Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    Chua Tee Dee VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Paula Toroba
    The Supreme Court partly ruled in favor of Chua Tee Dee in her case against Agricom regarding a 15-year lease contract over a rubber plantation. The Court found that while Dee failed to prove that a labor dispute prevented her from peaceful possession of the leased property, she should not have to pay rentals already paid for the first three years of the lease. Additionally, a personal loan Dee extended to another individual should not be charged to Agricom as the company was not party to that private agreement. However, the Court also upheld the validity of the lease contract and Dee's liability for unpaid back rentals, finding that Agricom fulfilled its duty to maintain Dee's legal possession of the leased premises despite harassment from squatters and

    Copyright:

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

    Chua Tee Dee VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Paula Toroba
    103 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court partly ruled in favor of Chua Tee Dee in her case against Agricom regarding a 15-year lease contract over a rubber plantation. The Court found that while Dee failed to prove that a labor dispute prevented her from peaceful possession of the leased property, she should not have to pay rentals already paid for the first three years of the lease. Additionally, a personal loan Dee extended to another individual should not be charged to Agricom as the company was not party to that private agreement. However, the Court also upheld the validity of the lease contract and Dee's liability for unpaid back rentals, finding that Agricom fulfilled its duty to maintain Dee's legal possession of the leased premises despite harassment from squatters and

    Original Title

    CHUA TEE DEE VS CA

    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 partly ruled in favor of Chua Tee Dee in her case against Agricom regarding a 15-year lease contract over a rubber plantation. The Court found that while Dee failed to prove that a labor dispute prevented her from peaceful possession of the leased property, she should not have to pay rentals already paid for the first three years of the lease. Additionally, a personal loan Dee extended to another individual should not be charged to Agricom as the company was not party to that private agreement. However, the Court also upheld the validity of the lease contract and Dee's liability for unpaid back rentals, finding that Agricom fulfilled its duty to maintain Dee's legal possession of the leased premises despite harassment from squatters and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    103 views2 pages

    Chua Tee Dee VS Ca

    Uploaded by

    Paula Toroba
    The Supreme Court partly ruled in favor of Chua Tee Dee in her case against Agricom regarding a 15-year lease contract over a rubber plantation. The Court found that while Dee failed to prove that a labor dispute prevented her from peaceful possession of the leased property, she should not have to pay rentals already paid for the first three years of the lease. Additionally, a personal loan Dee extended to another individual should not be charged to Agricom as the company was not party to that private agreement. However, the Court also upheld the validity of the lease contract and Dee's liability for unpaid back rentals, finding that Agricom fulfilled its duty to maintain Dee's legal possession of the leased premises despite harassment from squatters and

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    CHUA TEE DEE VS.

    COURT OF APPEALS
    G.R. No. 135721             May 27, 2004
    FACTS:
    On May 22, 1985, Agricom and Dee entered into a 15-year lease contract over the rubber
    plantation owned by the former. Among the stipulations in the contract was the payment of
    deposit in the amount of P135,000.00 and payment of back rentals in case of non-payment of
    rentals for three months. The contract also stipulated that Agricom had the duty to maintain Dee
    in the quiet peaceful possession and enjoyment of the leased premises.

    However, sometime in 1986, a labor case for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice was filed
    against Agricom, Amado Dee (Chua Tee Dee’s husband) and Pioneer. This case arose from the
    fact that some of the plantation laborers were dismissed from work due to the contract of lease
    with Dee. The labor case dragged on for a number of years. In addition, Dee also complained of
    being pestered by some individuals who claimed portions of the plantation as their own
    property.

    Later on, Pioneer defaulted in its monthly payments, prompting Agricom to file a complaint for
    sum of money. In its Answer, Dee asserted that Agricom committed breach of contract for its
    failure to maintain her in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the leased premises. The
    breach, in turn, entitled her to suspend payment of rentals.

    While the case was pending, Dee extended a personal loan of P30,000 to Lillian Carreido.
    When judgment was finally rendered, the complaint was dismissed and the lease contract
    terminated, the court stating that it was Agricom’s duty as lessor to maintain the lessee in
    peaceful possession and enjoyment of the leased premises.

    Upon motion for recommendation, the lower court reversed its own ruling, ordering Dee to pay
    Agricom back rentals and rentals for the first three years of the lease already paid for. The CA
    affirmed the order. Hence this appeal.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not CA committed grave abuse of discretion in upholding the validity of the lease
    contract and holding Dee liable for back rentals, including rentals already paid for.

    RULING:
    The Supreme Court ruled partly in favor of Dee.

    On the issue of suspension of payment of rentals, Dee anchors her argument on Art. 1658,
    NCC, which entitles the lessee to suspend payment of rent in case the lessor fails to make the
    necessary repairs or to maintain the lessee in peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the property
    leased. Dee asserted that she was harassed by squatters and several claimants of the leased
    premises.

    The duty “to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the
    duration of the contract” is merely a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed in his legal,
    and not physical, possession. In the present case, however, petitioner had not been disturbed in
    her legal possession of the property.
    As to the claims of loss due to the labor dispute, the Supreme Court agreed with the CA that
    Dee failed to prove this. During the period of pendency of the labor case, Dee regularly paid the
    monthly rentals. It was only after the labor case has been resolved that she started to fail to pay
    her rentals, strongly indicating that the labor case has not dampened her peaceful and adequate
    possession of the leased premises.

    The Supreme Court, however, ruled that Dee should not be made to pay rentals for the first
    three years of the lease, since those rentals were already paid for. Moreover, the personal loan
    extended by Dee to Lillian Carriedo should not be charged against Agricom. While it is true that
    the petitioner and Carriedo had agreed that the personal loan of the latter shall be “chargeable
    against Agricom’s account,” the private respondent is not privy to the agreement; nor did it
    agree to pay the said loan. It must be stressed that the private respondent has a personality
    separate and distinct from its stockholders.

    You might also like