Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 76 views

    31 Buce vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    This case involves a dispute over the renewal of a lease contract. Petitioner leased land from private respondents for 15 years, with an option to renew for another 10 years. When the initial 15-year term expired, private respondents did not agree to renew the contract but petitioner refused to vacate. The Court of Appeals found that the contract was not automatically renewed since renewal required mutual agreement, which was not present. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that renewal of the contract required the agreement of both parties, not just the lessee, and since the lessor did not agree there was no valid renewal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    31 Buce vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    76 views1 page
    This case involves a dispute over the renewal of a lease contract. Petitioner leased land from private respondents for 15 years, with an option to renew for another 10 years. When the initial 15-year term expired, private respondents did not agree to renew the contract but petitioner refused to vacate. The Court of Appeals found that the contract was not automatically renewed since renewal required mutual agreement, which was not present. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that renewal of the contract required the agreement of both parties, not just the lessee, and since the lessor did not agree there was no valid renewal.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a dispute over the renewal of a lease contract. Petitioner leased land from private respondents for 15 years, with an option to renew for another 10 years. When the initial 15-year term expired, private respondents did not agree to renew the contract but petitioner refused to vacate. The Court of Appeals found that the contract was not automatically renewed since renewal required mutual agreement, which was not present. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that renewal of the contract required the agreement of both parties, not just the lessee, and since the lessor did not agree there was no valid renewal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    76 views1 page

    31 Buce vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    This case involves a dispute over the renewal of a lease contract. Petitioner leased land from private respondents for 15 years, with an option to renew for another 10 years. When the initial 15-year term expired, private respondents did not agree to renew the contract but petitioner refused to vacate. The Court of Appeals found that the contract was not automatically renewed since renewal required mutual agreement, which was not present. The Supreme Court upheld this decision, finding that renewal of the contract required the agreement of both parties, not just the lessee, and since the lessor did not agree there was no valid renewal.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Buce vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 136913. May 12, 2000
    DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:
    Facts:
    Petitioner Anita Buce leased a 56-sqm parcel of land for a period of 15 years subject to
    renewal for another ten (10) years, under the same terms and conditions. Petitioner, then,
    constructed a building and paid a monthly rental of P150.00. Private respondents, Sps. Bernardo
    and Araceli Tiongco, Sps. Dionisio and Lucila Tiongco, through administrator Jose M. Tiongco
    later demanded a gradual increase of rent until it reached P400.00. When private respondents
    informed petitioner with the rental increase to P1,576.58 pursuant to Rent Control Law,
    petitioner tendered checks for P400.00 each only which the former refused. Petitioner then filed
    for consignation. During the pendency, the contract has expired and demanded the payment of
    rentals. The RTC declared the lease contract automatically renewed for 10 years which CA
    reversed and ordered petitioner to immediately vacate the leased premises on the ground that the
    contract expired on 1 June 1994 without being renewed and to pay the rental arrearages at the
    rate of P1,000 monthly. Upon denial of motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed this petition.
    Issue:
    Whether the parties intended an automatic renewal of the lease contract1 when they
    agreed that the lease shall be for a period of fifteen years “subject to renewal for another ten (10)
    years?
    Rule of law:
    Article 1196
    Application:
    In the case at bar, it was not specifically indicated who may exercise the option to renew,
    neither was it stated that the option was given for the benefit of herein petitioner. Renewal of the
    contract may be had only upon their mutual agreement or at the will of both of them. Since the
    private respondents were not amenable to a renewal, they cannot be compelled to execute a new
    contract when the old contract terminated on 1 June 1994. It is the owner-lessor’s prerogative to
    terminate the lease at its expiration. The continuance, effectivity and fulfillment of a contract of
    lease cannot be made to depend exclusively upon the free and uncontrolled choice of the lessee
    between continuing the payment of the rentals or not, completely depriving the owner of any say
    in the matter. Mutuality does not obtain in such a contract of lease and no equality exists between
    the lessor and the lessee since the life of the contract would be dictated solely by the lessee.
    Conclusion:
    WHEREFORE, the instant petition is partly GRANTED.

    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