huibonhoa vs. ca

8/18/2019 Huibonhoa vs. CA

1/17

[G.R. No. 95897. December 14, 1999]

FLORENCIA T. HUIONHOA, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF A!!EAL", "#o$%e% R$&'( G. L)m ('* ANTHON+ LI, LORETA GO-OCCOCHUA ('* "#o$%e% "EERINO ('* !RI"CILLA GO-OCCO, respondents.

[G.R. No. 1/0/4. December 14, 1999]

"EERINO GO-OCCO ('* LORETA GO-OCCO CHUA, petitioners,

vs.

COURT OF A!!EAL", HON. HEROGENE" R. LI2AG, (% -$*3e o 6e RTC o (')(r('c6 55 ('* FLORENCIA HUIONHOA, respondents.

!URI"IA , J.:

These two Petitions for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seek thereversal of the Decisions of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV o. !"5#5 and CA-G.R. $P o.%4"54 which a&r'ed( respectivel)( the decision of *ranch !4+ of the Re,ional Trial Court of akati Cit)( dis'issin, the co'plaint for refor'ation of contract( and the decision of *ranch55 of the Re,ional Trial Court of anila( reversin, that of *ranch ! of the etropolitan TrialCourt of anila( which favora/l) acted in the e0ect'ent case. *oth petitions involve thesa'e parties.

Culled fro' the records on hand( the facts ,ivin, rise to the two cases are as follows1

2n 3une +( !+( lorencia T. 6ui/onhoa entered into a 'e'orandu' of a,ree'ent withsi/lin,s Ru7na Go0occo 8i'( $everino Go0occo and 8oreta Go0occo Chua stipulatin, thatlorencia T. 6ui/onhoa would lease fro' the' 9Go0occos: three 9: ad0acent co''ercial lotsat ;la)a $treet( *inondo( anila( descri/ed as lot nos. %"-A( %"-* and %"-C( covered /)

Transfer Certi7cates of Title os. #"


2/17

5. Good will one) and Rate of onthl) Rental1 @pon the si,nin, of this Contract of 8ease(8=$$== shall pa) to each of the 8=$$2R the su' ofP


3/17

would accrue. Thus( accordin, to 6ui/onhoa( the 7rst rent would have /een due onl) in2cto/er !+4. oreover( the assassination of for'er $enator *eni,no Auino( 3r.( anunforeseen event( caused the countr)s econo') to turn fro' /ad to worse and as a result(the prices of co''odities like construction 'aterials so increased that the /uildin, worth$i? illion pesos escalated to Fso'ethin, like !! to !% 'illion pesos. 6owever( she averredthat /) reason of 'istake or accident( the lease contract failed to provide that should an

unforeseen event dra'aticall) increase the cost of construction( the 'onthl) rental would/e reduced and the ter' of the lease would /e e?tended for such duration as 'a) /e fairand euita/le to /oth the lessors and the lessee.

6ui/onhoa then pra)ed that the contract of lease /e refor'ed so as to reect the trueintention of the partiesB that its ter's /e novated so that the accrual of rents should /eco'puted fro' 2cto/er !+4B that the 'onthl) rent of P45(


4/17

The Go0occos pra)ed that 6ui/onhoa /e ordered to pa) the' the su' of P45(


5/17

@pon 'otion of the Go0occo( the trial court a'ended the dispositive portion of itsaforesaid decision in that 6ui/onhua was ordered to pa) each of 8oretta Go0occo Chua and$everino Go0occo the a'ount of P54


6/17

ordered 6ui/onhoa to vacate the lots owned /) $everino Go0occo and 8oreta Go0occo Chuaand to pa) each of the' the a'ounts P5(


7/17

9%: lack of 0urisdiction over the su/0ect 'atter 9Rule ( sec. %:. These ,rounds can /e invokedan) ti'e. oreover( in this case it was not reall) private respondent who uestioned the

0urisdiction over the etropolitan Trial Court. ;t was the Re,ional Trial Court which did so'otu propio.

2n e/ruar) !( !%( the Court resolved that these two petitions for review

on certiorari /e consolidated. Althou,h the) spran, fro' the sa'e factual 'ilieu( thepetitions are to /e discussed separatel)( however( /ecause the issues raised are co,nate )etindependent fro' each other.

I' G.R. No. 95897

Petitioner 6ui/onhoa contends that1

!. T6= R=$P2D=T C2@RT 2 APP=A8$ C2;TT=D A GRAV= AD $=R;2@$ =RR2R(C2$T;T@T;G A*@$= 2 D;$CR=T;2( ; ;D;G T6= AGR===T *=TH==P=T;T;2=R AD PR;VAT= R=$P2D=T $=V=R;2 G232CC2 9A=J =:H2RT68=$$ AD @$=8=$$ A8T62@G6 ;T 6A$ R=C2G;K=D T6= PAL=T$ H6;C6R=$P2D=T $=V=R;2 G232CC2 6A$ R=C=;V=D R2 T6= P=T;T;2=R H6;C6ACT@A88L C2$T;T@T=D A ACT 2 RAT;;CAT;2B

%. T6= R=$P2D=T C2@RT A;8=D T2 C2$;D=R T6= TRAG;C A$$A$$;AT;2 22R=R $=AT2R *=;G2 AM@;2 A$ A 2RT@;T2@$ =V=T 2R FORCEMAJEURE H6;C6 3@$T;;=$ T6= AD3@$T=T 2 T6= T=R$ 2 T6= C2TRACT 28=A$=.

Article !


8/17

accident( one of the parties 'a) ask for the refor'ation of the instru'ent to the end thatsuch intention 'a) /e e?pressed. ???. An action for refor'ation of instru'ent under thisprovision of law 'a) prosper onl) upon the concurrence of the followin, reuisites1 9!: there'ust have /een a 'eetin, of the 'inds of the parties to the contactB 9%: the instru'entdoes not e?press the true intention of the partiesB and 9: the failure of the instru'ent toe?press the true intention of the parties is due to 'istake( fraud( ineuita/le conduct or

accident. The 'eetin, of the 'inds /etween 6ui/onhoa( on the one hand( and the Go0occos( on

the other( is 'anifest in the written lease contract dul) e?ecuted /) the'. The success of the action for refor'ation of the contract of lease at /ar should therefore( depend on thepresence of the two other reuisites afore'entioned.

To prove that the lease contract does not evince the true intention of the parties(speci7call) as re,ards the ti'e when 6ui/onhoa should start pa)in, rents( she presented asa witness one of the lessors( Ru7na G. 8i'( who testi7ed that prior to the e?ecution of thelease contract on 3une


9/17

;n the co'plaint( 6ui/onhoa alle,ed1

5. *) reason of 'istake or accident( the contract 9Anne? A: fails to state the true intentionand real a,ree'ent of the parties to the eEect that in case so'e unforeseen event shoulddra'aticall) increase the cost of the /uildin,( then the a'ount of 'onthl) rent shall /ereduced to such su' and the ter' of the lease e?tended for such duration as 'a) /e fair

and euita/le to /oth parties( /earin, in 'ind the actual construction cost of the /uildin,.

5.!


10/17

stipulations that are not e?tant in the lease contract itself lest the ver) a,ree'ent e'/odiedin the instru'ent is altered.

either does the Court 7nd 'erit in her su/'ission that the assassination of the late$enator *eni,no Auino( 3r. was a fortuitous event that 0usti7ed a 'odi7cation of the ter'sof the lease contract.

A fortuitous event is that which could not /e foreseen( or which even if foreseen( wasinevita/le. To e?e'pt the o/li,or fro' lia/ilit) for a /reach of an o/li,ation due to an act of God( the followin, reuisites 'ust concur1 9a: the cause of the /reach of the o/li,ation 'ust/e independent of the will of the de/torB 9/: the event 'ust /e either unforeseea/le orunavoida/leB 9c: the event 'ust /e such as to render it i'possi/le for the de/tor to ful7ll hiso/li,ation in a nor'al 'annerB and 9d: the de/tor 'ust /e free fro' an) participation in( ora,,ravation of the in0ur) to the creditor.

;n the case under scrutin)( the assassination of $enator Auino 'a) indeed /econsidered a fortuitous event. 6owever( the said incident per se could not have caused thedela) in the construction of the /uildin,. Hhat 'i,ht have caused the dela) was theresultin, escalation of prices of co''odities includin, construction 'aterials. *e that as it'a)( there is no 'erit in 6ui/onhoas ar,u'ent that the ination /orne /) the ilipinos in!+ 0usti7ed the dela)ed accrual of 'onthl) rental( the reduction of its a'ount and the

e?tension of the lease /) three 9: )ears.

;nation is the sharp increase of 'one) or credit or /oth without a correspondin,increase in /usiness transaction. There is ination when there is an increase in the volu'e of 'one) and credit relative to availa/le ,oods resultin, in a su/stantial and continuin, rise inthe ,eneral price level. Hhile it is of 0udicial notice that there has /een a decline in thepurchasin, power of the Philippine peso( this downward fall of the currenc) cannot /econsidered unforeseea/le considerin, that since the !#


11/17

hands. $o'e workers tried to /eat the constantl) risin, prices /) throwin, their 'one) outof the windows to their waitin, wives( who would rush to unload the nearl) worthlesspaper. A posta,e sta'p cost 'illions of 'arks and a loaf of /read( /illions. 9$idne) Rut/er,(

The one) *alloon ew Lork1 $i'on and $chuster( !#5( p. !( cited in =cono'ics( An;ntroduction /) Ville,as O A/ola( rd =d.:

o decrease in the peso value of such 'a,nitude havin, occurred( 6ui/onhoa has novalid ,round to ask this Court to intervene and 'odif) the lease a,ree'ent to suit herpurpose. As it is( 6ui/onhoa even failed to prove /) evidence( docu'entar) or testi'onial(that there was an e?traordinar) ination fro' 3ul) !+ to e/ruar) !+4. Althou,h sherepeatedl) alle,ed that the cost of constructin, the /uildin, dou/led fro' P" 'illion to P!%'illion( she failed to show /) how 'uch( for instance( the price inde? of ,oods and serviceshad risen durin, that intervenin, period. An e?traordinar) ination cannot /eassu'ed. 6ence( for 6ui/onhoa to clai' e?e'ption fro' lia/ilit) /) reason of fortuitousevent under Art. !!#4 of the Civil Code( she 'ust prove that ination was the sole andpro?i'ate cause of the loss or destruction of the contract or( in this case( of the dela) in theconstruction of the /uildin,. 6avin, failed to do so( 6ui/onhoas contention is untena/le.

Patheticall)( if indeed a fortuitous event deterred the ti'el) ful7ll'ent of 6ui/onhoaso/li,ation under the lease contract( she chose the wron, re'ed) in 7lin, the case for

refor'ation of the contract. ;nstead( she should have availed of the re'ed) of recission of contract in order that the court could release her fro' perfor'in, her o/li,ation under Arts.!%"" and !%"# of the Civil Code( so that the parties could /e restored to their status prior tothe e?ecution of the lease contract.

As re,ards 6ui/onhoas assertion that the lease contract was novated /) Ru7na G. 8i'and $everino Go0occo who entered into an a,ree'ent with her on 3anuar) !( !+5 and 3ul)%!( !+"( respectivel)( it /ears stressin, that the lease contract the) had entered into is nota si'ple one. ;t is uniue in that while there is onl) one lessee( 6ui/onhoa( and the contractrefers to a 8=$$2R( there are actuall) three lessors with separate certi7cates of title over thethree lots on which 6ui/onhoa constructed the 4-store) /uildin,. As 6ui/onhoa herself ironicall) asserts( the lease contract is an indivisi/le one /ecause the lessors interestscannot /e separated even if the) owned the lands separatel) under diEerent certi7cates of

title. 6ence( the acts of Ru7na G. 8i' and $everino Go0occo in enterin, into the newa,ree'ent with 6ui/onhoa could have aEected onl) their individual ri,hts as lessors/ecause no new a,ree'ent was for,ed /etween 6ui/onhoa and all the lessors( includin,8oreta Go0occo.

Conseuentl)( /ecause the three lot owners si'ultaneousl) entered into the leasecontract with 6ui/onhoa( novation of the contract could onl) /e eEected /) theirsi'ultaneous act of a/ro,atin, the ori,inal contract and at the sa'e ti'e for,in, a new onein writin,. Althou,h as a rule no for' of words or writin, is necessar) to ,ive eEect to anovation( a written a,ree'ent si,ned /) all the parties to the lease contract is reuired inthis case. 2rdinar) dili,ence on the part of the parties de'anded that the) e?ecute awritten a,ree'ent if indeed the) wanted to enter into a new one /ecause of the !5-)ear lifespan of the lease aEectin, real propert) and the fact that third persons would /e aEectedthere/) on account of the e?press a,ree'ent allowin, the lessee to lease the /uildin, to

third parties.

@nder the law( novation is never presu'ed. The parties to a contract 'ust e?pressl)a,ree that the) are a/ro,atin, their old contract in favor of a new one. Accordin,l)( it washeld that no novation of a contract had occurred when the new a,ree'ent entered into/etween the parties was intended to ,ive life to the old one. Givin, life to the contract wasthe ver) purpose for which Ru7na G. 8i' si,ned the a,ree'ent on 3anuar) !( !+" with6ui/onhoa. ;t was intended to ,raft into the lease contract provisions that would facilitateful7ll'ent of 6ui/onhoas o/li,ation therein. That the new a,ree'ent was 'eant to


12/17

stren,then the enforcea/ilit) of the lease is further evidenced /) the fact( althou,h itsstipulations as to the period of the lease and as to the a'ount of rental were altered( thea,ree'ent with Ru7na G. 8i' does not even hint that the lease itself would /e a/ro,ated. Assuch( even 6ui/onhoas a,ree'ent with Ru7na G. 8i' cannot /e considered a novation of the ori,inal lease contract. Hhere the parties to the new o/li,ation e?pressl) reco,nie thecontinuin, e?istence and validit) of the old one( where( in other words( the parties e?pressl)

ne,ated the lapsin, of the old o/li,ation( there can /e no novation.As re,ards the new a,ree'ent with $everino Go0occo( it should /e noted that he onl)

disclai'ed its e?istence when the check issued /) 6ui/onhoa to hi'( alle,edl) inaccordance with the new a,ree'ent( was dishonored. That unfortunate fact 'i,ht have led$everino Go0occo to refuse acceptance of rents paid /) 6ui/onhoa su/seuent to thedishonor of the check. 6owever( the non-e?istence of the new a,ree'ent with $everinoGo0occo is a uestion of fact that the courts /elow had properl) deter'ined. The Court of Appeals has a&r'ed the trial courts 7ndin, that not onl) was Go0occos consent vitiated /)fraud and false representation there likewise was failure of consideration in the e?ecution of =?hi/it C( 9and therefore: the said a,ree'ent is le,all) ine&cacious. ;n the Resolution of 2cto/er !+( !


13/17

a valid co'pro'ise( the court dee's the sa'e to /e su&cient reasons in law for alterin, theter's of the contract. This court once said1

;t is a lon, esta/lished doctrine that the law does not relieve a part) fro' the eEects of anunwise( foolish( or disastrous contract( entered into with all the reuired for'alities and withfull awareness of what he was doin,. Courts have no power to relieve parties fro'

o/li,ations voluntaril) assu'ed( si'pl) /ecause their contracts turned out to /e disastrousdeals or unwise invest'ents.

I' G.R. No. 1/0/4

Petitioners $everino Go0occo and 8oreta G. Chua assail the Decision of the Court of Appeals on the followin, ,roundsB

a: R=$P2D=T C2@RT 6A$ D=C;D=D M@=$T;2$ 2 $@*$TAC= 2T 6=R=T22R=D=T=R;=D *L T6;$ 622RA*8= C2@RT 2R 6A$ D=C;D=D T6= ; A HAL C8=AR8LC2TRARL T2 8AH 2R T6= APP8;CA*8= D=C;$;2$ 2 T6;$ 622RA*8= C2@RTB

/: R=$P2D=T C2@RT 6A$ $2 AR D=PART=D R2 T6= ACC=PT=D AD @$@A8C2@R$= 2 3@D;C;A8 PR2C==D;G$ A$ T2 CA88 2R A =J=RC;$= 2 T6= P2H=R$2 $@P=RV;$;2 *L T6= 622RA*8= C2@RT.

The contentions of petitioners relate to the /asic issue raised in the petition - whether ornot the Court of Appeals erred in a&r'in, the decision of the Re,ional Trial Court thatdis'issed for lack of 0urisdiction the co'plaint for e0ect'ent /rou,ht /) petitioners /eforethe etropolitan Trial Court of anila. ;n other words( the issue for deter'ination hereis1 whether or not the etropolitan Trial Court had 0urisdiction over the co'plaint forcancellation of lease( e0ect'ent and collection in Civil Case o.


14/17

to resolve the uestion of possession. Thus( all that the court 'a) do( is to 'ake an initialdeter'ination of who is the owner of the propert) so that it can resolve who is entitled to itspossession a/sent other evidence to resolve the latter. *ut such deter'ination of ownershipis not clothed with 7nalit). either will it aEect ownership of the propert) nor constitute a/indin, and conclusive ad0udication on the 'erits with respect to the issue of ownership. ? ??.

The Court has consistentl) held that in forci/le entr) and unlawful detainer cases( 0urisdiction is deter'ined /) the nature of the action as pleaded in the co'plaint. The test of the su&cienc) of the facts alle,ed in the co'plaint is whether or not ad'ittin, the factsalle,ed therein( the court could render a valid 0ud,'ent upon the sa'e in accordance withthe pra)er of the plaintiE.

;n an e0ect'ent case( or speci7call) in an action for unlawful detainer like the presentcase( it su&ces to alle,e that the defendant is unlawfull) withholdin, possession of thepropert) in uestion. A co'plaint for unlawful detainer is therefore su&cient if it alle,es thatthe withholdin, of possession or the refusal to vacate is unlawful without necessaril)e'plo)in, the ter'inolo,) of the law. ;t is therefore in order to 'ake an inuir) into theaver'ents of the co'plaint in Civil Case o.


15/17

. Defendant did not utilie her own capital in the construction of the /uildin, asshe was a/le to 'ort,a,e the lots to the China *ankin, Corporation in the totala'ount of P(#


16/17

written de'ands to pa) rental arreara,es and to vacate the leased pre'ises( continuedrefusal of the lessees to surrender possession of the pre'ises( and the fact that the actionwas 7led within one )ear fro' de'and to vacate.

A readin, of the alle,ations of the co'plaint and the reliefs pra)ed for indeed revealsfacts that appear to /e e?traneous to the pri'ar) ai' of recoverin, possession of propert)in an action for unlawful detainer althou,h these facts do not involve issue of ownership of

the pre'ises. Thus( consonant with the alle,ation that defendant was leasin, the spaces inthe /uildin, to the tune of 'illions of peso( plaintiEs pra) for an increase in 'onthl) rentalsto P"


17/17

would /e /ound /) her a,ree'ent with Ru7na G. 8i' to continue with the lease. The resultwould /e disadvanta,eous to /oth 6ui/onhoa and $everino Go0occo and 8oreta G. Chua. Thesaid owners would /e una/le to e?ercise ri,hts of ownership over their lots upon which the/uildin, was constructed unless the) re'ove or /u) two-thirds of the /uildin,.

6owever( an action for unlawful detainer does not preclude the lessee or e0ected part)fro' availin, of other re'edies provided /) law. The prevailin, doctrine is that suits or

actions for the annul'ent of sale( title or docu'ent do not a/ate an) e0ect'ent actionrespectin, the sa'e propert). ;n fact( in this case( the lessee( as it was( 0u'ped the ,unover the lessors in 7lin, the action for refor'ation of the lease contract. That it provedunfavora/le to her does not detract fro' the fact that the controvers) /etween her and thelessors has /een resolved in accordance with law al/eit not in consonance with the wishes of all the parties.

*e that as it 'a)( the pro/le' of e0ectin, 6ui/onhoa has /een rendered 'oot andacade'ic /) the e?piration of the lease contract liti,ated upon in 3une !+. The parties'i,ht have availed of the provision of para,raph ! of the lease contract where/) the partiesa,reed to renew it for a si'ilar or shorter period upon ter's and conditions 'utuall)a,reea/le to the'. ;f the) opted to /rush aside that provision( with 'ore reason(6ui/onhoas eviction should ensue as a 'atter of enforce'ent of the lease contract.

2HEREFORE( 0ud,'ent is here/) rendered as follows1

a.: ;n G.R. No. 95897( the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV o. !"5#5(dis'issin, petitioners co'plaint for refor'ation of contract( is AFFIRED with the'odi7cations that1

!Q Private respondent 8oreta Go0occo Chua is ad0ud,ed entitled to le,al interest of " perannu' fro' arch( !+4( the ti'e the rents /eca'e dueB

%Q Private respondent $everino Go0occo shall receive " le,al interest onl) fro' the ti'elorencia T. 6ui/onhoa defaulted in the pa)'ent of her 'onthl) rentsB and

Q 8e,al interest of !% per annu' shall accrue fro' the 7nalit) of this decision until thea'ount due is full) paid.

/: ;n G.R. No. 1/0/4( the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. $P o. %4"54(a&r'in, the decision of the Re,ional Trial Court of ori,in which dis'issed the e0ect'entcase instituted /) the petitioners a,ainst the private respondent is "ET A"IDEB the order of e0ect'ent issued /) the etropolitan Trial Court a uo on 3ul)

huibonhoa vs. ca

Documents