Mallari v. Alsol

MANUEL MALLARI and MILLIE MALLARI, Petitioners, vs. REBECCA ALSOL, Respondent. The Antecedent Facts (Stalls of a supermarket)Stalls supermarket)Stalls No. 7 and 8 of the Supermaret Section of the !a"anatuan !it# Pu"lic $aret %ere a%arded to and occupied " # A"elardo $allari (&A"elardo&), father of Manuel Mallari (Manuel! and Re"e##a Alsol (&respondent&). 'efore  A"elardos death on * +ul# 8*, he $a%e the stalls to Manuel and respondent& $anuel respondent& $anuel and his %ife $illie $allari (&petitioners&) occupied Stall No. 7 %hile respondent and her hus"and -acarias Alsol occupied Stall No. 8. respondents dauhter "ecame sic and the Alsol famil# had to sta# in $anila for t%o months for the medical treatment. The# returned onl# to find out that petitioners %ere alread# occup#in Stall No. 8. Petitioners refused respondents demand to vacate Stall No. 8. Respondent souht the help of the !it# $aret !ommittee /hich ranted Stall No. 7 to $anuel and Stall No. 8 to respondent. 0n 1 +une 2, respondent and the !it# 3overnment of !a"anatuan e4ecuted a !ontract of 5ease. The 5ease !ontract ranted respondent the riht to occup# Stall No. 8 for a monthl# rental.

'oe%er, petitioners petitioners still refused to %a#ate Stall No& ). 6nstead, the* the* filed an a#tion for annulment of the Lease Contra#t "efore the Re$ional +rial Court of Ca"anatuan !it#, !it#,.. 6t %as dismissed for none4haustion of  administrative remedies and on the additional round that the !ommittee is not the proper part# to the case. respondent filed an a#tion for re#o%er* and possession "efore the trial #ourt. #ourt. the trial court rendered 9udment in favor Alsol Petitioners appealed the trial courts :ecision to the !ourt of Appeals. the !ourt of Appeals partl# ranted the appeal and affirmed the trial courts :ecision %ith modification. The !ourt of Appeals sustained respondents riht to occup# Stall No. 8 "# virtue of the 5ease !ontract she entered %ith the !it# 3overnment. ;o%ever, the !ourt of Appeals deleted the a%ard of actual damaes amountin to P8,222 in favor of respondent on the round that there %as no sufficient proof of the loss. The !ourt of  Appeals also deleted the a%ard of e4emplar# e4emplar# damaes to respondent amountin toP<2,222. Petitioners moved for reconsideration "ut %as denied.;ence, the petition "efore this !ourt. The 6ssues

Petitioners raise the follo%in issues= <. /hether the 5ease !ontract e4ecuted "et%een respondent and the !it# 3overnment is valid. >. /hether respondent is entitled to attorne#s fees. +he Rulin$ of +his Court +he petition has no merit& ?alidit# of the 5ease !ontract Petitioners also allee that the 5ease !ontract is not valid "ecause $a#or Pere@ did not appear "efore the notar# pu"lic %ho notari@ed the document. /e cannot sustain this arument. Notari@ation converts a private document into a pu"li c document.< 'oe%er, the nonappearan#e of the

parties "efore the notar* pu"li# ho notari-ed the do#ument does not ne#essaril* nullif* nor render the parties. transa#tion %oid a" initio&> Thus= 4 4 4 Article >8 of the Ne% !ivil !ode on the necessit# of a pu"lic do#ument is onl* for #on%enien#e, not for %alidit* or enfor#ea"ilit*. /ailure to follo the proper form does not in%alidate a #ontra#t& /here a contract is not in the form prescri"ed "# la%, the parties #an merel* #ompel ea#h other to o"ser%e that form, once the contract has "een perfected. This is consistent %ith the "asic principle that contracts are o"liator # in %hatever form the# ma# have "een entered into, provided all essential reuisites are present.1 ;ence, the 5ease !ontract is valid despite $a#or Pere@s failure to appear "efore the notar# pu"lic.