GR 163562; (July, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 163562 ; July 21, 2006
PILIPINAS SHELL PETROLEUM CORPORATION, petitioner, vs. CARLOS ANG GOBONSENG, JR., respondent.
FACTS
Respondent Carlos Ang Gobonseng, Jr. purchased a lot with a gasoline station from Julio Tan Pastor. The deed of sale stated a price of P13,000 to evade taxes, but a separate Memorandum of Agreement reflected the true price of P1.3 million. Gobonseng obtained title. Tan Pastor, who had operated a station there, later became a dealer for petitioner Pilipinas Shell Petroleum Corporation after it acquired his former supplier. In 1991, Gobonseng demanded rentals from Shell for its use of the property. Shell disclaimed liability, asserting Tan Pastor was the dealer and operator. Shell facilitated a 1992 Agreement between Gobonseng and Tan Pastor, allowing Tan Pastor to use the lot rent-free until December 31, 1994, after which peaceful possession would be turned over to Gobonseng.
ISSUE
Whether Pilipinas Shell is liable to Gobonseng for payment of rentals for the use of the gasoline station property after the expiration of the 1992 Agreement on December 31, 1994.
RULING
No, Pilipinas Shell is not liable. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The legal logic rests on the nature of the relationship between Shell and Tan Pastor, and the binding effect of the 1992 Agreement. The evidence established that Tan Pastor was an independent dealer, not an agent of Shell. Shell did not own, possess, or control the gasoline station; it merely supplied petroleum products to Tan Pastor, the independent operator. Consequently, no lease relationship existed between Shell and Gobonseng. Furthermore, the 1992 Agreement, which Gobonseng voluntarily entered into with Tan Pastor, governed the use of the property. By its clear terms, it granted Tan Pastor rent-free use only until December 31, 1994. Gobonseng’s subsequent claims for rental from Shell constituted a collateral attack on this final agreement, which had extinguished any prior claims between the parties. His proper recourse was to enforce the Agreement’s terms against Tan Pastor for failing to vacate, not to seek payment from Shell, with whom he had no privity of contract.