G.R. No. L-45461 November 29, 1983
PONCIANO L. ALMEDA, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. NELLY L. ROMERO VALDELLON, in her capacity as Judge, ALBERTO FIGUEROA, and DEPUTY SHERIFF EUSTAQUIO PARADA, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Ponciano Almeda and private respondent Alberto Figueroa entered into two lease contracts. The first, dated February 2, 1970, covered the ground floor of Almeda Building No. 3 for a restaurant business. The second, dated April 10, 1970, covered a 500-square meter lot at the back for a kitchen annex. Figueroa constructed a building on the lot and introduced improvements to the main leased premises, including alterations to the water and air-conditioning systems, to operate the “Wells Fargo Restaurant.” Almeda filed an action for cancellation of the lease contracts, alleging violations, including making improvements without his prior written consent as required by the contract. The trial court ruled in Almeda’s favor, ordered cancellation, and after finality, issued a writ of execution. Figueroa was evicted.
After eviction, Figueroa filed a motion to be allowed to re-enter the padlocked premises to remove personal items and improvements he had installed. Almeda opposed, arguing the items were permanent improvements belonging to him as lessor under the contract. The trial judge, after an ocular inspection, issued an Order dated September 27, 1976, authorizing the removal, finding the items “do not partake of the nature of permanent improvements” and could be easily removed. Almeda appealed to the Court of Appeals, which upheld the trial court’s order but qualified it by requiring Figueroa to post a bond to cover the cost of restoring the premises to their original condition after removal.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial court’s order allowing the lessee, Figueroa, to remove the improvements he introduced on the leased premises.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The ruling is anchored on the specific provisions of the lease contract, which is the law between the parties. Paragraph 9 of the contract required the lessor’s prior written consent for any alterations, improvements, or additions. The Court reasoned that this clause logically refers to permanent improvements, as there would be no point in requiring consent for removable items. The trial court’s factual finding, affirmed by the Court of Appeals and binding on the Supreme Court, was that the controverted improvements were not permanent and could be easily removed.
The Court highlighted that Paragraph 5 of the contract governed the situation, as it authorized the lessee to remove all improvements at the termination of the lease, provided the premises were restored to their original condition. The Appellate Court’s qualification—requiring a performance bond from Figueroa to ensure restoration—adequately protected the lessor’s interest. The Court also noted that the premises were leased specifically for a restaurant and kitchen, making the installed facilities indispensable for that business purpose, which the lessor should have anticipated. Therefore, under the contract, the removable improvements could be taken by the lessee upon compliance with the condition to restore the premises.