MANUEL MALLARI and MILLIE MALLARI, Petitioners,
petitioners still refused to %a#ate Stall No&
vs.
REBECCA ALSOL, Respondent.
The Antecedent Facts
(Stalls of a supermarket)Stalls
supermarket)Stalls No. 7 and 8 of the
Supermaret Section of the !a"anatuan !it# Pu"lic
$aret %ere a%arded to and occupied " # A"elardo
$allari (&A"elardo&), father of Manuel Mallari
(Manuel! and Re"e##a Alsol (&respondent&). 'efore
 A"elardos death on * +ul# 8*, he $a%e the stalls to
Manuel and respondent& $anuel
respondent& $anuel and his %ife $illie
$allari (&petitioners&) occupied Stall No. 7 %hile
respondent and her hus"and -acarias Alsol occupied
Stall No. 8.
respondents dauhter "ecame sic and the Alsol famil#
had to sta# in $anila for t%o months for the medical
treatment. The# returned onl# to find out that petitioners
%ere alread# occup#in Stall No. 8. Petitioners refused
respondents demand to vacate Stall No. 8.
Respondent souht the help of the !it# $aret
!ommittee /hich ranted Stall No. 7 to $anuel and Stall
No. 8 to respondent. 0n 1 +une 2, respondent and
the !it# 3overnment of !a"anatuan e4ecuted a !ontract
of 5ease. The 5ease !ontract ranted respondent the
riht to occup# Stall No. 8 for a monthl# rental.
'oe%er, petitioners
). 6nstead, the*
the* filed an a#tion for annulment of the
Lease Contra#t "efore the Re$ional +rial Court of
Ca"anatuan !it#,
!it#,.. 6t %as dismissed for none4haustion of 
administrative remedies and on the additional round that
the !ommittee is not the proper part# to the case.
respondent filed an a#tion for re#o%er* and
possession "efore the trial #ourt.
#ourt. the trial court
rendered 9udment in favor Alsol
Petitioners appealed the trial courts :ecision to the !ourt
of Appeals.
the !ourt of Appeals partl# ranted the appeal and
affirmed the trial courts :ecision %ith modification. The
!ourt of Appeals sustained respondents riht to occup#
Stall No. 8 "# virtue of the 5ease !ontract she entered
%ith the !it# 3overnment. ;o%ever, the !ourt of Appeals
deleted the a%ard of actual damaes amountin
to P8,222 in favor of respondent on the round that
there %as no sufficient proof of the loss. The !ourt of
 Appeals also deleted the a%ard of e4emplar#
e4emplar# damaes to
respondent amountin toP<2,222.
Petitioners moved for reconsideration "ut %as
denied.;ence, the petition "efore this !ourt.
The 6ssues
Petitioners raise the follo%in issues=
<. /hether the 5ease !ontract e4ecuted "et%een
respondent and the !it# 3overnment is valid.
>. /hether respondent is entitled to attorne#s
fees.
+he Rulin$ of +his Court
+he petition has no merit&
?alidit# of the 5ease !ontract
Petitioners also allee that the 5ease !ontract is not valid
"ecause $a#or Pere@ did not appear "efore the notar#
pu"lic %ho notari@ed the document.
/e cannot sustain this arument.
Notari@ation converts a private document into a pu"li c
document.< 'oe%er, the nonappearan#e of the
parties "efore the notar* pu"li# ho notari-ed the
do#ument does not ne#essaril* nullif* nor render the
parties. transa#tion %oid a" initio&> Thus=
4 4 4 Article >8 of the Ne% !ivil !ode on the necessit#
of a pu"lic do#ument is onl* for #on%enien#e, not for
%alidit* or enfor#ea"ilit*. /ailure to follo the proper
form does not in%alidate a #ontra#t& /here a contract
is not in the form prescri"ed "# la%, the parties #an
merel* #ompel ea#h other to o"ser%e that form, once
the contract has "een perfected. This is consistent %ith
the "asic principle that contracts are o"liator # in
%hatever form the# ma# have "een entered into,
provided all essential reuisites are present.1
;ence, the 5ease !ontract is valid despite $a#or Pere@s
failure to appear "efore the notar# pu"lic.