Case No.
Datalift Movers Inc. Vs Belgravia Reality and Development
Facts: This case involves a warehouse used by petitioner Datalift for its
cargo in connection with its brokerage business. The warehouse
stands on a 3,967 square meter lot owned by the Philippine
National Railways located in Manila. In 1987, the PNR leased out
the lot to Sampaguita, pursuant to a one (1) year contract and a
monthly rental of P6, 282.49, subject to ten percent every year.
Eventually, Sampaguita entered into a special arrangement with its
sister company, Belgravia, whereby the latter would put up on the
lot a warehouse for its own use, and true enough Belgravia did put
up a warehouse. However, instead of using the said warehouse for
itself, Belgravia sublet it to petitioner Datalift, pursuant to a 1 year-
written contract of lease subject to extension upon mutual
agreement by the parties, that Datalift shall pay Belgravia a
monthly rental of P40,000. Consequently, Belgravia increased the
monthly rental to P60, 000, and again increased to P130, 000. Thus,
Datalift stopped paying its monthly rental for the warehouse.
Thereafter, Sampaguita addressed demand letters to Datalift
asking the latter to pay its rental in appears in the amount of
P4,120,000 and to vacate, and surrender the warehouse in dispute.
The demands having proved futile. Belgravia filed a complaint for
ejectment against Datalift. Conversely, Datalift interposed away
other that, Sampaguita has no cause of action against them and
likewise Belgravia because it was neither the owner rent lease of
the lot whereas the warehouse stands.
MeTC: The court holds that plaintiffs have proven their case against
defendants by preponderance of evidence, sufficient to grant what
is prayed for their complaint. Both parties appealed to the RTC.
RTC: Reechoing the MeTC ruling on the authority of Sampaguita and
Belgravia to institute the complaint for ejectment and affirmed in
toto.
CA: Dismissed the petitioner recourse thereto and affirmed with slight
modification.
Issue: Is the lease contract between PNR and Sampaguita Brokerage Inc.
had been effectively terminated?
Held: No. There is no definite showing that the lease contract between
PNR and Sampaguita Brokerage Inc. had effectively terminated. As
held by the court a quo, by PNR not taking a positive action to eject
Sampaguita from the leased premises up to the present, again
there is a tacit renewal of the lease contract between PNR and
Sampaguita. The Rules of Court already sufficiently shields
respondent Belgravia as lessor from being questioned by the
petitioners as lessee regarding its tittle on better right of
possession as lesson because having admitted the existence of a
lessor-lessee relationship, the petitioners are banned from
assailing Belgravia’s tittle of better right of possession as their
lessor. Section 2, Rule 132 of the Rules Court provides among
others that the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of his land
lord at the time of the commencement of the relation of landlord
and tenant between them.
Here, as long as the lessor-lessee relationship between the
petitioner and Belgravia exists as in this case, the former as lessees
cannot by any proof however strong, overturn the conclusive
presumption that Belgravia has valid title to or better right of
possession to the subject leased premises than they have.