This case has been cited 4 times or more.
|
2009-05-08 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Respondent, as the plaintiff in the complaint for unlawful detainer brought before the MTCC, had sought therein the award of P100,000.00 a month as reasonable rental.[38] Before this Court, petitioner asserts that respondent had failed to prove his claim that the reasonable rental value is P100,000.00 a month.[39] Respondent, as the plaintiff in the complaint before the MTCC, had the burden to adduce evidence to prove the fair rental value or reasonable compensation for the subject property,[40] but it failed to discharge its burden. All that it did was to make through his counsel a self-serving and uncorroborated assertion in the unverified Position Paper[41] before the MCTC that "(g)iven the size and strategic location of the subject property the reasonable rentals" for its use "can be safely estimated at P100,000.00 a month."[42] Neither did the trial court make any ratiocination when it granted the rentals rentals prayed for by respondent. | |||||
|
2007-09-12 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| Petitioner's contention that respondents had verbally agreed to extend the lease indefinitely is inadmissible to qualify the terms of the written contract under the parole evidence rule, and unenforceable under the statute of frauds.[34] | |||||
|
2006-11-22 |
CALLEJO, SR.,J. |
||||
| In short, the forgoing facts are the "good reason" that the court considers in granting the execution pending appeal. Moreover, it could not be disputed that the eight (8) lots subject matter of the contract between the plaintiff and defendant City of Cebu are located with the city proper of Cebu City, so the yearly rental of P547,042.237 which is only P45,586.85 a month, appears just and reasonable under the circumstances. Thus, the original amount in escrow deposit with PNB, Cebu City, has now accumulated to P9,846,760.27 (as per addendum) to include the increments, which amount was already transferred to Land Bank of the Philippines, Banilad Branch, Cebu City. The rentals should be taken from the aforesaid amount.[73] In Badillo v. Tayag,[74] the Court ruled that the fair rental value is the reasonable compensation for the use and compensation of property. There is no hard and fast rule in determining the reasonableness of rental for a property. However, the court ruled that a court may fix the reasonable rental but must still base its action on the evidence adduced by the parties. It behooved respondent to prove his claim for entitlement to reasonable rentals for the property. As the Court ruled in Josef a v. San Buenaventura:[75] In Asian Transmission Corporation v. Canlubang Sugar Estates, the Court ruled that the reasonable compensation contemplated under said Rule partakes of the nature of actual damages. While the trial court may fix the reasonable amount of rent, it must base its action on the evidence adduced by the parties. The Court also ruled that "fair rental value is defined as the amount at which a willing lessee would pay and a willing lessor would receive for the use of a certain property, neither being under compulsion and both parties having a reasonable knowledge of all facts, such as the extent, character and utility of the property, sales and holding prices of similar land and the highest and best use of the property. The Court further held that the rental value refers to "the value as ascertained by proof of what the property would rent or by evidence of other facts from which the fair rental value may be determined."[76] While location of the property may be considered in determining, the reasonableness of rentals, other factors must be considered, such as (a) the prevailing rates in the vicinity; (b) use of the property; (c) inflation rate; and (d) testimonial evidence.[77] | |||||
|
2006-09-26 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Admittedly, the lease contract of Verutiao and the Municipality expired on January 13, 1997 without having been renewed, and petitioner Mayor ordered Verutiao to vacate the stall, also for her failure to pay the rent amounting to P2,532.00. Under Section 44 of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 1999, the stall is considered vacant and shall be disposed of. However, petitioner had to file an action for unlawful detainer against Verutiao to recover possession of her stall and cause her eviction from said premises.[35] Verutiao insisted on her right to remain as lessee of her stall and to do business thereat. Such action is designed to prevent breaches of the peace and criminal disorder and prevent those believing themselves entitled to the possession of the property resort to force to gain possession rather than to secure appropriate action in the court to assert their claims.[36] It was incumbent upon petitioner Mayor to institute an action for the eviction of Verutiao. He cannot be permitted to invade the property and oust the lessee who is entitled to the actual possession and to place the burden upon the latter of instituting an action to try the property right.[37] | |||||