Brief Summary and Response To Demand Letter

SEGUIRAN, GABRIELLE ANN F.
LAW1715710
Clinical Legal Education
SUMMARY OF INFORMATION GATHERED
1. Paulita Verona is the owner of a parcel of land located in

Lot 3, Block 67, DBB G-2, Bcs-04-000116, Barangay San
Juan, Dasmariñas, Cavite.
2. The parcel of land is covered by Transfer Certificate of

Title No. T-97447 and Tax Declaration 2370021011460,
under the name of Ms. Verona.
3. Ms. Verona leased the parcel of land to Mr. Roberto

Quintanilla, Ms. Nanette Quintanilla’s father, evidenced by
a Contract of Lease.
4. It was stipulated therein that the Mr. Roberto has to give a

down payment of P 75,000. Then, rentals of P 7,500.00 are
to be paid monthly.
5. The lease is for a period of 10 years, which commenced on

1 January 2013 and which is supposed to terminate only
on 31 December 2023.
6. Mr. Roberto passed away on 28 March 2021. However, his

daughter, Ms. Nanette, failed to inform Ms. Verona of his
death, believing in good faith that the lease still subsisted.
7. Ms. Nanette continued to religiously pay the rentals. The

payments were accepted by Ms. Verona.
8. Ms. Rosario Arcena, on behalf of Ms. Verona, sent a letter

addressed to Ms. Nanette, demanding the latter to vacate
the premises which “she was occupying without the
consent and knowledge of owner Ms. Verona.”
DOCUMENTS GATHERED
1. Contract of Lease entered by Ms. Paulita Verona and Mr.

Roberto Quintanilla
2. Receipt of initial payment by Mr. Roberto Quintanilla for

the amount of P 75,000.00
3. Receipts of succeeding monthly payments
4. Death Certificate of Mr. Roberto Quintanilla
5. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-97447 in the name of Ms.

Paulita Verona
6. Tax Declaration 2370021011460 in the name of Ms. Paulita

Verona
LEGAL BASES
1. Article 1159 of the New Civil Code
Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law

between the contracting parties and should be complied
with in good faith. (1091a)
Contracts take effect only between the parties, their

assigns and heirs, except in case where the rights and
obligations arising from the contract are not transmissible
by their nature, or by stipulation or by provision of law
3. Inocencio vs. Hospicio de San Jose, G.R. No. 201787

September 25, 2013
We have previously ruled that lease contracts, by their

nature, are not personal. The general rule, therefore, is
lease contracts survive the death of the parties and
continue to bind the heirs except if the contract states
otherwise. In Sui Man Hui Chan v. Court of Appeals, we
held that:
A lease contract is not essentially personal in

character. Thus, the rights and obligations
therein are transmissible to the heirs. The
general rule, therefore, is that heirs are bound
by contracts entered into by their predecessors-
in-interest except when the rights and
obligations arising therefrom are not
transmissible by (1) their nature, (2) stipulation
or (3) provision of law.
In the subject Contract of Lease, not only were

there no stipulations prohibiting any
transmission of rights, but its very terms and
conditions explicitly provided for the
transmission of the rights of the lessor and of
the lessee to their respective heirs and
successors. The contract is the law between the
parties. The death of a party does not excuse
nonperformance of a contract, which involves a
property right, and the rights and obligations
thereunder pass to the successors or
representatives of the deceased. Similarly,
nonperformance is not excused by the death of
the party when the other party has a property
interest in the subject matter of the contract.
The lessor is obliged:
(1) To deliver the thing which is the object of the

contract in such a condition as to render it fit for the
use intended;
(2) To make on the same during the lease all the
necessary repairs in order to keep it suitable for the
use to which it has been devoted, unless there is a
stipulation to the contrary;
(3) To maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate
enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the
contract. (1554a)
If the lessor or the lessee should not comply with the

obligations set forth in articles 1654 and 1657, the
aggrieved party may ask for the rescission of the contract
and indemnification for damages, or only the latter,
allowing the contract to remain in force. (1556)
The lessor may judicially eject the lessee for any of the
following causes:
(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed

for the duration of leases under articles 1682 and
1687, has expired;
(2) Lack of payment of the price stipulated;
(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the

contract;
(4) When the lessee devotes the thing leased to any use
or service not stipulated which causes the
deterioration thereof; or if he does not observe the
requirement in No. 2 of article 1657, as regards the
use thereof.
The ejectment of tenants of agricultural lands is governed

by special laws. (1569a)
7. Cabrera v. Getaruela, G.R. No. 164213, April 21, 2009
A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for

unlawful detainer if it recites the following:
(1) That initially, the possession of the property by the

defendant was by contract with or by tolerance of the
plaintiff;
(2) That eventually, such possession became illegal upon
notice by plaintiff to defendant of the termination of
the latter's right of possession;
(3) That thereafter, the defendant remained in

possession of the property and deprived the plaintiff
of the enjoyment thereof; and
(4) That within one year from the last demand on

defendant to vacate the property, the plaintiff
instituted the complaint for ejectment.
These averments are jurisdictional and must appear on the

face of the complaint.
ATTY. GABRIELLE ANN F. SEGUIRAN
ATTORNEY-AT-LAW
7th Floor, Burgundy Corporate Tower
252 Senator Gil J. Puyat Avenue, Makati, 1200
DATE: 28 MAY 2021
TO: MS. ROSARIO C. ARCENA

Windward Hills Subdivision, Barangay Burol I,
Dasmariñas, Cavite
THRU: ATTY. FELIX R. DEOCAMPO, JR.

1293 ACL Building, Unit 305
Borneo Street corner Batangas Street,
San Isidro, Makati City
RE: DEMAND TO VACATE THE PREMISES
Dear Ms. Arcena:
I hope this letter finds you well.
This is in response to your correspondence dated 1 May

2021 addressed to my client, Ms. Nanette Quintanilla. In said
letter, you demanded on behalf of Ms. Paulita Verona, that my
client vacate and surrender possession of the property located
at Lot 3, Block 67, DBB G-2, Bcs-04-000116, Barangay San Juan
Dasmariñas, Cavite.
While we do not dispute that Ms. Verona is the registered

owner of the subject property, we do not subscribe to the view
that my client exercises possession without legal justification.
According to Ms. Quintanilla, she possessed the subject

property by virtue of a Contract of Lease executed between her
father, Mr. Roberto Quintanilla and Ms. Verona. A copy of the
Contract is attached herewith for your perusal.
The Contract has a term of 10 years, which commenced on
1 January 2013 and is to terminate only on 31 December 2023.
However, the original lessee, Mr. Roberto, has passed away

during the subsistence of the lease, on 28 March 2021. This fact
has not been brought to the attention of Ms. Verona in the belief
in good faith of Ms. Nanette that the terms of the lease continue
to be operative. But she has religiously paid the rents due every
month and the same have been accepted by the owner.
Upon reading the terms and conditions of the Contract, the

parties did not agree that the rights and obligations arising from
the Contract are not transmissible. In the absence of such
stipulation, the general rule is that heirs are bound by contracts
entered into by their predecessors-in-interest as provided by
Article 1311 of the New Civil Code.
In the case of Inocencio vs. Hospicio de San Jose (G.R. No.

201787, 25 September 2013) that the Court has took cognizance
of its previous rulings that lease contracts, by their nature, are
not personal. The general rule, therefore, is lease contracts
survive the death of the parties and continue to bind the heirs
except if the contract states otherwise.
Contract is the law between the parties. The death of a

party does not excuse nonperformance of a contract, which
involves a property right, and the rights and obligations
thereunder pass to the successors or representatives of the
deceased (Sui Man Hui Chan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
147999, 27 February 2004).
The exercise of possession by my client as the heir of Mr.

Roberto is not without legal bases. Also, no causes under Article
1673 of the New Civil Code are present which may accord the
lessor to judicially eject the lessee. Likewise, a suit for unlawful
detainer cannot prosper for not meeting the requirements set
forth under the Rules of Court and settled jurisprudence.
Therefore, Ms. Verona, as lessor, is obliged to maintain the

lessee by operation of law, Ms. Nanette, in the peaceful and
adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the
contract (Article 1654 of the New Civil Code).
In view of the foregoing, we demand that you cease and

desist from further invoking premature and unfounded actions
against my client. Otherwise, I shall be constrained to advice my
client to take the necessary legal action for damages.
Nevertheless, my client expressed her intention to settle

this matter peacefully and amicably to avoid the inconveniences
and expenses of court proceedings.
Sincerely yours.
Gabrielle Ann F. Seguiran

ATTY. GABRIELLE ANN F. SEGUIRAN
Roll No. 112496
IBP No. 122519
Conforme:
Nanette Quintanilla
NANETTE M. QUINTANILLA

Brief Summary and Response To Demand Letter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Brief Summary and Response To Demand Letter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SEGUIRAN, GABRIELLE ANN F.

SUMMARY OF INFORMATION GATHERED

1. Paulita Verona is the owner of a parcel of land located in

2. The parcel of land is covered by Transfer Certificate of

3. Ms. Verona leased the parcel of land to Mr. Roberto

4. It was stipulated therein that the Mr. Roberto has to give a

5. The lease is for a period of 10 years, which commenced on

6. Mr. Roberto passed away on 28 March 2021. However, his

7. Ms. Nanette continued to religiously pay the rentals. The

8. Ms. Rosario Arcena, on behalf of Ms. Verona, sent a letter

1. Contract of Lease entered by Ms. Paulita Verona and Mr.

2. Receipt of initial payment by Mr. Roberto Quintanilla for

3. Receipts of succeeding monthly payments

4. Death Certificate of Mr. Roberto Quintanilla

5. Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-97447 in the name of Ms.

6. Tax Declaration 2370021011460 in the name of Ms. Paulita

1. Article 1159 of the New Civil Code

Obligations arising from contracts have the force of law

2. Article 1311 of the New Civil Code

Contracts take effect only between the parties, their

3. Inocencio vs. Hospicio de San Jose, G.R. No. 201787

We have previously ruled that lease contracts, by their

A lease contract is not essentially personal in

In the subject Contract of Lease, not only were

4. Article 1654 of the New Civil Code

The lessor is obliged:

(1) To deliver the thing which is the object of the

If the lessor or the lessee should not comply with the

6. Article 1673 of the New Civil Code

(1) When the period agreed upon, or that which is fixed

(2) Lack of payment of the price stipulated;

(3) Violation of any of the conditions agreed upon in the

The ejectment of tenants of agricultural lands is governed

7. Cabrera v. Getaruela, G.R. No. 164213, April 21, 2009

A complaint sufficiently alleges a cause of action for

(1) That initially, the possession of the property by the

(3) That thereafter, the defendant remained in

(4) That within one year from the last demand on

These averments are jurisdictional and must appear on the

DATE: 28 MAY 2021

TO: MS. ROSARIO C. ARCENA

THRU: ATTY. FELIX R. DEOCAMPO, JR.

RE: DEMAND TO VACATE THE PREMISES

Dear Ms. Arcena:

I hope this letter finds you well.

This is in response to your correspondence dated 1 May

While we do not dispute that Ms. Verona is the registered

According to Ms. Quintanilla, she possessed the subject

However, the original lessee, Mr. Roberto, has passed away

Upon reading the terms and conditions of the Contract, the

In the case of Inocencio vs. Hospicio de San Jose (G.R. No.

Contract is the law between the parties. The death of a

The exercise of possession by my client as the heir of Mr.

Therefore, Ms. Verona, as lessor, is obliged to maintain the

In view of the foregoing, we demand that you cease and

Nevertheless, my client expressed her intention to settle

Gabrielle Ann F. Seguiran

You might also like