Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

CHUA TEE DEE v. CA

This case has been cited 5 times or more.

	GR No. 154577 2008-07-23	EL CID PAGURAYAN v. DOLORES SORIANO-CARANGUIAN CORONA, J.
A contract of lease is a consensual, bilateral, onerous and commutative contract by which the owner temporarily grants the use of his property to another who undertakes to pay the rent.[26] Being a consensual contract, it is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of the minds on the thing and the cause and consideration which are to constitute the contract.[27] Without the agreement of both parties, no contract of lease can be said to have been created or established. [28] Nobody can force an owner to lease out his property if he is not willing.
	GR NO. 160867 2006-09-20	BONIFACIO NAKPIL v. MANILA TOWERS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION CALLEJO, SR., J.
The duty to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the duration of the contract is merely a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed in his legal, and not physical, possession.[37] In the early case of Goldstein v. Roces,[38] the Court, citing the commentaries of Manresa, pointed out that the obligation to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the leased property seeks to protect the lessee not only from acts of third persons but also from the acts of the lessor, thus:The lessor must see that the enjoyment is not interrupted or disturbed, either by others' acts [save in the case provided for in the article 1560 (now Article 1664)], or by his own. By his own acts, because, being the person principally obligated by the contract, he would openly violate it if, in going back on his agreement, he should attempt to render ineffective in practice the right in the thing he had granted to the lessee; and by others' acts, because he must guarantee the right he created, for he is obliged to give warranty in the manner we have set forth in our commentary on article 1553, and, in this sense, it is incumbent upon him to protect the lessee in the latter's peaceful enjoyment.[39] When the act of trespass is done by third persons, it must be distinguished whether it is trespass in fact or in law because the lessor is not liable for a trespass in fact or a mere act of trespass by a third person.[40] In the Goldstein case, trespass in fact was distinguished from legal trespass, thus: "if the act of trespass is not accompanied or preceded by anything which reveals a juridic intention on the part of the trespasser, in such wise that the lessee can only distinguish the material fact, stripped of all legal form or reasons, we understand it to be trespass in fact only (de mero hecho)."[41] Further, the obligation under Article 1654(3) arises only when acts, termed as legal trespass (perturbacion de derecho), disturb, dispute, object to, or place difficulties in the way of the lessee's peaceful enjoyment of the premises that in some manner cast doubt upon the right of the lessor by virtue of which the lessor himself executed the lease.[42]
	GR NO. 161722 2006-07-20	G.Q. GARMENTS v. ANGEL MIRANDA CALLEJO, SR., J.
The duty of the lessor to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the leased property for the entire duration of the contract is merely a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed in having legal and not physical possession of the property.[36]
	GR NO. 147912 2006-04-26	DE LOS SANTOS v. CA CORONA, J.
Since the allegations and the prayer in the present petition seek to reverse the October 6, 2000 and April 20, 2001 resolutions of the Court of Appeals, the proper remedy should have been a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Certiorari is resorted to only when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.[18]
	GR NO. 140305 2005-12-09	PLATON v. ROSILYN DELANTAR AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Preliminarily, this Court notes that while the petition states that it is one for review on certiorari, it claimed at the same time that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction, which is properly a ground for a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 and not for a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. Considering however the substance of the issues raised herein, we shall treat the present petition, as it claims, to be a petition for review on certiorari.[34]