Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • DUCUSIN vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    VEDIA GENON
    85 views1 page
    1) The petitioner leased an apartment to private respondents under a month-to-month contract that could be terminated if the lessor's children needed the premises. 2) The petitioner sent a notice terminating the lease because his two children were getting married and needed the apartment. 3) The lower courts dismissed the petitioner's ejectment suit. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the termination condition was valid because it depended on the will of third parties (the lessor's children), not solely on the lessor.

    Original Description:

    a

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) The petitioner leased an apartment to private respondents under a month-to-month contract that could be terminated if the lessor's children needed the premises. 2) The petitioner sent a notice terminating the lease because his two children were getting married and needed the apartment. 3) The lower courts dismissed the petitioner's ejectment suit. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the termination condition was valid because it depended on the will of third parties (the lessor's children), not solely on the lessor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    85 views1 page

    DUCUSIN vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    VEDIA GENON
    1) The petitioner leased an apartment to private respondents under a month-to-month contract that could be terminated if the lessor's children needed the premises. 2) The petitioner sent a notice terminating the lease because his two children were getting married and needed the apartment. 3) The lower courts dismissed the petitioner's ejectment suit. However, the Supreme Court reversed, finding that the termination condition was valid because it depended on the will of third parties (the lessor's children), not solely on the lessor.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    113

    Ducusin v. CA
    122 SCRA 280
    Guerrero, J.

    DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: Where a lease contract expressly stipulates that the lessor
    may terminate the lease when his children shall need the same, such a condition is
    valid, as happening of the condition depends not on the lessor but on a third party.

    FACTS: This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
    Petitioner Ducusin leased to private respondent Baliola spouses a one-door apartment
    unit under the contract of lease. Pertinent stipulations of which state: The term of this
    contract shall be in a month to month basis until terminated by the lessor on the ground
    that his children need the premises for their own use or residence or upon any ground
    provided for in accordance with law. Petitioner Ducusin sent a notice to terminate lease
    contract to private respondents Baliolas terminating the lease and giving them time
    within which to vacate the premises for the reason that his two children were getting
    married and will need the apartment for their own use and residence. Respondents
    made no reply. Petitioners filed an action for ejectment against the Baliola spouses in
    the City Court of Manila, where it was decided in favor of the lessor Ducusin on the
    ground that the "defendants' contract with the plaintiff has already terminated with the
    notice of termination sent by the plaintiff to the defendants on the ground that he needs
    the premises for his own children.

    The CFI of Manila reversed the decision as well as the CA affirmed the decision
    wherein the ejectment suit was dismissed.

    ISSUE: Whether an owner of a leased premises can unilaterally terminate the contract
    of lease under the terms and conditions stated therein.

    RULING: YES. CA’s decision was reversed and set aside. Pursuant to Art. 1182 of the
    Civil Code, when the fulfillment of the condition depends upon the sole will of the debtor,
    the conditional obligation shall be void. If it depends upon chance or upon the will of a
    third person, the obligation shall take effect in conformity with the provisions of this
    Code. In the case at bar, the resolutory condition which is the need of the lessor’s
    children of the leased premises is not a condition the happening of which is dependent
    solely upon the will of the lessor. The happening of the condition depends upon the will
    of a third person—the lessor’s children. Whenever the latter require the use of the
    leased premises for their own needs, then the contract of lease shall be deemed
    terminated. The validity of the said condition as agreed upon by the parties stands.

    You might also like