Vicente Aldaba vs. Court of Appeals, et. al., G.R. No. L-21676, February 28, 1969
Subject: Obligations and Contracts
FACTS
The case involved a
dispute over two lots in Santa Mesa, Manila, which were left by Belen Aldaba to
her presumptive heirs, Estanislao Bautista and Cesar Aldaba. Petitioners Dr.
Vicente Aldaba and Jane Aldaba, father and daughter, respectively, had lived
with Belen Aldaba before her death and had rendered her personal and medical
services. After Belen's death, the lots were partitioned between Estanislao and
Cesar, and Dr. Vicente and Jane were evicted from the property.
Dr. Vicente and Jane
filed a complaint for ejectment with the Court of First Instance of Manila,
claiming that they had a right to stay on the property because of the services
they had rendered to Belen. The trial court dismissed the complaint, and the
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether or not there was
a contract, either express or implied.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court
rejected Dr. Vicente and Jane's claim that they had a right to stay on the
property based on an implied contract. The Court held that there was no
evidence that Dr. Vicente and Jane had expected to be paid for their services,
and that Belen had not accepted their services with the knowledge that they
were expecting to be paid.
No comments:
Post a Comment