4. dkc holdings vs ca

8/9/2019 4. DKC Holdings vs CA

1/9

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 118248. April 5, 2000]

DKC HOLDINGS CORPORATION,petitioner, vs. COURT O APP!ALS,

"ICTOR U. #ARTOLO$! %&' R!GIST!R O D!!DS OR $!TRO$ANILA, DISTRICT III, respondents.(r%&)i*

D ! C I S I O N

+NAR!SSANTIAGO, J.-

This is a petition for review on certiorariseeking the reversal of the December5, !!" Decision of the #o$rt of %ppeals in #%&'(R( #V No( ")*"! entitle+DKC Holdings Corporation vs. Victor U. Bartolome, et al.,-.affirming in

totothe /an$ar0 ", !!1 Decision of the Regional Trial #o$rt of Valen2$ela,3ranch 4,-.which +ismisse+ #ivil #ase No( 1114&V&!) an+ or+ere+petitioner to pa0 61),)))()) as attorne07s fees(

The s$b8ect of the controvers0 is a ",) s9$are meter parcel of lan+ locate+in :alinta, Valen2$ela, :etro :anila which was originall0 owne+ b0 privaterespon+ent Victor ;( 3artolome7s +ecease+ mother, tile plants ofpetitioner an+, as s$ch, was seen b0 the latter as a potential wareho$se site(

On :arch =, !**, petitioner entere+ into a #ontract of ?ease with Option to3$0 with ercise+within a perio+ of two 0ears co$nte+ from the signing of the #ontract( In t$rn,petitioner $n+ertook to pa0 61,)))()) a month as consi+eration for thereservation of its option( @ithin the two&0ear perio+, petitioner shall serveformal written notice $pon the lessor ercise its option( The contract also provi+e+ that in case petitioner chose tolease the propert0, it ma0 take act$al possession of the premises( In s$ch an

event, the lease shall be for a perio+ of si> 0ears, renewable for another si>0ears, an+ the monthl0 rental fee shall be 65,)))()) for the first si> 0earsan+ 6*,)))()) for the ne>t si> 0ears, in case of renewal(

6etitioner reg$larl0 pai+ the monthl0 61,)))()) provi+e+ for b0 the #ontract to


2/9

pa0ment to private respon+ent Victor 3artolome, being the sole heir ofec$te+ an %ffi+avit of Self&%+8$+ication over all the properties of emplar0 +amages an+ 61)),)))()) asattorne07s fees(

:eanwhile, on :a0 *, !!), a :otion for Intervention with :otion to

Dismiss-".was file+ b0 one %n+res ?ano2o, who claime+ that he was an+ hasbeen a tenant&tiller of the s$b8ect propert0, which was agric$lt$ral ricelan+, forfort0&five 0ears( Be 9$estione+ the 8$ris+iction of the lower co$rt over thepropert0 an+ invoke+ the #omprehensive %grarian Reform ?aw to protect hisrights that wo$l+ be affecte+ b0 the +isp$te between the original parties to thecase(ella
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn4http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn3http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn4


3/9

On :a0 *, !!), the lower co$rt iss$e+ an Or+er-5.referring the case to theDepartment of %grarian Reform for preliminar0 +etermination an+ certificationas to whether it was proper for trial b0 sai+ co$rt(

On /$l0 ", !!), the lower co$rt iss$e+ another Or+er-=.referring the case to

3ranch 4 of the RT# of Valen2$ela which was +esignate+ to hear casesinvolving agrarian lan+, after the Department of %grarian Reform iss$e+ aletter&certification stating that referral to it for preliminar0 +etermination is nolonger re9$ire+(

On /$l0 =, !!), the lower co$rt iss$e+ an Or+er +en0ing the :otion toIntervene, -4.hol+ing that ?ano2o7s rights ma0 well be ventilate+ in anotherprocee+ing in +$e time(

%fter trial on the merits, the RT# of Valen2$ela, branch 4 ren+ere+ its

Decision on /an$ar0 ", !!1, +ismissing the #omplaint an+ or+ering petitionerto pa0 Victor 61),)))()) as attorne07s fees( On appeal to the #%, theDecision was affirme+ in toto(

Bence, the instant 6etition assigning the following errorsC

%E

FIRST %SSI'N:


4/9

TB< BONOR%3?< #O;RT OF %66


5/9

arising therefrom are not transmissible b0 E their nat$re, E stip$lation or 1Eprovision of law(

In the case at bar, there is neither contract$al stip$lation nor legal provisionmaking the rights an+ obligations $n+er the contract intransmissible( :ore

importantl0, the nat$re of the rights an+ obligations therein are, b0 their nat$re,transmissible(

The nat$re of intransmissible rights as e>plaine+ b0 %rt$ro Tolentino, aneminent civilist, is as followsC

%mong contracts which are intransmissible are those which arep$rel0 personal, either b0 provision of law, s$ch as in cases ofpartnerships an+ agenc0, or b0 the ver0 nat$re of the obligationsarising therefrom, s$ch as those re9$iring special personal

9$alifications of the obligor( It ma0 also be state+ that contracts forthe pa0ment of mone0 +ebts are not transmitte+ to the heirs of apart0, b$t constit$te a charge against his estate( Th$s, where theclient in a contract for professional services of a law0er +ie+,leaving minor heirs, an+ the law0er, instea+ of presenting hisclaim for professional services $n+er the contract to the probateco$rt, s$bstit$te+ the minors as parties for his client, it was hel+that the contract co$l+ not be enforce+ against the minorsA thelaw0er was limite+ to a recover0 on the basis of quantum meruit(-!.

In %merican 8$rispr$+ence, @Ehere acts stip$late+ in a contract re9$ire thee>ercise of special knowle+ge, geni$s, skill, taste, abilit0, e>perience,

8$+gment, +iscretion, integrit0, or other personal 9$alification of one or bothparties, the agreement is of a personal nat$re, an+ terminates on the +eath ofthe part0 who is re9$ire+ to ren+er s$ch service(-).marinella

It has also been hel+ that a goo+ meas$re for +etermining whether a contractterminates $pon the +eath of one of the parties is whether it is of s$ch acharacter that it ma0 be performe+ b0 the promissor7s personalrepresentative( #ontracts to perform personal acts which cannot be as wellperforme+ b0 others are +ischarge+ b0 the +eath of the promissor(#onversel0, where the service or act is of s$ch a character that it ma0 as wellbe performe+ b0 another, or where the contract, b0 its terms, shows thatperformance b0 others was contemplate+, +eath +oes not terminate thecontract or e>c$se nonperformance( -.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn11


6/9

In the case at bar, there is no personal act re9$ire+ from the late ec$te the proper +ee+ forreconve0ance( This was gro$n+e+ $pon the principle that heirs cannot escapethe legal conse9$ence of a transaction entere+ into b0 their pre+ecessor&in&interest beca$se the0 have inherite+ the propert0 s$b8ect to the liabilit0affecting their common ancestor(-1.

It is f$tile for Victor to insist that he is not a part0 to the contract beca$se of the

clear provision of %rticle 1 of the #ivil #o+e( In+ee+, being an heir ofercise b0 petitioner of itsright of first ref$sal(

In or+er then to accor+ complete relief to petitioner, respon+entRa0m$n+o was a necessar0, if not in+ispensable, part0 to thecase( % favorable 8$+gment for the petitioner will necessaril0 affectthe rights of respon+ent Ra0m$n+o as the b$0er of the propert0over which petitioner wo$l+ like to assert its right of first option tob$0(
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn15


7/9

In the case at bar, the s$b8ect matter of the contract is likewise a lease, whichis a propert0 right( The +eath of a part0 +oes not e>c$se nonperformance of acontract which involves a propert0 right, an+ the rights an+ obligationsthere$n+er pass to the personal representatives of the +ecease+( Similarl0,nonperformance is not e>c$se+ b0 the +eath of the part0 when the other part0has a propert0 interest in the s$b8ect matter of the contract(-=.

;n+er both %rticle 1 of the #ivil #o+e an+ 8$rispr$+ence, therefore, Victoris bo$n+ b0 the s$b8ect #ontract of ?ease with Option to 3$0(

That being resolve+, we now r$le on the iss$e of whether petitioner ha+complie+ with its obligations $n+er the contract an+ with the re9$isites toe>ercise its option( The pa0ment b0 petitioner of the reservation fees +$ringthe two&0ear perio+ within which it ha+ the option to lease or p$rchase thepropert0 is not +isp$te+( In fact, the pa0ment of s$ch reservation fees, e>cept

those for Febr$ar0 an+ :arch, !!) were a+mitte+ b0 Victor(-4.This is clearfrom the transcripts, to wit&

%TTG( :O/%DOC

One re9$est, Go$r Bonor( The last pa0ment which wasallege+l0 ma+e in /an$ar0 !!) 8$st in+icate in that stip$lationthat it was iss$e+ November of !*! an+ post+ate+ /ana$r0 !!)an+ then we will a+mit all(ro+pAfo

#O;RTC

%ll reservation fee

%TTG( :O/%DOC

Ges, Go$r Bonor(

#O;RTC

%ll as part of the lease

%TTG( :O/%DOC

Reservation fee, Go$r Bonor( There was no pa0ment withrespect to pa0ment of rentals(-*.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2000/apr2000/118248.html#_ftn18


8/9

6etitioner also pai+ the 65,)))()) monthl0 rental fee on the s$b8ect propert0b0 +epositing the same in #hina 3ank Savings %cco$nt No( &)"&)55*&I&, inthe name of Victor as the sole heir of ercise its option to lease thro$gh its letter +ate+ :atch , !!),-.well within the two&0ear perio+ for it to e>ercise its option( #onsi+ering thatat that time ercise b0 petitioner of its option to lease thes$b8ect propert0 was ma+e in accor+ance with the contract$al provisions(#oncomitantl0, private respon+ent Victor 3artolome has the obligation to

s$rren+er possession of an+ lease the premises to petitioner for a perio+ ofsi> =E 0ears, p$rs$ant to the #ontract of ?ease with Option to 3$0(micks

#oming now to the iss$e of tenanc0, we fin+ that this is not for this #o$rt topass $pon in the present petition( @e note that the :otion to Intervene an+ toDismiss of the allege+ tenant, %n+res ?ano2o, was +enie+ b0 the lower co$rtan+ that s$ch +enial was never ma+e the s$b8ect of an appeal( %s the lowerco$rt state+ in its Or+er, the allege+ right of the tenant ma0 well be ventilate+in another procee+ing in +$e time(

H!R!OR!, in view of the foregoing, the instant 6etition for Review is'R%NT


9/9

cE pa0 costs of s$it(ScJ

Respon+ent Register of Dee+s is, accor+ingl0, or+ere+ to register an+annotate the s$b8ect #ontract of ?ease with Option to 3$0 at the back ofTransfer #ertificate of Title No( V&""! $pon s$bmission b0 petitioner of a

cop0 thereof to his office(

SO ORD!R!D.

4. dkc holdings vs ca

Documents