Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 36 views

    Chua vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jenilyn Entong
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petitioners were required to pay unpaid rentals even though not explicitly mentioned in the complaint, as the rent was stipulated in the lease contract. 2) The petitioners were not entitled to an extension of the lease after it expired as the parties did not reach a renewal agreement. 3) The petitioners were guilty of bad faith for refusing to leave the premises after the lease expired, despite their claims of repairs, as lessees do not have a right of retention over the property under these conditions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chua vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jenilyn Entong
    36 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petitioners were required to pay unpaid rentals even though not explicitly mentioned in the complaint, as the rent was stipulated in the lease contract. 2) The petitioners were not entitled to an extension of the lease after it expired as the parties did not reach a renewal agreement. 3) The petitioners were guilty of bad faith for refusing to leave the premises after the lease expired, despite their claims of repairs, as lessees do not have a right of retention over the property under these conditions.

    Original Description:

    Case Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petitioners were required to pay unpaid rentals even though not explicitly mentioned in the complaint, as the rent was stipulated in the lease contract. 2) The petitioners were not entitled to an extension of the lease after it expired as the parties did not reach a renewal agreement. 3) The petitioners were guilty of bad faith for refusing to leave the premises after the lease expired, despite their claims of repairs, as lessees do not have a right of retention over the property under these conditions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    36 views1 page

    Chua vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jenilyn Entong
    The Supreme Court ruled that: 1) The petitioners were required to pay unpaid rentals even though not explicitly mentioned in the complaint, as the rent was stipulated in the lease contract. 2) The petitioners were not entitled to an extension of the lease after it expired as the parties did not reach a renewal agreement. 3) The petitioners were guilty of bad faith for refusing to leave the premises after the lease expired, despite their claims of repairs, as lessees do not have a right of retention over the property under these conditions.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Chua vs.

    Court of Appeals

    Facts:
    Petitioners were lessees of a commercial unit at no. 3086 redemptorist street in
    baclaran, parañque, metro manila. The lease was for a period of five (5) years, from january 1,
    1985 to december 31, 1989. The contract expressly provided for the renewal of the lease at the
    option of the lessees "in accordance with the terms of agreement and conditions set by the
    lessor." prior to the expiration of the lease, the parties discussed the possibility of renewing it.
    They exchanged proposal and counterproposal, but they failed to reach agreement. The dispute
    was referred to the barangay captain for conciliation but still no settlement was reached by the
    parties. On july 24, 1990, private respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against
    petitioner's.

    Issues:
    1. Won the court of appeals erred in affirming the lower court's finding that they owe private
    respondent the amount of p42,306.00 as unpaid rentals because neither the letter of
    demand nor the complaint for unlawful detainer alleged a claim for unpaid rentals.
    2. Won the petitioners are entitled to an extension of time to occupy the premises
    3. Won the petitioners are guilty of bad faith in refusing to leave the premises
    Ruling:
    1. No. Considering that the petitioners incurred said rental arrearages because they did not
    pay private respondent the automatic 10% increase in their monthly rental every year for
    the years 1986 to 1989 as agreed upon and stipulated in their lease contract which
    contract is the law between the parties, justice and good faith demand that petitioners
    should pay said rental arrearages. As correctly ruled by the respondent court, "to
    absolve the defendants from paying rentals in arrears while they continue occupying and
    enjoying the premises would be allowing the defendants to enrich themselves at the
    expense of the plaintiff.
    2. No. After the lease terminated on january 1, 1990 and without the parties thereafter
    reaching any agreement for its renewal, petitioners became deforciants subject to
    ejectment from the premises.
    3. Yes. The fact that petitioners allegedly made repairs on the premises in question is not a
    reason for them to retain the possession of the premises. There is no provision of law
    which grants the lessee a right of retention over the leased premises on that ground. Art.
    448 of the civil code, in relation to art. 546, which provides for full reimbursement of
    useful improvements and retention of the premises until reimbursement is made, applies
    only to a possessor in good faith, i.e., one who builds on a land in the belief that he is the
    owner thereof. In a number of cases, the court has held that this right does not apply to a
    mere lessee, like the petitioners, otherwise, it would always be in his power to "improve"
    his landlord out of the latter's property. Art. 1678 merely grants to such a lessee making
    in good faith useful improvements the right to be reimbursed one-half of the value of the
    improvements upon the termination of the lease, or, in the alternative, to remove the
    improvements if the lessor refuses to make reimbursement.

    You might also like