SECOND DIVISION
|
DATALIFT
MOVERS, INC. and/or JAIME B. AQUINO, Petitioners,
- versus - BELGRAVIA REALTY & DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION and SAMPAGUITA BROKERAGE, INC. Respondents. |
|
G.R. No. 144268 Present: PUNO, J., Chairperson,
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA,
and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: August 30, 2006 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
In an action for ejectment filed
by Sampaguita Brokerage, Inc. and its
sister company, Belgravia Realty & Development Corporation, against the
herein petitioners Datalift Movers, Inc. and/or Jaime B. Aquino, the
Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), of Manila, Branch 3, later the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 36, and eventually the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 52189 are one in ordering
the petitioners’ ejectment from the premises involved in the suit and their payment of unpaid rentals, attorney’s fees
and costs. Undaunted, the petitioners have come to this Court via this petition for review with
application for a temporary restraining order
and/or preliminary injunction to seek the reversal of the affirmatory
decision of the CA, including those of the courts below it.
We likewise AFFIRM, but first the facts:
The premises involved in this case is
a warehouse (bodega) used by petitioner Datalift Movers, Inc. (Datalift for short) for its cargoes in
connection with its brokerage business. The warehouse stands on a 3,967.70 squaremeter lot owned by the Philippine National Railways
(PNR) and located at
Sometime in 1987, PNR leased out the
lot to Sampaguita Brokerage, Inc. (Sampaguita,
hereafter), pursuant to a written contract commencing on July 1, 1987 and
terminating on June 30, 1990 for a monthly rental of P6,282.49, subject
to a ten (10%) percent increase every year.
Sampaguita thereafter entered into a
special arrangement with its sister company, Belgravia Realty & Development
Corporation (P40,000.00 payable on or before the 15th day of each
month, provided an advance rental for two (2) months is paid upon execution of
the contract.
After the one year contract period
expired, lessee Datalift continued in possession and enjoyment of the leased
warehouse, evidently by acquiesance of lessor P60,000.00 starting June 1994 to
October 1994. Monthly rental was again
increased from P60,000.00 to P130,000.00 beginning November 1994
onwards, allegedly in view of the increased rental demanded by PNR on Sampaguita for the latter’s lease of the former’s lot whereon the warehouse in question stands.
Because of the rental increase made by P4,120,000.00 and to vacate and surrender the warehouse in
dispute. The demands having proved
futile,
In their Answer with Counterclaim,[3]
the defendants interposed the following defenses:
1) Sampaguita has no cause of action against them, not being a party nor privy to the Datalift-Belgravia contract of lease;
2) Under the PNR-Sampaguita contract of lease over the PNR lot, Sampaguita is prohibited from subleasing the property;
3) The same PNR-Sampaguita contract had allegedly expired;
4) Lessor
By way of counterclaim, defendants Datalift and Aquino prayed for
the refund by
In a decision[4]
dated P80,000,00 a month, saying:
Upon
the other hand, this Court is not persuaded or inclined to favor the very
substantial increase in the amount demanded by Sampaguita
and/or P60,000.00
to P130,000.00 per month. Such
increase is arbitrary, highly unconscionable and beyond the ambit of equity and
justice considering that the original agreed rental on the premises in 1990 was
only P45,000.00 per month, the latter increase
to P60,000.00 per month. The unilateral increase of P70,000.00 making the monthly rental P130,000.00
effective June, 1994, is, as earlier said, beyond the conscience of man.
The
increase in rental for P60,000.00 per month to P80,000.00
per month, following the trend in the amount of increase during the previous
years would, to the mind of the Court be reasonable and justified. Thus, the
rental in arrears due and demandable upon defendants would be P20,000.00 per month from June, 1994 to October, 1994,
defendants having paid already P60,000.00 per month during the five (5)
months period, the P80,000.00 per month from November, 1994 to the
present.
In the same decision, the MeTC rejected the defendants’ challenge against
More particularly, the MeTC decision dispositively
reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds and so hold that plaintiffs have proven their case against defendants by preponderance of evidence sufficient to grant what is prayed for in their Complaint with certain modification and hereby renders judgment:
1) Ordering defendants and all persons,
natural or juridical, claiming rights, interest or title under them, to vacate
and surrender peacefully to plaintiffs that warehouse and the area/premises
occupied by them located at
2) Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff Belgravia the difference of P20,000.00
from what had been already paid of P60,000.00 per month for the months
of June, 1994 to October, 1994 or a total of P100,000.00; and the unpaid
rentals at P80,000.00 per month from November, 1994 to the present and
until defendants vacate and surrender the warehouse and premises subject of
this litigation;
3) Ordering defendants to pay plaintiff P30,000.00 for and as attorney’s fees and expenses of
litigation, and
4) To pay the cost of suit.
SO ORDERED.
Obviously dissatisfied, both parties
appealed to the RTC whereat the appeal was raffled to Branch 36 thereof. In their appeal, Datalift
and its co-defendant Jaime B. Aquino questioned the MeTC’s finding that there was an implied new lease between
PNR and Sampaquita on the lot on which the warehouse
in question stands, and accordingly fault the same court for ordering them to
vacate the same warehouse and to pay rentals as well as attorney’s fees and
litigation expenses.
For their part, Sampaguita
and P130,000.00 a
month beginning June 1994, and for not ruling that both defendants are jointly
and subsidiary liable for the amounts awarded to them.
In a decision[5]
dated March 11, 1999, the RTC, reechoing the MeTC’s
ruling on the authority of Sampaguita and Belgravia to institute the complaint for ejectment as well as the same court’s finding as to the
reasonable amount of rental in arrears due Belgravia,
affirmed in toto
the assailed MeTC
decision, thus:
In the light of the foregoing, the assailed decision of MeTC of Manila, Branch 3 is affirmed in toto.
SO ORDERED.
This time, only Datalift
and its co-petitioner Jaime B. Aquino elevated the
case to the CA in CA-G.R. SP No. 52189.
Again, in a decision[6]
dated
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DISMISSED and the
decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Manila, dated March 11, 1999,
affirming in toto
the decision of the Metropolitan
Trial Court, Branch 3, is hereby AFFIRMED,
except that the award of P30,000.00 as attorney’s fees is DELETED.
SO ORDERED.
Still unable to accept the adverse
decisions of the three (3) courts below, the petitioners are now with this
Court via this petition for review on
their submission that the CA erred:
XXX
IN HOLDING THAT AN IMPLIED NEW LEASE WAS CREATED BETWEEN PNR AND RESPONDENTS
(i.e. SAMPAGUITA and
XXX IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS HAVE NO PERSONALITY TO QUESTION WHETHER AN IMPLIED NEW LEASE WAS CREATED BETWEEN PNR AND THE RESPONDENTS.
The petition lacks merit.
Petitioners first fault the CA for
affirming the RTC and the MeTC which ruled that the
subject warehouse and the land and area which it occupies rightfully belong to
respondent Belgravia, not Datalift,
for an implied new lease was created between PNR, the acknowledged owner of the
lot, and Sampaguita, Belgravia's
sister company, which, by virtue of a special arrangement, Sampaguita
allowed Belgravia to construct a warehouse on the
leased lot and sub-leased the same to Datalift.
At first glance, the petitioners'
argument may appear to have some merit, but it is still insufficient to warrant
a reversal of the CA decision.
Relative to the first argument, the
CA decision pertinently reads:
There is no definite showing that the lease contract between PNR and Sampaguita Brokerage, Inc. had been effectively terminated. As held by the court a quo: “(B)y PNR not taking a positive action to eject Sampaguita from the leased premises up to the present, again, there is a tacit renewal of the lease contract between PNR and Sampaguita.(Emphasis in the original.)
The Rules of Court already
sufficiently shields respondent Belgravia, as lessor, from being questioned by the petitioners as lessees,
regarding its title or better right of possession as lessor
because having admitted the existence of a lessor-lessee
relationship, the petitioners are barred from assailing Belgravia's
title of better right of possession as their lessor.
Section 2, Rule 131, of the Rules of
Court provides:
SEC. 2. Conclusive presumptions. -- The following are instances of conclusive presumptions:
(a) Whenever a party has, by his own declaration, act, or omission, intentionally and deliberately led another to believe a particular thing true, and to act upon such belief, he cannot, in any litigation arising out of such declaration, act or omission, be permitted to falsify it;
(b) The tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his landlord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord and tenant between them. (Underscoring ours.)
Conclusive presumptions have been
defined as “inferences which the law makes so peremptory that it will not allow
them to be overturned by any contrary proof however strong.”[7] As long as the lessor-lessee
relationship between the petitioners and
It was superfluous on the part of the
MeTC to rule on the source or validity of Belgravia's title or right of possession over the leased
premises as against the petitioners as lessees in this case. If at all,
The apparent error made
by the MeTC will, however, not affect the result of
the judgment rendered in this case.
In fact, the application of the rule on conclusive presumption under the
afore-quoted Section 2, Rule 131 strengthens the position
of the MeTC that the petitioners
may be validly ordered to vacate the leased premises for nonpayment of
rentals. Likewise, the logical consequence
of the operation of this conclusive presumption against the petitioners is that
they will never have the personality to question whether an implied new lease
was created between PNR and the respondents, because so long as there is no
showing that the lessor-lessee relationship has
terminated, the lessor’s title or better right of
possession as against the lessee will eternally be a non-issue in any
proceeding before any court.
Additionally, as correctly pointed out by the CA,
being non-privies to the contract of lease between PNR and respondent Sampaguita, the petitioners
have no personality to raise any factual or legal issue relating thereto.
Despite non-merit of petitioners'
arguments, and notwithstanding the petitioners' failure to assail the accuracy
of the dates when the increase of rental from P60,000.00
to P130,000.00 was effected, in the interest of justice, the Court shall
correct this plain error, and adjust the rental due in accordance with the
facts as borne by the evidence on record.
The Court readily noticed that the MeTC
decision erroneously reckoned the effective date of the increased rental of P130,000.00 from June 1994 instead of the correct date of
November 1994, which shall cause an overpayment of P100,000.00 by the petitioners. It is clear from the records that the rental
due and demandable, and which the petitioners already paid to respondent P60,000.00. It was only when Belgravia
drastically increased the monthly rental from P60,000.00 to P130,000.00,
effective November 1994, that the petitioners altogether stopped paying
rentals. Thus, the order to pay unpaid
rentals in the adjusted amount of P80,000.00
should be reckoned only from November
1994 until the time that the petitioners finally vacate the premises. There are
no unpaid differentials of P20,000.00/month due
from June 1994 to October 1994.
WHEREFORE, the assailed Decision of the CA is
hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the petitioners are
ordered to pay only the unpaid rentals from November 1994 in the amount of P80,000.00 until they vacate the leased premises.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
(ON LEAVE) RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
A
T T E S T A T I O N
I
attest that the conclusions in the above decision were reached in consultation
before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s
Division.
REYNATO
S . PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second Division
C
E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant
to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution, and the Division Chairperson's
Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above decision
were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court.
ARTEMIO
V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 195-196.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6] Penned by then (now ret.)
Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili; with then (now a member of this Court)
Associate Justice Angelina S. Gutierrez and with then (now ret.) Associate Justice Mercedes Gozo-Dadole, concurring;
[7] Mercado vs.