Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Latip vs. Chua
Case
G.R. No. 177809
Decision Date
Oct 16, 2009
Rosalie Chua leased property to Spouses Latip, who claimed full payment via P2,570,000. Courts ruled advance rent, not goodwill, valid despite contract flaws; spouses liable for unpaid rent, deducting payment.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 177809)

Petitioner

Spouses Omar and Moshiera Latip, who seek review of the appellate court’s decision ordering their ejectment and payment of unpaid rentals.

Respondent

Rosalie P. Chua, lessor of the two cubicles and appellee below, who filed an unlawful detainer suit for unpaid rentals and damages.

Key Dates

• Lease contract executed December 1999 for a six‐year term (December 1999–December 2005)
• Commencement of suit: July 6, 2001
• Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) decision: January 13, 2004
• Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversal: September 24, 2004
• Court of Appeals (CA) reinstatement of MeTC decision: October 16, 2009

Applicable Law

• 1987 Philippine Constitution (decision date post-1990)
• Rule 129, Rules of Court (judicial notice)
• Civil Code, Articles 1371–1373 (contract interpretation)

Facts

  1. Rosalie and the Latips executed a six‐year lease over two cubicles at a monthly rent of ₱60,000, subject to a 10% yearly increase. The contract prohibited sublease or alterations without written consent.
  2. The Latips occupied the cubicles in December 1999. Rosalie later demanded unpaid rentals for 2000 onward.
  3. The Latips produced three receipts totaling ₱2,570,000, purportedly covering full rental for the entire lease term; Rosalie characterized these as “goodwill” payments, not full advance rental.

MeTC Decision

The MeTC ruled for Rosalie, ordering the Latips to vacate and pay:
• ₱720,000 for arrears (Dec. 1999–Dec. 2000)
• ₱72,000 per month (Jan. 2001–Dec. 2002), plus 10% annual increases
• Attorney’s fees and appearance fees, plus costs

RTC Decision

The RTC found the lease contract defective (missing signatures, dates, notarization) and accepted the Latips’ claim of full payment. It declared a valid six‐year lease fully paid, denied ejectment, and awarded the Latips damages and attorney’s fees.

CA Decision

The CA held the lease contract valid despite formal defects and took judicial notice—without sufficient proof—of a local practice of paying “goodwill” money in Baclaran. It reinstated the MeTC decision ordering ejectment and payment.

Issue

Whether the Latips should be ejected based on unpaid rentals, and whether the CA properly took judicial notice of a local “goodwill” practice to characterize the ₱2,570,000 payments.

Rule on Judicial Notice

Under Rule 129, judicial notice is mandatory for matters of public and political history; discretionary for facts of public knowledge or unquestionable demonstration. Three requisites for discretionary notice:

  1. Common and general knowledge
  2. Well settled and not doubtful
  3. Within the court’s territorial jurisdiction

Court’s Analysis on Judicial Notice

The Supreme Court found the CA’s judicial notice improper:
• Neither trial court nor RTC recognized any common practice of goodwill payments.
• Rosalie herself had to submit a joint sworn declaration of stallholders, contradicting the notion of a fact so notorious it required no proof.
• Judicial notice must be exercised with caution; any reasonable doubt mandates refusal.

Contract and Receip



...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.