This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2010-11-17 |
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J. |
||||
| Contrary to the ruling of the RTC, DBP's acceptance of petitioners' rental payments of P5,000.00 for the period of November 1990 to March 1991 did not likewise give rise to an implied lease between petitioners and DBP. In Tagbilaran Integrated Settlers Association (TISA) Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,[71] we held that "the subsequent acceptance by the lessor of rental payments does not, absent any circumstance that may dictate a contrary conclusion, legitimize the unlawful character of their possession." In the present case, the petitioners' rental payments to DBP were made in lump sum on March 22, 1991. Significantly, said payments were remitted only after petitioners were notified of the sale of the subject properties to respondents To Chip, Yap and Balila and after the petitioners were given a final demand to vacate the properties. These facts substantially weaken, if not controvert, the finding of the RTC and the argument of petitioners that the latter were faithfully remitting their rental payments to DBP until the year 1991. | |||||
|
2009-03-04 |
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J. |
||||
| At any rate, the allegations in the Complaint and the evidence presented during the trial below do not establish that Orlando or his heirs are covered by R.A. No. 1162, as amended. It was not alleged nor shown that the subject lot is part of the landed estate or haciendas in the City of Manila which were authorized to be expropriated under said law; that the Solicitor General has instituted the requisite expropriation proceedings pursuant to Section 2[21] thereof; that the subject lot has been actually leased for a period of at least ten (10) years; and that the subject lot has at least forty (40) families of tenants thereon. Instead, what was merely established during the trial is that the subject lot was leased by Cornelio to Orlando for the operation of a gasoline station, thus, negating petitioner's claim that the subject lot is covered by the aforesaid law. In Mataas Na Lupa Tenants Association, Inc., the Court further explained that R.A. No. 1162, as amended, has been superseded by Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1517[22] entitled "Proclaiming Urban Land Reform in the Philippines and Providing for the Implementing Machinery Thereof."[23] However, as held in Tagbilaran Integrated Settlers Association Incorporated v. Court of Appeals,[24] P.D. No. 1517 is applicable only in specific areas declared, through presidential proclamation,[25] to be located within the so-called urban zones.[26] Further, only legitimate tenants who have resided on the land for ten years or more who have built their homes on the land and residents who have legally occupied the lands by contract, continuously for the last ten years, are given the right of first refusal to purchase the land within a reasonable time.[27] Consequently, those lease contracts entered into for commercial use are not covered by said law.[28] Thus, considering that petitioner failed to prove that a proclamation has been issued by the President declaring the subject lot as within the urban land reform zone and considering further that the subject lot was leased for the commercial purpose of operating a gasoline station, P.D. No. 1517 cannot be applied to this case. | |||||