Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND
DIVISION
|
MARIA Z. KHO, Petitioner, - versus - FEDERICO BIRON,
SR., Respondent. |
|
G.R. No. 137171 Present: PUNO, J.,
Chairperson, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, AZCUNA, and GARCIA, JJ. Promulgated: |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x
D
E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
By this petition for review on
certiorari, petitioner Maria Z. Kho seeks the reversal of the October 16, 1998
Decision[1] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV
No. 44614, as reiterated in its Resolution[2] of
January 6, 1999, affirming an earlier decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC)
of Bacolod City in an action for Specific
Performance, Refund of Overpayment of Rentals and Damages thereat commenced
by the petitioner against the herein respondent, Federico Biron, Sr.
The facts:
On
xxx xxx xxx
That the lessor offer (sic) to lease
and the lessee agrees to lease a portion of the above-described parcel of land
consisting of approximately THIRTY (30) hectares, as designated on the plan
hereto attached and marked as Annex “A” and made an integral part of this
contract;
That for and in consideration of the
foregoing premises and of the terms conditions and covenants hereinbelow setforth,
the lessor, by these presents, leases and demises unto and in favor of the
lessee, the thirty (30) hectares portion of the above-described parcel of land,
primarily consisting of fishponds, subject to the following -
TERMS AND CONDITIONS;
1. This lease shall cover the period of
seven (7) years starting
2. The lessee shall pay to the lessor an
annual rental of One Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00),
Philippine Currency, to be paid as follows:
a) The rentals due for the first two (2)
years of the lease period from January 1, 1985 to December 31, amounting to Two
Hundred Forty Thousand Pesos (P240,000.00), Philippine Currency, shall
be paid as follows:
1. The sum of Sixty Thousand Pesos (P60,000.00)
upon the signing of this contract of lease;
2. The sum of Sixty Thousand Pesos only (P60,000.00)
on or before
3. The sum of One Hundred Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P120,000.00) on or before
b. The rental due for the third year of
the lease period from P120,000.00), Philippine
Currency, shall be payable on or before
c. Thereafter, the yearly rental of One
Hundred Twenty Thousand Pesos (P120,000.00), Philippine Currency, shall
be payable on or before the 31st day of January of every year thereafter
beginning
On June 26, 1989, or after more than four
years through the contract of lease, petitioner filed with the RTC of Bacolod
City a complaint against respondent for Specific
Performance, Refund of Overpayment of Rentals and Damages, therein alleging
that sometime in May 1987, she (petitioner) discovered through a geodetic
survey that respondent short-delivered the area of 30 hectares as provided in
the lease agreement. She claimed that respondent turned over only approximately
23.26 hectares, not 30 hectares. She demanded
the delivery to her of the remaining 6.74 hectares and the refund of the alleged
overpaid amount of P106,240.00 for the undelivered 6.74 hectares, but
respondent failed to heed her demands.
In his answer, respondent averred, among
other matters, that petitioner had no cause of action against him; petitioner
was guilty of laches; and there were other terms and conditions agreed upon by
the parties after the execution of the lease contract on P120,000.00 annually, not for P4,000.00 per
hectare, as claimed by petitioner. Respondent added that since the area of Lot No.
738-B-9, which was actually devoted to fishpond, was only 17 hectares, he gave
petitioner sufficient time to improve and convert into fishpond the vacant portion
of Lot No. 738-B-9, consisting of 11 hectares, into a fishpond, adding that
although the contract of lease was entered on May 17, 1984, it took effect only
on January 1, 1986 upon agreement of the parties. Explaining the change in the
effective date of the agreement, respondent averred that sometime in November
1984, petitioner discovered his (respondent’s) ownership of the adjoining lot, Lot No. 298-B, of which 9,566 hectares were
already devoted to fishpond. According
to respondent, petitioner suggested that instead of developing the undeveloped portion
of Lot No. 738-B-9 into a fishpond, she (petitioner) would just exchange the
undeveloped area thereof with the adjoining area already developed, to which respondent,
out of his good relationship with the petitioner, agreed. Respondent maintained
that petitioner also developed .3119 hectares of his other adjoining lot, Lot No. 297-B, into a fishpond and that
since 1985 to 1989, petitioner had been occupying Lot No. 738-B-9, consisting
of 18.75 hectares of developed fishpond, and Lot No. 298-B, consisting of .3119 hectares, or approximately in
the total area of 30 hectares.
Respondent also claimed that sometime in March 1988, petitioner went to his
house requesting that the lease contract be extended by five (5) years, but he did
not agree. Thereafter, petitioner made repeated visits reiterating said request
but all to no avail. His refusal to give in to petitioner’s plea must have been
the reason why it was only sometime in
May 1988 when petitioner complained for the first time that the area delivered
to her was less than 30 hectares and paid only P100,000.00, instead of P120,000.00,
as provided in the lease contract.
In a decision, dated
WHEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING CONSIDERATION, the Court hereby renders judgment in favor of the defendant [now respondent] Federico Biron, Sr. and against the plaintiff [now petitioner] Maria Kho as follows:
1. Ordering the dismissal of the complaint and rescission of the contract of lease;
2. Ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the
sum of P60,000.00 representing the unpaid rentals due defendant for the years 1989,
1990 and 1991, plus 12% interest per annum until the amount is fully paid;
3. Ordering plaintiff to pay defendant the
sum of P30,000.00 by way of moral damages; P10,000,00 by way of
exemplary damages; and the amount of P30,000.000 by way of attorney’s
fees, plus appearance fee of P1,000.00 to be account (sic) thereafter
and finally to pay the cost of this proceeding.
SO ORDERED. (Words in brackets added).
In time, petitioner went to the CA whereat her appellate recourse was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 44614.
In the herein assailed decision dated
Hence,
petitioner’s present recourse.
In the main, petitioner
contends that the CA committed reversible error when it upheld the factual findings
of the trial court despite the manifest violation and non-compliance by the
respondent of the terms and conditions of the parties’ lease agreement.
The Court
reiterates the oft-stated doctrine that factual findings of the CA, affirming
those of the trial court, are binding on this Court unless there is a clear
showing that such findings are tainted with arbitrariness, capriciousness or
palpable error.[3]
We find none in this case.
Admittedly, the two (2) courts below uniformly declared that the area occupied by petitioner is, indeed, short of the thirty (30) hectares agreed upon in the lease contract. However, as both courts noted, petitioner exerted no effort to refute, in any manner, respondent’s allegation that there exist other terms agreed upon by the parties after the execution of the subject contract of lease, not the least of which are those relating to petitioner’s occupancy of the developed portions of respondent’s Lot No. 297-B and Lot No. 298-B. Such other terms are deemed admitted inasmuch as petitioner failed and, in fact, did not even attempt to rebut the same. Qui non negat, fatetur.[4]
As mandated by the
Rules of Court, each party must prove his own affirmative allegation by
presenting such quantum of evidence required by law to obtain a favorable
judgment.
Sadly, petitioner failed
to discharge her burden. As it were, her basic claim that respondent
short-delivered the area of 30 hectares remains to be a mere claim, devoid of
any evidentiary mooring. She failed to dispute the fact that she and respondent
agreed on subsequent terms and conditions which took effect before she
commenced paying the lease rental for the year 1985. To the mind of the Court, circumstances abound
which cast doubt on petitioner’s allegations. Immediately after the parties entered
into the contract of lease, petitioner took over the portion of Lot No. 738-B-9
and made improvements on approximately 17 hectares thereof. Petitioner entered
two (2) other adjoining lots of the respondent not mentioned in the contract of
lease, namely, Lot No. 298-B and
To be sure,
petitioner has not come to court with
clean hands. She should be the last person to file a suit for specific
performance to compel respondent to deliver what was stipulated in their
lease agreement inasmuch as she was the one who sought the modification
thereof. In fact, she had not disputed that she
herself approached respondent several times asking the latter to allow her to
occupy Lots No. 297-B and No. 298-B, which are already developed, instead of
the undeveloped portion of Lot No. 738-B-9 because it would be more expensive for
her to convert said undeveloped portion into a fishpond. We are inclined to
think that the area which respondent intended for petitioner to lease was a
much bigger area than what petitioner ended up occupying.
Moreover, petitioner was the first to
violate the terms and conditions of the contract when she paid the initial down
payment on installment even as the contract itself called for the payment thereof in cash. Further, the contract
clearly provides for an annual rent of P120,000.00. Indeed, from 1985 to 1988, petitioner paid said
amount in full. However, from 1989 until 1991, in violation of the lease contract,
petitioner paid only P100,000.00 annually for the lease of respondent’s property.
All told, this Court is more inclined to
give credit to respondent’s account on how it came to be that petitioner was in
possession of an area less than that agreed upon in the contract of lease
originally entered into by the parties.
WHEREFORE,
the petition is DENIED and the
assailed decision and resolution of the CA are AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Associate Justice
Chairperson
|
ANGELINA SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice |
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] Penned by Associate Justice Ramon Mabutas, Jr. (ret.), with Associate Justices Hilarion L. Aquino (ret.) and Martin S. Villarama, concurring; Rollo, pp. 24-25.
[2] Rollo, p. 40.
[3] Maximino Fuentes v. Court of Appeals, Thirteenth Division, and Virgilio
Uy, Brigido Saguindang, Leoncio Caligang, et al., G.R. No. 109849,
[4] He who fails to deny, admits.