Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 274 views

    Azcuna JR Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Ira Krizia
    Azcuna Jr. leased three commercial units from Barcelona but failed to vacate the units after the lease expired. Barcelona filed an ejectment case against Azcuna. The courts ordered Azcuna to vacate the units and pay monthly rent, P3,000 per day in damages for failure to vacate as stipulated in the lease contract, P5,000 in attorney's fees, and court costs. Azcuna appealed, arguing damages other than fair rental value cannot be claimed in ejectment cases. However, the court ruled damages previously agreed upon in the lease contract, such as liquidated damages, can be claimed along with fair rental value in ejectment cases. Since the P3,000 per day damages were stip

    Copyright:

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

    Azcuna JR Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Ira Krizia
    274 views9 pages
    Azcuna Jr. leased three commercial units from Barcelona but failed to vacate the units after the lease expired. Barcelona filed an ejectment case against Azcuna. The courts ordered Azcuna to vacate the units and pay monthly rent, P3,000 per day in damages for failure to vacate as stipulated in the lease contract, P5,000 in attorney's fees, and court costs. Azcuna appealed, arguing damages other than fair rental value cannot be claimed in ejectment cases. However, the court ruled damages previously agreed upon in the lease contract, such as liquidated damages, can be claimed along with fair rental value in ejectment cases. Since the P3,000 per day damages were stip

    Original Title

    Azcuna Jr vs CA

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Azcuna Jr. leased three commercial units from Barcelona but failed to vacate the units after the lease expired. Barcelona filed an ejectment case against Azcuna. The courts ordered Azcuna to vacate the units and pay monthly rent, P3,000 per day in damages for failure to vacate as stipulated in the lease contract, P5,000 in attorney's fees, and court costs. Azcuna appealed, arguing damages other than fair rental value cannot be claimed in ejectment cases. However, the court ruled damages previously agreed upon in the lease contract, such as liquidated damages, can be claimed along with fair rental value in ejectment cases. Since the P3,000 per day damages were stip

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    274 views9 pages

    Azcuna JR Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Ira Krizia
    Azcuna Jr. leased three commercial units from Barcelona but failed to vacate the units after the lease expired. Barcelona filed an ejectment case against Azcuna. The courts ordered Azcuna to vacate the units and pay monthly rent, P3,000 per day in damages for failure to vacate as stipulated in the lease contract, P5,000 in attorney's fees, and court costs. Azcuna appealed, arguing damages other than fair rental value cannot be claimed in ejectment cases. However, the court ruled damages previously agreed upon in the lease contract, such as liquidated damages, can be claimed along with fair rental value in ejectment cases. Since the P3,000 per day damages were stip

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    of 9

    GR 116665 March 20, 1996

    Petitioner

    Azcuna Jr. leased 3 building units (C,E, and F) of private respondent Barcelonas family. In the lease contract, the lessor has the right to charge the lessee P1,000.00/day as damages, in case lessee fails to pay or vacate. When lease expired without renewal and petitioner failed to surrender the units despite demands, private respondent filed an ejectment case.

    MTC, RTC and CA ordered petitioner to, among others, vacate the premises known as Units C, E and F. Defendant is likewise ordered to pay the following: 1. The sum of P25,000.00 monthly as rental for continued use by defendant of the three (3) units of leased premises in question starting July 1, 1993 less the amount that have been deposited or given by the defendant to the plaintiff up to such time the defendant and all persons claiming rights under him finally vacate the aforesaid premises; 2. The further sum of P3,000.00 per day, by way of damages for his failure to turn over peacefully the three (3) commercial spaces to the plaintiff from July 1, 1993 until such time the defendant and all persons claiming rights under him vacate the premises; 3. The further sum of P5,000.00 by way of attorneys fees; and, 4. The cost of this suit.

    Petitioner appealed that the awarding of P3,000.00/day as damages can only be claimed in ordinary action, not in ejectment.

    Can damages other than fair rental value of property be claimed in ejectment case?

    YES. In ejectment cases, damages recovered are those equivalent to reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises. This also includes damage previously agreed to by lessee in the lease contract and imposed by lessor by way of damages. Additional damages and charges other than fair rental value of property and liquidated damages cannot be claimed in ejectment.

    Here, MTC, in making the P3,000.00 per day award, was merely enforcing what was stipulated upon by lessor and lessee in the contract which reads:
    That after the termination of the lease, the LESSEE shall peaceably deliver to the LESSOR the leased premises vacant and unencumbered and in good tenantable conditions minus the ordinary wear and tear. In case the LESSEEs failure or inability to do so, LESSOR has the right to charge the LESSEE P1,000.00 per day as damages without prejudice to other remedies which LESSOR is entitled in the premise.

    The freedom of the contracting parties to make stipulations in their contract provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy is so settled, and the Court finds nothing immoral or illegal with the indemnity/ penalty clause of the lease contract which does not appear to have been forced upon or fraudulently foisted on petitioner.

    You might also like