G.R. No. L-2069

FACTS:
Plaintiff-appellant W. M. Tipton filed an action seeking the declaration of nullity of a ten-year contract of lease executed by the administrator of the San Lazaro Hospital in favor of defendant-appellee Vicente Cenjor y Cano. The basis for the action was the alleged lack of special authority on the part of the administrator to enter into such a lease. The lower court declared the lease valid for the first six years and void for the remaining four years. Tipton appealed, contending that the court had no power to declare the contract partly void and partly valid, as this was a question not raised by the parties and was foreign to the issue of whether the lease was void in its entirety.

ISSUE:
Whether the lower court erred in declaring the ten-year lease contract partly valid (for six years) and partly void (for four years), instead of adjudging it void in its entirety as prayed for in the complaint.

RULING:
No, the lower court did not err. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment, applying the doctrine established in the analogous case of Tipton vs. Martinez Andueza (5 Phil. 477). The Court held that under the law then in force, the administrator of the San Lazaro Hospital, by virtue of his office, possessed the inherent authority to lease property under his administration for a period not exceeding six years without need for special power. Therefore, the lease was valid and within his authority for the first six years. It was only void with respect to the remaining four years, as this exceeded the statutory limit of his power. The Court further ruled that it is a well-settled doctrine that a court may grant such relief as it deems just and legal within the demands of the litigants and the issue presented. A court is not obligated to grant or deny relief in its entirety, especially when justice and equity require a partial grant, as in this case where the contract was susceptible of partial fulfillment. The appellant’s contention was without merit.