Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    Viegely Samelo vs. Manotok Services, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Prince Calimbo Villa
    The document discusses a case between Viegelly Samelo and Manotok Services, Inc. regarding possession of a leased property. Manotok Services claims it rightfully administers the land and leased a portion to Samelo. After the lease expired, Samelo refused to vacate or pay rent. Manotok Services filed an unlawful detainer case, while Samelo claims Manotok has no rights over the land. The court found Manotok Services has better possession rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Viegely Samelo vs. Manotok Services, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Prince Calimbo Villa
    21 views5 pages
    The document discusses a case between Viegelly Samelo and Manotok Services, Inc. regarding possession of a leased property. Manotok Services claims it rightfully administers the land and leased a portion to Samelo. After the lease expired, Samelo refused to vacate or pay rent. Manotok Services filed an unlawful detainer case, while Samelo claims Manotok has no rights over the land. The court found Manotok Services has better possession rights.

    Original Description:

    dasdasdasdw

    Original Title

    Contracts Pp t

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a case between Viegelly Samelo and Manotok Services, Inc. regarding possession of a leased property. Manotok Services claims it rightfully administers the land and leased a portion to Samelo. After the lease expired, Samelo refused to vacate or pay rent. Manotok Services filed an unlawful detainer case, while Samelo claims Manotok has no rights over the land. The court found Manotok Services has better possession rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    21 views5 pages

    Viegely Samelo vs. Manotok Services, Inc

    Uploaded by

    Prince Calimbo Villa
    The document discusses a case between Viegelly Samelo and Manotok Services, Inc. regarding possession of a leased property. Manotok Services claims it rightfully administers the land and leased a portion to Samelo. After the lease expired, Samelo refused to vacate or pay rent. Manotok Services filed an unlawful detainer case, while Samelo claims Manotok has no rights over the land. The court found Manotok Services has better possession rights.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    You are on page 1of 5

    VIEGELY SAMELO vs.

    MANOTOK SERVICES, INC.


     Manotok Services, Inc. (respondent) alleged that it is the administrator of a
    parcel of land situated at Tondo, Manila. The respondent entered into a
    contract with the petitioner for the lease of a portion of the lot.
     The lease contract was for a period of one (1) year, with a monthly rental
    of P3,960.00. After the expiration of the lease contract, the petitioner
    continued occupying the subject premises without paying the rent. The
    respondent, thru its President Rosa Manotok, sent a letter to the petitioner
    demanding that she vacate the subject premises and pay compensation
    for its use and occupancy but petitioner refused.
     The respondent filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against the
    petitioner before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Manila. In her
    answer, the petitioner alleged that the respondent had no right to collect
    rentals because the subject premises are located inside the property of
    the Philippine National Railways (PNR). She also added that the
    respondent had no certificate of title over the subject premises. The
    petitioner further claimed that her signature in the contract of lease was
    obtained through the respondent’s misrepresentation. She likewise
    maintained that she is now the owner of the subject premises as she had
    been in possession since 1944.
    ISSUE

     Who has a better right of possession over the premises


    HELD

     Respondent has a better right of possession over the subject premises.


     "An action for unlawful detainer exists when a person unlawfully withholds possession of
    any land or building against or from a lessor, vendor, vendee or other persons, after the
    expiration or termination of the right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express
    or implied." The only issue to be resolved in an unlawful detainer case is physical or
    material possession of the property involved, independent of any claim of ownership by
    any of the parties involved. Thus, when the relationship of lessor and lessee is established
    in an unlawful detainer case, any attempt of the parties to inject the question of
    ownership into the case is futile, except insofar as it might throw light on the right of
    possession.
     Respondent did not give the petitioner a notice to vacate upon the expiration of the
    lease contract and the latter continued enjoying the subject premises for more than 15
    days, without objection from the respondent. By the inaction of the respondent as lessor,
    there can be no inference that it intended to discontinue the lease contract. An implied
    new lease was therefore created pursuant to Article 1670 of the Civil Code. Since the rent
    was paid on a monthly basis, the period of lease is considered to be from month to
    month, in accordance with Article 1687 of the Civil Code.

    You might also like