Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Army Navy Club v Court of Appeals GR 110223 April 8, 1997


On January 1983 petitioner and herein respondent entered into a contract of lease for a
parcel of land with an area of 12,705.30 sq. m. located at South Boulevard corner Manila Bay,
Manila. According to the contract agreed upon by both parties, herein petitioner should
construct a hotel on the land that was leased upon, wherein such construction should
commence within one year and should be completed within five years upon the turnover of the
property. Such improvements made upon the property should be turned over to the
respondent after the lease contract expires. Petitioner should also pay the respondent a sum
total of 250,000 Php annually, that would be equally divided to twelve months, such sum
should be paid to respondent within the first five days of each month without demand. Parties
also agreed to an increase of up to ten percent of the rent for every two years. Petitioner also
agreed to pay for the realty taxes that would be imposed upon the land and its would be
improvements and other necessary fees that would be incurred. Petitioner however failed to
construct a hotel on the land that was leased from petitioner and a building was built instead
which eventually became the known building of the Army Navy Club. Consequently herein
petitioner failed to settle the rent that was agreed upon, along with the realty taxes imposed
upon the land and its improvements from 1983 up to May 1989. Such rental fees has already
totaled to an amount of 1,604,166.70, while the tax liabilities has already reached
3,818,913.81. However, on June 29, 1992 the National Historical Commission the Army and
Navy Club as a historical landmark. Thus an ejectment case was filed with the MTC of Manila
which ruled in favor of herein respondent. Petitioner eventually filed for an appeal with the RTC
of Manila which consequently affirmed the decision of the MTC. Herein petitioner then filed an
appeal with the CA, herein respondent court also affirmed the decision of the MTC and RTC of


WoN the herein respondent courts erred in not recognizing the declaration of the disputed
property as a historical landmark by the National Historical Commission in granting the
ejectment suit fled by the respondent.



The court ruled that such recognition does not grant the petitioner a claim of ownership
over the land. For there is no law which states that such recognition awards possessory rights
over to the petitioner. The law merely states that it shall be the policy of state to preserve and
protect the important cultural properties and National Cultural Treasures of the nation and to
safeguard their intrinsic value.