever0 person. As the co44on Lnowledge of 4an rangesfar and wide, a wide variet0 of particular facts have 7eenQudiciall0 noticed as 7eing 4atters of co44onLnowledge. But a court cannot ta)e *udicial notice o( an$(act !"ic" in part is dependent on t"e e&istence or non+e&istence o( a (act o( !"ic" t"e court "as no constructive)no!led,e.

6ro4 the foregoing provisions of law and our holdings thereon, it isapparent that the 4atter which the appellate court tooL Qudicial notice ofdoes not 4eet the re/uisite of notoriet0. o 7egin with, onl0 the CA tooL

Qudicial notice of this supposed practice to pa0 goodwill 4one0 to thelessor in the *aclaran area. either the 5eC nor the RC, with the for4er

even ruling in favor of Rosalie, found that the practice was of co44onLnowledgeT or notoriousl0 Lnown.

e note that the RC speci>call0 ruled that Rosalie, apart fro4 her7are allegation, adduced no evidence to prove her clai4 that the a4ountof P+,1$,$$$.$$ si4pl0 constituted the pa04ent of goodwill 4one0.Su7se/uentl0, Rosalie attached an anne9 to her petition for review 7eforethe CA, containing a Qoint declaration under oath 70 other stallholders inRofer9ane *ldg. that the0 had paid goodwill 4one0 to Rosalie as their

lessor. ;n this score, we e4phasie that the reason wh0 our rules onevidence provide for 4atters that need not 7e proved under Rule '+",speci>call0 on Qudicial notice, is to dispense with the taLing of the usualfor4 of evidence on a certain 4atter so notoriousl0 Lnown, it will not 7edisputed 70 the parties.

owever, in this case, the re/uisite of notoriet0 is 7elied 70 thenecessit0 of attaching docu4entar0 evidence, i.e., the

8/9/2019 sps omar

6/7

lease contract, which e9act date of e9ecution of the latteris unclear.&'#

e agree with the RCs holding onl0 up to that point. here e9ists alease agree4ent 7etween the parties as set forth in the contract of leasewhich is a co4plete docu4ent. Ht need not 7e signed 70 6erdinand Chua ashe liLewise did not sign the other two receipts for P1$$,$$$.$$and P$,$$$.$$, respectivel0, which contained onl0 the signature of

Rosalie. *esides, it is undisputed that Rosalie owns and leases the stalls inRofer9ane *ldg.2 thus, doing awa0 with the need for her hus7andsconsent. he >ndings of the three lower courts concur on this fact.

he contract of lease has a period of si9 (=) 0ears co44encing inDece47er '""". his fact is again 7uttressed 70 Spouses ?atips ad4issionthat the0 occupied the propert0 forthwith in Dece47er '""", 7earing in4ind the 7risL sales during the holida0 season.

;n the conMicting interpretations 70 the lower courts of the receiptsa4ounting to P+,1$,$$$.$$, we hold that the practice of pa04ent ofgoodwill 4one0 in the *aclaran area is an inade/uate su7Qect of Qudicialnotice. either was Rosalie a7le to provide su3cient evidence that, apartfro4 the 7elatedl0 su74itted ed or supple4ented the contract of lease.owever, it 4ade a /uantu4 leap when it ruled that the a4ount waspa04ent for rentals of the two (+) cu7icles for the entire si9-0ear period.e cannot su7scri7e to this >nding. o o7viate confusion and for clarit0,the contents of the receipts, alread0 set forth a7ove, are again reproduced%

'. H received the a4ount of P+,$$$,$$$.$$ (two 4illionpesos) fro4 &;4ar ?atip I 5oshi&era ?atip for thepa04ent of + cu7icles located at '1! :uirino Ave. cornerRede4ptorist Rd.&, *aclaran P&ara/ue Cit0. R;6BR?AD*ldg. with the ter4s = 0rs. Contract.P+,$$$,$$$.$$ NNNNNN(sgd.)

NNNNNNCBC@ O

#="+ Rosalie Chua6AR BAS *A@

NNNNNN(sgd.)

NNNNNN 6erdinand Chua+. Received cash P1$$,$$$.$$ 6ro4 5oshiera ?atip

(sgd.) '+E'$E"" Rosalie Chua Received 70#. Received cash P$,$$$.$$ fro4 5oshiera ?atip '+-''-""

NNN(sgd.)

NNNN Received 70%&'

here is nothing on the receipts and on record that the pa04entand receipt of P+,1$,$$$.$$ referred to full pa04ent of rentals for the

whole period of the lease. All three receipts state Rosalies receipt of cashin var0ing a4ounts. he >rst receipt for P+,$$$,$$$.$$ did state pa04entfor two (+) cu7icles, 7ut this cannot 4ean full pa04ent of rentals for theentire lease period when there are no words to that e8ect. 6urther, tworeceipts were su7se/uentl0 e9ecuted pointing to the o7vious fact thatthe P+,$$$,$$$.$$ is not for full pa04ent of rentals. hus, since thecontract of lease re4ained operative, we >nd that Rosalies receipt of the4onies should 7e considered as advanced rentals on the leased cu7icles.his conclusion is 7olstered 70 the fact that Rosalie de4anded pa04ent ofthe lease rentals onl0 in +$$$, a full 0ear after the co44ence4ent of thelease.

6inall0, we note that the lease ended in +$$1. Conse/uentl0,

Spouses ?atip can 7e eQected fro4 the leased pre4ises. he0 are lia7le toRosalie for unpaid rentals on the lease of the two (+) cu7icles in

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177809.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177809.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177809.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/october2009/177809.htm#_ftn17

8/9/2019 sps omar

7/7

accordance with the stipulations on rentals in the Contract of ?ease.owever, the a4ount of P+,1$,$$$.$$, covering advance rentals, 4ust 7ededucted fro4 this lia7ilit0 of Spouses ?atip to Rosalie.

>HR)OR, pre4ises considered, the petition ishere70 GR"NTD. he decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP o.!"#$$ is RVRSD. he petitioners, spouses ;4ar and 5oshiera ?atip,

are lia7le to respondent Rosalie Chua for unpaid rentals 4inus the a4ountof P+,1$,$$$.$$ alread0 received 70 her as advance rentals. o costs.

SO ORDRD.