Dear PAO,
I have been paying for three years for a house and lot
in a subdivision located in the Bicol Region. I am supposed to complete
payment two years from now. Unfortunately, the developer contacted us to
inform that the subdivision project was recalled and it shall refund
the money we have paid. We called the developer’s main office to fix the
refund but they are giving us a hard time. Finally, the accounting
department confirmed to us that we can only refund half of what we paid
citing the Maceda Law. I believe that this is unfair since there is no
fault on our part.
Mr. Cinco
Dear Mr. Cinco,
The Maceda
Law or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6552 otherwise known as “Realty
Installment Buyer Protection Act” affords buyers on installment on the
sale of real estate properties including residential condominium
apartments certain rights where they have defaulted in the payment of
succeeding installments. The buyer’s rights under the law include, among
others: a) To pay, without additional interest, the unpaid installments
due within the total grace period earned by him which is hereby fixed
at the rate of one month grace period for every one year of installment
payments made: Provided, That this right shall be exercised by the buyer
only once in every five years of the life of the contract and its
extensions, if any.; (b) If the contract is cancelled, the seller shall
refund to the buyer the cash surrender value of the payments on the
property equivalent to fifty per cent of the total payments made, and,
after five years of installments, an additional five per cent every year
but not to exceed ninety per cent of the total payments made: Provided,
That the actual cancellation of the contract shall take place after
thirty days from receipt by the buyer of the notice of cancellation or
the demand for rescission of the contract by a notarial act and upon
full payment of the cash surrender value to the buyer.
Accordingly,
a buyer shall be entitled to refund in case his contract with the
seller of the real estate property is cancelled. However, the said
provision of R.A. No. 6552 shall be applicable only in case the buyer
has made defaults in his succeeding payments. In your situation, the
said law cannot be applicable in the cancellation of the developer of
the contract involving the sale of a house and lot in a subdivision
located in the Bicol region since the same was cancelled not because you
defaulted in the payment of your installments. Indeed, the reason for
the said cancellation, according to you, was the recall of the
subdivision project. Thus, the failure on the part of the developer
entitles you, among others, to rescind the contract with payment of
damages (Article 1191, Civil Code). You may first send a demand letter
to the developer to inform them of your demand. Thereafter, you may file
a case in court when the developer refused to give in with your demand.
You may also inquire with the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board
(HLURB) for administrative liability of the said developer in its
failure to comply with its obligation.
We hope that we were able
to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based
solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same.
Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty Persida Acosta
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Sunday, July 14, 2013
The importance of publication
IN 1957, President Carlos Garcia issued Proclamation No. 423,
reserving parcels of land in Pasig, Taguig, Parañaque, Rizal, and Pasay
City as a military reservation, more commonly known as Fort Bonifacio.
In 1967, President Ferdinand Marcos amended Proclamation No. 423 and reserved a portion of Fort Bonifacio for a national shrine. Today, this area is known as Libingan ng mga Bayani. In 1986, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476, further amending Proclamation No. 423 by excluding certain barangays in Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan and Signal Village from forming part of the military reservation. At the bottom of Proclamation No. 2476, President Marcos made a handwritten addendum, which read: “P.S.—This includes Western Bicutan (SGD.) Ferdinand E. Marcos.” That same year, Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette without the addendum.
In 1999, members of Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. (NMSMI) filed a petition with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) to convert the areas they were occupying in Western Bicutan from public land to alienable land pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476. COSLAP granted the request, ruling that despite the lack of publication of the addendum, the “intention of President Marcos could not be defeated by the negligence or inadvertence of others.”
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of COSLAP. On appeal, the Supreme Court (SC) sustained the CA. It ruled that the “Court cannot rely on a handwritten note that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication, the note never had any legal force and effect.”
It was undisputed that the handwritten addendum was not included when Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette. The SC, however, noted that the issue of whether President Marcos intended to include Western Bicutan in Proclamation No. 2476 was not only “irrelevant but speculative.” Courts cannot speculate on the probable intent of the legislature apart from the words appearing in the law.
Citing Tañada v. Hon. Tuvera, the SC also reiterated that requirement of publication is indispensable in order to give effect to the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided. The phrase “unless otherwise provided” refers to a different effectivity date other than after fifteen days following the completion of the law’s publication in the Official Gazette. Nevertheless, this does not imply that the requirement of publication may be dispensed with -
Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended . . . It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed with altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it.
The Court also cited those covered under the indispensible rule of publication -
[a]ll statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers.
It is important to note that publication “must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws” (Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig v. Military Shrine Services, G.R. No. 187587, 5 June 2013, C.J. Sereno).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
In 1967, President Ferdinand Marcos amended Proclamation No. 423 and reserved a portion of Fort Bonifacio for a national shrine. Today, this area is known as Libingan ng mga Bayani. In 1986, President Marcos issued Proclamation No. 2476, further amending Proclamation No. 423 by excluding certain barangays in Lower Bicutan, Upper Bicutan and Signal Village from forming part of the military reservation. At the bottom of Proclamation No. 2476, President Marcos made a handwritten addendum, which read: “P.S.—This includes Western Bicutan (SGD.) Ferdinand E. Marcos.” That same year, Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette without the addendum.
In 1999, members of Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig, Inc. (NMSMI) filed a petition with the Commission on Settlement of Land Problems (COSLAP) to convert the areas they were occupying in Western Bicutan from public land to alienable land pursuant to Proclamation No. 2476. COSLAP granted the request, ruling that despite the lack of publication of the addendum, the “intention of President Marcos could not be defeated by the negligence or inadvertence of others.”
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the decision of COSLAP. On appeal, the Supreme Court (SC) sustained the CA. It ruled that the “Court cannot rely on a handwritten note that was not part of Proclamation No. 2476 as published. Without publication, the note never had any legal force and effect.”
It was undisputed that the handwritten addendum was not included when Proclamation No. 2476 was published in the Official Gazette. The SC, however, noted that the issue of whether President Marcos intended to include Western Bicutan in Proclamation No. 2476 was not only “irrelevant but speculative.” Courts cannot speculate on the probable intent of the legislature apart from the words appearing in the law.
Citing Tañada v. Hon. Tuvera, the SC also reiterated that requirement of publication is indispensable in order to give effect to the law, unless the law itself has otherwise provided. The phrase “unless otherwise provided” refers to a different effectivity date other than after fifteen days following the completion of the law’s publication in the Official Gazette. Nevertheless, this does not imply that the requirement of publication may be dispensed with -
Publication is indispensable in every case, but the legislature may in its discretion provide that the usual fifteen-day period shall be shortened or extended . . . It is not correct to say that under the disputed clause publication may be dispensed with altogether. The reason is that such omission would offend due process insofar as it would deny the public knowledge of the laws that are supposed to govern it.
The Court also cited those covered under the indispensible rule of publication -
[a]ll statutes, including those of local application and private laws, shall be published as a condition for their effectivity, which shall begin fifteen days after publication unless a different effectivity date is fixed by the legislature. Covered by this rule are presidential decrees and executive orders promulgated by the President in the exercise of legislative powers.
It is important to note that publication “must be in full or it is no publication at all since its purpose is to inform the public of the contents of the laws” (Nagkakaisang Maralita ng Sitio Masigasig v. Military Shrine Services, G.R. No. 187587, 5 June 2013, C.J. Sereno).
source: Manila Times' Column of Benchpress
Buying a building built on own lot
Dear PAO,
My sister-in-law built an apartment on our lot with our permission. She is now selling the apartment to us because of some financial difficulties. Do we still need to execute some documents for the sale?
JV
Dear JV,
A contract of sale is one where one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent (Article 1458, Civil Code of the Philippines). It is a consensual contract which is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds between the seller and the buyer upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon its price. From its perfection, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts (Article 1475, Civil Code of the Philippines).
As a rule, no other form shall be necessary for the perfection and validity of a sale. However, there are certain sales which the law requires to be in writing, not for its validity, but for its enforceability. Article 1403 of the Civil Code of the Philippines requires agreements for the sale of real property or an interest therein to be put into writing:
“Article 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
xxx
2) Those that do not comply with the Statue of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:
xxx
e. An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein;
xxx
(emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing, if you will buy the apartment which was built on your land, you and your wife, as the buyer, and your sister-in-law as the seller, shall execute a Deed of Sale of the apartment. The deed shall contain a clear description of the apartment that you are buying, its price, such other terms that you deem proper provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy (Article 1305, Civil Code of the Philippines).
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty. Persida Acosta
My sister-in-law built an apartment on our lot with our permission. She is now selling the apartment to us because of some financial difficulties. Do we still need to execute some documents for the sale?
JV
Dear JV,
A contract of sale is one where one of the contracting parties obligates himself to transfer the ownership of and to deliver a determinate thing, and the other to pay therefor a price certain in money or its equivalent (Article 1458, Civil Code of the Philippines). It is a consensual contract which is perfected at the moment there is a meeting of minds between the seller and the buyer upon the thing which is the object of the contract and upon its price. From its perfection, the parties may reciprocally demand performance, subject to the provisions of the law governing the form of contracts (Article 1475, Civil Code of the Philippines).
As a rule, no other form shall be necessary for the perfection and validity of a sale. However, there are certain sales which the law requires to be in writing, not for its validity, but for its enforceability. Article 1403 of the Civil Code of the Philippines requires agreements for the sale of real property or an interest therein to be put into writing:
“Article 1403. The following contracts are unenforceable, unless they are ratified:
xxx
2) Those that do not comply with the Statue of Frauds as set forth in this number. In the following cases an agreement hereafter made shall be unenforceable action, unless the same, or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, and subscribed by the party charged, or by his agent; evidence, therefore, of the agreement cannot be received without the writing, or a secondary evidence of its contents:
xxx
e. An agreement for the leasing for a longer period than one year, or for the sale of real property or of an interest therein;
xxx
(emphasis supplied)
Based on the foregoing, if you will buy the apartment which was built on your land, you and your wife, as the buyer, and your sister-in-law as the seller, shall execute a Deed of Sale of the apartment. The deed shall contain a clear description of the apartment that you are buying, its price, such other terms that you deem proper provided that they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order or public policy (Article 1305, Civil Code of the Philippines).
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty. Persida Acosta
Saturday, July 13, 2013
Expired special power of attorney has no legal effect
Dear PAO,
I am planning to buy a house and lot. The person who is transacting with me bought it from the original owner, but the title of the property is still under the latter’s name. He presented to me a Special Power of Attorney for the sale of the property which was signed by the original owner. However, the Special Power of Attorney is already expired as it is indicated in the document that its validity is only one year from the date of the sale of the property to my seller. How do I go about it? How long will it take to transfer the title of the property?
Adrian
I am planning to buy a house and lot. The person who is transacting with me bought it from the original owner, but the title of the property is still under the latter’s name. He presented to me a Special Power of Attorney for the sale of the property which was signed by the original owner. However, the Special Power of Attorney is already expired as it is indicated in the document that its validity is only one year from the date of the sale of the property to my seller. How do I go about it? How long will it take to transfer the title of the property?
Adrian
Dear Adrian,
It is quite common in commercial transactions that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) is used when the person selling the property is not the owner thereof. In particular, Article 1878 (5) of the New Civil Code provides that an SPA is necessary for a party to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration.
It is quite common in commercial transactions that a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) is used when the person selling the property is not the owner thereof. In particular, Article 1878 (5) of the New Civil Code provides that an SPA is necessary for a party to enter into any contract by which the ownership of an immovable is transmitted or acquired either gratuitously or for a valuable consideration.
However, the agent who is holding a Special Power of Attorney must act within the scope of the authority granted him as well as within the time frame he is permitted to act. He cannot bind the principal if he acts beyond what was authorized of him or beyond the period stipulated in the SPA. Moreover, our law provides that one of the modes of extinguishment of the agency is the expiration of the period for which the agency was constituted (Article 1919 (6), id). Hence, any act by virtue of an expired SPA has no legal effect whatsoever. Accordingly, it is not advisable for you to purchase the house and lot on the basis of the SPA that was presented to you considering that the authority granted by the named owner has already lapsed.
Nevertheless, you may insist from the seller of the property to settle first the transfer of the title of the property under his name before you push through with the purchase thereof. Besides, he should find no problem concerning the transfer of such title under his name considering that, as you have mentioned in your letter, he bought the said property from the original owner. By virtue of their contract, he has already acquired the ownership of the subject property.
We cannot say, though, with certainty how long it would take for him to have the transfer of the title of the property under his name as it is dependent on his vigilance in making the necessary arrangements insofar as the payment of the appropriate taxes relative to his transaction with the original owner is concerned as well as with the registration of such transfer with the Register of Deeds of the place where the property is situated.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty Persida Acosta
Tuesday, July 9, 2013
Owner cannot eject tenants of leased property covered by Rent Control Act
Dear PAO,
I am renting an apartment in Makati City. The property was bought last October 2012, and as I understand, it was sold again to another person in the same year, but I don’t know exactly when. In the middle of December, the last person who bought the apartment wanted us to vacate by the end of this month, because we cannot afford the increase in the rent. Are we obliged to pay and leave without even a grace period?
Thank you. I hope to hear some advice from your office.
Marco
Dear Marco,
You did not indicate the amount of rent you are paying for your apartment. This is important, as it will determine what law applies in your case. If your rent is not more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000) per month, you are covered by the Rent Control Act of 2009 or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9653. If your rent is more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000) per month, then you are covered by the provisions on lease under the Civil Code of the Philippines.
For the purpose of our discussion, we will assume that your lease contract has not yet expired.
If you are covered by the Rent Control Act, the new owner may not be allowed to eject you from your apartment on the grounds that it has been sold or mortgaged to another person, regardless of whether the lease or mortgage is registered or not (Section 10, R.A. No. 9653).
In addition, the owner or lessor may only increase the rent by not more than seven percent (7%) annually as long as the apartment is occupied by the same lessee (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9653).
Therefore, if your new landowner is increasing the rent by more than 7% annually, you may not agree to and refuse to pay such increase.
If you are covered by the Civil Code, Article 1676 of the Civil Code states that anyone who purchases a piece of land which is under a lease, but the lease is not under the Registry of Property, he may terminate the lease, except when there is a stipulation to the contrary in the contract or sale or when the purchaser knows of the existence of the lease. It is therefore important for you to know if your lease contract was registered in the Registry of Property, if their contract of sale states that your lease must be respected, or if prior to buying the property, the buyer knew of the existence of the lease contract.
As for the increase in rent, you must look at your lease contract to see when it is proper for a rent increase. This is in conformity with Article 1657 of the Civil Code, which states that the lessee must pay the price of the lease according to the terms in the lease contract.
We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty Persida Acosta
I am renting an apartment in Makati City. The property was bought last October 2012, and as I understand, it was sold again to another person in the same year, but I don’t know exactly when. In the middle of December, the last person who bought the apartment wanted us to vacate by the end of this month, because we cannot afford the increase in the rent. Are we obliged to pay and leave without even a grace period?
Thank you. I hope to hear some advice from your office.
Marco
Dear Marco,
You did not indicate the amount of rent you are paying for your apartment. This is important, as it will determine what law applies in your case. If your rent is not more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000) per month, you are covered by the Rent Control Act of 2009 or Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9653. If your rent is more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000) per month, then you are covered by the provisions on lease under the Civil Code of the Philippines.
For the purpose of our discussion, we will assume that your lease contract has not yet expired.
If you are covered by the Rent Control Act, the new owner may not be allowed to eject you from your apartment on the grounds that it has been sold or mortgaged to another person, regardless of whether the lease or mortgage is registered or not (Section 10, R.A. No. 9653).
In addition, the owner or lessor may only increase the rent by not more than seven percent (7%) annually as long as the apartment is occupied by the same lessee (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 9653).
Therefore, if your new landowner is increasing the rent by more than 7% annually, you may not agree to and refuse to pay such increase.
If you are covered by the Civil Code, Article 1676 of the Civil Code states that anyone who purchases a piece of land which is under a lease, but the lease is not under the Registry of Property, he may terminate the lease, except when there is a stipulation to the contrary in the contract or sale or when the purchaser knows of the existence of the lease. It is therefore important for you to know if your lease contract was registered in the Registry of Property, if their contract of sale states that your lease must be respected, or if prior to buying the property, the buyer knew of the existence of the lease contract.
As for the increase in rent, you must look at your lease contract to see when it is proper for a rent increase. This is in conformity with Article 1657 of the Civil Code, which states that the lessee must pay the price of the lease according to the terms in the lease contract.
We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty Persida Acosta
Thursday, July 4, 2013
Laws obligate lessor to make necessary repairs to leased property
Dear PAO,
We were renting a house for almost two years but we recently vacated the premises because it became uninhabitable and my children were always getting sick. The lessor refused to make the necessary repairs despite our repeated demands. We even delayed our rental payment until he makes the necessary repairs, but to no avail.
The lessor’s son and daughter are getting involved in the problem. They are insisting that we pay the 3 months rent that is due plus 5% penalty for every two weeks of delayed payment. I informed her that we intend to use the one month deposit and one month advance that we paid her mother before. But she said that only the one month advance can be used because the deposit is a security bond or a guarantee that we will be staying in the house until the contract ends.
The lessor also told us that she will file a case in court if we do not settle the amount due. Is this correct? Are we still bound to pay even if we were not evicted but instead voluntarily left the premises?
Annalyn
Dear Annalyn,
First and foremost, we would like to stress that under our laws, it is the obligation of the lessor to make all the necessary repairs to the thing leased, during the subsistence of the contract of lease, in order to keep it suitable for the use to which it has been devoted. The only exception to this rule is when the lessor and the lessee have agreed that the repairs shall be shouldered by the lessee.
In the situation that you have presented, it is not apparent whether you and your lessor have agreed that you will be shouldering the expenses for the repairs of the house. Hence, it is presumed that the responsibility remains on her. Accordingly, she should maintain the property tenantable and safe for you and your family. If she fails to do so, you have the option of suspending the payment of your rent. This recourse is recognized by our law. As provided for under Article 1658 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, “The lessee may suspend the payment of the rent in case the lessor fails to make the necessary repairs or to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the property leased.”
However, the option of suspending the payment of the rent does not mean that you are discharged of your obligation to whatever amount that has already become due even if you opted to voluntarily vacate the premises. This obligation does not only form part of your contract, but it is also imposed under Article 1657, id, which provides that: “The lessee is obliged: (1) to pay the price of the lease according to the terms stipulated; x x x” Therefore, you are still liable to settle the 3-month rent that you have withheld from the lessor. You may also be held accountable for 5% penalty for every two weeks of delayed payment if this is expressly provided for under your contract of lease.
Nevertheless, you may ask that your lessor exhaust the advanced rental and deposit that you have given her to answer for the rent which you are still obliged to settle. Her daughter cannot insist that the deposit you have made will only serve as a guarantee that you will be staying in the house until the contract ends, unless such condition is expressly stated in your contract. It is worth noting that Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9653, otherwise known as the Rent Control Act of 2009 provides that, “x x x In the event however, that the lessee fails to settle rent, electric, telephone, water or such other utility bills or destroys any house components and accessories, the deposits and interests therein shall be forfeited in favor of the latter in the amount commensurate to the pecuniary damage done by the former.”
If the amount of deposit and advanced rental payment is still insufficient to answer for the rent that has become due, we strongly advise you to settle the same. Should you fail to do so, your lessor has the right to file the appropriate case against you.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty. Persida Acosta
We were renting a house for almost two years but we recently vacated the premises because it became uninhabitable and my children were always getting sick. The lessor refused to make the necessary repairs despite our repeated demands. We even delayed our rental payment until he makes the necessary repairs, but to no avail.
The lessor’s son and daughter are getting involved in the problem. They are insisting that we pay the 3 months rent that is due plus 5% penalty for every two weeks of delayed payment. I informed her that we intend to use the one month deposit and one month advance that we paid her mother before. But she said that only the one month advance can be used because the deposit is a security bond or a guarantee that we will be staying in the house until the contract ends.
The lessor also told us that she will file a case in court if we do not settle the amount due. Is this correct? Are we still bound to pay even if we were not evicted but instead voluntarily left the premises?
Annalyn
Dear Annalyn,
First and foremost, we would like to stress that under our laws, it is the obligation of the lessor to make all the necessary repairs to the thing leased, during the subsistence of the contract of lease, in order to keep it suitable for the use to which it has been devoted. The only exception to this rule is when the lessor and the lessee have agreed that the repairs shall be shouldered by the lessee.
In the situation that you have presented, it is not apparent whether you and your lessor have agreed that you will be shouldering the expenses for the repairs of the house. Hence, it is presumed that the responsibility remains on her. Accordingly, she should maintain the property tenantable and safe for you and your family. If she fails to do so, you have the option of suspending the payment of your rent. This recourse is recognized by our law. As provided for under Article 1658 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, “The lessee may suspend the payment of the rent in case the lessor fails to make the necessary repairs or to maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the property leased.”
However, the option of suspending the payment of the rent does not mean that you are discharged of your obligation to whatever amount that has already become due even if you opted to voluntarily vacate the premises. This obligation does not only form part of your contract, but it is also imposed under Article 1657, id, which provides that: “The lessee is obliged: (1) to pay the price of the lease according to the terms stipulated; x x x” Therefore, you are still liable to settle the 3-month rent that you have withheld from the lessor. You may also be held accountable for 5% penalty for every two weeks of delayed payment if this is expressly provided for under your contract of lease.
Nevertheless, you may ask that your lessor exhaust the advanced rental and deposit that you have given her to answer for the rent which you are still obliged to settle. Her daughter cannot insist that the deposit you have made will only serve as a guarantee that you will be staying in the house until the contract ends, unless such condition is expressly stated in your contract. It is worth noting that Section 7 of Republic Act No. 9653, otherwise known as the Rent Control Act of 2009 provides that, “x x x In the event however, that the lessee fails to settle rent, electric, telephone, water or such other utility bills or destroys any house components and accessories, the deposits and interests therein shall be forfeited in favor of the latter in the amount commensurate to the pecuniary damage done by the former.”
If the amount of deposit and advanced rental payment is still insufficient to answer for the rent that has become due, we strongly advise you to settle the same. Should you fail to do so, your lessor has the right to file the appropriate case against you.
We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.
source: Manila Times' Column of Atty. Persida Acosta
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)