Case Summary (G.R. No. 140160)
Factual Background
On May 26, 1987, Mercedes N. Abella, as lessor, and Conrado Colarina, as lessee, executed a written lease covering a portion of the Juanabel Building in Naga City. The contract stipulated a monthly rental of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00) and, as stated in the contract, a term from July 1, 1987 until July 1, 1991. Upon execution, Colarina paid Abella Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), for which Abella issued a document expressly captioned and labeled in the receipt as an “advanced deposit, to answer for any rental which Mr. Conrado Colarina may fail to pay during the term of the lease.” Colarina expended Sixty Eight Thousand Pesos (P68,000.00) on improvements to the premises to accommodate his pawnshop business. He paid rent regularly until October 1987 but discontinued payments from November 1987 to April 1988. Abella made repeated demands and served a notice asserting extrajudicial rescission under paragraph thirteen of the lease. On May 1, 1988, Abella entered and took possession of the premises with assistance from the Naga City PNP and barangay officials, who prepared an inventory of items found therein.
Trial Court Proceedings
On May 5, 1988, Colarina filed an action entitled “enforcement of contract of lease with preliminary mandatory injunction and damages” before the RTC of Naga. After trial, the RTC ordered, among other things, that Abella return the Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) less Eighteen Thousand Pesos (P18,000.00) representing unpaid rentals from November 1987 to April 1988, thereby directing payment to Colarina of Twenty Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00). The trial court also directed the return of destroyed or removed materials and improvements introduced by Colarina and dismissed the case for lack of merit. The RTC accepted petitioner’s testimony that the P40,000.00 constituted “goodwill money,” and it rejected the allegation that the signature on the receipt was forged.
Court of Appeals Decision
The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC and ordered Abella to restore possession of the leased premises to Colarina under the original lease terms. The Court of Appeals also directed Abella either to restore the demolished or removed improvements to the premises or to pay their value of Sixty Eight Thousand Pesos (P68,000.00) with interest until fully paid, and to pay the costs of suit. The Court of Appeals held that the P40,000.00 was an advance deposit to answer for any rental which Colarina might fail to pay.
Issues Presented
The petition for review raised five assigned errors which centrally presented two issues: (1) whether respondent Conrado Colarina violated the contract of lease so as to justify petitioner’s exercise of extrajudicial rescission under paragraph thirteen; and (2) whether the possession of the premises may properly be restored to Colarina.
The Parties’ Contentions
Petitioner contended that the P40,000.00 paid to her was merely “goodwill money” given for the privilege to occupy the premises and that Colarina had effectively defaulted in rental payments, thereby authorizing rescission under paragraph thirteen. Petitioner further alleged, for the first time on appeal, that her signature on the receipt was procured through fraud and that the receipt did not reflect her true intent, warranting reformation. Respondent Colarina maintained that the receipt plainly described the payment as an advance deposit to secure payment of future rentals and that he was not in arrears at the time of Abella’s entry; he sought restoration of possession and recovery for the value of his demolished improvements.
Supreme Court's Ruling
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals insofar as it construed the Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) receipt as an advance deposit to answer for any rental which Colarina might fail to pay. The Court held that, in view of that receipt, Colarina was not in arrears when petitioner took possession on May 1, 1988, and therefore petitioner’s extrajudicial rescission was improper. The Court nonetheless declared the second issue—restoration of possession—moot and academic because the lease term expired on July 1, 1991, and Colarina’s possessory right was coterminous with the lease.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court applied the fundamental rule of contract interpretation that where the terms are clear, the literal meaning controls, citing Article 1370, Civil Code of the Philippines. The Court emphasized the unambiguous language of the receipt, which explicitly described the P40,000.00 as an “advanced deposit, to answer for any rental which Mr. Conrado Colarina may fail to pay during the term of the lease.” The Court gave greater probative weight to the documentary evidence than to the oral testimony of petitioner and her witness, observing that oral testimony is inherently less reliable and that the trial court had itself found the receipt genuine and rejected the forgery claim. The Court further held that the allegation of procurement by fraud could not be entertained because it was not raised at trial, and that the evidence presente
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 140160)
Parties and Posture
- Mercedes N. Abella was the lessor who filed a petition for review on certiorari from the decision of the Court of Appeals.
- Conrado Colarina was the lessee and respondent in the action vindicating his alleged rights under the lease.
- The controversy concerned a lease of a portion of the Juanabel Building and the propriety of extrajudicial rescission and restoration of possession.
- The petition assailed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the Regional Trial Court and raised five assigned errors principally about rescission and restoration of possession.
Key Facts
- The parties executed a lease contract on May 26, 1987 for a term stated as "July 1, 1987 until July 1, 1991" for a period of four (4) years with a monthly rent of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00).
- Conrado Colarina paid Mercedes N. Abella Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00), for which Abella issued a receipt purporting to be an "advanced deposit, to answer for any rental which Mr. Conrado Colarina may fail to pay."
- Colarina introduced improvements to the premises for his pawnshop at an alleged cost of Sixty Eight Thousand Pesos (P68,000.00).
- Colarina paid rent regularly until he ceased payment from November, 1987 to April, 1988.
- Abella served repeated demands and invoked paragraph thirteen of the lease to effect extrajudicial rescission and took possession of the premises on May 1, 1988 with police and barangay assistance, after which an inventory was made.
- Colarina filed suit on May 5, 1988 for enforcement of the lease with a preliminary mandatory injunction and damages.
Procedural History
- The Regional Trial Court, Naga Branch, rendered a decision dated April 1, 1991 ordering the return of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) less Eighteen Thousand Pesos (P18,000.00) representing unpaid rent and dismissed the case for lack of merit.
- The Court of Appeals reversed by decision promulgated on September 30, 1992 and ordered restoration of possession, restoration or payment for improvements, and payment of costs.
- Mercedes N. Abella appealed to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.
Issues Presented
- Whether Conrado Colarina violated the lease contract so as to justify Mercedes N. Abella's extrajudicial rescission under paragraph thirteen of the lease.
- Whether the possession of the leased premises should be restored to Colarina.
- Whether the Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) paid to Abella was an advance deposit for rent or merely "goodwill money."
- Whether the receipt should be reformed or set aside on grounds of fraud when that allegation was not raised at