Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • PNCC V. Ca Facts

    Uploaded by

    bertokon
    7 views1 page
    The case involved a dispute over a lease contract between PNCC and private respondents. The contract stipulated PNCC would lease 30,000 sqm of land for 5 years to use as a rock crushing plant, paying an initial monthly rent of $20,000 increasing 5% annually. PNCC argued it did not need to pay the first annual rental of $240,000 until it received an industrial clearance, while private respondents demanded payment as stipulated in the contract. The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of private respondents, upholding the lease contract terms.

    Original Description:

    asd

    Original Title

    asd

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The case involved a dispute over a lease contract between PNCC and private respondents. The contract stipulated PNCC would lease 30,000 sqm of land for 5 years to use as a rock crushing plant, paying an initial monthly rent of $20,000 increasing 5% annually. PNCC argued it did not need to pay the first annual rental of $240,000 until it received an industrial clearance, while private respondents demanded payment as stipulated in the contract. The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of private respondents, upholding the lease contract terms.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    7 views1 page

    PNCC V. Ca Facts

    Uploaded by

    bertokon
    The case involved a dispute over a lease contract between PNCC and private respondents. The contract stipulated PNCC would lease 30,000 sqm of land for 5 years to use as a rock crushing plant, paying an initial monthly rent of $20,000 increasing 5% annually. PNCC argued it did not need to pay the first annual rental of $240,000 until it received an industrial clearance, while private respondents demanded payment as stipulated in the contract. The trial court and Court of Appeals both ruled in favor of private respondents, upholding the lease contract terms.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as DOC, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as doc, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    PNCC v.

    CA Facts: The case stemmed from petitioners refusal to pay the rentals as stipulated in the contract of lease on an undivided portion of 30, 000 sq. m. of a parcel of land owned by private respondents. The lease contract, executed on 18 November 1985, contains the following terms and conditions: (a) the lease shall be for a period of 5 years commencing upon the issuance of the industrial clearance by the Ministry of Human Settlement and renewable at the option of the lessee under the same terms and conditions, (b) the monthly rent is P20, 000.00 to be increased yearly by 5% based on the monthly rate, (c) the rent shall be paid yearly in advance, and (d) the property shall be used as premises of a rock crushing plant and field office. On 7 January 1986, petitioner obtained from the Ministry of Human Settlements a Temporary Use Permit which was to be valid for 2 years unless sooner revoked by the Ministry. Subsequently, private respondents requested the payment of the first annual rental in the amount of P240, 000.00 due and payable upon the execution of the contract. However, petitioner argued that the payment of rental should commence on the date of the issuance of the industrial clearance, and not from the date of signing of the contract. It then expressed its intention to terminate the contract as it had decided to cancel the project due to financial and technical difficulties. Private respondents refused to accede to petitioners request for the pretermination of the lease contract and reiterated their demand for the payment of the first annual rental. Petitioner argued that it was only obligated to pay P20, 000.00 as rental for one month, prompting private respondents to file an action for specific performance with damages before the RTC of Pasig. The trial court rendered its decision in favor of private respondents. This was later affirmed by the CA.

    You might also like