MELENCIO V. DY TIAO LAY
o
GR NO. L-32047| November 1, 1930
Lease was for 20 years extendible for another 20 at lessee’s option.
Ostrand, J.
o
eamtrinidad | Group 5
After termination of original period, lessors had option to buy all the improvements on the land but if they didn ’t exercise that
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: Manuel, Mariano, Pura, and
privilege, lease would continue for another
Caridad Melencio
20 years
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: Dy Tiao Lay
o
The document was duly acknowledged but was never recorded with register of deeds.
TOPIC:
It appeared that Yap Kui Chin always dealt with
Co-ownership
Pedro R. in lease matters. But then Pedro died.
To protest against acts of majority which are
Yap Kui Chin died also, so the lease was transferred
prejudicial to minority
to Uy Eng Jui, then to defendant Dy Tiao Lay. When Ramon died, his widow Liberata was
CASE SUMMARY: Plaintiffs are children/heirs of Ramon,
appointed administratrix of his estate, which i ncluded
who co-owned land with his siblings and his nephew Jose P.
the land registered under the torrens system. The
The land was leased to Yap Kui Chin by their Ramon ’s
lease wasn’t mentioned in the certificate of title but it
siblings, without signature of Ramon or Jose P. The rights of
was stated that one house and three warehouses were
Yap were assigned to defendant. Plaintiffs prayed that the
property of Yap Kui Chin.
contract of lease be declared void because it involved alteration
Extrajudicial partition of land by heirs of Julian
of property but had no signature of all co-owners. SC held the contract to be void, not because it lacked the signature of all
Melencio, then heirs of Ramon Melencio (plaintiffs) Liberata, as administratrix of estate of deceased
the co-owners but because it went beyond the 6-year limit set
Ramon, collected rent for the lease at P20, and later
by the Civil Code, since the contract was for 20 years
she demanded that the rent be raised to P300.
extendible by 40 more years (60 years total). The part owners
Defendant then told her that there was a written lease
representing the greater portion of the property held in
and that he was entitled to an a n extension.
common have no power to lease said property for a longer
Plaintiffs insisted that there was no contract of lease
period than six years without the consent of all the c-
and anyway if there was, it was void because of the
oowners , whose propriety rights, expressly recognized by the
following:
law, would by contracts of long duration be restricted or
o
annulled
Lease contract called for an alteration of the property and thus needed to be signed by all co-owners
FACTS:
o
Plaintiffs
brought
this
present
action
against
years, making it null and void because of
defendant for the recovery of a parcel of land in
Civil Code Art 1548
Nueva Ecija and demanded a monthly rental of P300
o
for the use of occupation of the land o
Contract duration was for a term over six
Contract duration was unreasonably long, and against public policy
Also prayed that if found that defendant
Trial court ruled in favor of defendant.
occupied land by virtue of a contract of lea se,
Hence this appeal
such contract be declared null and void for lack of consent, concurrence, and ratification by the owners thereof
ISSUES:
contained alterations to the property and it wasn ’t
died, left wife Ruperta Garcia, and 5 kids Juliana,
signed by all co-owners – NO
Emilio.
contract of lease is void because it
Land was originally owned by Julian Melencio. He Ramon, Ruperta (yeah same name), Pedro R. and
WON…the
WON…the contract of lease is void ANYWAY because of other reasons – YES.
Emilio had a son, Jose P. Then Emilio died. Jose P. then succeeded his father father ’s interest in the land. Ruperta Garcia, Pedro R., Juliana, and Ruperta executed lease contract in favor of a Yap Kui Chin. No mention of Ramon or Jose P. in the lease.
RULING:
1st issue: issue: NO. o
Plaintiff’s contention is based on article 397 of the Civil Code which provides that "none
o
of the owners shall, without the consent of
intervenor
the others, make any alterations in the
administratrix of the estate of the deceased Ramon Melencio. It
common
is further ordered that the defendant pay to said administratrix
property
even
though
such
capacity
as
1st, 1926, until the land is delivered to the administratrix. The
sufficient importance to nullify the lease,
sum of P272 demanded by the defendant in his counterclaim
especially so since none of the co-owners
may be deducted from the total amount of the rent due and
objected to such alterations until over
unpaid. The building erected on the land by the defendant and
twenty years after the execution of the
his predecessors in interest may be removed by him, or
contract of lease. The decision of this court
otherwise
in the case of Enriquez vs. A. S. Watson and
promulgation of this decision. Without costs. So ordered.
the
effect
of
alterations
property,
and
of no
leased further
discussion upon the point need here be considered. 2nd issue: YES. The said contract of lease being for a term of over six years, the same is null and void pursuant to the provision of article 1548 of the Civil Code. Also, the duration of the same is unreasonably long, thus being against public policy. In the present case only a small majority of the coowners executed the lease here in question, and according to the terms of the contract the lease might be given a duration of sixty years; The part owners representing the greater portion of the property held in common have no power to lease said property for a longer period than six years without the consent of all the c-oowners, whose propriety rights, expressly recognized by the law, would by contracts of long duration be restricted or annulled; o
her
We do not think that the alterations are of
community
o
in
a monthly rent of P50 for the occupation of the land from May
of
o
Macapagal
alterations might be advantageous to all."
Co. (22 Phil., 623), contains a full discussion
Liberata
As under article 1548 of the Civil Code such contracts cannot be entered into by the husband with respect to his wife's property, by the parent or guardian with respect to that of the child or ward, and by the manager in default of special power, since the contract of lease only produces personal obligations, and cannot without the consent of all persons interested or express authority from the owner, be extended to include stipulations which may alter its character, changing it into a contract of partial alienation of the property leased.
DISPOSITIVE: The appealed judgment as to the validity of the lease is therefore reversed, and it is ordered that the possession of the land in controversy be delivered to the
disposed
of,
within
six
months
from
the
