Digested Case about People vs Dino. This is a summary of the People vs. Dino Case.
so
soFull description
so
An in depth analysis on the highly controversial case of Apple V FBI and how Apple managed to avert the crisis using effective corporate communications strategies.Descripción completa
poli law
Full description
DigestFull description
Case Digest of the Case People of the Philippines v. Perfecto, Phil 887
ADR CaseFull description
Case digest of Santiago vs. Guingona Case
digest
Case DigestFull description
Metrobank vs Rosales Case DigestFull description
Case Digest: Abbas vs Abbas
So vs FoodFest, G.R. 183268, April 7, 2010 Applicable Provision of te !ivil !ode" Article 1181 !ARP#$ %$RA&'S, J. Facts" Food Fest Land Inc. (Food Fest) entered into a Contract of Lease with Daniel T. So (So) over a commercial space in San Antonio Village !a"ati Cit# for a period of three #ears on which Food Fest intended to operate a $ent%c"# Fried Chic"en carr# o%t &ranch. The parties entered into a preliminar# agreement the pertinent portion of which stated'
The lease shall not &ecome &inding %pon %s %nless %nless and %ntil %ntil the government government agencies concerned concerned shall a%thorie permit or license %s to open and maintain o%r &%siness at the proposed Lease remise. In s%ch case the agreement ma# &e canceled and all rights and o&ligations here%nder shall cease. *hile Food Fest was a&le to sec%re sec%re the necessar# licenses and permits permits for the first #ear(+,,,) it failed to commence commence &%siness &%siness operations. operations. For the #ear - Food Fest/s Fest/s application application for renewal of &aranga# &%siness clearance was held in a&e#ance. Food Fest comm%nicated its intent to terminate the lease contract to So who however did not accede and instead offered to help Food Fest sec%re a%thoriation from the &aranga#. In A%g%st - Food Fest for the second time p%rportedl# informed So of its intent to terminate the lease and it in fact stopped pa#ing rent. So reiterated his offer to help it sec%re clearance from the &aranga#. Food Fest dem%rred to the offer. So demanded pa#ment of rentals from Food Fest from Septem&er - to !arch -+. Food Fest denied an# lia&ilit# however and started to remove its fi0t%res and e1%ipment from the premises. 2n April - -+ So sent Food Fest a Final 3otice of Termination with demand to pa# and to vacate 2n April April -4 -+ So filed a complaint for e5ectment e5ectment and damages against Food Fest &efore the (!eTC) of!a"atiCit#. 6%ling of the Co%rt' !eTC rendered 5%dgment in favor of So. 2n appeal the 6egional Trial Co%rt (6TC) (6TC) reversed the !eTC Decision. 2n petition for review the Co%rt of Appeals declared that Food Fest/s o&ligation to pa# rent was not e0ting%ished %pon its fail%re to sec%re permits to operate. Iss%e' *hether or not the ac1%isition of s%&se1%ent &%siness permits etc. is a s%spensive condition to the lease contract ma"ing the o&ligation not &inding to the parties %pon not ac1%iring s%ch doc%ments7 8eld' Food Fest claims that its fail%re to sec%re the necessar# &%siness permits and licenses rendered the impossi&ilit# and non9materialiation of its p%rpose in entering into the contract of lease in s%pport of which it cites the earlier91%oted portion of the preliminar# agreement of the parties. It is clear that the condition set forth in the preliminar# agreement pertains to the initial application of Food Fest for the permits licenses and a%thorit# to operate. It sho%ld not &e constr%ed to appl# to Food Fest/s s%&se1%ent applications. The ca%se or essential p%rpose in a contract of lease is the %se or en5o#ment of a thing. A part#/s motive or partic%lar p%rpose in entering into a contract does not affect the validit# or e0istence of the contract: an e0ception is when the realiation of s%ch motive or partic%lar p%rpose has &een made a condition %pon which the contract is made to depend. The e0ception does not appl# here.
Food Fest was a&le to sec%re the permits licenses and a%thorit# to operate when the lease contract was e0ec%ted. Its fail%re to renew these permits licenses and a%thorit# for the s%cceeding #ear does not however s%ffice to declare the lease functus officio nor can it &e constr%ed as an %nforeseen event to warrant the application of Article +-4;. Contracts once perfected are &inding &etween the contracting parties. 2&ligations arising therefrom have the force of law and sho%ld &e complied with in good faith. Food Fest cannot renege from the o&ligations it has freel# ass%med when it signed the lease contract.