Title
F. S. Divinagracia Agro-Commercial, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-47350
Decision Date
Apr 21, 1981
A long-term lease dispute arises after property ownership changes; courts extend lease for five years under equitable considerations, affirming lessee's inherited rights.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-47350)

Background Facts

The original lease dates back to 1899, established between the original owners and the father of the private respondent, Rufino Fernandez. Following the father's death, Fernandez continued the lease. The property was sold to the petitioner by the original owners on July 9, 1974, for P250,000. After the sale, a temporary arrangement was made wherein Fernandez continued to pay rent—initially paying P625.00 for the first half of July 1974 to the former owners and subsequently to the petitioner. A verbal agreement was reached to increase the monthly rent to P2,000.00 starting in August 1974.

Dispute and Initial Court Rulings

In October 1975, petitioner notified Fernandez that the lease would end on October 31, 1975, but Fernandez refused to vacate the premises. As a result, the petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the City Court of Iloilo. The City Court ruled in favor of Fernandez, dismissing the complaint and determining a monthly rental rate of P3,000, in addition to setting a lease duration of 7.5 years based on the previous years of occupancy.

Appeals and Modifications

The decision of the City Court was appealed to the Court of First Instance, which modified the judgment by reducing the lease duration to one year upon finality of the decision. Fernandez then sought a review from the Court of Appeals, which ultimately extended the lease by an additional five years while affirming other aspects of the prior rulings.

Legal Issues Raised by the Petitioner

The petitioner contested the Court of Appeals decision, arguing that it constituted a grave error in applying Article 1687 of the New Civil Code. The petitioner claimed:

  1. The Court effectively made a new contract between the parties, contradicting the intent of Article 1687.
  2. The lower court had not demonstrated grave abuse of discretion by limiting the lease term to one year.
  3. The conclusions drawn by the Court of Appeals were contrary to law and the established facts.
  4. The Court failed to apply the criteria set forth in previous jurisprudence.

Court’s Reasoning and Decision

The Supreme Court examined the application of Article 1687, noting that the court does possess the discretion to extend lease periods within equitable contexts. The court's analysis emphasized that the purpose of Article 1687 is to define the duration of a lease if it remains indefinite. The petitioner's assertion that the lease's reckoning should only begin with Fernandez’s occupancy was rejected, as the law presumes continuity of agreements despite ownership changes, unless stated otherwise in a contract.

The Court found that factors presented by the petitioner—ownership change, commercial premises distinction, and future intentions of u

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.