Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 30 views

    Serafin Cheng VS SPS Donini

    Uploaded by

    Maricel Pereña Diesta Pajanustan
    1) Serafin Cheng agreed to lease his property to Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini to operate a restaurant. They made improvements but the parties had disagreements and Cheng demanded payment. 2) Doninis filed a case and the RTC ruled for Cheng but the CA ordered Cheng to pay Doninis P964,000 for improvements. 3) The Civil Code states that upon lease termination, the lessor must reimburse the lessee half the value of useful improvements suitable for the intended use that do not alter the property's form or substance. Ornamental expenses are not reimbursable.

    Copyright:

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

    Serafin Cheng VS SPS Donini

    Uploaded by

    Maricel Pereña Diesta Pajanustan
    30 views2 pages
    1) Serafin Cheng agreed to lease his property to Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini to operate a restaurant. They made improvements but the parties had disagreements and Cheng demanded payment. 2) Doninis filed a case and the RTC ruled for Cheng but the CA ordered Cheng to pay Doninis P964,000 for improvements. 3) The Civil Code states that upon lease termination, the lessor must reimburse the lessee half the value of useful improvements suitable for the intended use that do not alter the property's form or substance. Ornamental expenses are not reimbursable.

    Original Title

    SERAFIN CHENG VS SPS DONINI

    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) Serafin Cheng agreed to lease his property to Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini to operate a restaurant. They made improvements but the parties had disagreements and Cheng demanded payment. 2) Doninis filed a case and the RTC ruled for Cheng but the CA ordered Cheng to pay Doninis P964,000 for improvements. 3) The Civil Code states that upon lease termination, the lessor must reimburse the lessee half the value of useful improvements suitable for the intended use that do not alter the property's form or substance. Ornamental expenses are not reimbursable.

    Copyright:

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

    Serafin Cheng VS SPS Donini

    Uploaded by

    Maricel Pereña Diesta Pajanustan
    1) Serafin Cheng agreed to lease his property to Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini to operate a restaurant. They made improvements but the parties had disagreements and Cheng demanded payment. 2) Doninis filed a case and the RTC ruled for Cheng but the CA ordered Cheng to pay Doninis P964,000 for improvements. 3) The Civil Code states that upon lease termination, the lessor must reimburse the lessee half the value of useful improvements suitable for the intended use that do not alter the property's form or substance. Ornamental expenses are not reimbursable.

    Copyright:

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

    SERAFIN CHENG, 

    v. SPOUSES VITTORIO and MA. HELEN DONINI

    FACTS ISSUE

    1. Petitioner Serafin Cheng agreed to lease his property located in WON the award of reimbursement to respondents and the deletion of the
    Mandaluyong City to respondents, Sps Vittorio and Ma. Helen Donini, award of damages was held correctly.
    who intended to put up a restaurant thereon. They agreed to a
    monthly rental of P17,000, to commence in December 1990. HELD

    2. They entered into oral lease agreement but it went sour. But before It would be inequitable to allow the defendant-appellee, as owner of the
    that they has an Iterim Grant of Authority which states that Cheng property to enjoy perpetually the improvements introduced by the plaintiffs-
    grants VITTORIO DONINI and all those acting under his orders to appellants without reimbursing them for the value of the said
    make all the necessary improvements on the prospective leased improvements. Well-settled is the rule that no one shall be unjustly enriched
    premises and to enter and perform, all such works and activities to or benefitted at the expense of another.
    make the leased premises operational as a restaurant or similar
    purpose.
    Petitioner, however, correctly argued that the principle of equity did not
    apply in this case. Equity, which has been aptly described as "justice outside
    3. However, before respondents' business could take off and before any legality," is applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law
    final lease agreement could be drafted and signed, the parties began or judicial rules of procedure.
    to have serious disagreements regarding its terms and conditions.
    Petitioner wrote respondents demanding payment of the deposit and
    The relationship between petitioner and respondents was explicitly governed
    rentals, and signifying that he had no intention to continue with the
    by the Civil Code provisions on lease, which clearly provide for the rule on
    agreement should respondents fail to pay. Respondents ignored
    reimbursement of useful improvements and ornamental expenses after
    petitioner's demand, continued to occupy the premises.
    termination of a lease agreement.
    4. Respondents then filed an action for specific performance and
    damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary Article 1678 states:
    injunction in (RTC) of Pasig City which rendered decision in favor of
    petitioner. If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which are suitable
    to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the form or
    5. Respondents appealed to the (CA) which, in its decision recalled and substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of the
    set aside the RTC decision, and entered a new one ordering lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements at that
    petitioner to pay respondents the amount of P964,000 representing time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may
    the latter's expenses incurred for the repairs and improvements of remove the improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer
    the premises. damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon
    the property leased than is necessary.
    With regard to ornamental expenses, the lessee shall not be entitled to any
    reimbursement, but he may remove the ornamental objects, provided no
    damage is caused to the principal thing, and the lessor does not choose to
    retain them by paying their value at the time the lease is extinguished.

    Article 1678 modified the (old) Civil Code provision on reimbursement where
    the lessee had no right at all to be reimbursed for the improvements
    introduced on the leased property, he being entitled merely to the rights of
    a usufructuary - the right of removal and set-off but not to reimbursement.

    You might also like