Scribd
Upload
61 views1 page

Juerez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93474, October 7, 1992

1) In the early 1900s, a lot in Quezon City was leased to Severino Ocampo, who built a house. When he died, his daughter Angela Ocampo took over the lease. In 1976, Angela moved and leased the lot and house to Robert Capuchino. 2) Unknown to them, the lot had been sold to Susana Realty, which then sold it to Cetus Development Corporation. 3) Cetus filed a complaint to eject Capuchino, arguing the sublease to him violated BP 877 which required the landlord's consent for subleases.

Uploaded by

Eli S
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
61 views1 page

Juerez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 93474, October 7, 1992

1) In the early 1900s, a lot in Quezon City was leased to Severino Ocampo, who built a house. When he died, his daughter Angela Ocampo took over the lease. In 1976, Angela moved and leased the lot and house to Robert Capuchino. 2) Unknown to them, the lot had been sold to Susana Realty, which then sold it to Cetus Development Corporation. 3) Cetus filed a complaint to eject Capuchino, arguing the sublease to him violated BP 877 which required the landlord's consent for subleases.

Uploaded by

Eli S
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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

Juerez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.

93474, October 7, 1992

Facts:

In the early 1900, alot located at 502 Quezon City Boulevard, Manila was lesed to Severino Ocampo,
who built a house. When he died, the lease was taken over by his daughter Angela Ocampo. In 1976,
Angela moved to her daughter Virginia’s house and the lot and house was leased to Robert Capuchino.
Meanwhile, unknown to them, the lot has been sold to Susana Realty, Inc which then sold the same to
Cetus Development Corporation, the respondent.

Cetus filed a complaint for ejection against the petitioner in the ground that the lessee had subleased
the property without its consent in violation of BP 877.

Held:

BP 877 is applicable. The Court held that BP was acting prospectively upon the new or renewed contract
of lease and sublease. The contract had no fixed rental term and payment is made monthly. Therefore, it
is deemed terminated from month to month. Thus when it was renewed in July 1995, the matter
became subject to BP 877 which took effect in June 12, 1958.

Likewise, Capuchino’s sublease is also terminable at the end of each month because no specific period
has been prescribed and the rentals were also payable monthly.

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