RAYMUNDA VDA. DE SAN JUAN, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. SIXTO TAN, RESPONDENT.

This is a petition for review on certiorari of a decision of
the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur dismissing a complaint for recovery of possession of
real property.

Jose San Juan, a co-owner of a 1,108 square meter parcel of land
situated in Naga City covered by OCT No. 369,
Registry of Naga City, leased to respondent Sixto Tan on March 18, 1967, an eight hundred (800) square
meter portion of said property for a term of ten (10) years – from May 1, 1967
to May 1, 1977 – at a yearly rental of P480.00.

When the contract of lease was executed, the property was not yet
titled.

In accordance with the lease contract, the respondent made
improvements on the leased premises and commenced enjoying the 3 meters wide
right of way stipulated in the lease. 
About five (5) months after the respondent’s occupancy of the premises,
Jose San Juan demanded a raise in rentals which was refused by the respondent on account of the express stipulation in the
lease contract.  Jose San Juan closed the
right of way with barbed wire fencing.  The respondent demanded the reopening of the
right of way.  Due to the refusal of Jose
San Juan to reopen the right of way, the respondent on December 22, 1967 filed
in court a case for “Specific Performance and Damages, with Petition for
Writ of Preliminary Injunction” (Civil Case No. 6492, Court of First
Instance of Camarines Sur)).  During the pendency
of that case, the petitioners, on March 14, 1968, filed a motion to intervene as defendants-intervenors.  The
motion was denied by the trial court in its order of March
26, 1968.  On July 29, 1968, the petitioners filed the complaint for
“Recovery of Possession of Real Property” (Civil Case No. 6597, Court
of First Instance of Camarines Sur)
praying for the recovery of possession of the 800 square meter lot covered by
the contract of lease executed between their brother, Jose San Juan, and the
respondent.

In the joint pre-trial of
the two cases which was conducted on October 28, 1969, the parties agreed to submit the cases for
decision on the basis of pre­trial admissions of fact.

On May 12,
1970, the trial
court rendered its judgment, the dispositive portion
of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is the opinion of this
court and so holds:

“1.  That the lessor Jose
San Juan, third party of defendant in Civil Case No. 6597 and the principal
defendant in Civil Case No. 6492 failed to maintain a three-meter road right of
way as provided in paragraph 3 of the lease contract (Exhibit B);

“2.  That the plaintiff Sixto
Tan changed the location of the road by making a straight path to his door;

“3.  The lease contract shall remain enforced until
May 2, 1977;

“4.  That the injunction mandatory in nature issued
by this court requiring Jose San Juan to maintain a road right of way serving
as a voluntary easement should be maintained in favor of Tan at the left edge
of the complaint;

“5.  That the complaint for recovery of possession
being devoid of merit should be dismissed;

“6.  That no appreciable damages was proved to the
satisfaction of the court, hence it pronounces none.

“NOW THEREFORE, Civil Case No. 6597 should be as it is hereby
dismissed with costs against the plaintiffs. 
Jose San Juan is hereby ordered to restore the road right of way
envisioned in the injunction.  The
contract of lease shall remain enforced until May 2, 1977.  Sixto Tan shall pay and tender the amount of the rental of
P480.00 yearly from 1968 to 1970 and yearly thereafter until 1977.

SO
ORDERED.”

Petitioners contend that
a lease of real property for ten (10) years executed by a co-owner owning only
1/10 pro indiviso share and made in his own name,
does not bind the other co-owners owning the shares corresponding to 9/10 of
the property and that the contract of lease cannot create real rights upon the
land.  The petitioners also argue that
the lower court cannot include in its findings of fact, conclusions and details
not contained in the stipulations of fact submitted at the pre-trial
conference.

While the above
contentions of the petitioners appear to be meritorious, there is no necessity
for Us to rule upon them.  The questioned lease contract specifically
provides that it shall be for a period of ten (10) years from May 1,
1967 to May 1,
1977.  The lower court’s judgment expressly declared
that the lease contract shall remain enforced until May 2, 1977. 
Under the terms of the contract and even pursuant to the questioned
decision, the prayer for recovery of possession must be granted.

WHEREFORE, the
petition is granted.  The respondent Sixto Tan is ordered, if he has not done so upon the
expiration of the contract of lease, to immediately vacate and restore
possession of the disputed 800 meter lot to the petitioners-plaintiffs, and to
pay all accrued rentals at P480.00 yearly from 1968 up to the time of
restoration of possession.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Melencio-Herrera, Plana, Vasquez, and Relova, JJ., concur.

Makasiar, J., on official leave.