Sunday, February 22, 2015

del cas



Ong Ching Po vs. CA
G.R. Nos. 113472-73
December 20, 1994

FACTS:
On July 1947, Joi Jong sold a parcel of land to private respondent Soledad Parian, the wife of Ong Yee, who died in January 1983. The said sale was evidenced by a notarized Deed of Sale written in English. Subsequently, the document was registered with the RD of Manila, which issued a TCT dated September 2, 1947 in the name of private respondent Parian.
According to private respondent, she entrusted the administration of the lot and building to the brother of her husband, petitioner Ong Ching Po when the spouses settled in Iloilo. When her husband died, she demanded that the lot be vacated because she was going to sell it. Unfortunately, petitioners refused to vacate the said premises.
On March 19, 1984, Parian filed a case for unlawful detainer against petitioner Ong Ching Po before the MTC of Manila. The inferior court dismissed her case, and so did the RTC, Manila and the CA, the CA decision final and executory.
Petitioners, on the other hand, claimed that on July 23, 1946, petitioner Ong Ching Po bought the said parcel of land from Joi Jong. The sale was evidenced by a photo copy of a Deed of Sale written in Chinese. An English translation of said document read as follows:
Deed of Sale
I, Ong Joi Jong, a party to this Deed of Sale hereby sell in absolutely (sic) manner a lot located on No. 4 Fundidor Street, San Nicolas an (sic) area consisting 213 square meters including a one-story house erected thereon unto Mr. Ong Ching Po for the sum of P6,000.00 the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged by me and consequently I have executed and signed the government registered title (sic) the said lot inclusive of the house erected thereon, now belong (sic) to Mr. Ong Ching Po unequivocally. And the purpose of this document is to precisely serve as proof of the sale.
Addendum: I have acceded to the request of Mr. Ong Ching Po into signing another document in favor of Soledad Parian (She is the Filipino wife of Ong Yee, brother of Ong Ching Po) for the purpose of facilitating the issuance of the new title by the City Register of Deeds and for the reason that he is not yet a Filipino. I certify to the truthfulness of this fact.
Lot Seller: Ong Joi Jong
On Dec. 6, 1983, petitioner Ong Ching Po executed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying to his children, petitioners Jimmy and David Ong, the same property sold by Joi Jong to private respondent Parian  in 1947.
On Dec. 12 1985, petitioners Ong Ching Po, Jimmy and David filed an action for reconveyance and damages against private respondent in the RTC, Manila.
On July 26, 1986, private respondent Parian  filed an action for quieting of title against petitioners Ong Ching Po and his wife, petitioner Yu Siok Lian, in the RTC, Manila. Upon her motion, the case was consolidated with the earlier civil case. (petitioner Ong Ching Po died in October 1986.)
On May 30 1990, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of private respondent.
On appeal by petitioners to the CA, the said court affirmed the decision of the RTC.
Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
 According to petitioners, the CA erred:
(1) When it gave full faith and credit to the Deed of Sale (Exh. A) in favor of private respondent, instead of the Deed of Sale (Exh, B) in favor of petitioner Ong Ching Po.
(2) When it concluded that the acts of petitioners were not acts of ownership; and
(3) When it ruled that no express nor implied trust existed between petitioners and private respondent (as stated in Exh. B)
RULING: 
The petition is dismissed
1. The CA did not give any credence to Exhibit “B” and its translation, because these documents had not been properly authenticated. Petitioners likewise failed to adduce evidence as to the genuineness and due execution of the deed of sale, Exhibit “B”.
On the other end of the legal spectrum, the deed of sale executed by Joi Jong in favor of private respondent (Exh. “A”) is a notarized document.
2. As to the contention of petitioners that all the tax receipts, tax declaration, rental receipts, deed of sale (Exh. “B”) and transfer certificate of title were in their possession, private respondent explained that she and her husband entrusted said lot and building to petitioners when they moved to Iloilo.
As observed by the Court of Appeals:
We find, however, that these acts, even if true, are not necessarily reflective of dominion, as even a mere administrator or manager may lawfully perform them pursuant to his appointment or employment
It is markworthy that all the tax receipts were in the name of private respondent and her husband. The rental receipts were also in the name of her husband.
3. We cannot go along with the claim that petitioner Ong Ching Po merely used private respondent as a dummy to have the title over the parcel of land registered in her name because being an alien he was disqualified to own real property in the Philippines. To sustain such an outrageous contention would be giving a high premium to a violation of our nationalization laws.
Assuming that Exhibit “B” is in existence and that it was duly executed, still petitioners cannot claim ownership of the disputed lot by virtue thereof.
Section 5, Article XIII of the 1935 Constitution provides, as follows:
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain in the Philippines.
Section 14, Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution provides, as follows:
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private land shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands in the public domain.
Section 7, Article XII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands in the public domain.
The 1935 Constitution reserved the right to participate in the “disposition, exploitation, development and utilization” of all “lands of the public domain and other natural resources of the Philippines” for Filipino citizens or corporations at least sixty percent of the capital of which was owned by Filipinos. Aliens, whether individuals or corporations, have been disqualified from acquiring public lands; hence, they have also been disqualified from acquiring private lands.
Petitioner Ong Ching Po was a Chinese citizen; therefore, he was disqualified from acquiring and owning real property. Assuming that the genuineness and due execution of Exhibit “B” has been established, the same is null and void, it being contrary to law.
On expressed trust:
There is no document showing the establishment of an express trust by petitioner Ong Ching Po as trustor and private respondent Parian as trustee. Not even Exhibit “B” can be considered as such a document because private respondent, the registered owner of the property subject of said “deed of sale,” was not a party thereto. The oral testimony to prove the existence of the express trust will not suffice.
Under Article 1443 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, “No express trust concerning an immovable or any interest therein may be proved by parole evidence.”
On implied trust:
Undaunted, petitioners argue that if they cannot prove an express trust in writing, they can prove an implied trust orally. While an implied trust may be proved orally (Civil Code of the Philippines, Art. 1457), the evidence must be trustworthy and received by the courts with extreme caution, because such kind of evidence may be easily fabricated. It cannot be made to rest on vague and uncertain evidence or on loose, equivocal or indefinite declarations.
Petitioners do not claim that Ong Yee was not in a financial position to acquire the land and to introduce the improvements thereon. On the other hand, Yu Siok Lian, the wife of petitioner Ong Ching Po, admitted in her testimony in court that Ong Yee was a stockholder of Lam Sing Corporation and was engaged in business.
1. It is not correct to say that private respondent never took possession of the property. Under the law, possession is transferred to the vendee by virtue of the notarized deed of conveyance. Under Article 1498 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, “when the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery of the object of the contract, if from the deed the contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred.” If what petitioners meant was that private respondent never lived in the building constructed on said land, it was because her family had settled in Iloilo.
2. Under Section 4, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court:
Secondary Evidence when Original is lost or destroyed. When the original writing has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, upon proof of its execution and lost or destruction, or unavailability, its contents may be proved by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the recollection of the witnesses.
Secondary evidence is admissible when the original documents were actually lost or destroyed. But prior to the introduction of such secondary evidence, the proponent must establish the former existence of the document. The correct order of proof is as follows: existence; execution; loss; contents. This order may be changed if necessary in the discretion of the court.
The due execution of the document may be established by
1.    the person or persons who executed it;
2.    by the person before whom its execution was acknowledged;
3.    or by any person who was present and saw it executed or who after its execution, saw it and recognized the signatures;
4.    or by a person to whom the parties to the instrument had previously confessed the execution thereof.
Petitioner Yu Siok Lian testified that she was present when said document was executed, but the trial court rejected her claim and held:
If it is true that she was present, why did she not sign said document, even merely as a witness? Her oral testimony is easy to concoct or fabricate. Furthermore, she was married only on September 6, 1946 to the plaintiff, Ong Ching Po, in Baguio City where she apparently resided, or after the deed of sale was executed. The Court does not believe that she was present during the execution and signing of the deed of sale involved therein, notwithstanding her pretensions to the contrary.








Kneedler V. Paterno G.R. No. L-1349          December 29, 1949
85 Phil 183

FACTS:
On October 14,1941, the Kneedler Realty Co. sold to Simon Paterno a parcel of land situated in the municipality of Pasay (now Rizal City), continuing an area of 6,830.81 square meters, and more particularly described in transfer certificate of title No. 6555, for the sum of P111,000. Paterno made an initial payment of P30,000 and agreed to pay the balance of P81,000 in eleven monthly installments of P7,000 each and a twelfth installment of P4,000, with interest at 9 % per annum. To guarantee the payment of the said balance of P81,000 plus interest, attorney's fees, and the cost of collection, Paterno mortgaged the same property to the Kneedler Realty Co., and the mortgage was duly annotated on new transfer certificate of title No. 44470 issued in his name by virtue of the deed of sale. The last mentioned transfer certificate of title was subsequently lost.lawphi1.net
On May 24,1946, this action was commenced to foreclose said mortgage. On June 26,1946, the defendant Simon Paterno wrote to the plaintiff H.D. Kneedler, in his capacity as liquidator of the Kneedler Realty Co., as follows:
Dear Sir:
With reference to our conversation of the 22nd instant and the suit you instituted against myself, Vicente Madrigal, and the Registers of Deeds of Manila and Rizal, Civil Case No. 7729, I beg to confirm the arrangement we have entered into in settlement of that suit.
I acknowledge an indebtedness to you of P81,000, together with the interest at the rate of 5 % per annum from ..........................., exclusive of the time of the Japanese occupation. of this amount I will pay you P5,000 upon your accepting this letter and the dismissal of that suit. The balance, I will pay as follows:
P20,000.00 within 90 days
P20,000.00 within 180 days
P20,000.00 within 270 days
Balance — within 360 days
With interest at 5% per annum on unpaid balances. These payments will be guaranteed by don Vicente Madrigal. In case you accept the foregoing, kindly advise me ad send me a copy of your motion to dismiss the case, whereupon I will send you Mr. Vicente Madrigal's guaranty.
Very truly your,
(Sgd.) Simon Paterno
Because Paterno refused to sign a mortgage to guarantee the new schedule of payments as contained in the foregoing letter, the plaintiff did not move to dismiss this case.
On July 6,1946, the defendants Paterno and Madrigal filed their answer, wherein they admitted the purchase by Paterno of the property in question and the execution by him of a mortgage thereon to guarantee the payment of P81,000 plus interest, attorney's fees, and the cost of collection, as alleged in paragraph III of the complaint; but averred as a special defense "that during the Japanese occupation Simon Paterno paid to the Japanese currency, due and owing under the mortgage referred to in paragraph III of the complaint."
After due trial His honor Judge Eulalio Garcia declared proven the alleged payment to the Japanese Enemy Property Custodian but held that such payment was null and void and that therefore the obligation in favor of the plaintiff had not been extinguished. Hence the judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
The plaintiff never admitted the alleged payment of the mortgage to the Japanese and insists in his brief before this court: "In the absence of the documentary proof plaintiff-appellee cannot accept the allegation of payment and wishes to invite the attention of the Court to the contradictions in the testimony of Mr. Paterno with regard thereto. . ."

ISSUE:
Whether or not defendant paterno has discharged the burden of proof required of a debtor to entitle him to be relieved by the court from paying his debt.

RULING:
 The following are the main considerations that lead us to this conclusion:
1. Said defendant has not presented the best evidence of which the case is susceptible. The payment was alleged to have been made by checks on the Yokohama Specie Bank. The records of said bank existed in the office of the Philippine Alien Property Administration of the United States in Manila, and the fact that it would have taken at least two weeks to locate the checks in question was not a sufficient ground for the acceptance of oral testimony as to the alleged payment. The present action was commenced on May 24, 1946, and the trial was not held until October 25, 1946. Defendant then had sufficient opportunity to produce the best evidence available had he exercised due diligence. If the intervening period of five months between the filing of the complaint and the date of the trial were not sufficient, said defendant could and should have asked the trial court for the postponement of the trial to enable him to locate the necessary documentary evidence in support of his defense.
"It is an elementary principle of the law of evidence that the best evidence of which the case in its nature is susceptible and which is within the power of the party to produce, or is capable of being produced, must always be adduced in proof of every disputed fact. Secondary evidence is never admissible unless it is made manifest that the primary evidence is unavailable, as where it is shown that it has been lost or destroyed, is beyond the jurisdiction of the court, or is in the hands of the opposite party who, on due notice, fails to produce it . . . According to the great weight of authority . . ., where primary evidence is not available so that a fact may be proved by secondary evidence is required to produce the best secondary evidence which exists and which is in his power to produce." (20 Am. Jur., Evidence, secs. 403, 404, pp. 364, 365.)
2. From the records of cases that have come before us, we take judicial notice of the practice of the Japanese to issue a cancellation of mortgage in due form in a case like the present. In the present case, however, no such cancellation of mortgage is claimed to have been issued to the defendant-mortgagor. It is strange that in paying off a mortgage for such a big amount of money (more than P96,000 ) the defendant Paterno contented himself with a mere receipt in Japanese characters instead of securing a cancellation of the mortgage as other debtors of enemy nationals who made payments to the Japanese did. Thus it appears from defendant's own testimony and that of his witnesses that the Japanese Military Administration did not cancel or release the mortgage in question. under the circumstances the court must consider it still subsisting and enforceable.
3. Even if the oral evidence adduced in this case be held valid, it is too vague, uncertain, and full of contradictions to be relied on. According to Mr. Paterno the checks were paid to the "Alien Property Custodian " of the Japanese, whereas according to Mr. Pañganiban, who prepared said checks, they were paid to the Japanese Military Administration. According to Mr. Paterno the checks were issued in November or December, 1943, whereas according to Mr. Panganiban they were issued in March, 1943, and according to Mr. Bayani in January orFebruary, 1944. While these discrepancies do not necessarily indicate pre-variation, they demonstrate the frailty and unreliability of human memory.
Realizing the frailty and unreliability of human memory, especially with regard to figures, after the lapse of more than five years, we find no sufficient basis upon which to reverse the trial court's finding that this claim had not been satisfactorily proven.
In the judgment of the trial court we not two errors in favor of the defendant-appellant, to wit: (1) the exemption of defendant from paying interest during the years 1942 to 1944, for which there was no legal basis, and (2) the suspension of the payment until the lifting of the moratorium, which law has not been pleaded and invoked by the defendant. But inasmuch as the plaintiff has not appealed from said judgment, we are not justified in modifying it in this respect.
The judgment is affirmed, with cost against the appellant.




SANTOS V. CA and Philippine Geriatric Foundation Inc.
G.R. No. 135481.  October 23, 2001

FACTS:
In 1969, private respondent PGFI occupied the ground floor of the Geriatrics Center on Lions Road, Mayor Antonio J. Villegas Street, Ermita, Manila, upon the invitation of the president of the Philippine Federation of Medical Practitioners.  In 1971, PGFI built a gymnasium adjacent to said building.  This was later on converted into a canteen and leased to one Victor Jimenez.  Jimenez later on vacated the space after he failed to pay rentals therefor.
In 1989, petitioner occupied the canteen by virtue of a letter-contract executed between her and Vicente Pulido, president of PGFI.
Meanwhile, the City Mayor of Manila requested PGFI to vacate its office at the Geriatrics Center.  It agreed and planned to transfer to the canteen beside the Geriatrics Center.  On December 27, 1993, PGFI asked petitioner to vacate said space in a letter advising the latter of the termination of the lease contract.  However, petitioner refused to vacate.  In the meantime, the city government of Manila forcibly ejected PGFI from the Geriatrics Center on January 7, 1995.  On October 11, 1995, PGFI through counsel, sent another demand letter to petitioner asking her to pay rentals in arrears and to vacate the canteen space within ten days of receipt of the letter.  Still, petitioner refused.
Thereafter, PGFI filed an ejectment case against petitioner with a prayer for the payment of rentals in arrears for the period September 15, 1993 to September 30, 1995 totaling P36,750.00.  The parties agreed that the only issue to be resolved was whether or not petitioner may be ejected from the premises on the ground of non-payment of rentals.
The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) dismissed the complaint on the ground that PGFI failed to establish the existence of a lease contract between the parties. PGFI claimed that the contract had been lost when it was forcibly ejected from the Geriatrics Center. The contract was a letter-offer signed by petitioner and addressed to PGFI, stating petitioner’s intention to lease PGFI’s canteen under certain terms and conditions.  It was later on signed by Pulido as PGFI president, indicating its conformity with the terms thereof.
To prove the existence of the contract, PGFI presented affidavits of its trustees and officers  and presented to the trial court an unsigned photocopy of the same.  However, the trial court refused to admit the photocopy as secondary evidence.  Consequently, in a decision dated February 26, 1997,  the MeTC ruled that there is no evidence that would warrant ejectment of petitioner from the subject premises.
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the decision of the MeTC.  PGFI filed a motion for reconsideration on October 6, 1997 and a motion to treat said motion as a motion for new trial on October 27, 1997, on the ground of newly discovered evidence. A few days earlier, on October 11, 1997, PGFI found its copy of the lease contract signed by petitioner and Pulido, as well as by its other trustees.  PGFI presented said contract to the RTC, which rejected it as “forgotten evidence”.
PGFI raised the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA), which reversed the ruling of the RTC.  According to the CA, the unsigned copy of the lease contract that was presented before the trial court qualified as secondary evidence under Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court.  The CA noted that PGFI was able to prove the existence and due execution of the lease contract through the affidavits of its witnesses.  Finally, the contents of the contract itself were proven through the unsigned copy held by PGFI.  There is, thus, a valid lease contract executed between the parties, contrary to the ruling of the trial court.
The CA ruled that petitioner’s failure to abide by the terms stated in the contract, particularly the payment of rentals, warranted her eviction from the premises.  The dispositive portion of the CA decision reads:
“WHEREFORE, this petition is hereby GRANTED.  The Decision of the Regional Trial Court affirming the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint is hereby SET ASIDE and a new one is rendered ordering the defendant Ligaya Santos, a.k.a. Ligaya Salvador, to vacate the premises in question subject of the complaint and surrender possession thereof to plaintiff; and to pay the plaintiff the sum of P24,500.00 as unpaid rentals from September 15, 1993 to September 30, 1995 at the rate of P1,000.00 a month as provided in the letter-contract and the further sum of P1,000.00 a month from October, 1995 until she vacates the premises as reasonable compensation for the use and occupancy thereof, and to pay the costs of suit.
Costs against respondent.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the court erred;
I. …IN HOLDING THAT THE RESPONDENT WAS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE FACT OF THE EXECUTION OF THE LETTER-CONTRACT OF LEASE.
II. …WHEN IT ADMITTED AS NEWLY FOUND EVIDENCE THE ALLEGEDLY SIGNED LETTER-CONTRACT OF LEASE EVEN THOUGH THE SAME WAS NOT FORMALLY OFFERED IN EVIDENCE DURING TRIAL.
III. …IN ITS DECISION, DATED JUNE 23, 1998, SETTING ASIDE THE DECISION OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT WHICH DISMISSED THE COMPLAINT OF THE PLAINTIFF


RULING:
The parties anchor their respective arguments on the admissibility, or non-admissibility in the case of petitioner, of the unsigned copy of the alleged letter-contract of lease executed between petitioner and PGFI.
Admittedly, the original copy of the contract was not presented during trial, so PGFI as plaintiff therein resorted to presentation of secondary evidence.  It presented the disputed unsigned copy of the contract as well as affidavits of persons who saw the contract and signed thereon representing PGFI.
The Rules of Court provides, in case the original of the document is lost:
SEC. 5.  When original document is unavailable. -- When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of its unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated. (Rule 130, Rules of Court).
Before the contents of an original document may be proved by secondary evidence, there must first be satisfactory proof of the following: (1) execution or existence of the original; (2) loss and destruction of the original or its non-production in court; and (3) unavailability of the original is not due to bad faith on the part of the offeror.[27] Proof of the due execution of the document and its subsequent loss would constitute the foundation for the introduction of secondary evidence.[28]
In the present case, the existence and due execution of the lease contract had been established by the affidavits of trustees of PGFI who were signatories thereto.[29] The loss of said contract was likewise established by the affidavit of Vicente Pulido, who attested to the fact that he kept the original and a duplicate copy[30] of the contract at the PGFI office at the Geriatrics Center.  These copies were lost in the chaos that ensued when PGFI was forcibly evicted from its office.  Without a place to immediately move to, its files and records were left for sometime[31] on the street where they were susceptible to theft. Secondary evidence, then, may be admitted to prove the contents of the contract.
The contents of the original document may be proved (1) by a copy; (2) by a recital of its contents in some authentic document; or (3) by the recollection of witnesses,[32] in the order stated.
There is testimonial evidence on record to prove the contents of the lost lease contract.  The affidavits of the witnesses for PGFI contain a recital of the offer of petitioner to occupy the subject premises for a specified amount payable every month, and the conformity to these terms by the trustees of PGFI who signed thereon.[33] Thus, even dispensing with the unsigned copy that was presented at the trial of this case, there is still evidence of the contents of the contract in the form of testimonial evidence.
Petitioner’s emphasis on the admissibility of the unsigned copy of the contract is misplaced.  The contents of the lost original copy may not only be proved by a copy thereof but also by the testimony of witnesses.[34] At best, the original copy of  the contract  that was later found merely affirms what had already been established by secondary evidence.
When the original copy of the contract[35] was found, PGFI attempted to present it before the trial court by moving for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence.  On this point, we note that petitioner did not offer any objection as to the genuineness of the original contract or her signature thereon.[36] She objected only insofar as claiming that PGFI could no longer present the document since it was not offered in evidence during the trial of this case.  We take this as an indication that, indeed, there is nothing questionable about the original contract insofar as its genuineness is concerned.
Having thus shown that a lease agreement exists between the parties, we come to the question of whether or not petitioner may be ejected from the subject premises for non-compliance with the terms of the agreement.
Under the contract, petitioner obligated herself to pay a monthly rental, denominated as donation per PGFI policy, to PGFI in the amount of P1,000.00 a month.  The lease period was two years.[37] PGFI issued receipts,[38] whose existence and issuance petitioner admitted,[39] for petitioner’s monthly payments which was eventually increased from P1,000.00 to P1,500.00.  The agreement expired in December 1991.  In December 1993, petitioner admittedly stopped paying PGFI,[40] while still occupying the subject premises.
We agree with the CA that after December 1991, with petitioner still in the premises, the lease was impliedly renewed on a month-to-month basis, per Article 1670, in relation to Article 1687, of the Civil Code.[41]
Article 1670 of the Civil Code provides:
Art. 1670.  If at the end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given, it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but for the time established in articles 1682 and 1687.  The other terms of the original contract shall be revived.  (Emphasis supplied.)
On the other hand, Article 1687 states:
Art. 1687.  If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily.  xxx  (Emphasis supplied.)
Petitioner’s obligation to pay rentals did not cease with the termination of the original agreement.  When she failed to remit the required amounts after December 1993, the time when she stopped paying, PGFI was justified in instituting ejectment proceedings against her.  Thus, under Article 1673 of the Civil Code:
Art. 1673.  The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the following causes:
(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed for the duration of leases under articles 1682 and 1687, has expired;
(2) Lack of payment of the price stipulated;
(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract;
xxx
Petitioner clearly violated the provisions of the lease when she stopped making payments to PGFI.  Hence, we find no reason to disturb the findings and conclusions of respondent appellate court.
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED.  The decision dated June 23, 1998, of the Court of Appeals, in CA-G.R. SP No. 46629 is AFFIRMED.
Costs against petitioner.




No comments:

Post a Comment