Scribd
Upload
111 views2 pages

22 Jesusa Vda de Murga V Juanito Chan

Jesusa Vda. De Murga owned land that she leased to Juanito Chan for 10 years at $500 per month. Chan built improvements worth $70,000 on the land. When the lease expired, Murga wanted to increase the rent to $700, which Chan refused to pay. Chan argued the lease automatically renewed. Murga filed an unlawful detainer case in municipal court. The court ruled the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because the case hinged on interpreting the lease contract clause about renewal, which was outside the municipal court's authority. Determining if the lease automatically renewed or if a new agreement was needed was a matter not involving a specific value and therefore beyond the municipal court's jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

patrixia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
111 views2 pages

22 Jesusa Vda de Murga V Juanito Chan

Jesusa Vda. De Murga owned land that she leased to Juanito Chan for 10 years at $500 per month. Chan built improvements worth $70,000 on the land. When the lease expired, Murga wanted to increase the rent to $700, which Chan refused to pay. Chan argued the lease automatically renewed. Murga filed an unlawful detainer case in municipal court. The court ruled the municipal court lacked jurisdiction because the case hinged on interpreting the lease contract clause about renewal, which was outside the municipal court's authority. Determining if the lease automatically renewed or if a new agreement was needed was a matter not involving a specific value and therefore beyond the municipal court's jurisdiction.

Uploaded by

patrixia
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TITLE: JESUSA VDA DE MURGA V JUANITO CHAN GR NO.

L-24680
DATE: OCTOBER 7, 1968

FACTS:

Jesusa Vda. De Murga owned to parcel of lands in Zamboanga. On January 31,


1949 a contract of lease over the land was entered into by and between Murga as lessor
and Chan as lessee. The period of lease was 10 years and the lessee to pay a montly rent
of P500.00 within the first ten days of every month and that with the consent of the
lessor, the lessee may introduce improvements on the land.

Chan introduced improvements on the land consisting of buildings which cost


P70,000.00 and he paid in full the monthly rent during the 10 year agreement. Before the
expiration there had been intercourse for the renewal of the lease but the parties failed to
come up with an agreement. The lessor informed the lessee of her willingness to increase
the rent to P700.00. but the lessee did not agree. The lessee then advised that the lessor
purchase the buildings constructed on the land.

Disregarding the written demand of the lessee to pay the 700 Chan choose to
remain in the possession and insisted that the contract of lease stipulated and actual
renewal of the lease and he has a right to continue occupying the premises and as token
of his decision he sent to the lessor the amount of 500 which represents his payment.
Without further demand a complaint for unlawful detainer was filed against Cha. Chan
argued that the municipal court lack of jurisdiction and lack of cause of action for
unlawful detainer.

ISSUE:

WON the MTC lack jurisdiction?

RULING: YES!

It is to be noted that after the lessor and the lessee had failed to agree on renewal
of the lease the lessor sent a demand letter. It was the contention of the lessee that such
demand letter is not the kind of demand letter contemplated in the Rules of Court as
complying with the jurisdictional requirement—the demand to vacate is indispensable in
order to determine whether the tenant’s possession has become illegal.

In the case at bar it appears from the demand letter that the obligation to vacate
the leased premises would be dependent on the failure of the lessee to agree to a new rent.
Without any without any subsequent definite demand to vacate the premises, subject to
no condition, the lessee did not incur in default which would give rise to a right on the
part of the lessor to bring an action of unlawful detainer.

The pleadings of the parties, and the annexes thereto, clearly show that the jugular
vein of the controversy hinges on the correct interpretation of clause "7" of the contract of
lease, a matter outside the jurisdiction of the municipal court. The lessor-appellee
maintains that the lease had terminated on January 31, 1959, renewable only upon a new
agreement of the parties; on the other hand, the lessee-appellant contends that, inasmuch
as the controversy hinges on the interpretation of clause "7" of the contract, that is,
whether or not said clause contemplated an automatic renewal of the lease, the action was
not for unlawful detainer but one not capable of pecuniary estimation and, therefore,
beyond the competence of the municipal court.

You might also like