DISPOSITIVE:

SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:

WHAT HAPPENED IN THIS CASE?

THIS CASE INVOLVES A CLAIM BY RESPONDENT FOR DAMAGES WHICH THE CA GRANTED. RESPONDENT MADE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PROPERTY.  PETITIONER SAID THERE WAS NO CONTRACT OF LEASE. SC SAID THERE WAS AS EVIDENCED BY SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RENTAL PAYMENTS. PETITIONER SAID RESPONDENT WAS NOT A PARTY IN INTEREST. SUPREME COURT SAID HE IS BECAUSE HE INVESTED HUGE SUM IN THE RESORT OF PETITIONER.

WAS THERE A CONTRACT OF LEASE EVEN THOUGH THE LEASE DOCUMENT WAS NOT PRODUCED?

YES BECAUSE THERE WAS SECURITY DEPOSIT AND RENTAL PAYMENTS.

IS PADILLA A PARTY IN INTEREST?

YES BECAUSE HE MADE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN THE RESORT AND THEREFORE A PARTY WHO WILL BE INJURED OR WILL BENEFIT IN THE CASE.

ON ATTY’S FEES:

TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW. IF FILE DOES NOT APPEAR ON SCREEN GO TO DOWNLOAD. IT IS THE FIRST ITEM. OPEN IT.

NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH  JUST TYPE “attybulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST  TYPE “attybulao and forum shopping”.