Bongco v. Javelosa

 

Bongco v. Javelosa

G.R. No. 238888

December 5, 2022

 

FACTS:

Petitioners claim that there was a deficiency in the rental payments made by respondents. Pursuant to the contract, the rental fees should be reduced due to the disturbance in their possession of the leased premises by reason of law, particularly the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARP). They alleged that members of the National Federation of Sugar Workers (NFSW), who claimed to be CARP beneficiaries, seized a portion of the leased parcels of land through stealth and strategy. The RTC dismissed the complaint and ruled that petitioners did not make any effort to alleviate the problems of the farmworkers by at least reducing the rentals. The CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the RTC’s judgment. It found that petitioners failed to maintain respondents' peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the leased premises during the contract since they did not bother to contest or dispute the taking by CARP beneficiaries despite notice.

ISSUE:

1. Whether or not the trespass of the NFSW members is a trespass in fact

2. Whether or not the lessor is estopped from demanding payment of rent by delivery of sugar quedans

HELD:

1. Yes. As such, the contract of lease only allows reduction in case of legal trespass. A lessor’s legal obligation under Art. 1654(3) of the Civil Code is "to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the contract." Such duty is merely a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed in his or her legal, and not physical, possession. In this case, petitioners correctly argued that the entry of the NFSW members constituted only a trespass in fact, and not in law. Thus, the intruders' occupancy remained to be only a disturbance of the physical possession of respondents. Accordingly, Art. 1664 of the Civil Code provides that: The lessor is not obliged to answer for a mere act of trespass which a third person may cause on the use of the thing leased; but the lessee shall have a direct action against the intruder. Therefore, there is a mere act of trespass when the third person claims no right whatsoever.

2. No. Art. 1657 of the Civil Code provides that the lessee is obliged to pay the price of the lease according to the terms stipulated. The parties agreed that the rent shall be paid through sugar quedans. Petitioners' prior acquiescence to such mode of payment did not eliminate their right to demand payment in quedans especially when paragraph 3 of the contract accords preference for payment of sugar quedans over cash.