G.R. NO. 130348 - MIGUEL SORIANO, JR. AND JULIETA SORIANO, VS. ANTERO SORIANO AND VIRGINIA SORIANO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, judgment is rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against defendants ordering the latter and all persons claiming rights under them to vacate the premises in question and surrender possession thereof to the former; to pay plaintiff the sum of P2,662.00 a month from January, 1994 and monthly thereafter until the subject premises is actually vacated; to pay plaintiff P10,000.00 as reasonable attorney's fees and cost of suit. The consignation case is ordered dismissed together with the counterclaim without pronouncement as to costs. [13] Based on the arguments and evidence presented by the parties, the MeTC found that the contract that existed between petitioners and Marilou P. Del Castillo was a sub-lease contract and not a joint venture agreement. Much weight was given by said trial court on the following documentary evidence: 1) affidavit of Marilou P. Del Castillo stating that the contract she entered into with Julieta Soriano was a sublease agreement, especially as said affidavit was corroborated by the affidavits of two other witnesses; and 2) the Questioned Document Report No. 843-1094 issued by the NBI stating that the signature of Marilou P. Del Castillo on the Joint Venture Agreement presented by petitioners was a forgery. It ratiocinated that: It is this court (sic) considered view that the defendants failed to overcome the presumption of validity of contract. They having the one who put in issue the genuineness and due execution of the sub contract of lease have the burden of proof to prove otherwise. On the part of the plaintiffs, they have proven at the very least, that the Joint Venture Agreement has a semblance of forgery. Defendant's negative assertion of facts cannot be given more weight than that of plaintiffs' positive stand. What the court has in mind in setting the clarificatory hearing is to illicit from Marilou del Castillo which contract did she enter into with Julieta Soriano, face to face with the defendants and plaintiffs. This way the Court would be in a position to observe the demeanor of all the parties concern (sic) as well as the intended witness herself. It was however unfortunate that it did not materialize. [14] Anent the issue of consignation, the MeTC held that there was no valid tender of payment, viz : In the consignation case, it appears from the evidence of defendants that it was sometime in the third week of December, 1993 that they tendered to the plaintiffs checks representing rentals from January to June, 1994. Clearly, when the defendants tender payment as a prerequisite of consignation, the rentals are not yet due. Valid tender of payment therefore is wanting. [15] On appeal to the RTC, the assailed joint decision was affirmed in toto in a decision promulgated on 3 April 1997. In acknowledging that the contract of lease between petitioners and respondents was indeed violated, the RTC gave premium to the letter of one Ma. Lourdes R. Acebedo, Executive Vice-President of Acebedo Optical Co.,