You are on page 1of 3

In an agreement where 1 of the parties bind himself to the enjoyment or use of the thing, would these be a contract of lease

of thing? Not necessarily. The law requires under 1643 for lease of thing that there must be price certain without a price that may be a commodatum where the bailee has the right to use the thing. Contract of lease of thing is essentially onerous contract if there is no compensation for the use hindi lease. Republic v. Bagtas. Three bulls were delivered by the Bureau of Animals Industry to Bagtas for breeding purposes thereafter Bagtas died and his estate failed to return 1 of the bulls. When the estate was sued it claimed that the contract entered into between the government and Bagtas was commodatum whereby despite delivery there is no transfer of ownership. Since the bull was allegedly died in a cross fight between the hukbalahap and AFP, they claimed that the lost was due to a fortuitious event and therefore, whoever is the owner would bear the lost since there was no transfer of ownerhip, therefore it should be the government who should bear the lost and they (the estate) cannot be held liable. However, when they (SC) examined the contract entered into between the Bureau of Animals and Bagtas, there was a provision that Bagtas would supposed to pay a breeding fee. SC held this is not commodatum this is a contract of lease over these bulls. In safety deposit box, is there a lessor-lessee relationship between the bank and depositor? No. The relationship is depositor and depositary, a special kind of deposit. The rationale the depositor doesnt have really the control over the thing he cannot even enter the premises where the safety deposit box is located except during banking hours and if you conscious about some safety deposit boxes like if you watch the movie Bank Job (Jason Statam) some safety deposit boxes you cannot open it alone you need also a key another key coming from a bank official so the depositor doesnt have control over the thing unlike the lessee having an apartment unit. The SC now would rule there is no lessor-lessee relationship even after some banks would can it lease of safety deposit boxes some forms of bank would say rental of safety deposit boxes. The depositary would not have certain obligations. In an agreement where 1 of the parties bind himself to render service to another, is that a lease of service? Not necessarily that may pertain to a contract of agency where 1 of the parties binds himself to render service to the other. In fact, under 1644 in order for an agreement to be a lease of service there should be no principal and agent relationship between the parties. In construction agreement between developers and contractors that is a contract for a piece of work in each of this contract there is a provision in the contract stating that there is no principal and agent relationship existing between the developer and the contractor so that would qualify the contract into a lease of work. There is no right of representation in lease of service. In Nielson v. Lepanto Mining, where LM claimed it was a contract of agency however in 1 of the provision Nielson cannot even purchase materials for the mining operations without the consent of the board of directors of the company, the SC ruled there is no representation here. SC held:it was a contract of agency there is no representation but a contract for a lease of service. In Frensel v. Mariano, the latter was asked to construct an edifice near San Sebastian maybe in Binondo thereafter pursuant to their agreement the contractor have to purchase materials he was to provide labor and materials to be used apparently, the buyer Frenzel was not paid by the Merit therefore they had to demand payment to Mariano. Merit acted as Marianos agent hence Mariano could be held liable? SC held that Merit was authorized to his work according his method, how the work is to be done without subjecting Merit to the control of Mariano except as to the result SC held this is a contract for a piece of work. In agency, the control of the principal as to his agent is so pervasive.

Distinguish as to a contract of sale. When a person orders an article from another because there was no item at hand at the time of the agreement he has to pay a certain price, would that be a contract for sale or a piece of work? Under 1467, Massachussetts rule, it would depend whether that item would be manufacture in the ordinary course of business of the obligor and if being offered to the general market that is a sale. If that is to be manufactured because of the order of other party, meaning manufactured in the ordinary course of business, that is a contract for a piece of work. Will the death of the lessee extinguish the lease agreement? As a rule, it will not extinguish because it is not essentially a personal contract. Under certain circumstances it may extinguish if a contract is with a stipulation to the effect that the rights and obligations arising from this contract are intransmissible with the death of the lessee, the heirs of the lessee acquire his right upon his death? No it was stipulated that it will extinguish. Without such stipulation, the heirs may continue, to occupy such premises until the expiration of the period. This is the ruling in Heirs of Dimaculangan v. IAC. Lease of thing is essentially onerous. It is consentual even before delivery of the thing leased, the contract is perfected by mere consent. This is nominate, bilateral and principal. As to the essential element of this contract, just like other contracts the 3 essential elements must be present. Are there persons prohibited to enter into this contract? Are there persons considered incapacitated? Are incapacity considered relative? Yes by express provision of law those persons disqualify to buy (in 1490 & 1491) are likewise prohibited from entering into this contract. Spouses as a rule cannot lease to each other as much as guardian cannot lease the property of their ward. As to the object of the lease, may consumable goods be a subject of a valid leased? Ordinarily no because the lessee should return the very same thing which he leased. It cannot be replaced of another thing of the same kind and quality, in other words, non-fungible. If it is a consumable thing and it is used in accordance with its nature it will be consumed so wala na ma-isusuli kaya the law expressly provides consumable goods cannot be the subject of a contract of lease. Most rules has exception except it should be exhibited or they may be accessory to an industrial establishment then the contract of lease maybe valid even if the goods are consumable goods. Into the formalities, under the statute of frauds, when a lease contract involve an immovable thing and the period of the lease is more than 1 yr, it should be in writing otherwise unenforceable. Problem: X verbally leased his house and lot to Y for 2 yrs at a monthly rental of 250. After the first year, X demanded 500 a month claiming that due to the energy crisis with the sudden increase of oil which no one expected, there is also a general increase in the prices, X proved inflation rate of 100% Y refused to vacate the house X brought an action for ejectment X denied that he agreed for the lease of 2 yrs, can the lessee testify to a verbal contract of lease? This is covered by statute of frauds. YES because he already paid rentals for 1 yr practically when the lessor accepted the payment there is ratification. Unenforceable contract can be ratified by the merely acceptance of the benefits from such contract. There was ratification which took out the contract from the statute of frauds. Is the lease of the entire community property in co-ownership act of administration or act of ownership or alteration explained in relation to the need of the co-owner. Take note there is no mention as to the nature of the property. It will only be an act of administration if the property involved is a movable property and therefore the consent of mere majority will sufficed to bind all the co-owners. If the property involved is an

immovable property and such contract is to be registered in the Registry of property by express provision of the law this is under 1647 regardless of the period of the lease it has to be with the consent of all the co-owners as it would be treated as an act of ownership the law requires special power of Attorney. If it pertains to a lease of an immovable, regardless of whether the contract will be register or not, the period of the lease is more than 1 yr that is an act of ownership which would require the consent of all the co-owner in order for the co-owner will be bound. Into the formalities. Lino entered into a written agreement for the repair of his private plane with Aero repair works Inc. for 500,000. Additional work was done for the upon the written request and authority of the duly recognized representative of Lino. Lino refused to pay for the additional work interposing as a defense the absence of a written contract. Is the defense of Lino valid? Suggested answer. Yes. By express provision of 1724. The change in plans and specifications in the contract. The authorization of the developer must be in writing as well as the additional works to be done should be likewise in writing. Alternative answer. No. The defense is not valid because for him to invoke art. 1724 would result to unjust enrichment at the expense of the contractor. Uribe: If you would read the facts, Lino can be held liable. No proof as to additional work and compensation so merely a defense. If not invoke as a fact it can be proven as matter of fact. Dito ino-thourized tlg ng authorized representative of Lino. Apparently if already a fact admitted in evidence, Lino can be held liable. Agency in relation to a contract of lease. As to the period. A appointed B as his agent granting him general and limited management over As property stating that A has withholds no power from B and stating that B may execute acts as he may consider appropriate. Accordingly, B leased As parcel of land in Manila to C for 4 yrs at 60,000 per year payable annually in advance. B leased another parcel of land of A in Caloocan City to D without a fixed term at 3,000 per month. All those contracts were entered while A was confined due to illness in the Makati Med. Rule on the validity and binding effect of the contract upon the principal A. As to the contract of lease over a parcel of land for 4 yrs. Suggested Answer. Not valid not binding. Uribe: not accurate answer. It is merely unenforceable. It is a valid contract but it cannot be enforced if there is a proper objection unless there is ratification. It is unenforceable because it is a lease for more than 1 yr. Take note that the agent is given only limited and general management that he was given merely powers of administration. 32

You might also like