Case Digest (G.R. No. L-58468)
Facts:
Agapito B. Ducusin and Agapito T. Ducusin, Jr. v. Court of Appeals; Virgilio S. Baliola and Lilia S. Baliola, G.R. No. 58286, May 16, 1983, the Supreme Court Second Division, Guerrero, J., writing for the Court.On February 20, 1975, petitioners Agapito B. Ducusin (lessor) and his son Agapito T. Ducusin, Jr. entered into a written lease (Exhibit A) with respondents Virgilio S. Baliola and Lilia S. Baliola (lessees) for a one-door apartment at 3319‑A Magistrado Araullo St., Sta. Mesa, Manila, for a monthly rental of P220 on a month‑to‑month basis. The contract contained an express clause allowing termination by the lessor “on the ground that his children need the premises for their own use or residence,” and assigned utility and repair responsibilities to the lessee; a P440 deposit was taken.
The Baliolas occupied the unit for almost two years. On January 18, 1977, Ducusin Sr. served a “Notice to Terminate Lease Contract” giving the lessees until March 15, 1977 to vacate because his children were getting married and would need the unit. The lessees did not vacate; on April 14, 1977 petitioners filed an ejectment action in the City Court of Manila alleging termination by reason of the lessor’s need, and alternatively alleging sublease, commercial use, and failure to perform repairs.
The City Court of Manila, Branch XVI, ruled for the lessor, ordering the Baliolas to vacate, to pay P220 monthly as reasonable compensation from December 1978 until surrender of possession, to reimburse P263.29 for booster‑pump expenses, and to pay P700 attorney’s fees and costs. The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Manila, Branch XVI, affirmed, finding that the contract clause was operative, that the son’s marriage and need were established, and that petitioners had admitted the agreement to share booster‑pump expenses.
The Baliolas appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA‑G.R. No. SP‑11473‑PR. The CA sustained the validity of the lease clause (relying on Civil Code Arts. 1308 and 1182) but reversed the lower courts on the pivotal factual issue: it held that the lessor failed to prove by a preponderance of evidence the resolutory condition (the son’s need), and excluded letters, photographs and the marriage certificate as hearsay under Rule 130, Sec. 30. Accordingly, the CA modified the judgment by dismissing the ejectment complaint and ordering only reimbursement of P263.29 and future sharing of booster‑pump expenses.
Petitioners filed a petition for...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion in excluding evidence and reversing the factual findings of the trial courts regarding the lessor’s need to repossess the leased premises?
- Was the termination clause in the lease — allowing the lessor to end the contract when his children need the premises — valid and enforceable, or was it void under the Civil Code as a condition dependent on the will of one party?
- Did petitioners prove by a preponderance of evidence the happening of the resolutory condition (that Agapito...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)