Spouses Latip Vs Chua
Spouses Latip Vs Chua
177809 October 16, 2009 ROSALIE PALAÑA CHUA, Filipino, of legal age, married with
office at 2/F JOFERXAN Building, F.B. Harrison St., Brgy. Baclaran,
SPOUSES OMAR and MOSHIERA LATIP, Petitioners, Parañaque City, and hereinafter referred to as the LESSOR,
vs.
ROSALIE PALAÑA CHUA, Respondent. - and -
First, we sift through the varying facts found by the different lower 2. That LESSOR hereby leases two (2) cubicles located at the 1st &
courts. 2nd Floor, of said building with an area of 56 square meters under the
following terms and conditions, to wit:
The facts parleyed by the MeTC show that respondent Rosalie Chua
(Rosalie) is the owner of Roferxane Building, a commercial building, a. That the monthly rental of the two (2) cubicles in PESOS,
located at No. 158 Quirino Avenue corner Redemptorist Road, SIXTY THOUSAND (₱60,000.00), Philippine Currency.
Barangay Baclaran, Parañaque City. However, due to unstable power of the peso LESSEES agrees
to a yearly increase of ten (10%) percent of the monthly rental;
On July 6, 2001, Rosalie filed a complaint for unlawful detainer plus
damages against petitioners, Spouses Omar and Moshiera Latip b. That any rental in-arrears shall be paid before the expiration
(Spouses Latip). Rosalie attached to the complaint a contract of lease of the contract to the LESSOR;
over two cubicles in Roferxane Bldg., signed by Rosalie, as lessor, and
by Spouses Latip, as lessees thereof.1 a vv p h ! 1 c. That LESSEES agree to pay their own water and electric
consumptions in the said premises;
The contract of lease reads:
d. That the LESSEES shall not sub-let or make any alteration
CONTRACT OF LEASE in the cubicles without a written permission from the
LESSOR. Provided, however, that at the termination of the
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS: Contract, the lessee shall return the two cubicles in its original
conditions at their expenses;
This Contract of Lease is entered into by and between:
(sgd.)
OMAR LATIEF
A year after the commencement of the lease and with Spouses Latip
LESSEE
already occupying the leased cubicles, Rosalie, through counsel, sent
the spouses a letter demanding payment of back rentals and should
SIGNED IN THE PRESENCE OF:
they fail to do so, to vacate the leased cubicles. When Spouses Latip
did not heed Rosalie’s demand, she instituted the aforesaid complaint.
(sgd.) (sgd.)
1. Daisy C. Ramos 2. Ferdinand C. Chua In their Answer, Spouses Latip refuted Rosalie’s claims. They averred
that the lease of the two (2) cubicles had already been paid in full as
evidenced by receipts showing payment to Rosalie of the total amount
Republic of the Philippines) of ₱2,570,000.00. The three (3) receipts, in Rosalie’s handwriting,
City of Manila)s.s. read:
On this point, State Prosecutors v. Muro10 is instructive: We reiterated the requisite of notoriety for the taking of judicial notice
in the recent case of Expertravel & Tours, Inc. v. Court of Appeals,12
I. The doctrine of judicial notice rests on the wisdom and discretion of which cited State Prosecutors:
the courts. The power to take judicial notice is to be exercised by
courts with caution; care must be taken that the requisite notoriety Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material
exists; and every reasonable doubt on the subject should be promptly requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general
resolved in the negative. knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not
doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits
Generally speaking, matters of judicial notice have three material of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining
requisites: (1) the matter must be one of common and general what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety.
knowledge; (2) it must be well and authoritatively settled and not Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced
doubtful or uncertain; and (3) it must be known to be within the limits by public records and facts of general notoriety. Moreover, a judicially
of the jurisdiction of the court. The principal guide in determining noticed fact must be one not subject to a reasonable dispute in that it
what facts may be assumed to be judicially known is that of notoriety. is either: (1) generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the
Hence, it can be said that judicial notice is limited to facts evidenced trial court; or (2) capable of accurate and ready determination by
by public records and facts of general notoriety. resorting to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questionable.
To say that a court will take judicial notice of a fact is merely another
way of saying that the usual form of evidence will be dispensed with Things of "common knowledge," of which courts take judicial notice,
if knowledge of the fact can be otherwise acquired. This is because the may be matters coming to the knowledge of men generally in the
court assumes that the matter is so notorious that it will not be course of the ordinary experiences of life, or they may be matters
In interpreting the evidence before us, we are guided by the Civil Code 2. Received cash
provisions on interpretation of contracts, to wit: ₱500,000.00
From Moshiera Latip
Art. 1371. In order to judge the intention of the contracting parties,
their contemporaneous and subsequent acts shall be principally
(sgd.)
considered.
Rosalie Chua
12/10/99
____________________
Art. 1372. However general the terms of a contract may be, they shall
Received by
not be understood to comprehend things that are distinct and cases that
are different from those which the parties intended to agree.
3. Received cash
Art. 1373. If some stipulation of any contract should admit of several ₱70,000.00 from
meanings, it shall be understood as bearing that import which is most Moshiera Latip
adequate to render it effectual.
(sgd.)
The RTC was already on the right track when it declared that the
12-11-99 ____________________
receipts for ₱2,570,000.00 modified or supplemented the contract of
Received by:14
lease. However, it made a quantum leap when it ruled that the amount
was payment for rentals of the two (2) cubicles for the entire six-year
period. We cannot subscribe to this finding. To obviate confusion and
for clarity, the contents of the receipts, already set forth above, are There is nothing on the receipts and on record that the payment and
again reproduced: receipt of ₱2,570,000.00 referred to full payment of rentals for the
whole period of the lease. All three receipts state Rosalie’s receipt of
cash in varying amounts. The first receipt for ₱2,000,000.00 did state
1. I received the amount of ₱2,000,000.00 (two million
payment for two (2) cubicles, but this cannot mean full payment of
pesos) from [O]mar Latip & Moshi[e]ra Latip for the
rentals for the entire lease period when there are no words to that
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
ROBERTO A. ABAD***
Associate Justice