Scribd
Upload
14 views1 page

Civ Pro Cases PDF

Optima Realty Corporation leased an office unit to Hertz Philippines but faced non-payment of rent and utilities during renovations. Hertz's late request for lease renewal was rejected, leading to a legal dispute where Optima sought eviction and payment, but the lower courts ruled in Optima's favor. The Court of Appeals later annulled these rulings due to improper service of summons, prompting Optima to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Uploaded by

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

Civ Pro Cases PDF

Optima Realty Corporation leased an office unit to Hertz Philippines but faced non-payment of rent and utilities during renovations. Hertz's late request for lease renewal was rejected, leading to a legal dispute where Optima sought eviction and payment, but the lower courts ruled in Optima's favor. The Court of Appeals later annulled these rulings due to improper service of summons, prompting Optima to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Uploaded by

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

FACTS:

Optima Realty Corporation leased an office unit and parking slot to Hertz Philippines Exclusive
Cars, Inc. from October 1, 2003, to February 28, 2006. During building renovations in 2005,
Hertz requested and was granted a temporary rent discount but still failed to pay rentals (August
2005–February 2006) and utilities (November 2005–February 2006).

Under the lease, renewal required written notice 90 days before expiration. Hertz failed to
comply and belatedly requested renewal in December 2005, which Optima rejected. Hertz then
filed a complaint for specific performance, while Optima filed an unlawful detainer case after
Hertz refused to vacate.

Summons was served on Hertz’s supervisor, and Hertz later filed an Answer with Counterclaim
without raising improper service of summons. The MeTC ruled in Optima’s favor, ordering Hertz
to vacate, pay arrears, compensation, and attorney’s fees. The RTC affirmed.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals annulled the MeTC and RTC rulings, holding that
there was no valid service of summons and thus no jurisdiction over Hertz. It remanded the
case for proper service.

Optima’s motion for reconsideration was denied, prompting it to elevate the matter to the
Supreme Court through a Rule 45 Petition.

You might also like