FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 122544. January 28, 1999.]

REGINA P. DIZON, AMPARO D. BARTOLOME, FIDELINA D.

BALZA, ESTER ABAD DIZON and JOSEPH ANTHONY DIZON,
RAYMUND A. DIZON, GERARD A. DIZON, and JOSE A. DIZON,
JR., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and OVERLAND
EXPRESS LINES, INC., respondents.

[G.R. No. 124741. January 28, 1999.]

REGINA P. DIZON, AMPARO D. BARTOLOME, FIDELINA D.

BALZA, ESTER ABAD DIZON and JOSEPH ANTHONY DIZON,
RAYMUND A. DIZON, GERARD A. DIZON, and JOSE A. DIZON,
JR., petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON. MAXIMIANO C.
ASUNCION, and OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES, INC.,
respondents.

M.M. Lazaro & Associates for petitioner.

SYNOPSIS

In 1974, Overland Express Lines, Inc. entered into a Contract of Lease

with Option to Buy with herein petitioners involving a land in Quezon City. The
term of the lease was for one (1) year, during which period, the lessee was
granted an option to purchase the lot for P3,000.00 per square meter.
Thereafter, the lease shall be on a per month basis with a monthly rental of
P3,000.00. Later, for failure to pay the increased rental of P8,000.00 per month
effective June 1976, herein petitioners filed an action for ejectment to which the
Corporation was ordered to vacate the leased premises. The Corporation,
however, questioned the jurisdiction of the City Court over the ejectment case.
Subsequently, the Corporation filed its own action for specific performance and
fixing the period for obligation. It sought to compel the execution of a deed of
sale pursuant to the option to purchase, and the receipt of the partial payment
it made and to fix the period to pay the balance thereof.
Petitioners have established a right to evict private respondent from the
subject premises for non-payment of rentals. In this regard, the then City Court
had exclusive jurisdiction over the ejectment suit. The filing by the Corporation
of a suit with the RTC for specific performance did not divest the City Court of
its jurisdiction over the ejectment case. The decision of the City Court was
affirmed by the Intermediate Appellate Court and the Supreme Court. Having
failed to exercise the option to purchase within the stipulated one-year period,
private respondent Corporation cannot now enforce its option. An implied new
lease on a monthly basis does not ipso facto carry with it an implied revival of
the option to purchase the leased premises. The right to exercise the option to
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 purchase expired with the termination of the original contract of lease for one
year. The private respondent delivered a check of P300,000.00 to Alice Dizon
who allegedly acted as agent of petitioners pursuant to the supposed authority
given by petitioner as payee thereof does not amount to a perfected contract of
sale pursuant to the contract of lease with option to buy. There was no valid
consent by the petitioners on the supposed sale entered into by Alice Dizon, as
petitioner's alleged agent, and private respondent.

SYLLABUS

1. CIVIL LAW; SPECIAL CONTRACTS; LEASE; NON-PAYMENT OF

RENTALS GIVES RIGHT TO EVICT, REGARDLESS OF THE ACTION FOR SPECIFIC
PERFORMANCE TO ENFORCE OPTION TO PURCHASE WHICH WAS ALSO
INSTITUTED. — Petitioners have established a right to evict private respondent
from the subject premises for non-payment of rentals. 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 New Civil Code. Where the rentals
are paid monthly, the lease, even if verbal may be deemed to be on a monthly
basis, expiring at the end of every month pursuant to Article 1687, in relation to
Article 1673 of the Civil Code. In such case, a demand to vacate is not even
necessary for judicial action after the expiration of every month. When private
respondent failed to pay the increased rental, the petitioners had a cause of
action to institute an ejectment suit against the former with the then City Court.
In this regard, the City Court (now MTC) had exclusive jurisdiction over the
ejectment suit. The filing by private respondent of a suit with the Regional Trial
Court for specific performance to enforce the option to purchase did not divest
the then City Court of its jurisdiction to take cognizance over the ejectment
case. Of note is the fact that the decision of the City Court was affirmed by both
the Intermediate Appellate Court and this Court.
2. ID.; ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO EXERCISE OPTION TO PURCHASE WITHIN
THE STIPULATED PERIOD; EFFECT; CASE AT BAR. — Having failed to exercise
the option to purchase within the stipulated one year period, private
respondent cannot enforce its option to purchase anymore. Moreover, even
assuming arguendo that the right to exercise the option still subsists at the time
private respondent tendered the amount, the suit for specific performance to
enforce the option to purchase was filed more than ten (10) years after accrual
of the cause of action as provided under Article 1144 of the New Civil Code. In
this case, there was a contract of lease for one (1) year with option to purchase.
The contract of lease expired without the private respondent, as lessee,
purchasing the property but remained in possession thereof. Hence, there was
an implicit renewal of the contract of lease on a monthly basis. The other terms
of the original contract of lease which are revived in the implied new lease
under Article 1670 of the New Civil Code are only those terms which are
germane to the lessee's right of continued enjoyment of the property leased.
Therefore, an implied new lease does not ipso facto carry with it any implied
revival of private respondent's option to purchase (as lessee thereof) the leased
premises. The provision entitling the lessee the option to purchase the leased
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 premises is not deemed incorporated in the impliedly renewed contract
because it is alien to the possession of the lessee. Private respondent's right to
exercise the option to purchase expired with the termination of the original
contract of lease for one year.

3. ID.; ID.; CONTRACT OF SALE; WHEN PERFECTED. — Under Article

1475 of the New Civil Code, "the contract of sale is perfected at the moment
there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is the object of the contract
and upon the price. From that moment, the parties may reciprocally demand
performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of
contracts." Thus, the elements of a contract of sale are consent, object, and
price in money or its equivalent. It bears stressing that the absence of any of
these essential elements negates the existence of a perfected contract of sale.
Sale is a consensual contract and he who alleges it must show its existence by
competent proof.
4. ID.; ID.; CONTRACT OF AGENCY; NOT APPRECIATED. — There was
no valid consent by the petitioners (as co-owners of the leased premises) on
the supposed sale entered into by Dizon, as petitioners' alleged agent, and
private respondent. The basis for agency is representation and a person
dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the
authority of the agent. As provided in Article 1868 of the New Civil Code, there
was no showing that petitioners consented to the act of Dizon nor authorized
her to act on their behalf with regard to her transaction with private
respondent. The most prudent thing private respondent should have done was
to ascertain the extent of the authority of Dizon. Being negligent in this regard,
private respondent cannot seek relief on the basis of a supposed agency. CcSEIH

DECISION

MARTINEZ, J : p

Two consolidated petitions were filed before us seeking to set aside and
annul the decisions and resolutions of respondent Court of Appeals. What
seemed to be a simple ejectment suit was juxtaposed with procedural
intricacies which finally found its way to this Court.
LLphil

G.R. No. 122544:

On May 23, 1974, private respondent Overland Express Lines, Inc. (lessee)
entered into a Contract of Lease with Option to Buy with petitioners 1 (lessors)
involving a 1,755.80 square meter parcel of land situated at corner MacArthur
Highway and South "H" Street, Diliman, Quezon City. The term of the lease was
for one (1) year commencing from May 16, 1974 up to May 15, 1975. During
this period, private respondent was granted an option to purchase for the
amount of P3,000.00 per square meter. Thereafter, the lease shall be on a per
month basis with a monthly rental of P3,000.00.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 For failure of private respondent to pay the increased rental of P8,000.00
per month effective June 1976, petitioners filed an action for ejectment (Civil
Case No. VIII-29155) on November 10, 1976 before the then City Court (now
Metropolitan Trial Court) of Quezon City, Branch VIII. On November 22, 1982,
the City Court rendered judgment 2 ordering private respondent to vacate the
leased premises and to pay the sum of P624,000.00 representing rentals in
arrears and/or as damages in the form of reasonable compensation for the use
and occupation of the premises during the period of illegal detainer from June
1976 to November 1982 at the monthly rental of P8,000.00, less payments
made, plus 12% interest per annum from November 18, 1976, the date of filing
of the complaint, until fully paid, the sum of P8,000.00 a month starting
December 1982, until private respondent fully vacates the premises, and to pay
P20,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees.

Private respondent filed a certiorari petition praying for the issuance of a

restraining order enjoining the enforcement of said judgment and dismissal of
the case for lack of jurisdiction of the City Court.
On September 26, 1984, the then Intermediate Appellate Court 3 (now
Court of Appeals) rendered a decision 4 stating that:

". . ., the alleged question of whether petitioner was granted an

extension of the option to buy the property; whether such option, if
any, extended the lease or whether petitioner actually paid the alleged
P300,000.00 to Fidela Dizon, as representative of private respondents
in consideration of the option and, whether petitioner thereafter
offered to pay the balance of the supposed purchase price, are all
merely incidental and do not remove the unlawful detainer case from
the jurisdiction of respondent court. In consonance with the ruling in
the case of Teodoro, Jr. vs. Mirasol (supra), the above matters may be
raised and decided in the unlawful detainer suit as, to rule otherwise,
would be a violation of the principle prohibiting multiplicity of suits.
(Original Records, pp. 38-39)."

The motion for reconsideration was denied. On review, this Court

dismissed the petition in a resolution dated June 19, 1985 and likewise denied
private respondent's subsequent motion for reconsideration in a resolution
dated September 9, 1985. 5
On October 7, 1985, private respondent filed before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City (Civil Case No. Q-45541) an action for Specific
Performance and Fixing of Period for Obligation with prayer for the issuance
of a restraining order pending hearing on the prayer for a writ of preliminary
injunction. It sought to compel the execution of a deed of sale pursuant to
the option to purchase and the receipt of the partial payment, and to fix the
period to pay the balance. In an Order dated October 25, 1985, the trial
court denied the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction on the ground
that the decision of the then City Court for the ejectment of the private
respondent, having been affirmed by the then Intermediate Appellate Court
and the Supreme Court, has become final and executory.

Unable to secure an injunction, private respondent also filed before the

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 RTC of Quezon City, Branch 102 (Civil Case No. Q-46487) on November 15,
1985 a complaint for Annulment of and Relief from Judgment with injunction
and damages. In its decision 6 dated May 12, 1986, the trial court dismissed the
complaint for annulment on the ground of res judicata, and the writ of
preliminary injunction previously issued was dissolved. It also ordered private
respondent to pay P3,000.00 as attorney's fees. As a consequence of private
respondent's motion for reconsideration, the preliminary injunction was
reinstated, thereby restraining the execution of the City Court's judgment on
the ejectment case.

The two cases were thereafter consolidated before the RTC of Quezon
City, Branch 77. On April 28, 1989, a decision 7 was rendered dismissing private
respondent's complaint in Civil Case No. Q-45541 (specific performance case)
and denying its motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 46487 (annulment
of the ejectment case). The motion for reconsideration of said decision was
likewise denied.
On appeal, 8 respondent Court of Appeals rendered a decision 9 upholding
the jurisdiction of the City Court of Quezon City in the ejectment case. It also
concluded that there was a perfected contract of sale between the parties on
the leased premises and that pursuant to the option to buy agreement, private
respondent had acquired the rights of a vendee in a contract of sale. It opined
that the payment by private respondent of P300,000.00 on June 20, 1975 as
partial payment for the leased property, which petitioners accepted (through
Alice A. Dizon) and for which an official receipt was issued, was the operative
act that gave rise to a perfected contract of sale, and that for failure of
petitioners to deny receipt thereof, private respondent can therefore assume
that Alice A. Dizon, acting as agent of petitioners, was authorized by them to
receive the money in their behalf. The Court of Appeals went further by stating
that in fact, what was entered into was a "conditional contract of sale" wherein
ownership over the leased property shall not pass to the private respondent
until it has fully paid the purchase price. Since private respondent did not
consign to the court the balance of the purchase price and continued to occupy
the subject premises, it had the obligation to pay the amount of P1,700.00 in
monthly rentals until full payment of the purchase price. The dispositive portion
of said decision reads:
"WHEREFORE, the appealed decision in Case No. 46487 is
AFFIRMED. The appealed decision in Case No. 45541 is, on the other
hand, ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. The defendants-appellees are
ordered to execute the deed of absolute sale of the property in
question, free from any lien or encumbrance whatsoever, in favor of
the plaintiff-appellant, and to deliver to the latter the said deed of sale,
as well as the owner's duplicate of the certificate of title to said
property upon payment of the balance of the purchase price by the
plaintiff-appellant. The plaintiff-appellant is ordered to pay P1,700.00
per month from June 1976, plus 6% interest per annum , until payment
of the balance of the purchase price, as previously agreed upon by the
parties.
SO ORDERED."
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 Upon denial of the motion for partial reconsideration (Civil Case No. Q-
45541) by respondent Court of Appeals, 10 petitioners elevated the case via
petition for certiorari questioning the authority of Alice A. Dizon as agent of
petitioners in receiving private respondent's partial payment amounting to
P300,000.00 pursuant to the Contract of Lease with Option to Buy. Petitioners also
assail the propriety of private respondent's exercise of the option when it tendered
the said amount on June 20, 1975 which purportedly resulted in a perfected contract
of sale.

G.R. No. 124741:

Petitioners filed with respondent Court of Appeals a motion to remand the
records of Civil Case No. 38-29155 (ejectment case) to the Metropolitan Trial
Court (MTC), then City Court of Quezon City, Branch 38, for execution of the
judgment 11 dated November 22, 1982 which was granted in a resolution dated
June 29, 1992. Private respondent filed a motion to reconsider said resolution which
was denied.

Aggrieved, private respondent filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition

with preliminary injunction and/or restraining order with this Court (G.R. Nos.
106750-51) which was dismissed in a resolution dated September 16, 1992 on
the ground that the same was a refiled case previously dismissed for lack of
merit. On November 26, 1992, entry of judgment was issued by this Court.
On July 14, 1993, petitioners filed an urgent ex-parte motion for
execution of the decision in Civil Case No. 38-29155 with the MTC of Quezon
City, Branch 38. On September 13, 1993, the trial court ordered the issuance
of a third alias writ of execution. In denying private respondent's motion for
reconsideration, it ordered the immediate implementation of the third writ of
execution without delay. cdasia

On December 22, 1993, private respondent filed with the Regional Trial
Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 104 a petition for certiorari and prohibition
with preliminary injunction/restraining order (SP. PROC. No. 93-18722)
challenging the enforceability and validity of the MTC judgment as well as the
order for its execution.

On January 11, 1994, RTC of Quezon City, Branch 104 issued an order 12
granting the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction upon private
respondent's posting of an injunction bond of P50,000.00.

Assailing the aforequoted order after denial of their motion for partial
reconsideration, petitioners filed a petition 13 for certiorari and prohibition with
a prayer for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction with
the Court of Appeals. In its decision, 14 the Court of Appeals dismissed the
petition and ruled that:
"The avowed purpose of this petition is to enjoin the public
respondent from restraining the ejectment of the private respondent.
To grant the petition would be to allow the ejectment of the private
respondent. We cannot do that now in view of the decision of this Court
in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 25153-54. Petitioners' alleged right to eject private
respondent has been demonstrated to be without basis in the said civil
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 case. The petitioners have been shown, after all, to have no right to
eject private respondents.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED due course and is
accordingly DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED." 15

Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied in a resolution 16 by

the Court of Appeals stating that:
"This court in its decision in CA-G.R. CV Nos. 25153-54 declared
that the plaintiff-appellant (private respondent herein) acquired the
rights of a vendee in a contract of sale, in effect, recognizing the right
of the private respondent to possess the subject premises. Considering
said decision, we should not allow ejectment; to do so would disturb
the status quo of the parties since the petitioners are not in possession
of the subject property. It would be unfair and unjust to deprive the
private respondent of its possession of the subject property after its
rights have been established in a subsequent ruling.

WHEREFORE, the motion for reconsideration is DENIED for lack of

merit.
SO ORDERED." 17

Hence, this instant petition.

We find both petitions impressed with merit.
First. Petitioners have established a right to evict private respondent from
the subject premises for non-payment of rentals. The term of the Contract of
Lease with Option to Buy was for a period of one (1) year (May 16, 1974 to May
15, 1975) during which the private respondent was given an option to purchase
said property at P3,000.00 per square meter. After the expiration thereof, the
lease was for P3,000.00 per month. LLphil

Admittedly, no definite period beyond the one-year term of lease was

agreed upon by petitioners and private respondent. However, 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 New Civil Code. 18
Where the rentals are paid monthly, the lease, even if verbal may be deemed
to be on a monthly basis, expiring at the end of every month pursuant to Article
1687, in relation to Article 1673 of the Civil Code. 19 In such case, a demand to
vacate is not even necessary for judicial action after the expiration of every
month. 20
When private respondent failed to pay the increased rental of P8,000.00
per month in June 1976, the petitioners had a cause of action to institute an
ejectment suit against the former with the then City Court. In this regard, the
City Court (now MTC) had exclusive jurisdiction over the ejectment suit. The
filing by private respondent of a suit with the Regional Trial Court for specific
performance to enforce the option to purchase did not divest the then City
Court of its jurisdiction to take cognizance over the ejectment case. Of note is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 the fact that the decision of the City Court was affirmed by both the
Intermediate Appellate Court and this Court.
Second . Having failed to exercise the option within the stipulated one year
period, private respondent cannot enforce its option to purchase anymore.
Moreover, even assuming arguendo that the right to exercise the option still
subsists at the time private respondent tendered the amount on June 20, 1975,
the suit for specific performance to enforce the option to purchase was filed
only on October 7, 1985 or more than ten (10) years after accrual of the cause
of action as provided under Article 1144 of the New Civil Code. 21
In this case, there was a contract of lease for one (1) year with option to
purchase. The contract of lease expired without the private respondent, as
lessee, purchasing the property but remained in possession thereof. Hence,
there was an implicit renewal of the contract of lease on a monthly basis. The
other terms of the original contract of lease which are revived in the implied
new lease under Article 1670 of the New Civil Code 22 are only those terms
which are germane to the lessee's right of continued enjoyment of the property
leased. 23 Therefore, an implied new lease does not ipso facto carry with it any
implied revival of private respondent's option to purchase (as lessee thereof)
the leased premises. The provision entitling the lessee the option to purchase
the leased premises is not deemed incorporated in the impliedly renewed
contract because it is alien to the possession of the lessee. Private respondent's
right to exercise the option to purchase expired with the termination of the
original contract of lease for one year. The rationale of this Court is that:
"This is a reasonable construction of the provision, which is
based on the presumption that when the lessor allows the lessee to
continue enjoying possession of the property for fifteen days after the
expiration of the contract he is willing that such enjoyment shall be for
the entire period corresponding to the rent which is customarily paid —
in this case up to the end of the month because the rent was paid
monthly. Necessarily, if the presumed will of the parties refers to the
enjoyment of possession the presumption covers the other terms of the
contract related to such possession, such as the amount of rental, the
date when it must be paid, the care of the property, the responsibility
for repairs, etc. But no such presumption may be indulged in with
respect to special agreements which by nature are foreign to the right
of occupancy or enjoyment inherent in a contract of lease." 24

Third. There was no perfected contract of sale between petitioners and

private respondent. Private respondent argued that it delivered the check of
P300,000.00 to Alice A. Dizon who acted as agent of petitioners pursuant to the
supposed authority given by petitioner Fidela Dizon, the payee thereof. Private
respondent further contended that petitioners' filing of the ejectment case
against it based on the contract of lease with option to buy holds petitioners in
estoppel to question the authority of petitioner Fidela Dizon. It insisted that the
payment of P300,000.00 as partial payment of the purchase price constituted a
valid exercise of the option to buy.

Under Article 1475 of the New Civil Code, "the contract of sale is
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing which is
the object of the contract and upon the price. From that moment, the parties
may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law
governing the form of contracts." Thus, the elements of a contract of sale are
consent, object, and price in money or its equivalent. It bears stressing that the
absence of any of these essential elements negates the existence of a
perfected contract of sale. Sale is a consensual contract and he who alleges it
must show its existence by competent proof. 25
In an attempt to resurrect the lapsed option, private respondent gave
P300,000.00 to petitioners (thru Alice A. Dizon) on the erroneous presumption
that the said amount tendered would constitute a perfected contract of sale
pursuant to the contract of lease with option to buy. There was no valid consent
by the petitioners (as co-owners of the leased premises) on the supposed sale
entered into by Alice A. Dizon, as petitioners' alleged agent, and private
respondent. The basis for agency is representation and a person dealing with
an agent is put upon inquiry and must discover upon his peril the authority of
the agent. 26 As provided in Article 1868 of the New Civil Code, 27 there was no
showing that petitioners consented to the act of Alice A. Dizon nor authorized
her to act on their behalf with regard to her transaction with private
respondent. The most prudent thing private respondent should have done was
to ascertain the extent of the authority of Alice A. Dizon. Being negligent in this
regard, private respondent cannot seek relief on the basis of a supposed
agency.
I n Bacaltos Coal Mines vs. Court of Appeals, 28 we explained the rule in
dealing with an agent:
"Every person dealing with an agent is put upon inquiry and must
discover upon his peril the authority of the agent. If he does not make
such inquiry, he is chargeable with knowledge of the agent's authority,
and his ignorance of that authority will not be any excuse. Persons
dealing with an assumed agent, whether the assumed agency be a
general or special one, are bound at their peril, if they would hold the
principal, to ascertain not only the fact of the agency but also the
nature and extent of the authority, and in case either is converted, the
burden of proof upon them to establish it."

For the long years that private respondent was able to thwart the
execution of the ejectment suit rendered in favor of petitioners, we now write
finis to this controversy and shun further delay so as to ensure that this case
would really attain finality.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, both petitions are GRANTED. The
decision dated March 29, 1994 and the resolution dated October 19, 1995 in
CA-G.R. CV No. 25153-54, as well as the decision dated December 11, 1995 and
the resolution dated April 23, 1997 in CA-G.R. SP No. 33113 of the Court of
Appeals are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.

Let the records of this case be remanded to the trial court for immediate
execution of the judgment dated November 22, 1982 in Civil Case No. VIII-
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
 29155 of the then City Court (now Metropolitan Trial Court) of Quezon City,
Branch VIII as affirmed in the decision dated September 26, 1984 of the then
Intermediate Appellate Court (now Court of Appeals) and in the resolution dated
June 19, 1985 of this Court.
However, petitioners are ordered to REFUND to private respondent the
amount of P300,000.00 which they received through Alice A. Dizon on June 20,
1975. cdrep

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Kapunan and Pardo, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
1. The original petitioners were Fidela P. Dizon, Regina Dizon, Amparo D.
Bartolome, Ester A. Dizon, Alice A Dizon and Fidelina D. Balza.
2. Per Judge Fernando Gorospe, Jr.
3. The Intermediate Appellate Court took cognizance over the case after it was
referred by the Supreme Court.
4. Penned by Justice Simeon M. Gopengco and concurred in by Justices Lino M.
Patajo, Jose F. Racela, Jr. and Fidel P. Purisima; Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo , p.
60.
5. "Whatever claims petitioner (private respondent herein) may have as to what
it allegedly paid to and received by private respondent Fidela Dizon, under
the receipt issued by Mrs. Alicia Dizon, or with regard to the enforceability or
non-enforceability of its stated option to buy, against the private
respondents (petitioners herein), which were matters merely raised as
defenses of the petitioner in the unlawful detainer suit filed against it may be
better presented for ultimate resolution in a separate suit and before the
proper forum"; Annex "A" of Petition in G.R. No. 124741; Rollo , p. 48.
6. Per Judge Wilhelmo C. Fortun.
7. Per Judge Ignacio L. Salvador.

8. Docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 25153-54, entitled "OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES,

INC., Plaintiff-Appellant vs. FIDELA P. DIZON, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees."

9. CA Decision (Eight Division) dated March 29, 1994, penned by Justice Eubulo
G. Verzola, and concurred in by Justice Ricardo J. Francisco, Chairman and
Justice Serafin V.C. Guingona; Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo , pp. 57-72.
10. CA Resolution (Thirteenth Division) dated October 19, 1995, penned by
Justice Eubulo G. Verzola, and concurred in by Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr.,
Chairman and Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili; Annex "B" of Petition; Rollo , pp.
74-78.

11. See note 2.

12. Per Judge Maximiano C. Asuncion, ruling that:

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 "After evaluating the evidence and arguments presented by the
parties during the hearing of this case, the Court believes that the
petitioner (herein private respondent) will suffer an irreparable injury unless
a writ of preliminary injunction be issued enjoining the respondents (herein
petitioners) or any person acting in their behalf from implementing the
execution of the Judgment and the Resolution of the MTC, Br. 38 of Quezon
City. Likewise, in view of the pendency of cases before the Court of Appeals
under CA-G.R. No. 25153-54 for Specific Performance and for Annulment
and Relief of Judgment, following the ruling of Supreme Court in the case of
Vda de Sayman vs. Court of Appeals, 121 SCRA 650. "That it is the rule
when a petition for relief is filed, the Court may issue preliminary injunction
as may be necessary for the preservation of the rights of the parties'.
Further, it said that "The judgment of the trial court, the enforcement of
which is sought to be restrained has not yet attained the status of being
beyond modification or reversal. Hence, the enforcement of the same at
this stage of the proceedings is premature'"(Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo , pp.
50-51)
13. Docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 33113, entitled "AMPARO DIZON, ET AL.,
Petitioners vs. HON. MAXIMIANO C. ASUNCION, as RTC Judge of Quezon City,
Branch 104 and OVERLAND EXPRESS LINES INC., Respondents."
14. CA Decision (Thirteenth Division) dated December 11, 1995, penned by
Justice Eubulo G. Verzola and concurred in by Justice Justo P. Torres, Jr.,
Chairman and Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili; Annex "A" of Petition; Rollo , pp.
46-53.

NOTE: CA-G.R. SP No. 33113 was transferred to the Thirteenth

Division by virtue of the Resolution from the Fifteenth Division dated
January 16, 1994 (pursuant to Section 7, Rule 3 of the Revised Internal
Rules of the Court of Appeals) which states that a Special Case may be
consolidated to the Justice to whom the civil case is assigned for study or
report when the cases involve the same parties and/or related questions of
fact and/or law.
15. Ibid., Rollo , p. 52.
16. CA Resolution (Special Former Thirteenth Division) dated April 23, 1997,
penned by Justice Eubulo G. Verzola, and concurred in by Justice Jaime M.
Lantin (New member vice J. Torres, Jr.) and Justice B.A. Adefuin-dela Cruz
(Vice J. Agcaoili, pursuant to Office Order No. 19-96-DP); Annex "B" of
Petition; Rollo , pp. 55-57.

17. Ibid., Rollo , pp. 56-57.

18. Article 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed; it is understood
to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to
month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from
day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily."

19. Heirs of Manuel T. Suico vs. Court of Appeals, 266 SCRA 444, 456 [1997];
citing Rantael vs. Court of Appeals, 97 SCRA 453, 460 [1980]; Cruz vs. Puno,
120 SCRA 497, 502 [1983]; Lesaca vs. Cuevas, 125 SCRA 384, 388 [1983];
Baens vs. Court of Appeals, 125 SCRA 634, 644 [1983]; Zablan vs. Court of
Appeals, 154 SCRA 487, 493 [1987].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

 "Article 1637. 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 lease under Articles 1682 and 1687, has expired; . . . ."
20. Ibid., citing Racaza vs. Susan Realty, Inc ., 18 SCRA 1172, 1176-1177
[1966].

21. "Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from
the time the right of action accrues:

(1) Upon a written contract:

xxx xxx xxx

22. "Article 1670. If at the end of the contract, the lessee should continue
enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor,
and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given,
it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the
original contract, but for the time established in Articles 1682 and 1687. The
other terms of the original contract shall be revived."
23. Dizon vs. Magsaysay, 57 SCRA 250, 254 [1974].
24. Ibid.
25. Villanueva vs. Court of Appeals, 267 SCRA 89, 101 [1997].
26. See Bordador vs. Luz, 283 SCRA 374, 382 [1997].

27. "Article 1868. By the contract of agency, a person binds himself to render
some service or to do something in representation or on behalf of another,
with the consent or authority of the latter."

28. 245 SCRA 460, 467 citing the cases of Pineda vs. Court of Appeals, 226
SCRA 754 [1993], Veloso vs. La Urbana, 58 Phil. 681 [1933], Harry E. Keeler
Electric Co. vs. Rodriguez, 44 Phil. 19 [1922], Deen vs. Pacific Commercial
Co., 42 Phil. 738 [1922], and Strong vs. Repide, 6 Phil. 680 [1906].

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com