BOWE
and ARBOLARIO vs. CA
and GARCIA (1993)
CAMPOS,
JR., J.:
SELLER – GARCIA
BUYER - ARBOLARIO
·
June 27, 1979 - Teodoro Garcia's wife Luz Garcia
was the owner of a 2 storey, 6-door apartment in Olongapo City. She entered
into a contract of lease with Laura Arbolario over the same property.
·
October of 1982 - Teodoro Garcia and his son, Serafin Garcia, verbally agreed to sell subj house and lot to the Arbolario spouses
for P220k.
o After had already made several payments - Garcia wrote them a letter that the deal is off
o
September 1, 1984 Serafin went to Arbolarios and offered an accounting of the amounts they have paid (to compute them as rentals) but Arbolarios refused claiming
that the house and lot was already their property this was done when the contract of lease was over
·
Garcias filed a complaint against Arbolarios before
the RTC of Olongapo alleging that
o
conditions on contract of lease have been fully
satisfied
o
They also asked for various damages -Sa actual (from rent), moral, exemplary
o
PRAYER for termination of the contract of lease as
of September 1, 1984
o
reimburse all rents received from said 6-door
apartment from September 2, 1984 up to the time she shall vacate the premises
·
Arbolario’s additionally aver that they already made
considerable improvements and repairs on the apartments and that they have a
perfect right not to vacate the premises being owners thereof by virtue of the
sale they also expressed
willingness to tender remaining BAL P153K upon order of the court
ISSUES:
1. WON
the contract is one of sale or one to sell? [FOCUS ON THIS ONE]
2. WON
the contract of lease has been supplanted or abandoned?
HELD/RATIO:
1.
It
is a CONTRACT TO SELL
|
Arbolario
|
Garcia
|
|
Contact of lease was already abandoned by a perfected verbal contract
of sale which has already been partially performed
Lessor-Lesse terminated by perfection
Introduced receipts as proof of partial performance
|
Mere contract sell or at a conditional contract of sale at most
|
o
Indeed a contract of sale is perfected by mere
consent. It is not enough
to state, however, that the contract of sale, being consensual, became
effective between Arbolarios and Garcias in 1982
Citing Lim vs. CA
o
Contract of Sale à
ownership passes to buyer upon delivery à
Seller auto loses ownership
o
Contract to Sell à
ownership is reserved until full payment of purchase price à Buyer must comply with condition of purchase price
payment before he becomes owner
What
is crucial at this point is to ascertain those undertakings which the parties
have consented in order to determine the nature of their agreement.
o
No immediate transfer of title - absence of formal deed of conveyance strongly
indicates parties did not intend sale
o
Arbolarios should have insisted the contract of
absolute sale be reduced to writing if it were indeed contract of sale
o
At time Arbolarios were delivering unpaid BAL and
was rejected - they asked to be given back the amount they paid - SC held this as contrary to their later claim that they are owners (Note: if they were already owners
asking for the payment back would not have been an option kasi it would be
tantamount to giving the ownership back)
o
Payment of the consideration was positive
suspensive condition - not fulfilled - ownership never passed
2.
No
the contract of lease has not been supplanted or abandoned because of lack of
notice to vacate.
o
An implied new lease or tacita reconduccion will set in if it is shown that: (a)
the term of the original contract of lease has expired; (b) the lessor has not
given the lessee a notice to vacate; and (c) the lessee continued enjoying the
thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor. This
acquiescence may be inferred from this failure to serve a notice to quit.
o
Discontinuance of lease must be AN EXPRESS NOTICE
TO VACATE made within 15 day period
o
IN
THIS CASE - implied renewal of the lease contract hence no unlawful detainer
o
no talks have been held concerning the renewal of
the lease.
o
Not only was there an absence of notice to vacate
but there were also no communications that transpired between the parties
regarding the lease. The earliest communication that has been shown was in
October, 1984, definitely way beyond the 15-day statutory period required by
law.
No comments:
Post a Comment