6/29/2016

ArmyandNavyClubofManilaIncvsCA:110223:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.110223.April8,1997]

ARMY AND NAVY CLUB OF MANILA, INC., petitioner, vs. HONORABLE

COURT OF APPEALS, HON. WILFREDO D. REYES, as Judge
REGIONALTRIALCOURTOFMANILA,BRANCH36(formerly(Branch
17), HON. A. CAESAR SANGCO, as Judge, METROPOLITAN TRIAL
COURT, BRANCH 17MANILA and the CITY OF MANILA, represented
hereinbyMAYORALFREDOLIM,respondents.
DECISION
KAPUNAN,J.:

The instant petition seeks to annul the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the
decisionoftheRegionalTrialCourt,NationalCapitalRegion,Branch36,Manilawhichaffirmed
thesummaryjudgmentrenderedbytheMetropolitanTrialCourtofManila,Branch17.
OnNovember29,1989theCityofManilafiledanactionagainsthereinpetitionerwiththe
MTCforejectment.Thecomplaintallegedthat:
1.ThatplaintiffisamunicipalcorporationdulyorganizedandexistingbyvirtueofRep.ActNo.
409, as amended, with offices at City Hall Building, Manila, represented in this action by its
incumbentCityMayor,Hon.GemilianoC.Lopez,Jr.,withthesameaddressasplaintiff
DefendantislikewiseacorporationorganizedunderthelawsofthePhilippineswithofficesatthe
ArmyandNavyClubBuilding,Luneta,Manila,whereitmaybeservedwithsummons
2.Thatplaintiffistheownerofaparceloflandwithanareaof12,705.30sq.m.locatedatSouth
Boulevard corner Manila Bay, Manila, covered by TCT No. 156868/1059 of the Register of
Deeds of Manila, together with the improvements thereon known as the Army and Navy of
Manila
3.ThatdefendantisoccupyingtheabovedescribedlandandtheArmyandNavyClubBuilding
by virtue of a Contract of Lease executed between plaintiff and defendant in January 1983,
copyofwhichisattachedheretoasAnnex"A"
4.Thatparagraph1ofthesaidContractofLeaseprovidesthat:

(1)ThattheLESSEEshallconstruct,atitsownexpense,amodernmultistoriedhotelatacostofnotless
thanFIFTYMILLIONPESOS(P50,000.00)(sic),whichshallautomaticallybelongtotheLESSOR
upontheexpirationand/orterminationoftheleaseagreement,withoutrightoftheLESSEEfor
reimbursementforthecostsofitsconstructionPROVIDED,HOWEVER,thatconstructionofthesaid
hotelshallbecommencedwithinone(1)year,andcompletedasfaraspracticablewithinfive(5)years,
fromdateofapprovalbypropergovernmentofficialsofthisleaseagreementPROVIDED,FURTHER,
thattheplansandspecificationforthesamehotelshallbeapprovedfirstbytheLESSORbeforeactual
construction
5.Thatinviolationoftheaforequotedprovision,defendanthasfailedand/orrefusedtoconstruct
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/apr1997/110223.htm

1/8

6/29/2016

ArmyandNavyClubofManilaIncvsCA:110223:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

a modern multistoried hotel provided for therein, long after the expiration period therein
stipulated and despite demands of plaintiff, to the prejudice of plaintiff who has agreed to
defendant'scontinuedretentionofthepropertyonaleasebackagreementonthebasisofthe
warrantiesofdefendanttoputupacontemporarymultistoriedbuilding
6.Thatparagraph3oftheContractofLeasealsostipulatesthat:

(3)ThattheLESSEEshallpayarentofTWOHUNDREDFIFTYTHOUSANDPESOS
(P250,000.00)ayear,whichmaybepaidbytheLESSEEintwelve(12)equallymonthly
installmentswithinthefirstfive(5)daysofeachmonth,withoutthenecessityofademand,
subject,however,torentaladjustmentafterthefirstfive(5)daysofeachmonth,withoutthe
necessityofademand,subject,however,torentaladjustmentafterthefirstfiveyearsofthis
lease,attherateofnotmorethantenpercentum(10%)perannumeverytwoyears,oronthe
basisoftheincreaseintheprevailingmarketvalueoftheleasedpremiseswhicheverishigherof
thetwocriteria
7.Thatdefendantalsorenegedonitsrentalobligationnotwithstandingplaintiff'sdemandtopay,
foritsuseandoccupancyoftheplaintiff'sproperty,startingfromJanuary1983tothepresent,
anditsrentalaccountstoodatP1,604,166.70asofMay,1989
8.Thatinparagraph4oftheContractofLease,itisalsoprovidedthat:

(4)ThattheLESSEEshallpaytherealtytaxdueontheland,includingthoseassessedagainstthe
improvementsthereon,aswellasallgovernmentlicense,permits,feesandchargesprescribedbylaw,
Presidentialdecreesandordinancesfortheleasedpremises,includingthosefortheestablishmentand
operationofamodernmultistoriedhotelandallconstructionsandmodificationspursuanttothe
provisionsofthisContract
9.Thatdefendantviolateditsundertakingtopaythetaxesdueonthelandandimprovement,so
much so that as of December 1989, its aggregate realty tax liability amounts
toP3,818,913.81
10. That repeated demands of plaintiff had been made upon the defendant to comply with its
aforesaid contractual obligations, but defendant however remained unfazed it still failed to
performanyofitscontractualobligations.
11. That as a result, plaintiff rescinded their Contract of Lease and demanded defendant to
vacate, the last of which was contained in a letter dated May 24, 1989, copy of which is
attachedheretoasANNEX"B".Todatehowever,defendanthowever,hasnotbudgedaninch
fromthepropertyofplaintiff
12.Thatthereasonablerentalvaluefordefendant'scontinueduseandoccupancyofthesubject
premiseswhichisaprimepropertyalongRozas(sic)BoulevardinLunetaareaisP636,467.00
amonthinthecontextoftheprevailingrentalratesofcomparablerealproperty[1]

OnDecember29,1989orwithinthereglementaryperiod,petitionerfileditsanswertothe
complaint. Subsequently, on February 22, 1990, it filed a "Motion for Leave to File and for
AdmissionofAmendedAnswer"allegedlyassertingadditionalspecialandaffirmativedefenses.
OnMay23,1990,theCityofManilafiledaMotionforSummaryJudgment[2]ontheground
thatthereexistsnogenuinetriableissueinthecase.
On July 27, 1990, the MTC denied the petitioner's motion for leave to admit its amended
answerforlackofmerit.Thus,onOctober5,1990,adecisionwasrenderedwiththefollowing
dispositiveportion:
WHEREFORE,premisesconsidered,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavoroftheplaintiff,orderingthe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/apr1997/110223.htm

2/8

6/29/2016

ArmyandNavyClubofManilaIncvsCA:110223:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

defendant:
a)andallpersonsclaimingrightsortitleunderit,toimmediate(sic)vacateand
surrendertotheplaintiff,thepremisesmoreparticularlydescribedastheArmyandNavyClubBldg.
locatedatSouthBoulevardcornerManilaBay,Manila
b)topay,allwithlegalinterestthereon,itsrentalarrearagesattherateofP250,000.00peryearwitha
correspondingten(10%)percentincreaseeverytwoyearsfromJanuary,1983untilitfinallyvacatesand
surrendersthepremisestotheplaintiff
c)thecostsofsuit.
SOORDERED.[3]
On appeal, the Regional Trial Court presided by Judge Wilfredo D. Reyes
affirmedintotothesummaryjudgmentoftheMetropolitanTrialCourt.[4]
Petitioner elevated its case to the Court of Appeals. On October 30, 1992, the Court of
Appealsdismissedtheappeal.
On May 18, 1996, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution denying the motion for
reconsideration of the decision dated October 30, 1992.At the same time, it also denied the
CityofManila'smotionforissuanceofawritofexecutionpendingappeal.
Petitionerfiledtheinstantpetitionraisingthefollowingissues:
1.RESPONDENTCOURTSGRAVELYERREDINUPHOLDINGTHEOUSTEROFHEREIN
PETITIONERFROMTHEDISPUTEDPREMISESWHICHISACLEARTRANSGRESSIONOF
THEFORMALDECLARATIONOFTHESITEOFHEREINPETITIONERASAHISTORICAL
LANDMARK.
2.WHETHERORNOTRESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSSERIOUSLYERREDIN
AFFIRMINGTHEDECISIONSOFRESPONDENTMETROPOLITANTRIALCOURT(MTC)AND
REGIONALTRIALCOURT(RTC)JUDGESDENYINGADMISSIONOFPETITIONER'S
AMENDEDANSWER.
3.WHETHERORNOTRESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINAFFIRMINGTHE
SUMMARYJUDGMENTRENDEREDBYRESPONDENTMTCANDRTCJUDGES.
4.WHETHERORNOTRESPONDENTCOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOTHOLDINGTHAT
PETITIONERWASDENIEDDUEPROCESSBYTHERENDITIONOFSUMMARYJUDGMENT
AGAINSTIT.
5.ASANINCIDENTTOTHEMAINISSUE,THEPROPERTY,SUBJECTMATTEROFTHISCASE,
ISOFPUBLICDOMAINANDTHEREFORE,THECONTRACTOFLEASEEXECUTEDBYTHE
CITYOFMANILAINFAVOROFPETITIONERISVOID.[5]
Thereisnomeritinthepetition.
Amidstalltheissuesraisedbythepetitioner,theinstantcaseisasimpleejectmentsuit.
There is no dispute that the City of Manila is the owner of a prime parcel of land with an
areaof12,705.30squaremeterslocatedatSouthBoulevardcornerManilaBaytogetherwith
the improvement thereon known as Army and Navy Club of Manila. Petitioner entered into a
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/apr1997/110223.htm

3/8

6/29/2016

ArmyandNavyClubofManilaIncvsCA:110223:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

lease contract with private respondent sometime in January, 1983. In said lease contract, it
agreedto:1)payanannualarentofP250,000.00witha10%increaseeverytwo(2)years2)
pay the realty tax due on the land and 3) construct a modern multistorey hotel provided for
thereinwithinfive(5)yearswhichshallbelongtotheCityuponexpirationorterminationofthe
leasewithoutrightofreimbursementforthecostofconstruction.[6]
Petitionerfailedtopaytherentsforseven(7)consecutiveyears.AsofOctober,1989when
the action was filed, rental arrears ballooned to P7.2 million. Real estate taxes on the land
accumulated to P6,551,408.28 as of May, 1971. Moreover, petitioner failed to erect a multi
storeyhotelinthesite.Forviolationsoftheleasecontractandafterseveraldemands,theCity
ofManilahadnootherrecoursebuttofiletheactionforillegaldetaineranddemandpetitioner's
evictionfromthepremises.Article1673oftheNewCivilCodeisexplicit:
ART.1673.Thelessormayjudiciallyejectthelesseeforanyofthefollowingcauses:
(1)Whentheperiodagreedupon,orthatwhichisfixedforthedurationofleasesunderarticles
1682and1687,hasexpired
(2)Lackofpaymentofthepricestipulated
(3)Violationofanyoftheconditionsagreeduponinthecontract
(4)Whenthelesseedevotesthethingleasedtoanyuseorservicenotstipulatedwhichcauses
thedeteriorationthereoforifhedoesnotobservetherequirementinNo.2ofarticle1657,as
regardstheusethereof.
Theejectmentoftenantsofagriculturallandsisgovernedbyspeciallaws.(emphasissupplied)

Petitioner invokes and capitalizes on the fact that the Army and Navy Club has been
declaredanationalhistoricallandmarkbytheNationalHistoricalCommissiononJune29,1992
whichthelowercourtsallegedlynevergavedueconsideration.Thus,itsexistenceshouldnotin
anywaybeunderminedbythesimpleejectmentsuitfiledagainstit.Petitionercontendsthatall
partiesareenjoinedbylawtopreserveitsexistenceandsite.
Tosupportitsclaim,petitionerpresentedtheCertificateofTransferandAcceptanceofthe
HistoricalMarkergrantedtoitpursuanttoR.A.4846,asamendedbyPD374whichprovides
thatitshallbe"thepolicyoftheStatetopreserveandprotecttheimportantculturalproperties
andNationalCulturalTreasuresofthenationandtosafeguardtheirintrinsicvalue."[7]
TheMarkerreadsasfollows:
CERTIFICATEOFTRANSFER
AND
ACCEPTANCEOFHISTORICALMARKER
ARMYANDNAVYCLUB
TOALLPERSONSTOWHOMTHESEPRESENTSMAYCOME:
BeitknownthattheNationalHistoricalInstitute,intheexerciseofitsauthorityvestedbylawandin
compliancewithitsmandatetohonornationalheroesandperpetuatethegloryoftheirdeeds,andto
preservehistoricalsites,hastransferredthishistoricalmarkeruntoAdministrationofArmyandNavy
Club,whohasagreedtoacceptthesameandtomaintainitasasacredduty.
INWITNESSWHEREOF,thepartieshavehereuntosettheirhandsthis29thdayofJune,1992,in
Manila.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/apr1997/110223.htm

4/8

6/29/2016

ArmyandNavyClubofManilaIncvsCA:110223:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

NATIONALHISTORICALINSTITUTE
by:
(SGD.)ILLEGIBLE(SGD.)ILLEGIBLE
CAPT.VICENTEJ.BRILLANTESSERAFIND.QUIASON
TransfereeTransferor
Attested:
(SGD)ILLEGIBLE(SGD.)ILLEGIBLE
CHIEFSUPTJOSEPERCIVALADIONGAVELINAM.CASTANEDA
SUBSCRIBEDANDSWORNtobeforemeinManila,Philippines,this29thdayofJune,1992bythe
affiants.
(SGD.)ILLEGIBLE(SGD.)ILLEGIBLE
BGENANTONIOV.RUSTIACOLMANUELR.GUEVARA
(SGD.)ILLEGIBLE(SGD.)ILLEGIBLE
RAMONJ.SIYTANGCO,JR.CAPT.DANIELA.ARREOLA
(SGD.)LOPEM.VELASCO
NOTARYPUBLIC
MyCommissionExpiresDec.31,1993
Not.Reg.No.297PTR022088
Page611292,Manila
BookIIIBP320197
Seriesof1992121891,Pasig[8]
Whilethedeclarationthatitisahistoricallandmarkisnotobjectionable,therecognitionis,
however,specious.WetaketheoccasiontoelucidateontheviewsofFr.JoaquinBernaswho
was invited as amicus curiae in the recent case of Manila Prince Hotel v. GSIS[9] where the
historicalcharacterofManilaHotelwasalsodealtwith.Hestatedthat:
Thecountry'sartisticandhistoricwealthisthereforeapropersubjectfortheexerciseofpolicepower:"..
.whichtheStatemayregulate."Thisisafunctionofthelegislature.Andonceregulationcomesin,due
processalsocomesintoplay.Whentheclassificationofpropertyintohistoricaltreasuresorlandmarks
willinvolvetheimpositionoflimitsonownership,theBillofRightsdemandsthatitbedonewithdue
processbothsubstantiveandprocedural.Inrecognitionofthisconstitutionalprinciple,theStateinfact
haspromulgatedlaws,bothgeneralandspecial,onthesubject.
xxxthecurrentgenerallawonthesubjectisR.A.4846,approvedonJune18,1966,andamendedby
P.D.No.374.TheActprescribesthemannerofclassifyinghistoricalandculturalpropertiesthus:
Sec.4.TheNationalMuseum,hereinafterreferredtoastheMuseumshallbetheagencyofthe
governmentwhich,shallimplementtheprovisionsofthisAct.
Sec.5.TheDirectoroftheMuseum,hereinafterreferredtoastheDirector,shallundertakeacensusof
theimportantculturalpropertiesofthePhilippines,keeparecordoftheirownership,location,and
condition,andmaintainanuptodateregisterofthesame.Privatecollectorsandownersofimportant
culturalpropertiesandpublicandprivateschoolsinpossessionoftheseitems,shallberequiredto
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/apr1997/110223.htm

5/8

6/29/2016

ArmyandNavyClubofManilaIncvsCA:110223:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

registertheircollectionswiththeMuseumwhenrequiredbytheDirectorandtoreporttothesameoffice
whenrequiredbytheDirectoranynewacquisitions,sales,ortransfersthereof.
Sec.6.TheDirectorisauthorizedtoconvenepanelsofexperts,asoftenastheneedfortheirservices
mayarise,eachtobecomposedofthreecompetentmeninthespecializedfiledsofanthropology,natural
sciences,historyandarchives,finearts,philatelyandnumismatics,andshrinesandmonuments,
etc.Eachpanelshall,aftercarefulstudyanddeliberation,decidewhichamongtheculturalpropertiesin
theirfieldofspecializationshallbedesignatedas"NationalCulturalTreasures"or"ImportantCultural
Properties."TheDirectorisfurtherauthorizedtoconvenepanelsofexpertstodeclassifydesignated
"NationalCulturalTreasures."
TheDirectorshallwithintendaysofsuchactionbythepaneltransmittheirdecisionandcausethe
designationlisttobepublishedinatleasttwonewspapersofgeneralcirculation.Thesameprocedure
shallbefollowedinthedeclassificationofimportantculturalpropertiesandnationaltreasures.
Sec.7.Indesignationofaparticularculturalpropertyasa"nationalculturaltreasure,"thefollowing
procedureshallbeobserved:
a.Beforetheactualdesignation,theowner,ifthepropertyisprivatelyowned,shallbenotifiedatleast
fifteendayspriortotheintendeddesignation,andheshallbeinvitedtoattendthedeliberationandgiven
achancetobeheard.Failureonthepartoftheownertoattendthedeliberationshallnotbarthepanelto
renderitsdecision.Decisionshallbegivenbythepanelwithinaweekafteritsdeliberation.Intheevent
thattheownerdesirestoseekreconsiderationofthedesignationmadebythepanel,hemaydosowithin
daysfromthedatethatthedecisionhasbeenrendered.Ifnorequestforreconsiderationisfiledafterthis
period,thedesignationisthenconsideredfinalandexecutory.Anyrequestforreconsiderationfiled
withinthirtydaysandsubsequentlyagaindeniedbythepanel,maybefurtherappealedtoanotherpanel
chairmannedbytheSecretaryofEducation,withtwoexpertsasmembersappointedbytheSecretaryof
Education.Theirdecisionshallbefinalandbinding.
b.Withineachkindorclassofobjects,onlytherareanduniqueobjectsmaybe
designatedas"NationalCulturalTreasures."Theremainder,ifany,shallbetreatedascultural
property.
c.Designated"NationalCulturalTreasures"shallbemarked,described,andphotographedbythe
NationalMuseum.TheownerretainspossessionofthesamebuttheMuseumshallkeeparecord
containingsuchinformationas:nameofarticle,owner,period,source,location,condition,description,
photograph,identifyingmarks,approximatevalue,andotherpertinentdata.
Thus,forManilaHoteltobetreatedasspecialculturalorhistoricalproperty,itmustgothroughthe
proceduredescribedabove.Eloquentnationalisticendorsementsofclassificationwillnottransforma
pieceofpropertyintoalegallyrecognizedhistoricallandmark....
In the case at bar, there is no showing that the above procedure has been complied
with.TheCityofManilaevenobservedthatthesignatoriestheretoareofficersandmembersof
theClub[10]making such certification selfserving.It behooves us to think why the declaration
wasconferredonlyin1992,three(3)yearsaftertheactionforejectmentwasinstituted.Wecan
onlysurmisethatthiswasmerelyanafterthought,anattempttothwartanylegalactiontaken
against the petitioner.Nonetheless, such certification does not give any authority to the
petitionertolayclaimofownership,oranyrightoverthesubjectproperty.Nowhereinthelaw
does it state that such recognition grants possessory rights over the property to the
petitioner. Nor is the National Historical Commission given the authority to vest such right of
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/apr1997/110223.htm

6/8

6/29/2016

ArmyandNavyClubofManilaIncvsCA:110223:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

ownership or possession of a private property to the petitioner. The law merely states that it
shallbethepolicyofstatetopreserveandprotecttheimportantculturalpropertiesandNational
Cultural Treasures of the nation and to safeguard their intrinsic value.In line with this, any
restoration,reconstructionorpreservationofhistoricalbuildingsshallonlybemadeunderthe
supervisionoftheDirectoroftheNationalMuseum.[11]The authority of the National Historical
Commissionislimitedonlytothesupervisionofanyreconstruction,restorationorpreservation
ofthearchitecturaldesignoftheidentifiedhistoricalbuildingandnothingmore.Evenassuming
that such recognition made by the National Historical Commission is valid, the historical
significanceoftheClub,ifany,shallnotbeaffectedifpetitioner'sevictionfromthepremisesis
warranted. Unfortunately, petitioner is merely a lessee of the property. By virtue of the lease
contract,petitionerhadobligationstofulfill.Petitionercannotjusthidebehindsomerecognition
bestoweduponitinordertoescapefromitsobligationorremaininpossession.Itviolatedthe
terms and conditions of the lease contract. Thus, petitioner's eviction from the premises is
inevitable.
Anent the procedural issues raised, the Court finds no reversible error in the summary
judgmentrenderedbythetrialcourt.
Asummaryjudgmentisonegrantedbythecourtuponmotionbyapartyforanexpeditious
settlement of the case, there appearing from the pleadings, depositions, admissions, and
affidavits that there are no important questions or issues of fact involved (except as to the
amountofdamages),andthatthereforethemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgmentasamatter
oflaw.[12]
In the case at bar, there is clearly no substantial triable issue. In the Answer filed on
December29,1989,petitionerdoesnotdenytheexistenceoftheleasecontractexecutedwith
the City of Manila in January 1983. It admitted that it failed to pay the rents and real estate
taxesandconstructionofamultistoreybuilding.
It put up the defense that it was unable to fulfill its obligations of the contract due to
economic recession in 1984 as an aftermath of the Ninoy Aquino assassination. Considering
that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, a summary judgment is proper. The
argumentthatitwasdeclaredahistoricallandmark,isnotasubstantialissueoffactwhichdoes
not,inanyway,alteroraffectthemeritoftheejectmentsuit.
Likewise,wefindnoerrormuchlessanyabuseofauthorityonthepartofthelowercourtin
notadmittingtheAmendedAnswer.Asidefromthefactthatitwasfiledone(1)yearafterthe
original answer was filed, it put up defenses which are entirely in contradiction to its original
answer. This is in contravention of the rules of procedure.[13] Having admitted in the original
answer that the City of Manila is the registered owner of the property and that it leased the
property from it, petitioner can not now deny such claim of ownership. The Court of Appeals
correctlyobservedonthispoint:
Bethatasitmay,atthislaststage,afterhereinpetitionerhasdealtwiththeprivaterespondentasthe
owneroftheleasedpremisesandobtainedbenefitsfromsaidacknowledgmentofsuchownershipfor
almosthalfacentury,hereinpetitionercannotbepermittedtoassumeaninconsistentpositionbydenying
saidprivaterespondent'sownershipoftheleasedpremiseswhenthesituationcallsforit.Herein
petitionercannotbeallowedtodoubledeal,recognizinghereinprivaterespondent'stitleovertheleased
premisesandenteringintoaleasecontractandothercovenants,andthereafterafterfailingtocomply
withitsobligationprovidedforintheleaseagreementattempttorepudiatetheownershipofprivate
respondentofthesubjectproperty.[14]
WHEREFORE,thedecisionoftheCourtofAppealsisAFFIRMED.The instant petition is
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/apr1997/110223.htm

7/8

6/29/2016

ArmyandNavyClubofManilaIncvsCA:110223:J.Kapunan:FirstDivision

DENIED,forlackofmerit.
SOORDERED.
Padilla,Bellosillo,andHermosisima,Jr.,JJ.,concur.
Vitug,J.,intheresult.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/apr1997/110223.htm

8/8