gaboogle.com

by Atty. Gabriel Ablola 🇵🇭

Tag: Non-Payment of Rent

  • Can My Landlord Evict Me Even If I’ve Been Paying Rent to Someone Else?

    Dear Atty. Gab

    Musta Atty! My name is Ricardo Cruz, and I’m writing to you because I’m in a very stressful situation with the land I farm here in Pampanga. My late father, Manuel, was the recognized tenant of this 2-hectare rice land for decades, and he even received a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) back in the 1970s. After he passed away about 15 years ago, I continued farming the land, taking over his responsibilities as the recognized heir and tenant.

    For all these years, I’ve been paying the agreed lease rentals religiously. I always paid Mang Elias, who was the encargado (representative) appointed by the original landowner, Doña Esmeralda. I have receipts for most of these payments, although some are just simple handwritten notes from Mang Elias.

    Recently, a Mr. Velasco came, claiming he bought the land at an auction maybe 10 or 12 years ago. He was very angry, saying I haven’t paid him any rent since he supposedly bought it. He showed me some documents, but it was the first time I heard about this sale. He never approached me before, never demanded payment. Now, he’s threatening to file a case to eject me from the land if I don’t pay him all the alleged back rentals immediately and vacate.

    I’m really confused and worried, Atty. Gab. Does he have the right to demand back rentals even if he never told me he was the new owner? Were my payments to Mang Elias invalid? Doesn’t my father’s CLT give me some protection? Can he just kick me out like this after all these years? I don’t know what to do.

    Thank you for any guidance you can provide.

    Respectfully,
    Ricardo Cruz

    Dear Ricardo,

    Thank you for reaching out. I understand your distress regarding the situation with the land you farm and the sudden demands from Mr. Velasco. It’s natural to feel confused and worried when your livelihood and security feel threatened, especially given your long history with the land and your father’s CLT.

    The core issue here revolves around your rights as an agricultural tenant, particularly your security of tenure, and the specific requirements a landowner must meet to lawfully eject a tenant, especially concerning alleged non-payment of lease rentals. Your payments made in good faith to the previous representative and the existence of a CLT are significant factors. Let’s delve into the legal principles that protect tenants like you under Philippine agrarian laws.

    Understanding Your Shield: Security of Tenure in Agrarian Law

    Philippine law provides strong protection for agricultural tenants. Once an agricultural leasehold relationship is established, as is the case with you inheriting the tenancy from your father, you are entitled to security of tenure. This means you have the right to continue working on the landholding and cannot simply be removed at the landowner’s whim.

    The law is very clear on this protection. As stated in the Agricultural Land Reform Code:

    “The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided.” (Republic Act No. 3844, Section 7, emphasis supplied)

    This security is further reinforced, specifying that a tenant cannot be disturbed in their possession except through a court order based on specific legal grounds:

    “Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that specific causes exist.” (Republic Act No. 3844, Section 36, paraphrased)

    One of the grounds Mr. Velasco seems to be invoking is non-payment of lease rentals. However, the burden of proving a lawful cause for ejectment rests entirely on the landowner, Mr. Velasco in this instance. He cannot just allege non-payment; he must prove it clearly and convincingly.

    “The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor.” (Republic Act No. 3844, Section 37)

    Crucially, mere failure to pay rent is not enough. For non-payment to be a valid ground for ejectment, the law requires that the failure must be willful and deliberate, and typically must persist for a significant period (often interpreted as at least two years, based on related decrees like P.D. 816). If you were paying Mang Elias in good faith, believing him to be the authorized representative, and Mr. Velasco never made prior demands after acquiring the property, it would be difficult to characterize your actions as a willful and deliberate refusal to pay the rightful owner. Mr. Velasco’s prolonged silence after his alleged purchase could weaken his claim that you deliberately withheld payment from him.

    Furthermore, the existence of a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) under Presidential Decree No. 27 significantly strengthens your position. A CLT represents an ‘inchoate ownership’ or a provisional title recognizing the farmer-beneficiary as the ‘deemed owner’ pending full payment of the land’s value through amortization. P.D. No. 27 aimed to transfer ownership to tenant-farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn.

    A Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) is a document that evidences an agricultural lessee’s inchoate ownership of an agricultural land… It is the provisional title of ownership issued to facilitate the agricultural lessee’s acquisition of ownership over the landholding. (Derived from principles discussed in P.D. No. 27 jurisprudence)

    Under P.D. No. 27 and subsequent laws like R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), lands covered by CLTs are generally protected from being taken back by the landowner, even for non-payment of amortizations, as mechanisms exist for payment guarantees (e.g., through farmer cooperatives or Land Bank). Transfer of such land is highly restricted, primarily only through hereditary succession or transfer to the government. Reversion to the original landowner is generally prohibited. While Mr. Velasco acquired the land via auction (which might involve complexities regarding the CLT), your status as a tenant-beneficiary under agrarian reform laws grants you substantial rights that cannot be easily ignored.

    Practical Advice for Your Situation

    • Gather All Evidence: Compile all receipts or proof of payment made to Mang Elias, no matter how simple. Also, secure copies of your father’s CLT and any documents proving your succession as his heir and tenant.
    • Document Everything: Keep a record of all interactions with Mr. Velasco, including dates, times, and what was discussed. If possible, have a witness present during conversations. Avoid making any verbal agreements without legal counsel.
    • Do Not Vacate: Do not leave the land based solely on his threats. Ejectment requires a final court or DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board) order after due process.
    • Seek Assistance from DAR: Immediately consult the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) or Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) in your area. They provide free legal assistance to farmers and can mediate or represent you. Bring all your documents.
    • Formal Response: If Mr. Velasco sends a formal demand letter, consult with DAR legal assistance or a private lawyer specializing in agrarian law to formulate a proper written response asserting your rights and explaining the payment history.
    • Verify Ownership and CLT Status: Ask DAR to help verify the status of the CLT and Mr. Velasco’s ownership claim, especially how it interacts with the land reform coverage under P.D. 27.
    • Understand Rental Obligations Moving Forward: Clarify with DAR the correct procedure for paying lease rentals now that Mr. Velasco has asserted ownership. Payment might need to be made to him or potentially deposited with DAR or Land Bank, depending on the CLT status and any ongoing disputes.

    Your situation highlights the importance of security of tenure for tenant farmers. While Mr. Velasco has the right as a landowner to receive lease rentals, he must respect your rights as a protected tenant under agrarian reform laws, especially given the CLT. His failure to communicate for years and your continued payments in good faith are strong points in your favor.

    Hope this helps!

    Sincerely,
    Atty. Gabriel Ablola

    For more specific legal assistance related to your situation, please contact me through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This correspondence is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please schedule a formal consultation.

  • Automatic Lease Cancellation: Failure to Pay Rent and the Loss of Lessee’s Rights

    TL;DR

    The Supreme Court affirmed that a lease contract is automatically canceled when a lessee fails to pay the stipulated deposit and monthly rentals, as explicitly stated in the contract’s automatic cancellation clause. In Spouses Labayen v. Serafica, the Court held that the lessees’ non-compliance resulted in the termination of their lease, thus nullifying their right to maintain the contract’s annotation on the property title. This decision underscores the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and clarifies that failure to do so can lead to the automatic loss of rights without need for further action from the lessor.

    When Broken Promises Break Leases: Upholding Contractual Obligations

    At the heart of this case is the question of whether a lease contract can be automatically terminated due to the lessee’s failure to meet payment obligations. Spouses Lorenzo and Ana Labayen sought to revive a lease contract annotation on a property owned by Leonardo Serafica, arguing that the cancellation of the lease was based on forgery. However, the central issue revolved around whether the Labayens’ failure to pay the agreed deposit and monthly rentals justified the termination of the lease, regardless of the alleged forgery. The Supreme Court weighed the contractual obligations against the claims of forgery to determine the validity of the lease cancellation.

    The facts of the case reveal that Milagros Serafica initially leased her property to Ana Labayen, with specific terms outlined in a lease contract. This contract stipulated monthly rental payments and a deposit, further including an automatic cancellation clause if the lessee failed to comply with these conditions. Milagros later donated the property to Leonardo Serafica, who then allegedly executed a Cancellation of Contract of Lease with Ana Labayen. The Labayens contested this cancellation, claiming forgery and seeking to reinstate the original lease annotation on the property title. However, Serafica argued that the lease had already been terminated due to the Labayens’ non-compliance with payment terms.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both ruled against the Labayens, finding that they had no cause of action because they failed to fulfill their obligations under the lease contract. The Supreme Court agreed with these lower courts, emphasizing the significance of the automatic cancellation clause. The Court highlighted that because the Labayens did not pay the stipulated deposit or monthly rentals, the lease contract was automatically terminated, thus negating any right they had to maintain the lease annotation on Serafica’s title. This underscored the principle that contractual obligations must be met to maintain rights under the contract.

    The Supreme Court further addressed the Labayens’ claim for moral and exemplary damages, asserting that these could not be awarded because there was no wrongful act on the part of Serafica. The courts found that Serafica was not involved in the alleged forgery, and the termination of the lease was a direct consequence of the Labayens’ failure to comply with the contract terms. The Court cited the principle of damnum absque injuria, which means there can be damage without injury in instances where the loss or harm was not the result of a violation of a legal duty. In essence, the Labayens suffered damages due to their own breach of contract, not due to any unlawful action by Serafica.

    Consider Section 14 of the lease contract, which explicitly states:

    14. Should the LESSEE fail to pay the rentals as herein stipulated, or should she violate any of the terms and conditions of this contract, this contract is automatically cancelled and terminated, and the LESSOR shall have the right to eject the LESSEE from the premises in question and to collect and recover from her all accrued rents, and the ownership of the improvements shall pass the LESSOR or to her assigns without reimbursements of the costs.

    This clause makes it unequivocally clear that non-compliance leads to automatic cancellation. Additionally, the Court referred to BPI Express Card Corporation v. Court of Appeals, emphasizing the distinction between damage and injury. Injury is the illegal invasion of a legal right, whereas damage is the loss resulting from the injury. Without a legal injury, there can be no basis for awarding damages. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, denying the petition and affirming the dismissal of the Labayens’ claims.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court affirmed the principle that contractual obligations must be strictly observed, and failure to do so can result in the automatic loss of rights. The decision serves as a reminder to lessees to comply with the terms of their lease agreements to avoid termination and potential legal disputes. This case also reinforces the enforceability of automatic cancellation clauses in contracts, provided they are clearly stipulated and agreed upon by the parties.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether the lease contract was validly terminated due to the lessees’ failure to pay the stipulated deposit and monthly rentals, despite their claim of forgery in the cancellation of the lease.
    What is an automatic cancellation clause in a lease contract? An automatic cancellation clause is a provision in a contract that stipulates the contract will be automatically terminated if certain conditions, such as non-payment of rent, are not met. This clause allows the lessor to terminate the lease without further action.
    What is damnum absque injuria? Damnum absque injuria means “damage without injury.” It refers to a situation where a person suffers a loss or harm, but there is no violation of their legal rights, and therefore, no legal remedy is available.
    Why did the Supreme Court deny the claim for damages in this case? The Supreme Court denied the claim for damages because the lessees’ non-compliance with the lease contract terms was the direct cause of the contract’s termination, not any wrongful act by the lessor. Thus, there was no legal basis for awarding damages.
    What happens when a lease contract is automatically cancelled? When a lease contract is automatically cancelled, the lessee loses their right to possess the property, and the lessor has the right to eject the lessee and recover any accrued rents. The annotation of the lease on the property title may also be cancelled.
    What was the significance of the delivery of possession in this case? The delivery of possession was significant because the lessees claimed they didn’t pay rent due to non-delivery. However, the court found that possession was indeed delivered, undermining their justification for non-payment.

    This case provides a clear example of how contractual obligations are enforced and the consequences of failing to comply with them. The principle of automatic cancellation serves to protect the rights of lessors when lessees fail to meet their payment obligations, ensuring that contracts are upheld and enforced according to their terms.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Spouses Labayen v. Serafica, G.R. No. 178443, October 10, 2008

  • Proving a Lost Lease: Secondary Evidence and Ejectment Rights

    TL;DR

    The Supreme Court affirmed that when an original lease contract is lost, its existence and contents can be proven through secondary evidence, such as copies and witness testimonies. This ruling allows landlords to pursue ejectment cases even without the original document, provided they can sufficiently demonstrate the contract’s terms and the tenant’s failure to comply with them. The decision clarifies the rules on admissibility of secondary evidence in lease disputes, ensuring that landlords are not unduly disadvantaged by the loss of original documents, while tenants are held accountable to the terms they initially agreed upon.

    Lost and Found: How Secondary Evidence Saved an Ejectment Case

    Imagine a landlord loses the original lease agreement. Can they still evict a tenant for non-payment? This was the central question in Ligaya S. Santos vs. Court of Appeals and Philippine Geriatrics Foundation, Inc. The Philippine Geriatrics Foundation, Inc. (PGFI) sought to eject Ligaya S. Santos from a property they leased to her, but the original lease contract was missing. This case explores the admissibility of secondary evidence to prove the existence of a lease agreement and the grounds for lawful eviction.

    The factual backdrop reveals that PGFI allowed Santos to occupy a canteen space, formalizing the arrangement through a written contract. Later, PGFI needed the space for its own operations and demanded Santos vacate the premises, citing non-payment of rent. When Santos refused to leave, PGFI filed an ejectment case. The original lease contract, however, was lost during PGFI’s own eviction from another property by the city government, complicating their legal position. The Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) initially dismissed the case due to the absence of the original lease contract.

    PGFI then presented an unsigned copy of the contract and affidavits from its trustees to prove the lease’s existence. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) upheld the MeTC’s decision, but the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this, admitting the unsigned copy as secondary evidence and ordering Santos’ eviction. Santos then elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that the CA erred in admitting the secondary evidence and that no valid lease contract existed.

    The Supreme Court focused on whether PGFI adequately proved the existence and terms of the lease agreement despite the missing original contract. The Court cited Rule 130, Section 5 of the Rules of Court, which allows for the presentation of secondary evidence when the original document is lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in court. To admit secondary evidence, the offeror must prove the execution or existence of the original, the cause of its unavailability without bad faith, and then prove its contents through a copy, recital, or witness testimony.

    The Supreme Court found that PGFI successfully met these requirements. The existence and due execution of the lease contract were established through affidavits from PGFI trustees who were signatories. Vicente Pulido’s affidavit explained the loss of the contract during PGFI’s eviction from the Geriatrics Center. Even without the unsigned copy, the Court noted, witness testimonies sufficiently detailed the terms of the lease, including the rental amount and payment terms. The Court emphasized that secondary evidence could prove the contents of a lost original document, and the later discovery of the original merely affirmed what had already been proven. Importantly, Santos did not contest the genuineness of the original contract or her signature, further solidifying PGFI’s case.

    Building on this principle, the Court addressed whether Santos could be ejected for non-compliance with the lease terms. The contract stipulated a monthly rental payment of P1,000.00, later increased to P1,500.00. While receipts showed initial payments, Santos stopped paying in December 1993. The Court agreed with the CA that upon expiration of the initial two-year lease, the lease was impliedly renewed on a month-to-month basis, per Article 1670 and 1687 of the Civil Code. The pertinent provisions state:

    Art. 1670. If at the end of the contract the lessee should continue enjoying the thing leased for fifteen days with the acquiescence of the lessor, and unless a notice to the contrary by either party has previously been given, it is understood that there is an implied new lease, not for the period of the original contract, but for the time established in articles 1682 and 1687. The other terms of the original contract shall be revived.

    Art. 1687. If the period for the lease has not been fixed, it is understood to be from year to year, if the rent agreed upon is annual; from month to month, if it is monthly; from week to week, if the rent is weekly; and from day to day, if the rent is to be paid daily.

    Therefore, Santos’ continued occupancy after December 1991 constituted an implied renewal of the lease. Her failure to pay rent after December 1993 justified PGFI’s ejectment action under Article 1673 of the Civil Code, which allows a lessor to judicially eject a lessee for lack of payment. Thus, the Supreme Court upheld the CA’s decision, ordering Santos to vacate the premises and pay the unpaid rentals.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether secondary evidence could be admitted to prove the existence and terms of a lost lease contract, allowing the landlord to pursue an ejectment case.
    What is secondary evidence in this context? Secondary evidence refers to copies of the original document, recitals of its contents in other authentic documents, or testimonies of witnesses who know the contents of the original.
    What must a party prove to introduce secondary evidence? A party must prove the execution or existence of the original document, its loss or unavailability, and that the unavailability is not due to the offeror’s bad faith.
    How did the landlord prove the existence of the lease contract in this case? The landlord presented an unsigned copy of the contract and affidavits from trustees who signed the original, attesting to its terms and execution.
    What happens when a lease contract expires but the tenant remains in the property? Under Articles 1670 and 1687 of the Civil Code, the lease is impliedly renewed on a month-to-month basis, provided the landlord acquiesces to the continued occupancy.
    What are the grounds for ejectment under the Civil Code? Under Article 1673, a lessor may judicially eject a lessee for expiration of the lease period, lack of payment of the stipulated price (rent), or violation of any agreed-upon conditions.
    Did the tenant dispute the authenticity of the found contract? No, the tenant did not dispute the genuineness of the original contract or her signature on it when the contract was later found, which further supported the landlord’s claim.

    This case highlights the importance of keeping thorough records and understanding the rules of evidence. It provides a clear framework for proving the existence of a lease agreement even when the original document is unavailable, protecting the rights of landlords while ensuring tenants are held accountable for their contractual obligations.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Ligaya S. Santos v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 135481, October 23, 2001

  • Upholding Contractual Obligations: The Validity of Lease Agreements and Grounds for Ejectment

    TL;DR

    The Supreme Court ruled that a twenty-year lease agreement between Tala Realty and Banco Filipino was valid, but despite this, Banco Filipino could still be ejected from the property due to non-payment of rentals. The court affirmed the principle of stare decisis, adhering to previous decisions that recognized the twenty-year lease. However, the court also emphasized that a lessee’s failure to pay rent, even if disputing a rental increase, provides a valid ground for eviction. This decision clarifies that while long-term lease contracts must be honored, tenants must still fulfill their payment obligations to avoid ejectment.

    Lease or Loathe: Twenty Years on the Line

    This case revolves around a dispute between Tala Realty Services Corp. and Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank concerning the validity and duration of a lease agreement for a bank branch site in Iloilo City. Tala Realty sought to eject Banco Filipino, claiming the lease had expired and the bank had failed to pay adjusted rentals. Banco Filipino argued that a twenty-year lease was still in effect. This legal battle highlights the importance of clearly defined contractual terms and the consequences of failing to meet financial obligations within a lease agreement.

    The central issue was whether the lease period was eleven or twenty years. Tala Realty presented a lease contract stipulating an eleven-year term, while Banco Filipino claimed a twenty-year term based on a different contract. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) initially sided with Tala Realty, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, citing previous rulings that upheld the twenty-year lease. This reversal led to the current petition before the Supreme Court, where Tala Realty argued that the Court of Appeals erred in applying the principle of “the law of the case”.

    The Supreme Court considered its prior rulings in similar cases between the same parties. In G.R. No. 129887, the Court had already determined that the twenty-year lease contract was the valid agreement. Building on this principle, the Court reaffirmed this finding. The Court emphasized that the eleven-year contract was deemed a forgery, citing inconsistencies and lack of proper documentation. Executive Vice-President Arcenas of Banco Filipino denied having signed the eleven-year contract, stating it was not in the bank’s interest.

    “It is not the eleven (11)-year lease contract but the twenty (20)-year lease contract which is the real and genuine contract between petitioner Tala Realty and private respondent Banco Filipino. Considering that the twenty (20)-year lease contract is still subsisting and will expire in 2001 yet, Banco Filipino is entitled to the possession of the subject premises for as long as it pays the agreed rental and does not violate the other terms and conditions thereof (Art. 1673, New Civil Code).“

    Despite upholding the twenty-year lease, the Court also addressed the issue of non-payment of rentals. Tala Realty argued that Banco Filipino had stopped paying rent in April 1994. The Court referenced the case of T & C Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals, which clarified that a lessee cannot simply stop paying rent, even if disputing a rental increase. The proper course of action would be to deposit the original rent amount with the judicial authorities or in a bank in the name of, and with notice to, the lessor. Because Banco Filipino completely stopped paying rent, they provided grounds for ejectment.

    The Court distinguished the current case from G.R. No. 129887, where the issue of non-payment at the original rate was not present. The failure to pay any rent beginning in April 1994 constituted a violation of the lease agreement, justifying the eviction. This highlights the importance of tenants fulfilling their payment obligations, even when disputing rental adjustments. The Court held that while Banco Filipino could not be ejected solely based on the expiration of the lease, their failure to pay rent provided a separate and valid ground for eviction.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision underscores the importance of adhering to valid contractual agreements while also emphasizing the responsibility of tenants to meet their financial obligations. The ruling provides clarity on the interplay between long-term lease contracts and grounds for ejectment based on non-payment, illustrating the need for both lessors and lessees to uphold their respective duties.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the lease period between Tala Realty and Banco Filipino was eleven or twenty years, and whether Banco Filipino could be ejected for non-payment of rentals.
    What did the Supreme Court rule regarding the lease period? The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the twenty-year lease agreement, based on previous rulings and evidence presented.
    Can Banco Filipino be ejected from the property? Yes, despite the valid twenty-year lease, the Court ruled that Banco Filipino could be ejected due to non-payment of rentals since April 1994.
    What should a tenant do if they disagree with a rental increase? The tenant should continue paying the original rental amount or deposit it with the judicial authorities or in a bank in the name of the lessor, rather than stopping payments altogether.
    What is the principle of stare decisis? Stare decisis is the legal principle of adhering to precedents and not disturbing settled matters; it promotes stability and predictability in the law.
    What was the basis for the court’s decision to allow ejectment? The court based its decision on Banco Filipino’s failure to pay rent, which constituted a violation of the lease agreement and provided sufficient grounds for ejectment.
    How does this case affect future lease agreements? This case emphasizes the importance of clearly defined contractual terms in lease agreements and the consequences of failing to meet financial obligations, even when disputes arise.

    This case serves as a reminder of the importance of upholding contractual obligations and seeking proper legal channels when disputes arise. It highlights that while lease agreements provide a framework for tenancy, both lessors and lessees must adhere to their respective responsibilities to avoid legal complications.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Tala Realty Services Corp. vs. Banco Filipino Savings and Mortgage Bank, G.R. No. 132051, June 25, 2001