GR L 2691; (October, 1950) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-2691; October 10, 1950
MANOCUB SALAZAR, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and EDILBERTO MENDOZA, ET AL., respondents.
FACTS
Edilberto Mendoza, as administrator of his deceased wife’s estate, held a parcel of land alongside Manday creek under a lease from the Bureau of Lands. He allowed Manocub Salazar to construct a building on the land with an agreement to share ownership of the building. After construction, Salazar filed his own application to lease the same land, denounced Mendoza for subletting without approval, and collected rent from the building’s tenant without sharing it. Mendoza sued to recover rents for the use of the land. The Court of First Instance ruled in Mendoza’s favor, ordering Salazar to pay rents, and the Court of Appeals affirmed with modification. Salazar appealed, contending Mendoza’s lease was voided by the sublease without the Secretary of Agriculture and Commerce’s approval under Section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 .
ISSUE
Whether the prohibition against subleasing without the Secretary’s approval under Section 40 of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , which voids the lease contract if violated, applies to the residential land leased by Mendoza.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The land in question is residential, falling under Title III of Commonwealth Act No. 141 , which governs leases of residential, commercial, and industrial lands. Title III contains no prohibition against subleasing or any provision voiding the lease for subletting without approval. In contrast, such prohibitions are explicitly found in Title II (for agricultural lands) and Title IV (for educational/charitable lands). Therefore, Section 40 does not apply. Additionally, Salazar, as a lessee, is estopped from denying Mendoza’s title at the start of the lease. The Court condemned Salazar’s double-dealing conduct of initially securing consent to build and then attempting to usurp the leasehold right.
AI Generated by Armztrong.