This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-11-30 |
CARPIO MORALES, J. |
||||
| Sia v. Court of Appeals,[25] which cites Cabangis v. Court of Appeals,[26] exhaustively explains the applicability of Article 1678 on disputes relating to useful improvements introduced by a lessee on leased premises, viz: x x x x | |||||
|
2001-09-21 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| In Sia v. Court of Appeals,[15] the lessee was made to pay the monthly rent of P5,000.00 as fixed by the Regional Trial Court on appeal. The petitioner there similarly questioned the increase in the rental rate as excessive, exorbitant and unreasonable, the original rental on the premises being only P2,000.00 a month. We overruled petitioner's arguments and held:On the contrary, the records bear out that the P5,000.00 monthly rentals is a reasonable amount, considering that the subject lot is prime commercial real property whose value has significantly increased and that P5,000.00 is within the range of prevailing rental rates in that vicinity. Moreover, petitioner has not proffered controverting evidence to support what he believes to be the fair rental value of the leased building since the burden of proof to show that the rental demanded is unconscionable or exorbitant rests upon the lessee. Thus, here and now we rule, as we did in the case of Manila Bay Club v. Court of Appeals (245 SCRA 715 [1995]), that petitioner having failed to prove its claim of excessive rentals, the valuation made by the Regional Trial Court, as affirmed by the respondent Court of Appeals, stands. | |||||