Chua Tee Dee Vs CA
Chua Tee Dee Vs CA
Ruling: No. As lessor, Agricom had the duty to maintain Chua Tee
Dee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the leased
premises which was part of the contract of lease. Even if it had not
been so, the lessor is still duty-bound under Art.1654of the Civil
Code. The duty to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and
adequate enjoyment of the lease for the duration of the contract
is merely a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed in his
legal, and not physical, possession. In the case at bar, Chua Tee
Dee claims that several people presented tax declarations to her
and claimed some portions of the leased premises. However, no
case was filed by any of the said claimants against her or her
lessor
during
the
time
she
occupied
the
premises.
When Chua Tee Dees representative saw that a portion of the
leased premises was being fenced by the claimants, she had all the
right to sue the intruders who had disturbed her physical
possession as provided for in Article 1654 of the New Civil Code.
Chua Tee Dee failed to prove that she suffered any loss from the
labor case that was filed them. True, the labor case was instituted
during the effectivity of the lease contract until the case was finally
resolved on August 22, 1986 however, during pendency, appellant
regularly paid the monthly rentals for the years 1985 to 1989. It
was after the labor case has been resolved that appellant started
to fail to pay her rentals which indicates that the labor case has not
dampened her peaceful and adequate possession of the leased
premises.