Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 121 views

    Encarncion v. Baldomar

    Uploaded by

    Mirabel Vidal
    Vicente Singson Encarnacion leased his house to Jacinta Baldomar and her son on a month-to-month basis. After the war, Encarnacion notified Baldomar and her son to vacate the house so he could use it for his office since his previous office was destroyed. Despite this demand, Baldomar and her son continued living in the house. They argued the contract allowed them to stay indefinitely as long as they paid rent. Encarnacion claimed the lease had always been on a month-to-month basis. The court ruled in favor of Encarnacion, finding the lessees could not solely decide whether to continue the lease by choosing to pay rent or not without the

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Encarncion v. Baldomar

    Uploaded by

    Mirabel Vidal
    121 views1 page
    Vicente Singson Encarnacion leased his house to Jacinta Baldomar and her son on a month-to-month basis. After the war, Encarnacion notified Baldomar and her son to vacate the house so he could use it for his office since his previous office was destroyed. Despite this demand, Baldomar and her son continued living in the house. They argued the contract allowed them to stay indefinitely as long as they paid rent. Encarnacion claimed the lease had always been on a month-to-month basis. The court ruled in favor of Encarnacion, finding the lessees could not solely decide whether to continue the lease by choosing to pay rent or not without the

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Vicente Singson Encarnacion leased his house to Jacinta Baldomar and her son on a month-to-month basis. After the war, Encarnacion notified Baldomar and her son to vacate the house so he could use it for his office since his previous office was destroyed. Despite this demand, Baldomar and her son continued living in the house. They argued the contract allowed them to stay indefinitely as long as they paid rent. Encarnacion claimed the lease had always been on a month-to-month basis. The court ruled in favor of Encarnacion, finding the lessees could not solely decide whether to continue the lease by choosing to pay rent or not without the

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    121 views1 page

    Encarncion v. Baldomar

    Uploaded by

    Mirabel Vidal
    Vicente Singson Encarnacion leased his house to Jacinta Baldomar and her son on a month-to-month basis. After the war, Encarnacion notified Baldomar and her son to vacate the house so he could use it for his office since his previous office was destroyed. Despite this demand, Baldomar and her son continued living in the house. They argued the contract allowed them to stay indefinitely as long as they paid rent. Encarnacion claimed the lease had always been on a month-to-month basis. The court ruled in favor of Encarnacion, finding the lessees could not solely decide whether to continue the lease by choosing to pay rent or not without the

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    SINGSON ENCARNACION VS.

    BALDOMAR 77 PHIL 470 FACTS: Vicente Singson Encarnacion leased his house to Jacinta Baldomar and her son, Lefrando Fernando upon a month-to-month basis. After Manila was liberated in the last war, Singson Encarnacio notified Baldomar and her son Fernando to vacate the house because he needed it for his office as a result of the destruction of the building where he had his office before. Despite the demand, the Baldomar and Fernando continued their occupancy. The defense of Baldomar and Fernando was that the contract with Singson Encarnacion authorized them to continue occupancy indefinitely while they should faithfully fulfill their obligation with respect to payment of rentals. Singson Encarnacion contended that the lease had always and since the beginning been upon a month-tomonth basis. ISSUE: Was it tenable for Singson Encarnacion to discontinue the lease of Baldomar and her son? RULING: The continuance and fulfillment of the contract of lease cannot be made to depend solely and exclusively upon the free and uncontrolled choice of the lessees between continuing paying the rentals or not, completely depriving the owner of all say in the matter. The defense of Baldomar and Fernando would leave to the sole and exclusive will of one of the contracting parties the validity and fulfillment of the contract of lease, within the meaning of Article 1256 of the Civil Code. For if this were allowed, so long as the lessee elected to continue the lease by continuing the payment of the rentals the owner would never be able to discontinue the lease; conversely, although the owner should desire the lease to continue, the lessee could effectively thwart his purpose if he should prefer to terminate the contract by the simple expedient of stopping payment of the rentals.

    You might also like