G.R. No. 86956 - Shoemart, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

Case Digest (G.R. No. 86956)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Background and Parties

Shoemart, Inc. (petitioner) leased a portion of the Makati Arcade to Anson Emporium Corporation (respondent).
The lease initially covered 374 square meters on the ground floor and 678 square meters on the second floor.
The lease was dated August 1, 1971 with an agreed period of two (2) years at a monthly rental of P18,842.00.
A stipulation was included that upon termination of the fixed lease term, should the tenant remain in possession with the Owner’s consent, the lease would convert to a month-to-month arrangement unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Lease Extension and Termination

Anson remained in possession after the two-year period, but with an increased rental rate of P34,622.00 per month.
On August 1, 1977, four years later, Shoemart terminated the month-to-month lease and demanded vacation of the property by August 31, 1977.
Anson continued to occupy the premises despite the notice, prompting Shoemart to file a complaint for ejectment.

Trial and Supplemental Proceedings

The case was originally filed as Civil Case No. 16896 before the Municipal Court of Makati.
In its answer, Anson raised defenses including:

A claim that the true agreement guaranteed a maximum stay of twenty-four (24) years.
An assertion that, even if the lease had expired, ejectment was premature pending determination of a new fixed term in line with Articles 1673 and 1687 of the Civil Code.

During the trial, Shoemart was granted leave to file a supplemental complaint alleging an increased rental of P45,142.00 effective January 1, 1979.
The supplemental complaint was validated through the Court of First Instance, the Intermediate Appellate Court, and eventually the Supreme Court.

Lower Court Decisions and Adjustments

The trial court ruled in favor of Anson and dismissed Shoemart’s initial complaint in a decision dated January 2, 1987.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court of Makati reversed the Municipal Court’s decision (Judgment dated October 2, 1987) and ordered:

Ejectment of Anson from specific store areas in the Makati Arcade.
Payment of damages as reasonable compensation for use and occupation, computed in multiple periods with varying rental rates.
Specific monetary awards for attorney’s fees and costs.

Following this, Shoemart filed a motion for reconsideration seeking an adjustment to the damages to account for rental increases from 1980 to 1985.
The Regional Trial Court partially granted Shoemart’s motion, modifying the computation periods and amounts, while private respondent, Anson, also filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied.

Appellate Review in the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals issued a decision on November 2, 1988, which:

Reinstated the ejectment order against Anson.
Reduced the amount of damages as reasonable compensation by limiting it to the supplemental complaint’s reference of P45,142.00 per month.
Eliminated the award for one (1%) interest on unpaid damages and the claim for reimbursement of cost of electricity.

Both parties filed respective motions for reconsideration.

Anson sought correction of a clerical error on the interest computation date.
Shoemart insisted on reinstating the Regional Trial Court’s decision regarding increased rental amounts.

The appellate decision was eventually challenged by Shoemart in a petition for review on certiorari.

Issues Raised by the Petitioner (Shoemart)

Shoemart contended that the Court of Appeals erred by:

Limiting Anson to a monthly rental of P45,142.00, despite proven evidence of four rental increases.
Eliminating the one (1%) interest on unpaid rentals effective October 1, 1977.
Excluding the reimbursement for electricity costs consumed on the premises.

Evidence and Arguments

During trial, evidence was presented (and not objected to) showing four distinct rental increases:

P45,142.00/month (January 1979 – September 1980).
P59,402.00/month (October 1980 – February 15, 1983).
P74,340.00/month (February 16, 1983 – February 28, 1985).
P99,040.00/month (March 1985 until vacancy, with continued computation for subsequent periods).

It was argued that the supplemental complaint was meant to supplement, not supplant, the original complaint which also prayed for recovery of any rental increases.
Anson, in its defense, raised issues regarding board resolutions for setting higher rentals and whether such increases were unconscionable, excessive, or arbitrary, but failed to provide corroborative evidence.

Issues:

Whether the limitation imposed by the Court of Appeals on awarding monthly damages at P45,142.00 was proper given the existence of evidence demonstrating four rental increases.

The contention centered on whether the supplemental complaint should confine the relief or whether the original complaint's broader remedy for “all other rentals and charges” should prevail.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in eliminating the imposition of one (1%) interest on unpaid rental damages starting from October 1, 1977.

The issue revolves around whether such interest should have been awarded in view of its being provided in the original lease contract notwithstanding the termination thereof.

Whether the exclusion of reimbursement for the cost of electricity consumed by Anson in the premises was proper, or if such reimbursement should have been included in the award as part of the damages for use and occupation.

The controversy extends to the appropriate measure of damages recoverable in an ejectment suit.

Ruling:

(Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

(Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Case Digest (G.R. No. 86956) Core Legal Reasoning Model Expanded

Facts:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 86956) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

Issues:

Ruling:

Ratio:

Doctrine:

Case Digest (G.R. No. 86956)
Core Legal Reasoning Model

Expanded

Case Digest (G.R. No. 86956)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model