Chua Tee Dee vs CA

Chua Tee Dee Vs CA G.R. No. 135721 May 27, 2004 FACTS: A contract of lease for rubber plantation was entered into by Agricom, represented by Alba, in favor of Chua Tee Dee doing business business under the name and style Pioneer Pioneer Agricom Agricom then sent letters to its employees, informing their termination The severed employees !led a complaint for illegal dismissal and unfair labor practice practice against against Agricom, Agricom, Amado Dee and Pioneer Pioneer The labor arbiter rendered his decision holding that the termination of the complainants" employment was illegal As Pioneer was unable to pay its monthly rentals, Agricom !led, on September #, $%%&, a civil action for sum of money, damages and attorney"s fees against Chua Tee Dee 'n her Answer, Chua Tee Dee asserted asserted that Agricom had no cause of action action against against her She claimed that it was Agricom which failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the contract of lease when it failed to settle the labor dispute with its former employees, and that Agricom failed to maintain her in the (uiet and peaceful possession and en)oyment of the leased premises during the e*ectivity of the lease contract Pioneer claimed that it was dragged into labor disputes not of its own ma+ing and complained of being pestered by some individuals who claimed portions of the plantation as their own property property Some of them went to its oce and even presented ta- declarations to prove their claims Issue: Issue: Did Agricom Agricom fail to maintain Chua Tee Tee Dee in a (uiet and peaceful en)oyment of the leased premises.

Ruling /o Ruling /o As lessor, Agricom had the duty to maintain Chua Tee Dee in the peaceful peaceful and ade(uat ade(uate e en)oym en)oyment ent of the leased leased premises which was part of the contract of lease 0ven if it had not been so, the lessor is still duty1bound under Art$23#of the Civil Code Code The The duty duty 4to maintain maintain the lessee lessee in the peacefu peacefull and ade(uate en)oyment of the lease for the duration of the contract5 is merely a warranty that the lessee shall not be disturbed in his legal, and not physical, possession 'n the case at bar, Chua Tee Dee claims that several people presented ta- declarations to her and claimed some portions of the leased premises 6owever, no case was !led by any of the said claimants against her or her less lessor or durin uring g the the time time she occup ccupie ied d the the premise mises s 7hen Chua Tee Tee Dee"s represent representative ative saw that a portion portion of the leased premises was being fenced by the claimants, she had all the righ rightt to sue sue the the intr intrud uder ers s who who had had dist distur urbe bed d her her phys physica icall possession as provided for in Article $23# of the /ew Civil Code Chua Tee Dee failed to prove that she su*ered any loss from the labor case that was !led them True, the labor case was instituted during the e*ectivity of the lease contract until the case was !nally resolved on August 88, $%92 however, during pendency, appellant regularly paid the monthly rentals for the years $%93 to $%9% 't was after the labor case has been resolved that appellant started to fail to pay her rentals which indicates that the labor c ase has not dampened dampened her peaceful peaceful and ade(uate ade(uate possession possession of the leased premises