GR L 38295; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-38295. March 5, 1991.
LUCIA MILAGROS BARRETTO, petitioner, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and RICARDO M. GUTIERREZ, respondents.
FACTS
Ricardo Gutierrez leased a 471-hectare fishpond owned pro-indiviso by Bibiano Barretto (371 hectares) and the Crisostomo sisters (100 hectares) under two contracts from 1936 to 1942. Bibiano died in 1936. In July 1940, his widow, Maria Gerardo Vda. de Barretto, acting alone, executed a second lease to Gutierrez extending the term from 1942 to 1947. In November 1941, government agents forcibly opened the fishpond’s dikes, rendering it unsuitable for fish culture. Gutierrez subsequently returned possession of the fishpond to the lessors. After Maria’s death, Gutierrez filed a claim against her estate for the return of P32,000, representing advance rentals paid under the second lease contract.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the second lease contract executed solely by the widow Maria Gerardo Vda. de Barretto is valid and enforceable, thereby precluding Gutierrez’s claim for reimbursement of advance rentals.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision ordering the return of the P32,000. The legal logic is twofold. First, the second lease contract (Exhibit B) was null and void. The fishpond was owned in common. Upon Bibiano’s death, his hereditary share passed to his heirs, including his widow and daughter, Lucia Milagros Barretto. Maria, acting alone as a mere co-owner, had no authority to lease the entire property or to bind the shares of the other co-owners (the Crisostomo sisters and her own daughter) without their consent. A co-owner can only alienate or lease their own ideal share. Second, the contract never became operative. The original lease was to expire on May 1, 1942. The second lease was to commence thereafter. However, Gutierrez’s act of returning the fishpond in November 1941, due to the destruction of the dikes, constituted a rescission of the original lease under Article 1191 of the Civil Code. Consequently, there was no existing leasehold right to extend. Since the second contract was void and never took effect, the advance payment thereunder had no legal basis. The obligation to return arises from rescission, which creates a mutual obligation to restore what was received under Article 1385. Therefore, the estate was ordered to return the P32,000 with interest.