Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38059)
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-38059)
Facts:
Jose Qui v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, Trinidad Austria and Domingo Austria, G.R. No. L-38059, September 04, 1975, Supreme Court First Division, Esguerra, J., writing for the Court.
Private respondents Trinidad Austria and Domingo Austria (lessors) sued petitioner Jose Qui (lessee) for unlawful detainer, alleging that Qui failed to pay rentals for the period February 21, 1965 to the filing of the complaint (totaling P1,200.00) and failed to build, erect, construct and maintain the factory building required by their lease of February 20, 1960 (a 20‑year lease at P1,200.00 per year). Under the lease Qui paid P6,000.00 as advance rentals for the first five years and also extended a P600 loan to respondents. Qui built a factory on the lot which burned down in December 1960; while the factory remained unreconstructed he used the lot for poultry and piggery operations.
The City Court of Caloocan initially found breach for failure to rebuild and ordered ejectment, but on reconsideration the City Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction on September 25, 1966. The parties appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, where the case was submitted on a Stipulation of Facts acknowledging the fire, the advance payment, the unpaid P600 loan, and that P600 was later sent by registered mail and received by plaintiffs on January 17, 1966. On January 3, 1968 the CFI rendered judgment for petitioner, dismissing the ejectment complaint on the ground that there was no default in payment and that, because the lease contained no fixed period within which the lessee must reconstruct after a fortuitous destruction, the lessee should be afforded a reasonable time to rebuild and, absent a judicially fixed period, no breach could be declared.
Private respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which on September 3, 1973 reversed the CFI and ordered Qui’s ejectment. Qui filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court, directly attacking the Court of Appeals’ reversal. The parties litigated whether (and when) the lessee’s failure to rebuild after destruction constituted a breach entitling lessors to ejectment, and whether an unlawful detainer action was the proper remedy absent a judicially fixed period for reconstruction.
Issues:
- Was the Court of Appeals correct in reversing the Court of First Instance and ordering ejectment of the lessee despite the lease’s failure to fix any period for reconstruction and no judicially fixed period having been sought and set?
- Does the failure of a lessee to rebuild a factory destroyed through no fault of the lessee constitute a breach of the lease entitling lessors to ejectment when the contract contains no fixed time for reconstruction and the courts have not fixed such period?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)