Scribd
Upload
2K views1 page

Pajuyo Vs CA Digest

1. Pajuyo entrusted a house to Guevarra for his use provided he return it upon demand and maintain the property. When Pajuyo demanded return, Guevarra refused. 2. The MTC and RTC ruled in favor of Pajuyo, finding a lease agreement. However, the CA reversed, ruling both parties were squatters on government land with no legal rights and the agreement was a commodatum, not lease. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the CA erred. The agreement imposed an obligation on Guevarra to maintain the property, making it not gratuitous and different from a commodatum. As the tenant refused to return the property, eject

Uploaded by

Angel Urbano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
2K views1 page

Pajuyo Vs CA Digest

1. Pajuyo entrusted a house to Guevarra for his use provided he return it upon demand and maintain the property. When Pajuyo demanded return, Guevarra refused. 2. The MTC and RTC ruled in favor of Pajuyo, finding a lease agreement. However, the CA reversed, ruling both parties were squatters on government land with no legal rights and the agreement was a commodatum, not lease. 3. The Supreme Court ruled the CA erred. The agreement imposed an obligation on Guevarra to maintain the property, making it not gratuitous and different from a commodatum. As the tenant refused to return the property, eject

Uploaded by

Angel Urbano
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Pajuyo v. CA GR No.

146364 June 3, 2004


Facts: Pajuyo entrusted a house to Guevara for the latter's use provided he should return the same upon
demand and with the condition that Guevara should be responsible of the maintenance of the property. Upon
demand Guevara refused to return the property to Pajuyo. The petitioner then filed an ejectment case against
Guevara with the MTC who ruled in favor of the petitioner. On appeal with the CA, the appellate court reversed
the judgment of the lower court on the ground that both parties are illegal settlers on the property thus have no
legal right so that the Court should leave the present situation with respect to possession of the property as it
is, and ruling further that the contractual relationship of Pajuyo and Guevara was that of a commodatum.
CLAIMS:
Pajuyo raises the following issues for resolution:
WHETHER THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED OR ABUSED ITS AUTHORITY AND DISCRETION TANTAMOUNT TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION:
1. In ruling that the Kasunduan voluntarily entered into by the parties was in fact a commodatum,
instead of a Contract of Lease as found by the Metropolitan Trial Court and in holding that the ejectment case
filed against defendant-appellant is without legal and factual basis.
2. In reversing and setting aside the Decision of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. Q-96-26943
and in holding that the parties are in pari delicto being both squatters, therefore, illegal occupants of the
contested parcel of land.
3. In deciding the unlawful detainer case based on the so-called Code of Policies of the National
Government Center Housing Project instead of deciding the same under the Kasunduan voluntarily executed by
the parties, the terms and conditions of which are the laws between themselves.
CA:
1. Pajuyo and Guevarra are squatters. Pajuyo and Guevarra illegally occupied the contested lot which the

government owned.
2. Perez, the person from whom Pajuyo acquired his rights, was also a squatter. Perez had no right or

title over the lot because it is public land. The assignment of rights between Perez and Pajuyo, and
the Kasunduan between Pajuyo and Guevarra, did not have any legal effect. Pajuyo and Guevarra are
in pari delicto or in equal fault. The court will leave them where they are.
3. Reversed the MTC and RTC rulings, which held that the Kasunduan between Pajuyo and Guevarra
created a legal tie akin to that of a landlord and tenant relationship. The Court of Appeals ruled that
the Kasunduan is not a lease contract but a commodatum because the agreement is not for a price
certain.
Issue: Is the contractual relationship of Pajuyo and Guevara that of a commodatum?
Held: No. The Court of Appeals theory that the Kasunduan is one of commodatum is devoid of merit. In a
contract of commodatum, one of the parties delivers to another something not consumable so that the latter
may use the same for a certain time and return it. An essential feature of commodatum is that it is
gratuitous. Another feature of commodatum is that the use of the thing belonging to another is for a certain
period. Thus, the bailor cannot demand the return of the thing loaned until after expiration of the period
stipulated, or after accomplishment of the use for which the commodatum is constituted. If the bailor should
have urgent need of the thing, he may demand its return for temporary use. If the use of the thing is
merely tolerated by the bailor, he can demand the return of the thing at will, in which case the contractual
relation is called a precarium. Under the Civil Code, precarium is a kind of commodatum. The Kasunduan
reveals that the accommodation accorded by Pajuyo to Guevarra was not essentially gratuitous. While the
Kasunduan did not require Guevarra to pay rent, it obligated him to maintain the property in good condition.
The imposition of this obligation makes the Kasunduan a contract different from a commodatum. The effects
of the Kasunduan are also different from that of a commodatum. Case law on ejectment has treated
relationship based on tolerance as one that is akin to a landlord-tenant relationship where the withdrawal of
permission would result in the termination of the lease. The tenants withholding of the property would then
be unlawful.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy