Title:

ANITA C. BUCE vs. CA, Sps. Tiongco

Topic

Interpretation

Principle

The literal meaning of the stipulations shall control if the terms of the contract are clear and leave no
doubt upon the intention of the contracting parties

Facts

Petitioner Anita Buce entered into contract with then administrator Jose Tiongco, a lease with a
period of 15 years to commence on June 1, 1970 to end of June 1, 1994 subject to renewal for
another (10) years under the same condition to pay monthly rental of 200 pesos and to construct a
building in then idle land of 56 sqm parcel of land located in Quirino Ave. Pandacan, Manila.

On 1993, the private respondents increase the monthly rental into 1,576. 58 under the RA. No. 877
the amount of minimum monthly payment for rents thus refusing the checks amounting to 400 pesos
petitioner payment for rent and they state that the lease will expire on June, 1, 1994.

The petitioner filed in the RTC the consignation for the tendered payment and demand to receive it,
the RTC ruled that the lease is automatically renewed for ten years.

On appeal of the respondent to Court of appeals, applying the Fernandez V. CA ruled that the
refusal of payment for monthly payment is justified and the respondent have the right of the option to
renew the contract, order to vacate the said property because the contract already expired.

Hence the petition,

Contend that the CA has no right to order to vacate the property because it was not the relief asking
by the private respondent.

Issue

Whether or not the word “subject to renewal for another (10) years” means automatic renewal.

Whether or not the petitioner should vacate the property since the contract already expired.

Ruling

a. No, the interpretation of the word is that it is the owner-lessor's prerogative to

terminate the lease at its expiration. Meaning, it is not an automatic renewal as
counter to claim by the petitioner, however, the relief asking by the respondent is not
to vacate the premises, the order of the Court of Appeals requiring petitioner to
vacate the premises is but a logical consequence of its finding that the lease contract
had expired, however the CA erred to render decision to order vacate the property
because the relief asking by the respondent is not about lawful detainer , it is well-
settled is the rule that a court cannot award relief not prayed for in the complaint or
compulsory counterclaim

this court ruled that the petition is partly granted, without prejudice for filing for unlawful
detainer.