This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-10 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| In Limcay v. Court of Appeals,[29] which incidentally was a complaint for ejectment filed by herein petitioner against a lessee of one of its apartments located also in the same address as that of the property subject of this case, the Court upheld the RTC's authority to fix the reasonable value for the use and occupation of the premises from the expiration of the contract of lease.[30] | |||||
|
2003-08-29 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| We agree with the assertion of the petitioner in this case that as held by this Court, the rental stipulated in a contract of lease shall be the measure of the reasonable compensation for the use by the lessee of the leased property. However, the rental stipulated in said contract that has expired or has been validly rescinded or terminated may no longer be the reasonable value for the use and occupation of the premises as a result or by reason of the change or rise in values.[54] In this case, whether or not the lease contract of the parties had been validly rescinded or terminated after June 30, 1993 is of no moment, because under the MOA, the parties failed to fix the rental of the property after June 30, 1993, to wit:This will confirm our agreement that Asian Transmission Corporation has agreed to pay Canlubang Sugar Estate the annual rental of THREE MILLION THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY-THREE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FIFTY-TWO 80/100 (P3,373,552.80) effective July 1, 1991 up to June 30, 1992. Said annual rental shall be increased by eight percent (8%) during the period July 1, 1992 to June 30, 1993. | |||||