Scribd
Upload
151 views1 page

Millare V

Pacific Millare leased a restaurant to Spouses Co for 5 years at a monthly rate of 350 pesos. When the lease was set to expire in 1980, Millare informed Co that the lease would continue if Co paid 1200 pesos per month, while Co wanted to pay 700 pesos. Co remained in the property believing the lease had renewed. Millare then demanded that Co vacate as the lease would not be renewed. The court dismissed Millare's ejectment case and ordered renewal of the lease. The Supreme Court held that Article 1197 of the Civil Code did not apply because the contract fixed a period and renewal required agreement of both parties, which was not present.

Uploaded by

Mirabel Vidal
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
151 views1 page

Millare V

Pacific Millare leased a restaurant to Spouses Co for 5 years at a monthly rate of 350 pesos. When the lease was set to expire in 1980, Millare informed Co that the lease would continue if Co paid 1200 pesos per month, while Co wanted to pay 700 pesos. Co remained in the property believing the lease had renewed. Millare then demanded that Co vacate as the lease would not be renewed. The court dismissed Millare's ejectment case and ordered renewal of the lease. The Supreme Court held that Article 1197 of the Civil Code did not apply because the contract fixed a period and renewal required agreement of both parties, which was not present.

Uploaded by

Mirabel Vidal
Copyright
© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Millare v. Hon.

Hernando

151 SCRA 484, June 30, 1987

Feliciano, J.:

Facts: Pacifica Millare and spouses Co entered into a five-year Contarct of Lease, where Pacifica agreed to rent out Peoples Restaurant with a monthly rate of P 350.00. In 1980, Pacifica informed spouses that the lease will continue if they will pay P 1,200.00 a month. Spouses opposed, bargaining that P 700.00 a month will be paid. Spouses thought that the Contract of Lease was renewed that they continued to occupy the said property. On July 1980, Pacifica wrote Spouses Co to vacate the premises because the Lease Contract will not be renewed. Another letter of demand was given by Pacifica. The spouses now filed a complaint seeking the renewal of the Lease Contract. On the other hand, Pacifica filed an ejectment case against the spouses. The judge dismissed the case and ordered the renewal of the Contract.

Issue: Whether or not Article 1197 of the Civil Code is applicable.

Held: No. The first paragraph of the said provision is inapplicable because the contract fixed a period. The second paragraph will also not apply because the duration of renewal of the contract lies to the will of both parties. Lastly, the provision will not apply since the contract was not renewed. Hence, Article 1197 is not applicable to the case at bar.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy