1. Chua v.

Court of Appeals
Petitioners: Jose L. Chua & Co Sio Eng
Respondents: CA & Ramon Ibarra

Summary: Chua & Eng were lessees of a commercial unit. The lease was for 5 yrs & expressly provided for renewal at the
lessee’s option. Prior to its expiration, the parties discussed the possibility of contract renewal, but didn’t reach agreement.
Dispute was referred to brgy, but wasn’t settled. The lessor, Ibarra, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in MTC. MTC ruled in
favor of Chua & Eng. Meanwhile, RTC & CA ruled in favor of Ibarra. Now, Chua & Eng complains that they should not be req’d
to pay unpaid rentals because these were neither in the letter of demand nor in the complaint.
Issue is, WON they may be req’d to pay the same.
Court said they should pay. Ibarra raised the issue of arrearages at the pre-trial and evidence was presented without objection
from Chua & Eng. While there was no express demand in Ibarra’s complaint for the payment of rental arrearages, Ibarra in a
pleading filed with the stated that Chua & Eng had unpaid rentals. Any objection to admissibility of evidence should be made at
the time such evidence is offered or as soon as objection to its admissibility becomes apparent, otherwise, objection will be
deemed waived and such evidence will form part of the records of the case. Rule 10, 5 of CivPro allows the amendment of the
pleadings in order to make them conform to the evidence in the record.

Facts:
 Chua & Eng were lessees of a commercial unit at No. 3086 Redemptorist Street in Baclaran, Parañaque.
 The lease was for a period of 5 years, from Jan 1, 1985 to Dec 31, 1989.
 The contract expressly provided for the renewal of the lease at the option of the lessees in accordance with the terms of
agreement and conditions set by the lessor. Prior to the expiration of the lease, the parties discussed the possibility of
renewing it. They exchanged proposal and counterproposal, but they failed to reach agreement.
 The dispute was referred to the barangay captain for conciliation but no settlement was reached.
 On July 24, 1990, Ibarra filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Chua & Eng in the MTC of Parañaque.
 MTC of Parañaque ruled:
o Chua & Eng are hereby given a period of 2 years extension of occupancy of the subject premises starting the date of the
filing of the instant complaint;
o They are ordered to pay Ibarra the sum of P188,806.00 as back rentals as of 1991 and a monthly rental of P10k
thereafter until the expiration of the aforesaid extension of their occupancy or until the subject premises is actually
vacated.
o They must pay P15k as atty’s fees & must also pay the cost of suit.
 On appeal by both parties, RTC of Makati ruled that the lease was for a fixed period of 5 years and that, upon its expiration
on January 1, 1990, Chua & Eng’s continued stay in the premises became illegal.
o As provided in Art. 1687 of the Civil Code, the power of the courts to fix the period of lease is limited only to cases
where the period has not been fixed by the parties themselves.
o Chua & Eng must turn over possession of the premises to Ibarra;
o Chua & Eng must pay back rentals, etc.
 Chua & Eng appealed to the CA, which affirmed the decision. CA modified the monthly rental due but nevertheless
affirmed the rest of RTC of Makati’s ruling.
 Chua & Eng filed an MR but it was denied. Hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Issue: WON Chua & Eng owed P42,306 as unpaid rentals despite the fact that neither the letter of demand nor the complaint for
unlawful detainer alleged a claim for unpaid rentals  YES

Held: CA decision is affirmed.

Ratio:
 Ibarra raised the issue of arrearages at the pre-trial and evidence was presented without objection from Chua & Eng.
 While it is true that there was no express demand in Ibarra’s complaint for unlawful detainer for the payment of rental
arrearages, Ibarra in a pleading filed with the MTC (by way of comment to petitioners motion to admit amended answer)
stated that Chua & Eng had unpaid rentals amounting to P222,306.
o Consequently, among the issues proposed during pre-trial was WON Chua & Eng were in arrears for the rentals.
 Counsel for Chua & Eng did not object to the statement of issues made by Ibarra’s counsel and instead simply stated as their
own main issue, w/c is, whether plaintiff had a valid cause of action for ejectment against them as he is not the sole owner of
the leased premises, and then averred that based on this premise, the other issues raised by plaintiff could be dependent on
the resolution of the stated issues
 Later, at the hearing, Ramon Ibarra testified that although his lease contract with Chua & Eng stipulated an annual 10%
additional rental starting in 1986, Chua & Eng continued to pay only the original monthly rental of P5,000 stipulated in their
contract so that petitioners had incurred total rental arrearages at the end of 1989 of P42,306.00.
 Obviously, then, Chua & Eng’s rental arrearages from 1986 to 1989 was an issue raised at the pre-trial and on which issue
Ibarra presented evidence without any objection from Chua & Eng. And considering that the Chua & Eng incurred said
rental arrearages because they did not pay Ibarra the automatic 10% increase in their monthly rental every year for the years
1986 to 1989 as agreed upon and stipulated in their lease contract, which contract is the law between the parties, Chua &
Eng should pay said rental arrearages. Also, this will prevent unjust enrichment on their part.
 Indeed, any objection to the admissibility of evidence should be made at the time such evidence is offered or as soon
thereafter as the objection to its admissibility becomes apparent, otherwise the objection will be considered waived
and such evidence will form part of the records of the case as competent and admissible evidence. Rule 10, 5 of the
Rules of Civil Procedure allows the amendment of the pleadings in order to make them conform to the evidence in
the record.