Title
Alberto E. Malicsi vs. Rosalia A. Carpizo, Administratrix of the Estate of Tan Guan
Case
G. R. No. L-17493
Decision Date
May 30, 1962
Lease rescinded due to unpaid rentals; defendant evicted, ordered to pay accrued and future rentals, attorney’s fees, and costs.

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

Lease Agreement and Allegations

The plaintiff filed a complaint with the Court of First Instance of Zamboanga City on March 19, 1958, under Civil Case No. 717. He contended that after the death of Tan Cuan, the defendant continued making occasional rental payments but failed to pay for January and February of 1958 despite repeated demands. Malicsi sought to cancel the lease, recover unpaid rentals totaling P400, and claim attorney's fees amounting to P500.

Defendant's Response and Counterclaims

In her answer dated April 7, 1958, the defendant admitted the lease contract's existence but asserted that she had paid the rentals in advance, claiming that Malicsi received payments through a related restaurant. Additionally, she raised a special defense indicating that funds were deposited with the clerk of court and could not be withdrawn due to a legal dispute involving another party. As part of her counterclaim, she sought P700 for prior rentals, P25,000 for moral damages, and P3,000 in attorney's fees.

Trial Court Decision

Following due process and evidence submission from both parties, the trial court issued a decision on March 16, 1960, ruling in favor of Malicsi. The court declared the lease contract rescinded, ordered the defendant to vacate the premises within thirty days, and mandated the payment of accrued rentals with interest, continued rent until vacating, attorney's fees, and costs of the proceedings. The counterclaim was dismissed.

Appeal by Defendant

The defendant’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting her to appeal directly to a higher court. She argued that a lease contract is not susceptible to rescission under Article 1381 of the Civil Code. However, the appeal was dismissed as the relevant law explicitly permits rescission when one party fails to meet payment obligations, which was the case here.

Court's Analysis and Findings

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, highlighting that the failure to pay rent justified the rescission of the lease. The argument that the plaintiff had n

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.