Scribd
Upload
193 views2 pages

Heirs of Leopoldo Esteban, Sr. v. Llaguno, G.R. No. 255001, 14 June 2023

Uploaded by

Kevin Besa
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
193 views2 pages

Heirs of Leopoldo Esteban, Sr. v. Llaguno, G.R. No. 255001, 14 June 2023

Uploaded by

Kevin Besa
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

Heirs of Leopoldo Esteban, Sr. v. llaguno, G.R. No.

255001, 14 June 2023

Facts:
 On Nov. 19, 2015, the heirs of Leopoldo Esteban Sr. filed in the MTC a complaint for unlawful
detainer against Lynda Lim Llaguno. The case involved a parcel of land situated in San Jose St.,
Goa, Camarines Sur.
 Salvador, another heir of Leopoldo, along with petitioner, a co-owner of the aforesaid property,
entered into a contract of lease with the respondent for a period of 15 years.
 According to the petituoners, in Feb 2015, prior to the expiration of the first lease contract, they
informed the respondent that they no longer desire to renew the lease. Subsequently,
petitioner sent a Notice of Termination and Non-Renewal of Contract to the respondent.
Respondent refused to vacate the premises despite notice, prompting petitioner to send her a
demand letter to turn over the possession of the leased property.
 Petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful detainer in the MTC.
 MTC ruled in favor of the petitioners. There was no showing that Salvador was representing his
co-owners.
 RTC affirmed MTC decision that the lease could not be binding to the co-owners.
 CA disagreed with the MTC's and RTC's ruling, that after finding the second lease contract invalid
as against the petitioners, they ordered the respondent to completely vacate the leased
premises despite their conclusion that the second lease contract was valid insofar as the aliquot
share of Salvador was concerned.

ISSUE:
W/N the decision of CA was correct.

HELD:
YES. The decision of CA was affirmed.

The Court found that the second lease contract executed by Salvador and respondent, without the
consent of the petitioners, is valid to the extent of the ideal share of Salvador in the subject property.

On liberality on procedural rules:


Petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to File and Admit Attached Petition for Review on Certiorari - the
petitioners prayed for the court to set aside the rules on technicalities and gave due course to certain
pleadings that had been filed beyond the applicable reglementary periods to give the parties an
opportunity to present the merits of their case and in the interest of proper administration of justice.

The petitioner offer these extenuating circumstances as justification:


(1) While there were two lawyers handling the case, Atty. Aquino anf Atty. Hildao. Atty. Aquino was
constrained to resign and return to her home province, out of fear that she might contract the COVID-19
virus without any family or relative nearby to attend, assist and comfort her.
(2) Atty. Hildao was dealing with precarious pregnancy which forced her to work from home most of the
year 2020. Worse, according to petitioners, in complaince with the quarantine rules and to ensure their
safety, the unusual work arrangement led to the Sept. 2020 CA Resolution being misplaced and evaded
the attention of the handling lawyers.

The rules of procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid and technical sense, for they have been
adopted to help secure, not override, substantial justice and to afford the party-litigants the fullest
opportunity to establish the merits of their complaint or defense rather for them to lose life, honor, or
property on pure technicalities.

You might also like