Common Contracts
2 similar Lease Contract contracts
On May 31, 1989, respondent entered into a Lease Contract6 over a portion of Lot No. 7728 with petitioners as “lessees.” The pertinent portion of the contract is quoted verbatim hereunder:Lease Contract • November 4th, 2015
The CA, in the assailed decision, set aside the writ of attachment and notices of garnishment issued in favor of respondent. It, however, affirmed the decision of the trial court in all other respects. It held that the ownership of the subject building still pertains to petitioners and therefore, they must solely bear the loss. The CA also ruled that the fact that the building was destroyed before it was delivered to respondent does not free petitioners from paying back rentals. It held that petitioners cannot use respondent’s land and deprive him of rents due him, otherwise, it would be a case of unjust enrichment at the expense of respondent.
On May 31, 1989, respondent entered into a Lease Contract6 over a portion of Lot No. 7728 with petitioners as “lessees.” The pertinent portion of the contract is quoted verbatim hereunder:Lease Contract • November 4th, 2015
The CA, in the assailed decision, set aside the writ of attachment and notices of garnishment issued in favor of respondent. It, however, affirmed the decision of the trial court in all other respects. It held that the ownership of the subject building still pertains to petitioners and therefore, they must solely bear the loss. The CA also ruled that the fact that the building was destroyed before it was delivered to respondent does not free petitioners from paying back rentals. It held that petitioners cannot use respondent’s land and deprive him of rents due him, otherwise, it would be a case of unjust enrichment at the expense of respondent.
