Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
PHIL. NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION V. CA |GR 116896 1. Petitioner argues that the Temporary Use
Permit is not the industrial clearance referred to in
Facts: the term of lease, therefore, do not make the
Petitioner PNC and private respondent entered into obligation effective. ---They are already estopped
a lease contract which term of lease states: This from claiming that TUP was not the industrial
lease shall be for a period of five (5) years, clearance contemplated in the contract. In the
commencing on the date of issuance of the letter they sent, it can be gleamed that the
industrial clearance by the Ministry of Human petitioner considered the TUP as an industrial
Settlements, renewable for a like or other period at clearance; otherwise, petitioner could have simply
the option of the LESSEE under the same terms and told the private respondents that its obligation to
conditions. pay rentals has not yet arisen because the
Temporary Use Permit is not the industrial clearance
Petitioner obtained from the Ministry of Human contemplated by them.
Settlements a Temporary Use Permit for the
proposed rock crushing project. The permit was to Instead, petitioner recognized its obligation to pay
be valid for two years unless sooner revoked by the rental counted from the date the permit was issued.
Ministry. In another letter conforming to the termination of
the contract, it can be deduced from this letter
Private respondents wrote petitioner requesting that the suspensive condition - issuance of industrial
payment of the first annual rental in the amount clearance - has already been fulfilled and that the
ofP240,000 which was due and payable upon the lease contract has become operative. Otherwise,
execution of the contract. They also assured the petitioner did not have to solicit the conformity of
latter that they had already stopped considering the private respondents to the termination of the
the proposals of other aggregates plants to lease contract for the simple reason that no juridical
the property because of the existing contract with relation was created because of the non-fulfillment
petitioner. of the condition.
In its reply-letter, petitioner argued that under 2. Petitioner invokes Article 1266 and the
paragraph 1 of the lease contract, payment of principle of rebus sic stantibus. Whether or not
rental would commence on the date of the petitioner should be released from the obligatory
issuance of an industrial clearance by the Ministry force of the contract of lease because the
of Human Settlements, and not from the date of purpose of the contract did not materialize due to
signing of the contract. It then expressed its unforeseen events and causes beyond its
intention to terminate the contract, as it had control, i.e., due to abrupt change in political
decided to cancel or discontinue with the rock climate after the EDSA Revolution and financial
crushing project "due to financial, as well as difficulties. --- Although the contract has the force
technical, difficulties." of law between the parties, Art.1266 is an exception
which reads: "The debtor in obligations to do shall
Petitioner also argued that it was only obligated to also be released when the prestation becomes
pay the amount ofP20,000.00 as rental payments legally or physically impossible without the fault of
for the one-month period of lease, counted from 07
the obligor." However, the provision contemplates to petitioner and cannot, therefore, be taken
an obligation ‘to do’ and not an obligation ‘to advantage of in order to evade or lessen
give’. The obligation to pay rentals or deliver the petitioner’s monetary obligation. The damage or
thing in a contract of lease falls within the prestation prejudice to private respondents is beyond
“to give”; hence, it is not covered within the scope dispute. They unquestionably suffered pecuniary
of Article 1266. At any rate, the unforeseen event losses because of their inability to use the leased
and causes mentioned by petitioner are not the premises. Thus, in accordance with Article 1659 of
legal or physical impossibilities contemplated in said the Civil Code, they are entitled to indemnification
article. Besides, petitioner failed to state specifically for damages; and the award of P492,000 is fair and
the circumstances brought about by “the abrupt just under the circumstances of the case.
change in the political climate in the country”
except the alleged prevailing uncertainties in 4. Whether or not petitioners were denied of
government policies on infrastructure projects. due process for not being heard.--- We
disagree. The trial court was in fact liberal in
The principle of rebus sic stantibus neither fits in with granting several postponements to petitioner
the facts of the case. Under this theory, the parties before it deemed terminated and waived the
stipulate in the light of certain prevailing conditions, presentation of evidence in petitioner’s behalf.
and once these conditions cease to exist the
contract also ceases to exist. This theory is said to VICTORINO MAGAT JR. VS COURT OF APPEALS AND
be the basis of Article 1267 of the Civil Code, which SANTIAGO GUERRERO|G.R. NO. 124221|AUGUST 4,
provides: 2000
Held: