Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 33 views

    Inocencio v. Hospicio de San Jose

    Uploaded by

    Jenica Jae De Vera
    Ramon Inocencio, substituting for his deceased father German Inocencio, was leasing land from Hospicio De San Jose since 1946. While German passed away in 1997, Hospicio acknowledged Ramon as the month-to-month lessee. In 2001, Hospicio notified Ramon that the lease would expire and not be renewed. However, the Court ruled that as the lease contract did not prohibit subleasing, Ramon's sublease contracts on the property were valid. The general rule is lease contracts continue to bind heirs unless otherwise stipulated, and Ramon had the right to sublease portions of the property without Hospicio's consent since the contract did not forbid it.

    Copyright:

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

    Inocencio v. Hospicio de San Jose

    Uploaded by

    Jenica Jae De Vera
    33 views1 page
    Ramon Inocencio, substituting for his deceased father German Inocencio, was leasing land from Hospicio De San Jose since 1946. While German passed away in 1997, Hospicio acknowledged Ramon as the month-to-month lessee. In 2001, Hospicio notified Ramon that the lease would expire and not be renewed. However, the Court ruled that as the lease contract did not prohibit subleasing, Ramon's sublease contracts on the property were valid. The general rule is lease contracts continue to bind heirs unless otherwise stipulated, and Ramon had the right to sublease portions of the property without Hospicio's consent since the contract did not forbid it.

    Original Title

    Inocencio v. Hospicio De San Jose

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Ramon Inocencio, substituting for his deceased father German Inocencio, was leasing land from Hospicio De San Jose since 1946. While German passed away in 1997, Hospicio acknowledged Ramon as the month-to-month lessee. In 2001, Hospicio notified Ramon that the lease would expire and not be renewed. However, the Court ruled that as the lease contract did not prohibit subleasing, Ramon's sublease contracts on the property were valid. The general rule is lease contracts continue to bind heirs unless otherwise stipulated, and Ramon had the right to sublease portions of the property without Hospicio's consent since the contract did not forbid it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    33 views1 page

    Inocencio v. Hospicio de San Jose

    Uploaded by

    Jenica Jae De Vera
    Ramon Inocencio, substituting for his deceased father German Inocencio, was leasing land from Hospicio De San Jose since 1946. While German passed away in 1997, Hospicio acknowledged Ramon as the month-to-month lessee. In 2001, Hospicio notified Ramon that the lease would expire and not be renewed. However, the Court ruled that as the lease contract did not prohibit subleasing, Ramon's sublease contracts on the property were valid. The general rule is lease contracts continue to bind heirs unless otherwise stipulated, and Ramon had the right to sublease portions of the property without Hospicio's consent since the contract did not forbid it.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 1

    Analita Inocencio, substituting for Ramon Inocencio (deceased) vs.

    Hospicio De San
    Jose, G.R. No. 201787, September 25, 2013, Per J. Carpio (Second Division)

    FACTS: On March 1 1946, Hospicio de San Jose leased a parcel of land in Pasay City to
    German Inocencio for 1 year renewed for several periods and the last contract executed was on
    May 31, 1951. German constructed 2 buildings on the land which he subleased and assigned
    his son Ramon Inocencio to administer the said property. Subsequently, On 1990, HDSJ
    through a letter informed German of the increase in rentals that will be effective on November
    1990. German passed away in 1997 and evidence shows that Ramon did not notify HDSJ of
    German’s death. HDSJ acknowledge that there is an implied contract of lease between them
    since HDSJ has been accepting payment of rentals since demise of German. However, there is
    no stipulation as to the period of contract and Ramon is paying monthly rental so the period for
    the lease is a month-to-month basis. Thus, Ramon was notified that contract will expire on
    March 31, 2001 and that it has no intention to renew the contract since HDSJ did not inform
    HDSJ of the sublease.

    HDSJ also demanded Ramon to vacate the property within 30 days and HDSJ entered into
    lease contracts with the sublessees. On June 28, 2005, HDSJ filed a complaint for unlawful
    detainer against Ramon and his sublessees contending they have been ilegally occupying the
    leased premises since March 31, 2001.

    MeTC-Pasay ruled in favor of HDSJ and held that the lease contract could not be transmitted to
    Ramon as German’s heir in view of thge exppress stipulation. It also contended that since there
    was no lease contract between them, Ramon cannot sublease the property. RTC Pasay
    affirmed that Ramon had no right to sublease the property due to the intransferability clause of
    the contract. Upon appeal CA also affirmed the decision of RTC with modification on the award
    damages.

    ISSUE: Whether the sublease contracts were valid?

    RULING: Yes.

    The Court stated that the general rule provides that lease contracts survive the death of the
    parties and continue to bind the heirs except if there is contrary stipulations. Under Article 1649,
    the lessee cannot assign the lease without the consent of the lessor unless there is stipulation
    to the contrary.

    Here, HDSJ acknowledged that Ramon is its month-to-month lessee. The court added that the
    death of German did not terminate the lease contract but was continued with Ramon as the
    lessee. The Court also provided that Ramon had the right to sublease the premises since the
    lease contract did not contain any stipulation forbidding subleasing pursuant to Article 1650 of
    the Civili Code stating that when in the contract of lease of things there is no express
    prohibition, the lessee may sublet the thing leased, in whole or in part, without prejudice to his
    responsibility for the performance of the contract toward the lessor. Hence, the sublease
    contracts entered by Ramon were valid.

    You might also like