Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 23 Fige vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    43 views1 page
    The petitioners were verbally leasing a store from the private respondents. The private respondents terminated the verbal lease and demanded the petitioners vacate within 15 days. The petitioners claimed they bought the property from someone else. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that the petitioners must vacate as they have a landlord-tenant relationship with the private respondents and cannot dispute the private respondents' title to the property while still occupying the premises. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Original Description:

    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 petitioners were verbally leasing a store from the private respondents. The private respondents terminated the verbal lease and demanded the petitioners vacate within 15 days. The petitioners claimed they bought the property from someone else. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that the petitioners must vacate as they have a landlord-tenant relationship with the private respondents and cannot dispute the private respondents' title to the property while still occupying the premises. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.

    Copyright:

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

    23 Fige vs. Court of Appeals

    Uploaded by

    Jem
    The petitioners were verbally leasing a store from the private respondents. The private respondents terminated the verbal lease and demanded the petitioners vacate within 15 days. The petitioners claimed they bought the property from someone else. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that the petitioners must vacate as they have a landlord-tenant relationship with the private respondents and cannot dispute the private respondents' title to the property while still occupying the premises. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision.

    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

    Fige vs.

    Court of Appeals
    G.R. No. 107951. June 30, 1994
    PUNO, J.:
    Facts:
    Private respondents Felicitacion and Wilfredo Camarillo and Irma Coronel are the
    registered co-owners of a 401sqm land with some improvements, one of which is a store. One of
    the co-owners, Antonio Camarillo verbally leased the store in favor of petitioner spouses
    Epifanio and Martine Fige and agreed with P700.00 monthly rental. Later, private respondents
    terminated the verbal lease and gave 15 days to vacate the store. Petitioners, then, sent a postal
    money order in the amount of P1,400.00 representing rental for two months. Private respondents
    reiterated the demand of terminating lease which failed, prompting for a complaint for unlawful
    detainer. Petitioner claimed that they bought the lot from certain Elsie Periquet. The MTC
    dismissed the case for lack of merit which the RTC reversed and ordered petitioners to vacate.
    Upon appeal, CA affirmed the decision and denied the motion for reconsideration. Thus, this
    petition.
    Issue:
    Whether CA failed to consider that private respondents’ complaint states no cause of
    action?
    Rule of law:

    Application:
    We also stress that the juridical relation between petitioners and private respondents is
    that of lessee and lessor. Considering this jural relationship, petitioners cannot claim that they
    purchased the questioned lot from Elsie Periquet. Well settled is the rule that a tenant cannot, in
    an action involving the possession of the leased premises, controvert the title of his landlord. Nor
    can a tenant set up any inconsistent right to change the relation existing between himself and his
    landlord, without first delivering up to the landlord the premises acquired by virtue of the
    agreement between themselves.
    Conclusion:
    WHEREFORE, the Decision of the respondent Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED

    You might also like