1/23/2017

G.R.No.177809

TodayisMonday,January23,2017

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.177809October16,2009
SPOUSESOMARandMOSHIERALATIP,Petitioners,
vs.
ROSALIEPALAACHUA,Respondent.
DECISION
NACHURA,J.:
Challenged in this petition for review on certiorari is the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision in CAG.R. SP No.
89300:1(1)reversingthedecisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt(RTC),Branch274,ParaaqueCityinCivilCase
No.0400522and(2)reinstatingandaffirmingintotothedecisionoftheMetropolitanTrialCourt(MeTC),Branch
78,ofthesamecityinCivilCaseNo.2001315.3
First,wesiftthroughthevaryingfactsfoundbythedifferentlowercourts.
ThefactsparleyedbytheMeTCshowthatrespondentRosalieChua(Rosalie)istheownerofRoferxaneBuilding,
a commercial building, located at No. 158 Quirino Avenue corner Redemptorist Road, Barangay Baclaran,
ParaaqueCity.
OnJuly6,2001,Rosaliefiledacomplaintforunlawfuldetainerplusdamagesagainstpetitioners,SpousesOmar
and Moshiera Latip (Spouses Latip). Rosalie attached to the complaint a contract of lease over two cubicles in
RoferxaneBldg.,signedbyRosalie,aslessor,andbySpousesLatip,aslesseesthereof.
1 a v v p h !1

Thecontractofleasereads:
CONTRACTOFLEASE
KNOWALLMENBYTHESEPRESENTS:
ThisContractofLeaseisenteredintobyandbetween:
ROSALIEPALAACHUA,Filipino,oflegalage,marriedwithofficeat2/FJOFERXANBuilding,F.B.
HarrisonSt.,Brgy.Baclaran,ParaaqueCity,andhereinafterreferredtoastheLESSOR,
and
OMARLATIEFmarriagetoMOSHIERALATIEF, also both Filipino, of legal age with address at 24
AnahanSt.RGVHomesParaaqueCity,andhereinafterreferredtoastheLESSEES.
WITNESSETH
1. That the LESSOR is the owner of the commercial building erected at the lot of the Toribio G.
Reyes Realty, Inc. situated at 158 Quirino Ave. corner Redemptorist Road, Barangay Baclaran in
ParaaqueCtiy
2.ThatLESSORherebyleasestwo(2)cubicleslocatedatthe1st&2ndFloor,ofsaidbuildingwith
anareaof56squaremetersunderthefollowingtermsandconditions,towit:
a.Thatthemonthlyrentalofthetwo(2)cubiclesinPESOS,SIXTYTHOUSAND(P60,000.00),
PhilippineCurrency.However,duetounstablepowerofthepesoLESSEESagreestoayearly
increaseoften(10%)percentofthemonthlyrental
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_177809_2009.html

1/8

1/23/2017

G.R.No.177809

b.ThatanyrentalinarrearsshallbepaidbeforetheexpirationofthecontracttotheLESSOR
c.ThatLESSEESagreetopaytheirownwaterandelectricconsumptionsinthesaidpremises
d.ThattheLESSEESshallnotsubletormakeanyalterationinthecubicleswithoutawritten
permissionfromtheLESSOR.Provided,however,thatattheterminationoftheContract,the
lesseeshallreturnthetwocubiclesinitsoriginalconditionsattheirexpenses
e. That the LESSEES agree to keep the cubicles in a safe and sanitary conditions, and shall
notkeepanykindsofflammableorcombustiblematerials.
f.ThatincasetheLESSEESfailtopaythemonthlyrentaleverytimeitfallsdueorviolateany
oftheaboveconditionsshallbeenoughgroundtoterminatethisContractofLease.Provided,
further, that, if the LESSEES preterminate this Contract they shall pay the rentals for the
unusedmonthorperiodbywayofliquidateddamagesinfavoroftheLESSOR.
3. That this Contract of Lease is for six (6) yrs. only starting from December _____, 1999 or up to
December______,2005.
INWITNESSWHEREOF,thepartieshavehereuntoaffixedtheirhandsthis___thdayofDecember,
1999atCityofManila,Philippines.
(sgd.)
ROSALIEPALAACHUA
LESSOR

(sgd.)
MOSHIERALATIEF
LESSEE
(sgd.)
OMARLATIEF
LESSEE

SIGNEDINTHEPRESENCEOF:
(sgd.)
1.DaisyC.Ramos

(sgd.)
2.FerdinandC.Chua

RepublicofthePhilippines)
CityofManila)s.s.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
BEFOREME,aNotaryPublicforandintheCityofManilapersonallyappearedthefollowingpersons:
RosalieP.ChuawithCTCNo.05769706atParaaqueCityon2/1/99MoshieraLatiefwithCTCNo.
12885654 at Paraaque City on 11/11/99 Omar Latief with CTC No. 12885653 Paraaque City on
Nov.11,1999.
knowntomeandtomeknowntobethesamepersonswhoexecutedthisinstrumentconsistingof
two(2)pagesdulysignedbythemandthetwo(2)instrumentalwitnessesandacknowledgedtome
thatthesameistheirfreeandvoluntarilyactsanddeeds.
IN FAITH AND TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto affixed my hand and Notarial Seal this
____thdayofDecember,1999attheCityofManila,Philippines.
Doc.No._____
PageNo._____
BookNo.LXV
Seriesof1999

ATTY.CALIXTROB.RAMOS
NOTARYPUBLIC
UntilDecember31,2000
PTR#3741451/11/99/Mla.
IBP#00262LifeMember4

AyearafterthecommencementoftheleaseandwithSpousesLatipalreadyoccupyingtheleased
cubicles,Rosalie,throughcounsel,sentthespousesaletterdemandingpaymentofbackrentalsand
shouldtheyfailtodoso,tovacatetheleasedcubicles.WhenSpousesLatipdidnotheedRosalies
demand,sheinstitutedtheaforesaidcomplaint.
In their Answer, Spouses Latip refuted Rosalies claims. They averred that the lease of the two (2)
cubicles had already been paid in full as evidenced by receipts showing payment to Rosalie of the
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_177809_2009.html

2/8

1/23/2017

G.R.No.177809

totalamountofP2,570,000.00.Thethree(3)receipts,inRosalieshandwriting,read:
1.IreceivedtheamountofP2,000,000.00(twomillionpesos)from[O]marLatip&Moshi[e]ra
Latip for the payment of 2 cubicles located at 158 Quirino Ave. corner Redemptorist Rd.[,]
BaclaranP[ara]aqueCity.ROFERLAND5Bldg.withtheterms6yrs.Contract.
P2,000,000.00
CHECK#3767924
FAREASTBANK

(sgd.)
____________________
RosalieChua
(sgd.)
____________________
FerdinandChua

2.Receivedcash
P500,000.00
FromMoshieraLatip

12/10/99

(sgd.)
RosalieChua
____________________
Receivedby

3.Receivedcash
P70,000.00from
MoshieraLatip
121199

(sgd.)
____________________
Receivedby:6

Spouses Latip asseverated that sometime in October 1999, Rosalie offered for sale lease rights over two (2)
cubicles in Roferxane Bldg. Having in mind the brisk sale of goods during the Christmas season, they readily
accepted Rosalies offer to purchase lease rights in Roferxane Bldg., which was still under construction at the
time.AccordingtoSpousesLatip,theimmediatepaymentofP2,570,000.00wouldbeusedtofinishconstruction
ofthebuildinggivingthemfirstpriorityintheoccupationofthefinishedcubicles.
Thereafter,inDecember1999,assoonastwo(2)cubicleswerefinished,SpousesLatipoccupiedthemwithout
waitingforthecompletionoffive(5)otherstalls.SpousesLatipaverredthatthecontractofleasetheysignedhad
been novated by their purchase of lease rights of the subject cubicles. Thus, they were surprised to receive a
demandletterfromRosaliescounselandthesubsequentfilingofacomplaintagainstthem.
TheMeTCruledinfavorofRosalie,viz.:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,the[SpousesLatip]andallpersonsclaimingrightsunderthemarehereby
ordered to VACATE the property subject of this case located at the 1st and 2nd floors of a Roferxane Building
situated at No. 158 Quirino Avenue corner Redemptorist Road, Barangay Baclaran, Paraaque City. The
[Spouses Latip] are also ordered to PAY [Rosalie] the amount of SEVEN HUNDRED TWENTY THOUSAND
PESOS(P720,000.00)asrentarrearagesfortheperiodofDecember1999toDecember2000andthereafterto
PAY[Rosalie]theamountofSEVENTYTWOTHOUSANDPESOS(P72,000.00)permonthfromJanuary2001to
December2002,plustenpercent(10%)increaseforeachandeverysucceedingyearsthereafterasstipulatedin
paragraph 2(a) of the Contract of Lease x x x, until the [Spouses Latip] have completely vacated the leased
premises subject of this lease. Finally[,] the [Spouses Latip] are hereby ordered to PAY [Rosalie] the amount of
TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) as attorneys fees and TWO THOUSAND PESOS (P2,000.00) per
[Rosalies]appearanceinCourtasappearancefeeandtoPAYthecostofthissuit.
[SpousesLatips]counterclaimisherebyDISMISSEDforlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.7
In stark contrast, the RTC reversed the MeTC and ruled in favor of Spouses Latip. The RTC did not give
credencetothecontractoflease,rulingthatitwasnotnotarizedand,inallothersubstantialaspects,incomplete.
Further on this point, the RTC noted that the contract of lease lacked: (1) the signature of Ferdinand Chua,
Rosalieshusband(2)thesignaturesofSpousesLatiponthefirstpagethereof(3)thespecificdatesfortheterm
ofthecontractwhichonlystatedthattheleaseisfor"six(6)y[ea]rsonlystartingfromDecember1999orupto
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_177809_2009.html

3/8

1/23/2017

G.R.No.177809

December2005"(4)theexactdateofexecutionofthedocument,albeitthemonthofDecemberandyear1999
are indicated therein and (5) the provision for payment of deposit or advance rental which is supposedly
uncommoninbigcommercialleasecontracts.
TheRTCbelievedtheclaimofSpousesLatipthatthecontractofleasewasmodifiedandsupplementedandthe
entire lease rentals for the two (2) cubicles for six (6) years had already been paid by Spouses Latip in the
amountofP2,570,000.00.AstoRosaliesclaimthatherreceiptofP2,570,000.00wassimplygoodwillpaymentby
prospectivelesseestotheirlessor,andnotpaymentforthepurchaseofleaserights,theRTCshotthisdownand
pointedoutthat,apartfromherbareallegations,Rosaliedidnotadduceevidencetosubstantiatethisclaim.On
thewhole,theRTCdeclaredanexistentleasebetweenthepartiesforaperiodofsix(6)years,andalreadyfully
paidforbySpousesLatip.Thus,SpousesLatipcouldnotbeejectedfromtheleasedpremisesuntilexpirationof
theleaseperiod.
TheRTCdisposedoftheappeal,viz.:
WHEREFORE, all the foregoing considered, the appealed decision of the [MeTC] dated January 13, 2004 is
reversedasjudgmentisherebyrenderedforthe[SpousesLatip]andagainst[Rosalie],orderingthelattertopay
theformer
(1)thesumofPhP1,000,000.00asmoraldamages
(2)thesumofPhP500,000.00asexemplarydamages
(3)thesumofPhP250,000.00plusPhP3,000.00percourtappearanceasandforattorneysfeesand
(4)costsofsuit.
SOORDERED.8
Inyetanotherturnofevents,theCA,aspreviouslymentioned,reversedtheRTCandreinstatedthedecisionof
theMeTC.TheCAruledthatthecontractoflease,albeitlackingthesignatureofFerdinandandnotnotarized,
remainedacompleteandvalidcontract.AstheMeTChad,theCAlikewisefoundthattheallegeddefectsinthe
contract of lease did not render the contract ineffective. On the issue of whether the amount of P2,570,000.00
merelyconstitutedpaymentofgoodwillmoney,theCAtookjudicialnoticeofthiscommonpracticeintheareaof
Baclaran, especially around the Redemptorist Church. According to the appellate court, this judicial notice was
bolstered by the Joint Sworn Declaration of the stallholders at Roferxane Bldg. that they all had paid goodwill
moneytoRosaliepriortooccupyingthestallsthereat.Thus,rulingonRosaliesappeal,theCAdisposedofthe
case:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review is hereby GRANTED. The assailed decision of
RTC Paraaque City Branch 274 dated September 24, 2004 is hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE, and the
January13,2004decisionoftheMeTCisREINSTATEDandAFFIRMEDentoto.
SOORDERED.9
Notsurprisingly,SpousesLatipfiledthepresentappeal.
ThesingularissueforourresolutioniswhetherSpousesLatipshouldbeejectedfromtheleasedcubicles.
Aspreviouslyadvertedto,theCA,inrulingforRosalieandupholdingtheejectmentofSpousesLatip,tookjudicial
noticeoftheallegedpracticeofprospectivelesseesintheBaclaranareatopaygoodwillmoneytothelessor.
Wedisagree.
Sections 1 and 2 of Rule 129 of the Rules of Court declare when the taking of judicial notice is mandatory or
discretionaryonthecourts,thus:
SECTION 1. Judicial notice, when mandatory. A court shall take judicial notice, without the introduction of
evidence,oftheexistenceandterritorialextentofstates,theirpoliticalhistory,formsofgovernmentandsymbols
of nationality, the law of nations, the admiralty and maritime courts of the world and their seals, the political
constitutionandhistoryofthePhilippines,theofficialactsofthelegislative,executiveandjudicialdepartmentsof
thePhilippines,thelawsofnature,themeasureoftime,andthegeographicaldivisions.
SEC. 2. Judicial notice, when discretionary. A court may take judicial notice of matters which are of public
knowledge, or are capable of unquestionable demonstration or ought to be known to judges because of their
judicialfunctions.
Onthispoint,StateProsecutorsv.Muro10isinstructive:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_177809_2009.html

4/8

1/23/2017

G.R.No.177809

I.Thedoctrineofjudicialnoticerestsonthewisdomanddiscretionofthecourts.Thepowertotakejudicialnotice
is to be exercised by courts with caution care must be taken that the requisite notoriety exists and every
reasonabledoubtonthesubjectshouldbepromptlyresolvedinthenegative.
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of
commonandgeneralknowledge(2)itmustbewellandauthoritativelysettledandnotdoubtfuloruncertainand
(3)itmustbeknowntobewithinthelimitsofthejurisdictionofthecourt.Theprincipalguideindeterminingwhat
factsmaybeassumedtobejudiciallyknownisthatofnotoriety.Hence,itcanbesaidthatjudicialnoticeislimited
tofactsevidencedbypublicrecordsandfactsofgeneralnotoriety.
Tosaythatacourtwilltakejudicialnoticeofafactismerelyanotherwayofsayingthattheusualformofevidence
willbedispensedwithifknowledgeofthefactcanbeotherwiseacquired.Thisisbecausethecourtassumesthat
the matter is so notorious that it will not be disputed. But judicial notice is not judicial knowledge. The mere
personalknowledgeofthejudgeisnotthejudicialknowledgeofthecourt,andheisnotauthorizedtomakehis
individualknowledgeofafact,notgenerallyorprofessionallyknown,thebasisofhisaction.Judicialcognizanceis
takenonlyofthosematterswhichare"commonly"known.
Thingsof"commonknowledge,"ofwhichcourtstakejudicialnotice,maybematterscomingtotheknowledgeof
men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally
acceptedbymankindastrueandarecapableofreadyandunquestioneddemonstration.Thus,factswhichare
universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially
noticed,providedtheyareofsuchuniversalnotorietyandsogenerallyunderstoodthattheymayberegardedas
formingpartofthecommonknowledgeofeveryperson.11
WereiteratedtherequisiteofnotorietyforthetakingofjudicialnoticeintherecentcaseofExpertravel&Tours,
Inc.v.CourtofAppeals,12whichcitedStateProsecutors:
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material requisites: (1) the matter must be one of
commonandgeneralknowledge(2)itmustbewellandauthoritativelysettledandnotdoubtfuloruncertainand
(3)itmustbeknowntobewithinthelimitsofthejurisdictionofthecourt.Theprincipalguideindeterminingwhat
factsmaybeassumedtobejudiciallyknownisthatofnotoriety.Hence,itcanbesaidthatjudicialnoticeislimited
tofactsevidencedbypublicrecordsandfactsofgeneralnotoriety.Moreover,ajudiciallynoticedfactmustbeone
notsubjecttoareasonabledisputeinthatitiseither:(1)generallyknownwithintheterritorialjurisdictionofthe
trial court or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot
reasonablybequestionable.
Thingsof"commonknowledge,"ofwhichcourtstakejudicialnotice,maybematterscomingtotheknowledgeof
men generally in the course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters which are generally
acceptedbymankindastrueandarecapableofreadyandunquestioneddemonstration.Thus,factswhichare
universally known, and which may be found in encyclopedias, dictionaries or other publications, are judicially
noticed,provided,theyaresuchofuniversalnotorietyandsogenerallyunderstoodthattheymayberegardedas
formingpartofthecommonknowledgeofeveryperson.Asthecommonknowledgeofmanrangesfarandwide,
awidevarietyofparticularfactshavebeenjudiciallynoticedasbeingmattersofcommonknowledge.Butacourt
cannottakejudicialnoticeofanyfactwhich,inpart,isdependentontheexistenceornonexistenceofafactof
whichthecourthasnoconstructiveknowledge.
1 a v v p h i1

Fromtheforegoingprovisionsoflawandourholdingsthereon,itisapparentthatthematterwhichtheappellate
courttookjudicialnoticeofdoesnotmeettherequisiteofnotoriety.Tobeginwith,onlytheCAtookjudicialnotice
of this supposed practice to pay goodwill money to the lessor in the Baclaran area. Neither the MeTC nor the
RTC, with the former even ruling in favor of Rosalie, found that the practice was of "common knowledge" or
notoriouslyknown.
We note that the RTC specifically ruled that Rosalie, apart from her bare allegation, adduced no evidence to
prove her claim that the amount of P2,570,000.00 simply constituted the payment of goodwill money.
Subsequently,RosalieattachedanannextoherpetitionforreviewbeforetheCA,containingajointdeclaration
underoathbyotherstallholdersinRoferxaneBldg.thattheyhadpaidgoodwillmoneytoRosalieastheirlessor.
On this score, we emphasize that the reason why our rules on evidence provide for matters that need not be
provedunderRule129,specificallyonjudicialnotice,istodispensewiththetakingoftheusualformofevidence
onacertainmattersonotoriouslyknown,itwillnotbedisputedbytheparties.
However,inthiscase,therequisiteofnotorietyisbeliedbythenecessityofattachingdocumentaryevidence,i.e.,
theJointAffidavitofthestallholders,toRosaliesappealbeforetheCA.Inshort,theallegedpracticestillhadtobe
provenbyRosaliecontraveningthetitleitselfofRule129oftheRulesofCourtWhatneednotbeproved.
Apparently, only that particular division of the CA had knowledge of the practice to pay goodwill money in the
Baclaranarea.AswasheldinStateProsecutors,justicesandjudgesalikeoughttoberemindedthatthepowerto
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_177809_2009.html

5/8

1/23/2017

G.R.No.177809

takejudicialnoticemustbeexercisedwithcautionandeveryreasonabledoubtonthesubjectshouldbeample
reasonfortheclaimofjudicialnoticetobepromptlyresolvedinthenegative.
Ultimately,ontheissueofwhetherSpousesLatipoughttobeejectedfromtheleasedcubicles,whatremainsin
evidenceisthedocumentaryevidencesignedbybothpartiesthecontractofleaseandthereceiptsevidencing
paymentofP2,570,000.00.
Weneednotbeundulydetainedbytheissueofwhichdocumentswereexecutedfirstoriftherewasanovationof
the contract of lease. As had been found by the RTC, the lease contract and the receipts for the amount of
P2,570,000.00canbereconciledorharmonized.TheRTCdeclared:
Definitely,thepartiesenteredintoaleaseagreementovertwo(2)cubiclesofthe1stand2ndfloorsofRoferxane
(Roferland)Building,acommercialbuildinglocatedat158QuirinoAvenue,cornerRedemptoristRoad,Baclaran,
Paraaque City and belonging to [Rosalie]. The lease agreement is for a term of six (6) years commencing in
December1999uptoDecember2005.ThisagreementwasembodiedinaContractofLeasexxx.Thetermsof
thisleasecontract,however,aremodifiedorsupplementedbyanotheragreementbetweenthepartiesexecuted
andorenteredintoinoraboutthetimeofexecutionoftheleasecontract,whichexactdateofexecutionofthe
latterisunclear.13
WeagreewiththeRTCsholdingonlyuptothatpoint.Thereexistsaleaseagreementbetweenthepartiesasset
forth in the contract of lease which is a complete document. It need not be signed by Ferdinand Chua as he
likewise did not sign the other two receipts for P500,000.00andP70,000.00, respectively, which contained only
thesignatureofRosalie.Besides,itisundisputedthatRosalieownsandleasesthestallsinRoferxaneBldg.thus,
doingawaywiththeneedforherhusbandsconsent.Thefindingsofthethreelowercourtsconcuronthisfact.
Thecontractofleasehasaperiodofsix(6)yearscommencinginDecember1999.Thisfactisagainbuttressed
by Spouses Latips admission that they occupied the property forthwith in December 1999, bearing in mind the
brisksalesduringtheholidayseason.
OntheconflictinginterpretationsbythelowercourtsofthereceiptsamountingtoP2,570,000.00,weholdthatthe
practice of payment of goodwill money in the Baclaran area is an inadequate subject of judicial notice. Neither
was Rosalie able to provide sufficient evidence that, apart from the belatedly submitted Joint Affidavit of the
stallholdersofRoferxaneBldg.,thesaidamountwassimplyforthepaymentofgoodwillmoney,andnotpayment
foradvancerentalsbySpousesLatip.
Ininterpretingtheevidencebeforeus,weareguidedbytheCivilCodeprovisionsoninterpretationofcontracts,to
wit:
Art.1371.Inordertojudgetheintentionofthecontractingparties,theircontemporaneousandsubsequentacts
shallbeprincipallyconsidered.
Art.1372.Howevergeneralthetermsofacontractmaybe,theyshallnotbeunderstoodtocomprehendthings
thataredistinctandcasesthataredifferentfromthosewhichthepartiesintendedtoagree.
Art.1373.Ifsomestipulationofanycontractshouldadmitofseveralmeanings,itshallbeunderstoodasbearing
thatimportwhichismostadequatetorenderiteffectual.
The RTC was already on the right track when it declared that the receipts for P2,570,000.00 modified or
supplemented the contract of lease. However, it made a quantum leap when it ruled that the amount was
paymentforrentalsofthetwo(2)cubiclesfortheentiresixyearperiod.Wecannotsubscribetothisfinding.To
obviateconfusionandforclarity,thecontentsofthereceipts,alreadysetforthabove,areagainreproduced:
1.IreceivedtheamountofP2,000,000.00(twomillionpesos)from[O]marLatip&Moshi[e]raLatipforthe
payment of 2 cubicles located at 158 Quirino Ave. corner Redemptorist Rd.[,] Baclaran P[ara]que City.
ROFERLANDBldg.withtheterms6yrs.Contract.
P2,000,000.00
CHECK#3767924
FAREASTBANK

(sgd.)
____________________
RosalieChua
(sgd.)
____________________
FerdinandChua

2.Receivedcash
P500,000.00
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_177809_2009.html

6/8

1/23/2017

G.R.No.177809

FromMoshieraLatip

12/10/99

(sgd.)
RosalieChua
____________________
Receivedby

3.Receivedcash
P70,000.00from
MoshieraLatip
121199

(sgd.)
____________________
Receivedby:14

There is nothing on the receipts and on record that the payment and receipt of P2,570,000.00 referred to full
paymentofrentalsforthewholeperiodofthelease.AllthreereceiptsstateRosaliesreceiptofcashinvarying
amounts. The first receipt for P2,000,000.00 did state payment for two (2) cubicles, but this cannot mean full
paymentofrentalsfortheentireleaseperiodwhentherearenowordstothateffect.Further,tworeceiptswere
subsequentlyexecutedpointingtotheobviousfactthattheP2,000,000.00isnotforfullpaymentofrentals.Thus,
sincethecontractofleaseremainedoperative,wefindthatRosaliesreceiptofthemoniesshouldbeconsidered
as advanced rentals on the leased cubicles. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that Rosalie demanded
paymentoftheleaserentalsonlyin2000,afullyearafterthecommencementofthelease.
Finally, we note that the lease ended in 2005. Consequently, Spouses Latip can be ejected from the leased
premises.TheyareliabletoRosalieforunpaidrentalsontheleaseofthetwo(2)cubiclesinaccordancewiththe
stipulations on rentals in the Contract of Lease. However, the amount of P2,570,000.00, covering advance
rentals,mustbedeductedfromthisliabilityofSpousesLatiptoRosalie.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals in
CAG.R. SP No. 89300 is REVERSED. The petitioners, spouses Omar and Moshiera Latip, are liable to
respondent Rosalie Chua for unpaid rentals minus the amount of P2,570,000.00 already received by her as
advancerentals.Nocosts.
SOORDERED.
ANTONIOEDUARDOB.NACHURA
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES*
AssociateJustice
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO**
AssociateJustice

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJustice

ROBERTOA.ABAD***
AssociateJustice
ATTESTATION
IattestthattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionwerereachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedto
thewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
MINITAV.CHICONAZARIO
AssociateJustice
ActingChairperson,ThirdDivision
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitutionandtheDivisionActingChairperson'sAttestation,Icertify
thattheconclusionsintheaboveDecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothe
writeroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_177809_2009.html

7/8

1/23/2017

G.R.No.177809

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBING
ActingChiefJustice

Footnotes
*AdditionalmemberviceAssociateJusticeAntonioT.CarpioperSpecialOrderNo.744datedOctober13,

2009.
**ActingChairpersonviceAssociateJusticeAntonioT.CarpioperSpecialOrderNo.743datedOctober13,

2009.
*** Additional member vice Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. per Special Order No. 753 dated

October13,2009.
1 Penned by Associate Justice Lucenito N. Tagle (retired), with Associate Justices Rodrigo V. Cosico

(retired)andRegaladoE.Maambong(retired),concurringrollo,pp.4356.
2PennedbyPresidingJudgeFortunitoL.Madrona,CArollo.pp.3643.
3PennedbyPresidingJudgeJansenR.Rodriguez,CArollo,pp.4449.
4CArollo,pp.7273.
5Exceptforthisdesignationinthereceipt,thebuildingwheretheleasedcubiclesarelocatedisreferredto

intherecordsasRoferxaneBldg.
6CArollo,pp.99,102,103.
7Id.at4849.
8Id.at42.
9Rollo,p.55.
10A.M.No.RTJ92876,September19,1994,236SCRA505,521522.
11Emphasissupplied.
12G.R.No.152392,May26,2005,459SCRA147,162.
13CArollo,p.40.
14Supranote6.
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2009/oct2009/gr_177809_2009.html

8/8