Title
Malicsi vs. Carpizo
Case
G.R. No. L-17493
Decision Date
Jun 29, 1962
A lease contract was rescinded due to unpaid rentals; the administratrix of the lessor's estate was ordered to vacate, pay arrears, and cover attorney’s fees.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-17493)

Lease Agreement and Claims

The dispute arose from a Contract of Lease dated April 6, 1951, wherein Malicsi leased a portion of land to Tan Cuan for 17 years. The leased property was described as 180 square meters in Zamboanga City, with a monthly rental of P200. Following the death of Tan Cuan in May 1955, Carpizo, as administratrix, made intermittent rental payments until January and February 1958, which went unpaid despite multiple demands from Malicsi. In his complaint filed on March 19, 1958, Malicsi sought to rescind the lease agreement, obtain possession of the property, and recover P400 in unpaid rents, plus attorney fees.

Defendant's Answer and Counterclaims

In her answer filed April 7, 1958, Carpizo admitted the existence of the lease but denied failing to pay rent, claiming she had overpaid by P700, representing collections from a restaurant which Malicsi had rented out. As a special defense, she argued that funds were locked with the Clerk of Court due to another pending case. Carpizo also filed a counterclaim seeking P700 for alleged overpayments, P25,000 in moral damages, and P3,000 in attorney fees.

Trial Court Proceedings and Decision

The trial commenced, and upon Malicsi's presentation of evidence, Carpizo opted not to present any defense evidence. The trial court, in its decision on March 16, 1960, ruled in favor of Malicsi, declaring the lease contract rescinded and requiring Carpizo to vacate the property within 30 days. The court also awarded Malicsi the accrued unpaid rentals with interest, continuing rental payments until vacated, attorney fees, and costs of litigation. The counterclaim was dismissed.

Appeal and Legal Contentions

Carpizo appealed, disputing the trial court's cancellation of the lease contract. She contended that the lease was not among contracts deemed rescissible under Article 1381 of the Civil Code. However, the court referenced Article 1659, which states that rescission is permitted if the lessee defaults on rental payments. The court affirmed its stance, emphasizing Carpizo's failure to pay rent as grounds for rescission.

Additional Defenses and Court Findings

Carpizo further argued that claims for unpaid rents should be filed against the estate of Tan Cuan. However

...continue reading

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