Title
Felsan Realty and Development Corp. vs. Commonwealth of Australia
Case
G.R. No. 169656
Decision Date
Oct 11, 2007
A fire rendered leased property uninhabitable; lessee sought pre-termination and refund. Court ruled accidental fire justified lease termination, entitling lessee to reimbursement of advance rentals and security deposit, but denied attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 204766)

Lease Agreement and Fire Incident

The lease included a stipulation regarding damages to the property, allowing the lessee to terminate the contract if the property became uninhabitable due to causes like fire. Following the fire that accidentally originated from an overheated electric fan, the respondent informed the petitioner that the property was uninhabitable and requested to pre-terminate the lease, along with reimbursement of the security deposit and advance rental payments.

Dispute Over Responsibility

The petitioner rejected the respondent's request for pre-termination, attributing the cause of the fire to gross negligence by the lessee. The Bureau of Fire Protection's report indicated that the fire was accidental, leading to conflicting positions between the parties. Witness testimony during the trial affirmed the accidental nature of the fire, implying no negligence on the part of the respondent.

Trial Court Decision

On October 23, 2000, the Regional Trial Court sided with the respondent, allowing the pre-termination of the lease. The court found that the respondent had successfully established that the fire was accidental, rendering the property uninhabitable without attributing fault to the lessee. The trial court also ruled that a public document was not required for the lease’s pre-termination.

Court of Appeals Ruling

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, maintaining that the burden of proof for negligence fell upon the petitioner, and emphasizing that the evidence presented did not prove negligence on the part of the respondent. The appellate court acknowledged the applicant’s confusion between accident and negligence but upheld the trial court's conclusion regarding the respondent's right to pre-terminate the contract.

Petition for Review

The petitioner contested the appellate court's ruling, claiming it erroneously placed the burden of proof on them and misinterpreted the terms regarding accidental damage under the lease. They argued that the contractual stipulations had been violated, and therefore the respondent was not entitled to reimbursement as claimed.

Supreme Court's Findings

The Supreme Court reviewed the appellate court’s findings, emphasizing the contractual clause that allowed pre-termination in the event of damage rendering the premises unlivable. It affirmed that the fire was indeed accide

...continue reading

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