Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 183 views

    Spouses Golez Vs Meliton Nemeno

    Uploaded by

    Kate Hizon
    The spouses Golez entered into a lease contract with Meliton Nemeño for a commercial lot. Instead of paying rent, the spouses agreed to construct a building on the lot. The building was later destroyed by fire. Nemeño demanded unpaid rent from the spouses totaling ₱78,000. The court ruled that the spouses were liable to pay rent for the period they occupied the lot, until the building was destroyed by fire, but not the full cost of the building as demanded by Nemeño. The court found the spouses were unjustly enriched by their use of the property and Nemeño was entitled to compensation for that use, but ordering payment of the full building cost

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    Spouses Golez Vs Meliton Nemeno

    Uploaded by

    Kate Hizon
    183 views1 page
    The spouses Golez entered into a lease contract with Meliton Nemeño for a commercial lot. Instead of paying rent, the spouses agreed to construct a building on the lot. The building was later destroyed by fire. Nemeño demanded unpaid rent from the spouses totaling ₱78,000. The court ruled that the spouses were liable to pay rent for the period they occupied the lot, until the building was destroyed by fire, but not the full cost of the building as demanded by Nemeño. The court found the spouses were unjustly enriched by their use of the property and Nemeño was entitled to compensation for that use, but ordering payment of the full building cost

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Spouses Golez vs Meliton Nemeno

    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
    The spouses Golez entered into a lease contract with Meliton Nemeño for a commercial lot. Instead of paying rent, the spouses agreed to construct a building on the lot. The building was later destroyed by fire. Nemeño demanded unpaid rent from the spouses totaling ₱78,000. The court ruled that the spouses were liable to pay rent for the period they occupied the lot, until the building was destroyed by fire, but not the full cost of the building as demanded by Nemeño. The court found the spouses were unjustly enriched by their use of the property and Nemeño was entitled to compensation for that use, but ordering payment of the full building cost

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Golez Vs Meliton Nemeno

    Uploaded by

    Kate Hizon
    The spouses Golez entered into a lease contract with Meliton Nemeño for a commercial lot. Instead of paying rent, the spouses agreed to construct a building on the lot. The building was later destroyed by fire. Nemeño demanded unpaid rent from the spouses totaling ₱78,000. The court ruled that the spouses were liable to pay rent for the period they occupied the lot, until the building was destroyed by fire, but not the full cost of the building as demanded by Nemeño. The court found the spouses were unjustly enriched by their use of the property and Nemeño was entitled to compensation for that use, but ordering payment of the full building cost

    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

    G.R. No.

    178317, September 23, 2015

    SPOUSES RICARDO AND ELENA C. GOLEZ, Petitioners, v. MELITON NEMEÑO,1 Respondent

    FACTS:

    Spouses Golez entered into a contract of lease with respondent Meliton Nemeno who is the owner of a portion of a Commercial lot
    on May 31, 1989. The property which was located in Zamboanga Del Sur shall be occupied by the spouses golez and in lieu of the
    payment of rent, the owner of the lot have to agreed to be paid by petitioner Spouses by constructing a building on the said lot.

    On May 23, 1992, the building subject of the lease contract was burned down.

    Because of the destruction of the building, respondent, on May 29, 1992, sent a letter7 to petitioners demanding the accumulated
    rentals for the leased property from March 17, 1989 to June 17, 1992 totaling P78,000.00. As the demand was left unheeded,
    respondent filed a complaint8 for collection of rentals plus damages before the Molave RTC.

    Respondent alleged that Ricardo is the proximate cause of the fire that razed the building to the ground. He also claimed that
    without his knowledge, petitioners insured the building with two insurance companies for face values of more than its cost.

    Petitioners, for their part, admitted the execution of the contract of lease but dispute their liability to pay respondent rentals. They
    contended that under the contract of lease, the rental payment is amortized over the cost of the subject building, thus, respondent
    had already become its co-owner who must suffer the loss of his property

    ISSUE:

    WHETHER PETITIONERS ARE LIABLE TO PAY FOR THE BACK RENTALS.

    RULING:

    YES. This Court finds no reason to depart from the ruling of the courts a quo that petitioners should pay respondent for back rentals.
    There is no dispute that the contract entered into by the parties is one of lease. True, it had some modifications such that instead of
    paying the rent in the form of money, petitioners will withhold such payment and will apply the accumulated rent to the cost of the
    building they built on the leased property. Thereafter, at the end of the lease period or until such time the cost of the building has
    been fully covered by the rent accumulated, petitioners, as lessees will transfer the ownership of said building to respondent.

    Unfortunately, the subject building was gutted down by fire. However, the destruction of the building should not in any way be made
    a basis to exempt petitioners from paying rent for the period they made use of the leased property. Otherwise, this will be a clear
    case of unjust enrichment.

    In the instant case, there is no dispute that petitioners used the property for several years for their own  benefit having operated a
    restaurant thereon. Therefore, it would be the height of of injustice to deprive respondent of compensation due him on the use of his
    property by petitioners. The fact that the parties agreed to a different mode of payment - in this case, a building - does not in any
    way exempt petitioners from paying compensation due to respondent for the use of the latter's property because the building was
    destroyed.

    While we sustain the award of back rentals in favor of respondent, we do not agree with the amount imposed by the courts a
    quo. Petitioners should only be liable for rent during the period within which they were in possession of the leased property,
    Respondent himself testified that petitioner Ricardo stayed in the building on the leased premises just before it was burned
    down.28 There was no evidence submitted to prove that petitioners were in possession of the leased property after the fire.
    Therefore, petitioners should be made to pay rent until that time only. To order petitioners to pay for back rentals equivalent to the
    cost of the building is in the same way, unjust enrichment this time on the part of respondent considering that the rent due for the
    period petitioners occupied the leased premises is way below the cost of the building.

    You might also like