Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Province of Camarines Sur, Represented by Governor Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, JR.
Province of Camarines Sur, Represented by Governor Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, JR.
Province of Camarines Sur, Represented by Governor Luis Raymund F. Villafuerte, JR.
- versus -
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
This Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of
the Rules of Court seeks to annul and set
aside the Decision dated 28 June 2004 and
the Resolution dated 11 August 2006 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
56243. The assailed Decision of the appellate
court denied due course the Petition for
Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner
Province of Camarines Sur (Camarines Sur),
while the assailed Resolution denied the
Motion for Reconsideration of the earlier
Decision.
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[6]
[7]
[10]
[8]
domain. The
domain of a
State includes
normally only
the expanse of
its territory over
which
it
exercises
the
full rights of
sovereignty. x x
x
Sovereignty, in
turn, refers to
the
supreme
power of a State
to
command
and
enforce
obedience; it is
the power, to
which, legally
speaking
all
interest[s] are
practically
subject and all
wills
subordinate. x x
x Indeed, from
the point of
view of national
law, it is in a
sense absolute
control over a
definite
territory. x x x.
[12]
The territorial
jurisdiction of a
state is based on
the right of
2
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered, [Section 2, Article
I] of [Republic Act No.] 305 is
hereby
interpreted
and
declared in this Court to mean
that the administrative control
and management of Plaza
Rizal is within the City of
Naga and not with the
Province of Camarines Sur.
[13]
To safeguard all
the
lands,
buildings,
records,
moneys, credits
and
other
property
and
rights of the
city, and subject
to
the
[provisions] of
this
Charter,
have control of
all its property.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[19]
The existence
of
the Municipalit
y of Naga was
governed by the
provisions
of
Chapter 57 of
control
and
supervision
over
Plaza
Rizal. x x x
This finds support in one of the
provisions
of
the
old
Administrative Code of the
Philippine Islands where it was
provided that:
SEC.
2168. Beginnin
g
of
the
corporate
existence
of
new
municipality. x
x x.
When
a
township
or
other
local
territorial
division
is
converted
or
fused into a
municipality all
property rights
vested in the
original
territorial
organization
shall
become
vested in the
government of
the
municipality. x
x x.
When Naga was converted
from a municipality into a city,
all properties under its
territorial
jurisdiction
including Plaza Rizal was
vested upon it. (Emphasis
ours.)
[23]
of
[26]
[30]
[27]
Likewise,
the
doctrine
that certiorari cannot be resorted to as a
substitute for the lost remedy of appeal
applies only when a party actually files a
Petition for Certiorariunder Rule 65 in lieu of
a Petition for Review under Rule 45, since the
latter remedy was already lost through the
fault of the petitioning party. In the instant
case, Camarines Sur actually filed a Petition
for Review under Rule 45; the Court of
Appeals only mistook the same for a Petition
for Certiorari under Rule 65.
[32]
[34]
[35]
All
other
property
possessed by any of them is
patrimonial and shall be
governed by this Code, without
prejudice to the provisions of
special laws.
budgeted
annually
for
maintenance,
operating
expenses
and
personnel
services by the Province of
Camarines Sur.
[37]
10
SERVICE
SHIPPING
BIDIN, J.:p
11
12
13
D E C I S I O N
NACHURA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review
on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court, of the Decision[1] of the Court of
Appeals (CA), dated September 3, 2001, in
CA-G.R. CV No. 67784, and its
Resolution[2] dated November 19, 2001. The
assailed Decision affirmed with modification
the Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Makati City, Branch 136, dated May
9, 2000 in Civil Case No. 98-411.
Sometime in May 1997, respondent Bathala
Marketing Industries, Inc., as lessee,
represented by its president Ramon H. Garcia,
renewed its Contract of Lease[4] with
Ponciano L. Almeda (Ponciano), as lessor,
husband of petitioner Eufemia and father
of petitioner Romel Almeda. Under the said
contract, Ponciano agreed to lease a portion of
the Almeda Compound, located at 2208
Pasong Tamo Street, Makati City, consisting
of 7,348.25 square meters, for a monthly
14
SIXTH
It
is
expressly
understood by the parties
hereto that the rental rate
stipulated is based on the
present rate of assessment on
the property, and that in case
the
assessment
should
hereafter be increased or any
new tax, charge or burden be
imposed by authorities on the
lot and building where the
leased premises are located,
LESSEE shall pay, when the
rental herein provided becomes
due, the additional rental or
charge corresponding to the
portion
hereby
leased;
provided, however, that in the
event
that
the
present
assessment or tax on said
property should be reduced,
LESSEE shall be entitled to
reduction in the stipulated
rental, likewise in proportion
to the portion leased by him;
[9]
SEVENTH
In
case
an
extraordinary inflation
or
devaluation
of
Philippine
Currency should supervene,
the value of Philippine peso at
the time of the establishment
of the obligation shall be the
basis of payment;[6]
During the effectivity of the contract,
Ponciano died. Thereafter, respondent dealt
with petitioners. In a letter[7] dated December
29, 1997, petitioners advised respondent that
the former shall assess and collect Value
Added Tax (VAT) on its monthly rentals. In
response, respondent contended that VAT may
not be imposed as the rentals fixed in the
contract of lease were supposed to include the
VAT therein, considering that their contract
WHEREFORE,
premises
considered, the present appeal
is DISMISSED and the
appealed decision in Civil
Case No. 98-411 is hereby
AFFIRMED
with
MODIFICATION in that the
order for the return of the
balance of the rental deposits
and
of
the
amounts
representing the 10% VAT and
rental adjustment, is hereby
DELETED.
2)
declaring
that
plaintiff is not liable for the
payment
of
any
rental
adjustment, there being no
[extraordinary] inflation or
devaluation, as provided in the
Seventh Condition of the lease
contract, to justify the same;
3) holding defendants
liable to plaintiff for the total
amount of P1,119,102.19, said
amount representing payments
erroneously made by plaintiff
as VAT charges and rental
adjustment for the months of
January, February and March,
1999; and
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.[14]
The appellate court agreed with the
conclusions of law and the application of the
decisional rules on the matter made by the
RTC. However, it found that the trial court
exceeded its jurisdiction in granting
affirmative relief to the respondent,
particularly the restitution of its excess
payment.
4) holding defendants
liable to plaintiff for the
amount of P1,107,348.69, said
amount
representing
the
balance of plaintiffs rental
deposit still with defendants.
SO ORDERED.[13]
The trial court denied petitioners their right to
pass on to respondent the burden of paying
the VAT since it was not a new tax that would
call for the application of the sixth clause of
16
I.
WHETHER
OR
NOT
ARTICLE 1250 OF THE
NEW CIVIL CODE IS
APPLICABLE
TO
THE
CASE AT BAR.
II.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
DOCTRINE ENUNCIATED
IN FILIPINO PIPE AND
FOUNDRY
CORP.
VS.
NAWASA CASE, 161 SCRA
32
AND
COMPANION
CASES
ARE
(sic)
APPLICABLE IN THE CASE
AT BAR.
III.
WHETHER OR NOT IN NOT
APPLYING THE DOCTRINE
IN
THE
CASE
OF DEL ROSARIO VS. THE
SHELL
COMPANY
OF
THE PHILIPPINES,
164
SCRA
562,
THE
HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS
SERIOUSLY
ERRED ON A QUESTION
OF LAW.
IV.
WHETHER OR NOT THE
FINDING
OF
THE
HONORABLE COURT OF
APPEALS
THAT
RESPONDENT
IS
NOT
LIABLE TO PAY THE 10%
VALUE ADDED TAX IS IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE
MANDATE OF RA 7716.
V.
WHETHER
OR
NOT
DECLARATORY RELIEF IS
PROPER SINCE PLAINTIFFAPPELLEE
WAS
IN
BREACH
WHEN
THE
PETITION
FOR
DECLARATORY
RELIEF
WAS FILED BEFORE THE
TRIAL COURT.
In fine, the issues for our resolution are
as follows: 1) whether the action for
17
We do not agree.
After petitioners demanded payment of
adjusted rentals and in the months that
followed, respondent complied with the terms
and conditions set forth in their contract of
lease by paying the rentals stipulated
therein. Respondent religiously fulfilled its
obligations to petitioners even during the
pendency of the present suit. There is no
showing that respondent committed an act
constituting a breach of the subject contract of
lease. Thus, respondent is not barred from
instituting before the trial court the petition for
declaratory relief.
21
From March
1,
1994 to February
28,
1995 P7,320.50/P14,641.00
From March
1,
1995 to February
28,
1996 P8,052.55/P16,105.10
From March
1,
1996 to February
29,
1997 P8,857.81/P17,715.61
From March
1,
1997 to February
28,
1998 P9,743.59/P19,487.17
From March
1,
1998 to February
28,
1999 P10,717.95/P21,435.89
From March
1,
1999 to February
28,
2000 P11,789.75/P23,579.48
is
petition
for
review
[4]
Effective July
1,
1992 P10,000.00
with
an
increment of 10% every two
years.
[5]
Effective April
1,
1992 P5,000.00
with
an
increment of 10% every two
years.
[6]
[3]
[7]
[8]
petitioners
dealt
with
Francis
Pacheco
22
by
[10]
Roswinda
Bautista
Bautista).
repeated
[11]
(Ms.
demands,
petitioners
further
rent.Consequently,
Answer
respondent
was
averred
[18]
in
their
[17]
Petitioners
Amended
amounting
toP916,585.58.
[13]
Decision
ejectment.
No. 143058-CV.
complaint
for
petitioners
payment
name
of
their
respondent
the corporation.
However,
the
deposited
in
have
[15]
should
[19]
the
[14]
dismissing
To show
23
on certiorari.
[22]
On March
18,
1998,
[23]
to cite
to vacate the
leased
premised
(sic) and restore
possession thereof
to
plaintiffappellant;
(2) to pay plaintiffappellant the sum
of P967,915.80
representing
the
accrued rents in
arrears
as
of
November 1993,
and the rents on the
leased premises for
the
succeeding
months
in the
amounts stated in
paragraph 5 of the
complaint
until
fully paid; and
(3) to
pay
an
additional
sum
equivalent to 25%
of the rent accounts
as and for attorneys
fees plus the costs
of this suit.
SO ORDERED.
(1)
to
conduct
hearings
and
ocular
on May
[24]
26,
1998,
the
CA
[25]
moved
for
the
[27]
In a Resolution
[28]
[20]
[30]
Lastly, the
[21]
[31]
following issues:
24
I.
[32]
II.
further
prayed
that
[34]
in
III.
further orders.
to
institute
the
ejectment
25
instituted
the
action
ejectment
[39]
[40]
Inc. v. Galan,
[35]
for
[41]
[36]
corporation. Lastly,
Philippines, Inc,
existence. In
turn,
[37]
Thus, any
present
proof
of
such
the
verification
and
institute
the
[43]
Certificate
[38]
presented
confirming
the
her
Secretarys
authority
to
the
interest
of
[44]
[42]
Banking
incidental
in China
justice.
[48]
been rendered.
the defendant.
[45]
[49]
petitioners
and
likewise,
We would like to
whether
that
[46]
undisputed
is
it
prevented
petitioners
from
[47]
35.
We now come to the more substantive issue of
This issue involves questions of fact, the
27
contract,
to
[50]
[55]
their
inability
to
use
the
leased
than a year.
[51]
of
the
is
respondents
refusal
stipulated
to
accept
rent
payment
tendered by petitioners.
communications
to
the
[52]
30,
stated
1993 letter
in
petitioners
placed
In their July 26
Although
were
[54]
they
[53]
rooms. Thus,
Bautista or to Pacheco.
As borne out by
[56]
in
that
know
28
to
whom
payment
should
be
[58]
Civil
the
Court on interpleader.
Code
of
the Philippines on
provides:
[59]
Consignation
alone
shall produce the same effect
in the following cases:
xxxx
(4) When two or more
persons claim the same right to
collect;
x x x x.
cases.
[57]
[60]
[61]
29
to wit:
justification
for
non-payment
of
[62]
monthly
same. Notably,
by, petitioners.
rental
for
the
[64]
[63]
leased premises.
tenants
dated January
thereof
would
vacate
the
18,
1999 is
possession
of
the
subject
rooms
to
light
of
the
foregoing
disquisition,
30