0 Bewertungen0% fanden dieses Dokument nützlich (0 Abstimmungen)
19 Ansichten4 Seiten
The defendant failed to pay rental fees for the leased property and did not request to renegotiate the lease prior to its expiration. Under the lease contract and civil code, the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the lease and judicially eject the defendant for non-payment of rent. Jurisprudence has also established that the plaintiff can claim reasonable compensation for the defendant's use and occupation of the property after the lease expired, as well as attorney's fees resulting from litigation to protect their rights. While the defendant claims their occupation was by tolerance, possession becomes illegal once a demand to vacate is made.
The defendant failed to pay rental fees for the leased property and did not request to renegotiate the lease prior to its expiration. Under the lease contract and civil code, the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the lease and judicially eject the defendant for non-payment of rent. Jurisprudence has also established that the plaintiff can claim reasonable compensation for the defendant's use and occupation of the property after the lease expired, as well as attorney's fees resulting from litigation to protect their rights. While the defendant claims their occupation was by tolerance, possession becomes illegal once a demand to vacate is made.
The defendant failed to pay rental fees for the leased property and did not request to renegotiate the lease prior to its expiration. Under the lease contract and civil code, the plaintiff is entitled to terminate the lease and judicially eject the defendant for non-payment of rent. Jurisprudence has also established that the plaintiff can claim reasonable compensation for the defendant's use and occupation of the property after the lease expired, as well as attorney's fees resulting from litigation to protect their rights. While the defendant claims their occupation was by tolerance, possession becomes illegal once a demand to vacate is made.
For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have
abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath. Holy 25:29
Bible,
Matthew
Issue No. 3: Whether or not plaintiff is entitled to the
claim of overdue rental fees, damages, attorneys fees and litigation expenses. In the case at bar, defendant failed to pay rental arrearages to plaintiff; and the Contract of Lease expired without any request from defendant for a renegotiation prior to its expiration. Failure to pay timely rentals is an event of default under the Contract of Lease, entitling the lessor to terminate the lease. Moreover, the failure of defendant to pay timely rentals entitles the lessor to judicially eject it under the provisions of the Civil Code. The records likewise show that the lease had already expired on ____________The pertinent provision of the Contract of Lease reads: If the rental herein stipulated, or any part thereof, at any time shall be unpaid, or if the tenant shall at any time fail or neglect to perform or comply with any of the covenants, conditions, agreements or restrictions stipulated, then and in any of such above cases, this Lease of Contract shall become automatically terminated and cancelled and the said premises shall be vacated peacefully by the LESSEE for the LESSOR to hold and enjoy henceforth as if these presents have not been made. In the case of Optima Realty Corporation vs. Hertz Phil. Exclusive cars, INC. G.R. No. 183035, the court held, that as to the award of monthly compensation, Hertz should pay adequate compensation to Optima, since the former continued to occupy the leased premises even after the expiration of the lease contract. As the lease price during the effectivity of the lease
contract was P54,200 per month, we find it to be a reasonable
award. Finally, we uphold the award of attorney's fees in the amount of P30,000 and judicial costs in the light of Hertz's unjustifiable and unlawful retention of the leased premises, thus forcing Optima to file the instant case in order to protect its rights and interest. In Santos vs. National Statistics Office G.R. No. 171129, the court ruled, that there is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. Article 22 of the Civil Code provides that every person who through an act of performance by another, or any other means, acquires or comes into possession of something at the expense of the latter without just or legal ground, shall return the same to him." Thus, in Benitez v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that, Damages are recoverable in ejectment cases under Section 17, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. These damages arise from the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which private respondents may have suffered but which have no direct relation to their loss of material possession. Damages in the context of Section 17, Rule 70 is limited to "rent" or "fair market value" for the use and occupation of the property. Section 17, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court states, If after trial court finds that the allegations of the complaint are true, it shall render judgment in favor of the plaintiff for the restitution of the premises, the sum justly due as arrears of rent or as reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the premises, attorney's fees and costs. If a counterclaim is established, the court shall render judgment for the sum found in arrears from either party and award costs as justice requires. In Antioqua Development Corporation vs. Rabacal GR. No. 148843, the court sustained the RTC's grant of attorney's fees in
favor of petitioners who were constrained to litigate to protect
their interest due to the unwarranted refusal of the defendants to vacate and surrender possession of the premises in question. There is no doubt whatsoever that it is within the MTC's competence and jurisdiction to award attorney's fees and costs in an ejectment case in accordance with Section 17, Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended. Also the 2006 case of Dumo v. Espinas GR. No. 14196, reiterates the long-established rule that the only form of damages that may be recovered in an action for forcible entry is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. In MTC, the only damage that can be recovered is the fair rental value or the reasonable compensation for the use and occupation of the property. Considering that the only issue raised in unlawful detainer is that of rightful possession, damages which could be recovered are those which the plaintiff could have sustained as a mere possessor, or those caused by the loss of the use and occupation of the property, and not the damages which he may have suffered but which have no direct relation to his loss of material possession. There is no question that a court may, whenever it deems just and equitable, allow the recovery by the prevailing party of attorneys fees. In determining the reasonableness of such fees, the case of Dela Rosa vs. Roldan GR. No. 133882, has provided various criteria which, for convenient guidance, thusly: a) the quantity and character of the services rendered; b) the labor, time and trouble involved; c) the nature and importance of the litigation; d) the amount of money or the value of the property affected by the controversy; e) the novelty and difficulty of questions involved; f) the responsibility imposed on counsel; g) the skill and experience called for in the performance of the service; h) the professional character and social standing of the lawyer; i) the customary charges of the bar for similar services; j) the character of employment, whether casual or for established client; k) whether the fee is absolute or contingent (it being the rule that an attorney may properly charge a higher fee when it is contingent than when it is absolute; and l) the results secured.
In view thereof, the awarding of attorneys fees would be
justified. That is, in addition to the provisions of Article 2208 of the New Civil Code which reads In the absence of stipulation, attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, other than judicial costs, cannot be recovered, except: (2) When the defendants act or omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his interest; considering that defendant refused to vacate the subject premises despite demands by plaintiff.
As to the allegation of tolerance since demand to vacate was
served days after: The contention of defendant that there has been occupation by tolerance is without merit. Where the possession of defendant is by tolerance on the part of the plaintiff, or his predecessor, the possession or detainer becomes illegal from the time that there is a demand to vacate (Amis vs. Aragon, L-4684, April 28, 1951).