Posted by: Petros Absalon C. Bojo, 26 July 2018
FACTS:
Mariquita Luna and Geronimo Carandang entered into a contract of lease for a period of 10 years involving a parcel of agricultural land located at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The lessee, Carandang, failed or refused to pay in full the stipulated rent during the first two years of the contract such that he owed the lessor unpaid rents in the amount of P4,156.63.
The contract of lease contained a stipulation "that the parties herein agreed that the Court of Batangas shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to any case that may arise in this contract . . ."
The plaintiff-lessor commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The lower court rendered its decision holding that plaintiff has made out a case for rescission with damages, but that the court could not order the defendant to vacate the leased premises because the land is situated at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, where it had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff granting rescission of the contract of lease, with damages, consisting of unpaid rents as well as future rents. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court on questions of law and in due time filed her brief as appellant.
ISSUE:
FACTS:
Mariquita Luna and Geronimo Carandang entered into a contract of lease for a period of 10 years involving a parcel of agricultural land located at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. The lessee, Carandang, failed or refused to pay in full the stipulated rent during the first two years of the contract such that he owed the lessor unpaid rents in the amount of P4,156.63.
The contract of lease contained a stipulation "that the parties herein agreed that the Court of Batangas shall have the exclusive jurisdiction to any case that may arise in this contract . . ."
The plaintiff-lessor commenced an action in the Court of First Instance of Batangas. The lower court rendered its decision holding that plaintiff has made out a case for rescission with damages, but that the court could not order the defendant to vacate the leased premises because the land is situated at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro, where it had no jurisdiction. Accordingly, judgment was rendered in favor of the plaintiff granting rescission of the contract of lease, with damages, consisting of unpaid rents as well as future rents. Plaintiff appealed to the Supreme Court on questions of law and in due time filed her brief as appellant.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the Trial Court erred in its ruling that it does not have jurisdiction over the case.
HELD:
This stipulation is void because the jurisdiction of the court is conferred by law and cannot be the subject-matter of contracts. However, as pointed out, the Court of First Instance of Batangas had, in accordance with law, jurisdiction over the case, and there was implied waiver of improper venue by the defendant.
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in not ordering payment of the stipulated rent of P5,000 yearly from January, 1967, up to the time the leased land is returned to the plaintiff. The contention is technically untenable, for the reason that rescission and performance are incompatible with each other. To order payment of P5,000 as annual rent beginning January, 1967, up to the time the land leased is returned to the plaintiff would amount to performance and would be incompatible with rescission. The action for rescission having been filed on May 26, 1964, the damages to which the plaintiff- appellant is entitled are the unpaid rents from January 1, 1962, up to the filing of the action for rescission on May 26, 1964, for the reason that in an action by the lessor for rescission of the lease under Article I659 of the Civil Code, the Court has no discretion to grant the lessee a longer period for performance but must decree the rescission demanded.#END
HELD:
This stipulation is void because the jurisdiction of the court is conferred by law and cannot be the subject-matter of contracts. However, as pointed out, the Court of First Instance of Batangas had, in accordance with law, jurisdiction over the case, and there was implied waiver of improper venue by the defendant.
Appellant contends that the lower court erred in not ordering payment of the stipulated rent of P5,000 yearly from January, 1967, up to the time the leased land is returned to the plaintiff. The contention is technically untenable, for the reason that rescission and performance are incompatible with each other. To order payment of P5,000 as annual rent beginning January, 1967, up to the time the land leased is returned to the plaintiff would amount to performance and would be incompatible with rescission. The action for rescission having been filed on May 26, 1964, the damages to which the plaintiff- appellant is entitled are the unpaid rents from January 1, 1962, up to the filing of the action for rescission on May 26, 1964, for the reason that in an action by the lessor for rescission of the lease under Article I659 of the Civil Code, the Court has no discretion to grant the lessee a longer period for performance but must decree the rescission demanded.#END
NOTE:
This Decision must be read by taking account into the amendment of BP Blg. 129 by RA 7691 that jurisdiction over real actions will depend on the assessed value of the subject real property.
