DARIO AND GAUDENCIO ELEIZEGUI, plaintiffs-appellees, vs.
THE MANILA LAWN TENNIS CLUB, defendant-appellant.
19 May 1903| G.R. No. 967
Arellano, C. J.:
Digested by: Neil R. Soldevilla
FACTS:
Dario and Gaudencio Eleizagui leased a piece of land to the Manila Lawn Tennis
Club for a fixed monthly rent of 25 pesos. The lease agreement allowed the
defendant to make improvements on the land and stated that the lease would
endure at the will of the lessee.
The plaintiffs later gave notice to terminate the lease, but the defendant argued
that the lease could only be terminated at the will of the lessee.
The plaintiffs argue that the lease can be terminated by giving one month's notice,
as provided in Article 1581 of the Civil Code. They claim that the notice they gave
terminated the lease.
The defendant argues that the lease can only be terminated at the will of the
lessee, as stipulated in the lease agreement. They contend that the plaintiffs had no
right to give notice to terminate the lease.
ISSUE: Is the contract a usufruct?
RULING OF THE SUPREME COURT:
No. Usufruct is a right of superior degree to that which arises from a lease. It is a
real right and includes all the jus utendi and jus fruendi. Nevertheless, the utmost
period for which a usufruct can endure, if constituted in favor a natural person, is
the lifetime of the usufructuary; and if in favor of juridical person, it cannot be
created for more than thirty years.
It was repeatedly stated in the document that it was a lease, and nothing but a
lease, which was agreed upon: "Being in the full enjoyment of the necessary legal
capacity to enter into this contract of lease . . . they have agreed upon the lease of
said estate . . . They lease to Mr. Williamson, who receives it as such. . . .
The rental is fixed at 25 pesos a month. . . . The owners bind themselves to
maintain the club as tenant. . . . Upon the foregoing conditions they make the
present contract of lease. . . ." (Pp. 9, 11, and 12, bill of exceptions.) If it is a lease,
then it must be for a determinate period. (Art. 1543.) By its very nature it must be
temporary, just as by reason of its nature an emphyteusis must be perpetual, or for
an unlimited period. (Art. 1608.)
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor the petitioners, emphasizing that the
contract's term, left to the lessee's will, should be determined by the courts as per
Article 1128 of the Civil Code. This decision emphasizes the principle that in cases
where a contract's duration is contingent upon one party's will, it is the judiciary's
role to establish a reasonable term for the contract, ensuring fairness and
preventing indefinite obligations. Thus, the Supreme Court ruling directed a
dismissal of the action for unlawful detainer and affirmed that the lease's duration
should not be unilaterally determined by either.
xx END OF DIGEST xx
