Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 63 views

    25 Republic Vs Peralta

    Uploaded by

    Jovy Norriete dela Cruz
    1) Respondents and intervenors were formerly assigned military quarters at the Bonifacio Naval Station while serving in the Philippine Navy. 2) After retiring from the Navy, they continued occupying their quarters despite their lease contracts stipulating they must vacate upon retirement. 3) The Philippine Navy sought to evict the retired members, but they filed injunctions claiming a right to purchase the property. The courts granted the injunctions. 4) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Navy, finding that the lease contracts authorized extrajudicial eviction upon retirement, so a judicial proceeding was not required.

    Copyright:

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

    25 Republic Vs Peralta

    Uploaded by

    Jovy Norriete dela Cruz
    63 views3 pages
    1) Respondents and intervenors were formerly assigned military quarters at the Bonifacio Naval Station while serving in the Philippine Navy. 2) After retiring from the Navy, they continued occupying their quarters despite their lease contracts stipulating they must vacate upon retirement. 3) The Philippine Navy sought to evict the retired members, but they filed injunctions claiming a right to purchase the property. The courts granted the injunctions. 4) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Navy, finding that the lease contracts authorized extrajudicial eviction upon retirement, so a judicial proceeding was not required.

    Original Description:

    Lease Contract; Property; Ejectment suit

    Original Title

    25 Republic vs Peralta

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) Respondents and intervenors were formerly assigned military quarters at the Bonifacio Naval Station while serving in the Philippine Navy. 2) After retiring from the Navy, they continued occupying their quarters despite their lease contracts stipulating they must vacate upon retirement. 3) The Philippine Navy sought to evict the retired members, but they filed injunctions claiming a right to purchase the property. The courts granted the injunctions. 4) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Navy, finding that the lease contracts authorized extrajudicial eviction upon retirement, so a judicial proceeding was not required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    63 views3 pages

    25 Republic Vs Peralta

    Uploaded by

    Jovy Norriete dela Cruz
    1) Respondents and intervenors were formerly assigned military quarters at the Bonifacio Naval Station while serving in the Philippine Navy. 2) After retiring from the Navy, they continued occupying their quarters despite their lease contracts stipulating they must vacate upon retirement. 3) The Philippine Navy sought to evict the retired members, but they filed injunctions claiming a right to purchase the property. The courts granted the injunctions. 4) The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Navy, finding that the lease contracts authorized extrajudicial eviction upon retirement, so a judicial proceeding was not required.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 3

    CASE No.

    25
    G.R. No. 184253, July 06, 2011

    REPUBLIC VS. PERALTA

    Facts:
    When respondents and intervenors were still in the active service at the Philippine
    Navy, all of them were awarded military quarters at the Military Enlistedmen Quarters
    (MEQ) located inside the Bonifacio Naval Station (BNS), Fort Bonifacio, Makati City.
    Respondents and intervenors entered into contracts of lease with the BNS
    Commander for their occupation of the said quarters. Subsequently, members of the
    Philippine Navy and Marines occupying the BNS quarters, including respondents and
    intervenors, formed the Navy Enlistedmen Homeowner's Association, Inc. (NEHAI).
    However, even after their retirement, respondents and intervenors continued to
    occupy their assigned quarters.

    NEHAI filed before the Regional Trial Court of Makati City a petition for declaratory
    relief against the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Land
    Management Bureau, and the Armed Forces of the Philippines Officer's Village.
    NEHAI claimed that its members, as actual occupants of the MEQ, have the right of
    first priority to purchase the MEQ property under the provisions of Proclamation No.
    461, in relation to Republic Act Nos. 274 and 730.

    Respondents Estallo, Raquion and Ragas received letters from the BNS Commander
    advising them to vacate their respective quarters. NEHAI's counsel replied and
    informed the BNS Commander of their pending petition for declaratory relief and asked
    that the eviction be deferred until the court has rendered a decision. The BNS
    Commander denied NEHAI's request. Respondents were again ordered to vacate
    their quarters.

    To forestall their ejectment, respondents filed a complaint for injunction with prayer for
    the issuance of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order against the
    Philippine Navy before the trial court.
    Intervenors Bantog and Velasco joined respondents' cause by filing a complaint-in-
    intervention.

    The trial court granted respondents' and intervenors' application for preliminary
    injunction. According to the trial court, the BNS Commander cannot forcibly evict
    respondents and intervenors without any court order. If the BNS Commander evicts
    them, it would violate their right against eviction under Republic Act No. 7279. The trial
    court added that the proper recourse of the BNS Commander was to file a complaint
    for unlawful detainer against respondents and intervenors.
    Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration. NEHAI also filed a motion for intervention
    and attached its complaint-in-intervention. NEHAI alleged that it has legal interest in
    the matter and that it will be prejudiced by the distribution or disposition of the MEQ
    property. Petitioner filed an opposition to NEHAI's motion.

    The trial court denied the MR and granting NEHAI's motion to intervene. The trial court
    said that NEHAI has the legal personality to intervene and that the intervention will not
    delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. The trial court
    also enjoined the BNS Commander from effecting the eviction of all the members of
    NEHAI from their respective quarters.

    Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration which was later on denied.


    Petitioner filed a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals. Petitioner asked the
    Court of Appeals to annul the trial court’s decision. However, the Court of Appeals
    dismissed the petition for lack of merit.
    Hence, this appeal.
    Issue:
    Whether under the facts hereof, there is an indispensable need for petitioner to file an
    ejectment suit before it may evict respondents and intervenors from the subject military
    housing quarters.

    Ruling:
    The petition has merit.
    Petitioner argues that a judicial action is not necessary to evict respondents and
    intervenors from the leased military quarters because their contracts of lease have
    long expired. Petitioner adds that the contracts of lease specifically authorized
    petitioner to extrajudicially take over the possession of the leased military quarters
    after the expiration of their contracts.

    Contractual stipulations empowering the lessor to repossess the leased


    property extrajudicially from a lessee whose lease has expired have been held
    to be valid. Being the law between the parties, they must be respected.

    The occupancy by respondents and intervenors of the military quarters is covered by


    contracts of lease.
    The following stipulations can be found in the contracts of lease:
    3. That the party of the Second Part hereby binds himself to leave or vacate this
    assigned quarters on the effective day of his retirement/reversion/separation
    from the AFP.
    7. That the term or duration of this contract shall be for an inclusive period of
    three (3) years reckoned from the date of actual or constructive occupancy,
    subject to renewal for another three (3) years at the option of the Party of the First
    Part. However, the three year term may be accelerated and terminated earlier by
    either of the following: (a) Discharge/separation of an enlisted personnel prior to
    his term of enlistment or upon expiration of his current term of enlistment by
    reason of and under the provision on pertinent laws and regulations; (b)
    Reversion to inactive status of an officer prior to the date of his extended tour of
    active duty or upon the date of expiration of said extended tour of duty by reason
    of and under the provisions of pertinent laws and regulations; (c) Separation of a
    regular officer from the military service either by resignation or by action of the
    Efficiency and Separation Board or other modes prescribed by laws or
    regulations; (d) Retirement from the military service, whether optional or
    compulsory, of a regular or Reserve officer or enlisted personnel; (e) Failure of
    the Party of the Second Part to either pay/liquidate his rentals and/or water light
    bills; and (f) Failure of the Party of the Second Part to comply with the provisions
    of PNHB Circular Nr 12 dated 20 October 1978, post regulations and other similar
    regulations, and/or violation of any of the terms and conditions of this contract.

    Respondents and intervenors had long retired from military service. Therefore, they
    are no longer entitled to stay in the military quarters because their contracts of lease
    have been terminated by their retirement from the service.

    Respondents and intervenors, who are no longer in the military service, are occupying
    quarters in the Bonifacio Naval Station, a military facility or reservation that is subject
    to special military regulations commensurate to the requirements of safety and
    protection of military equipment and personnel. The naval facility is outside the
    commerce of man and the lease of quarters to military personnel in the service is
    merely incidental to their military service. Such lease is not an ordinary lease of a
    residential or commercial building. Upon retirement of the military personnel, their
    quarters have to be occupied by the military personnel in the active service who
    replace them.
    Since respondents and intervenors agreed to abide by the foregoing regulations of the
    military facility, judicial action is no longer necessary to evict respondents and
    intervenors from the military quarters. Respondents and intervenors authorized
    petitioner to extrajudicially take over the possession of the leased military housing
    quarters after their retirement. This is also in line with the policy of the Armed Forces
    of the Philippines and the Philippine Navy to provide military quarters for the exclusive
    use of military personnel who are in the active service.

    You might also like