ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | October 24, 2023
Dear Chief Acosta,
Ako ay nangungupahan ng isang bodega simula noong Mayo 2021. Ako at ang nagpapaupa ay may pinirmahang kontrata kung saan nakasaad na ang pagpapaupa ay may bisa sa loob ng isang taon, o hanggang Mayo 2022 lamang. Nakasaad din sa aming kontrata na sa pagtatapos ng termino ng aming upa ay marapat na lisanin ko ang bodega, at ang hindi ko pagtupad dito ay magbibigay ng karapatan sa aking lessor ng pumasok dito upang ito ay mabawi. Nang matapos ang aming kontrata ay hindi pa rin ako nakahanap ng bagong mauupahan, kaya naman patuloy ko pa rin itong ginagamit. Pinadalhan ako ng sulat ng aking lessor noong Hunyo at Hulyo 2022 kung saan, ako ay kanyang pinapaalis, at noong Setyembre 2022, habang ako ay nasa ibang bansa ay tuluyan na siyang pumasok sa bodega at tinanggal ang aking mga gamit.
Nabawi ko naman ang aking mga gamit ngunit gusto kong malaman kung tama ba ang ginawa niyang pagpasok sa bodegang aking inuupahan nang walang utos ng korte? - Lia
Dear Lia,
Ang batas na sasaklaw patungkol sa iyong katanungan ay ang Republic Act No. 386 o mas kilala bilang New Civil Code of the Philippines. Nakasaad sa Articles 1306 at 1669 nito na:
“Article 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
Article 1669. If the lease was made for a determinate time, it ceases upon the day fixed, without the need of a demand.
Article 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;
(4) When the lessee devotes the thing leased to any use or service not stipulated which causes the deterioration thereof; or if he does not observe the requirement in No. 2 of article 1657, as regards the use thereof.
The ejectment of tenants of agricultural lands is governed by special laws.”
Kaugnay nito, inilahad ng Korte Suprema sa kaso ng CJH Development Corporation vs. Corazon Aniceto, at Corazon Aniceto vs. CJH Development Corporation (G.R. Nos. 224006, 224472, 06 July 2020, Ponente: Honorable Associate Justice Marvic M.V.F. Leonen), na:
“Under Article 1673, "[t]he lessor may judicially eject the lessee" in the following instances: (1) if the period agreed upon has expired; (2) if the lessee fails to pay the price stipulated; (3) if the lessee violates any of the conditions of the contract; and (4) if the thing leased suffered deterioration due to use or service not stipulated.
However, judicial action is not always required to eject the lessee.
In Consing v. Jamandre, the petitioner-sublessee of a hacienda in Negros Occidental allegedly failed to pay the respondent-sublessor. Because of this, the respondent regained possession of the hacienda, relying on a provision of their lease contract stating that when the lessee fails to comply with any of its term and conditions, the lessor is authorized “to take possession of the leased premises including all its improvements without compensation to the [sublessee] and without necessity of resorting to any court action[.]” The petitioner went to this Court, assailing its validity.
This Court ruled that such stipulation in a lease contract, which authorized the sublessor to take possession of the premises without judicial action, is valid and binding because the stipulation is in the nature of a resolutory condition.
Judicial permission to cancel the agreement was not, therefore, necessary because of the express stipulation in the contract of sub-lease that the sub-lessor, in case of failure of the sub-lessee to comply with the terms and conditions thereof, can take-over the possession of the leased premises, thereby cancelling the contract of sub-lease. Resort to judicial action is necessary only in the absence of a special provision granting the power of cancellation.”
Alinsunod sa mga nabanggit na probisyon ng batas at kaakibat na desisyon ng Korte Suprema, ang mga probisyon sa inyong kontrata, na malaya at kusang loob ninyong pinagkasunduan, ang siyang gagabay sa inyong mga responsibilidad at karapatan kaugnay sa inyong relasyon bilang nangungupahan at nagpapaupa. Inihayag ng Korte Suprema na ang pagsangguni sa korte upang mapaalis ang isang nangungupahan ay hindi kinakailangan sa lahat ng pagkakataon. Sa inyong sitwasyon, sa kadahilanang malinaw na nakasaad sa inyong kontrata ang karapatan ng iyong lessor na bawiin ang possession ng inuupahang bodega, matapos ang termino ng inyong kontrata, at sa kadahilanan din na ikaw ay ilang beses nang pinaalalahanan na lisanin ito, ang pagpasok ng iyong lessor sa inuupahang bahay ay alinsunod lamang sa inyong naging kasunduan.
Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.
Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.
Comentarios