Alejando Ras vs Estela Sua and Ramos Sua, GR No. L-23302, September 25, 1968
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
To secure recovery of possession of a parcel of land which he leased to
the spouses Ramon and Estela Sua, Alejandro Ras filed a complaint dated 6 May
1963 1 in the Court of First Instance of Basilan City, alleging, among other
things, that on 25 February 1958 plaintiff, while in need of money and unaware
of the provisions of Republic Act 477, leased to the defendants a four-hectare
parcel of land he acquired from the National Abaca and Other Fibers Corporation
(NAFCO), 2 designated as Lot No. 52 and situated at Balactasan, Lamitan
District, Basilan City, for a period of 3 years (from 1 April 1958 to 1 April
1961) upon a consideration of P2,500.00; that under the said contract the
lessees assumed the obligation to pay to the government the yearly installments
on the land when they fall due, as well as the taxes thereon, for the duration
of the lease; that these obligations were again embodied in subsequent
contracts 3 entered into by the parties, by virtue of which the lease was
extended to a total period of 10 years; that the lessees failed to pay the
taxes on the land and the installments due to the NAFCO; and when defendants
refused to pay said dues to the government, as agreed upon, and to return to
plaintiff possession of the subject parcel of land notwithstanding demand
therefor, the latter filed the present action. Claiming further that defendant
had harvested from the land since 1958 no less than 120,000 coconuts, plaintiff
prayed for judgment declaring as null and void the lease-contract of 25 February
1958 and the contracts executed subsequent thereto; and ordering the defendants
to deliver to him possession of the land, together with the value of the
harvested nuts amounting to P7,200.00, and to pay him damages and attorney's
fees for P3,000.00 and P1,500.00, respectively.
ISSUE
Whether or not the plaintiff can recover the parcel of land from the
respondent
RULING
Yes.
Under the law, when the agreement is not illegal per se but is merely
prohibited, and the prohibition by the law is designed for the protection of
the plaintiff, he may, if public policy is thereby enhanced, recover what he
has paid or delivered.
Clearly, until and unless an appropriate proceeding for reversion is
instituted by the State, and its reacquisition of the ownership and possession
of the land decreed by a competent court, the grantee cannot be said to have
been divested of whatever right that he may have over the same property. With the conclusions thus arrived at, the discussion of the
other issues raised by appellants becomes unnecessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment