Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 80 views

    Rebecca Fulido vs. Gino Grilli

    Uploaded by

    Marvien Barrios
    Grilli funded the construction of a house on a lot owned by Fullido. They lived together for 16 years under a 50-year lease contract for the property that would automatically renew. When their relationship soured, Grilli demanded Fullido vacate but she refused, arguing the contract was void. The court found the contract was void as leases cannot last over 50 years under Philippine law. As void contracts produce no legal effect, the lease could not be used as the basis for an ejectment order against Fullido. A void contract does not need to be separately annulled and cannot be invoked in court proceedings like ejectment cases.

    Copyright:

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

    Rebecca Fulido vs. Gino Grilli

    Uploaded by

    Marvien Barrios
    80 views2 pages
    Grilli funded the construction of a house on a lot owned by Fullido. They lived together for 16 years under a 50-year lease contract for the property that would automatically renew. When their relationship soured, Grilli demanded Fullido vacate but she refused, arguing the contract was void. The court found the contract was void as leases cannot last over 50 years under Philippine law. As void contracts produce no legal effect, the lease could not be used as the basis for an ejectment order against Fullido. A void contract does not need to be separately annulled and cannot be invoked in court proceedings like ejectment cases.

    Original Description:

    ObliCon

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Grilli funded the construction of a house on a lot owned by Fullido. They lived together for 16 years under a 50-year lease contract for the property that would automatically renew. When their relationship soured, Grilli demanded Fullido vacate but she refused, arguing the contract was void. The court found the contract was void as leases cannot last over 50 years under Philippine law. As void contracts produce no legal effect, the lease could not be used as the basis for an ejectment order against Fullido. A void contract does not need to be separately annulled and cannot be invoked in court proceedings like ejectment cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    80 views2 pages

    Rebecca Fulido vs. Gino Grilli

    Uploaded by

    Marvien Barrios
    Grilli funded the construction of a house on a lot owned by Fullido. They lived together for 16 years under a 50-year lease contract for the property that would automatically renew. When their relationship soured, Grilli demanded Fullido vacate but she refused, arguing the contract was void. The court found the contract was void as leases cannot last over 50 years under Philippine law. As void contracts produce no legal effect, the lease could not be used as the basis for an ejectment order against Fullido. A void contract does not need to be separately annulled and cannot be invoked in court proceedings like ejectment cases.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    1409 – Rebecca Fulido vs.

    Gino Grilli
    Grilli in this case is a foreigner and a sweetheart of Ms. Fullido. Since he has money, he
    financially assisted Ms. Fullido in procuring a lot from her parents which was registered in her
    name. On the said property, they constructed a house, which was funded by Mr. Grilli. Upon
    completion, they maintained a common-law relationship and lived there whenever Grilli was on
    vacation in the Philippines. Sometime in 1998, Grilli and Fullido executed a contract of lease.
    This lease defines their respective rights over the house and lot. The lease of contract stipulated,
    among others, that Grilli as the lessee, would rent the lot, registered in the name of Fullido, for a
    period of fifty (50) years, to be automatically renewed for another fifty (50) years upon its
    expiration; and that Fullido as the lessor, was prohibited from selling, donating, or encumbering
    the said lot without the written consent of Mr. Grilli. Their harmonious relationship turned sour
    after 16 years of living together. Both of them charged each other with infidelity. And because of
    this, they could not agree who should leave in the common property. Mr. Grilli sent formal
    letters to Fullido demanding that she vacate the property, but this was ignored by the later. Mr.
    Grilli then filed a complaint for unlawful detainer with prayer for the issuance of preliminary
    injunction against Fullido. Ms. Fullido argues that she could not be ejected from her own lot
    based on the contract of lease and from the MOA because those documents were null and void.
    Grilli, on the other hand, contends that Ms. Fullido could not question the validity of the said
    contracts in the present ejectment suit unless she instituted a separate action for annulment of
    contracts.
    The court is in view that Grilli had the exclusive right to use and possess the house and lot by
    virtue of the contract of lease executed by the parties and of the MOA.
    Issues:
    1. Whether or not the contract is null and void?
    2. May a null and void contract be a basis of an ejectment order?

    Held:
    1. Yes, the contract is null and void. As it contrary to the Constitution as the contract is for a
    period of fifty (50) years, and, upon termination, was automatically renewable for another
    fifty (50) years.
    2. No. Since the contract is void then it cannot be a be a basis of an ejectment order. Article
    1409 of the New Civil Code explicitly states that void contracts also cannot be ratified;
    neither can the right to set up the defense of illegality be waived. Accordingly, there is no
    need for an action to set aside a void or inexistent contract.
    One characteristics of a void contract is that generally it produces no effect. It is one which
    has no force and effect from the very beginning, as if it had never been entered into; it
    produces no effect whatsoever either against or in favor of anyone. Clearly, contracts may be
    declared void even in a summary action for unlawful detainer because, precisely, void
    contracts do not produce legal effect and cannot be the source of any rights. To emphasize,
    void contracts may not be invoked as a valid action or defense in any court proceeding,
    including an ejectment suit.

    You might also like