CAR COOL PHILIPPINES, INC., represented in this act by its President and General Manager VIRGILIO DELA ROSA, petitioner, vs. USHIO REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, respondent
G.R. No. 138088. January 23, 2006
Facts:
The spouses Hector and Gloria Hizon Lopez were the original owners of the property involved in the case at bar. They leased it to Car Cool since 1972. On 1992, they entered into a Verbal Lease Agreement for two years. On 1995, the spouses informed Car Cool of their intention to sell the property. They gave the latter the option to buy, however they ignored the offer. For this reason, the spouses terminated the Verbal Lease Agreement with Car Cool and gave notice to the company to vacate the property on the last day of August 1995. In the same month, said property was sold to USHIO. The latter gave an extension to Car Cool to vacate the same up to the last day of September 1995. USHIO gave their final demand on December 3 and when Car Cool still ignored the notice, USHIO filed an ejectment case against the petitioner. Previous to this, Car Cool filed a criminal complaint against USHIO for alleged Robbery with force, Malicious mischief, and grave coercion during the attempt by the USHIO to eject the former and that tey know that there is an existing contract between them and the Lopezes. They also filed a complaint for specific performance and damages against the spouses invoking that they made an advance payment in checks to them as monthly rentals for the years 1995 and 1996. The lower courts rendered judgment in favor of the respondent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with modification with regard to the monthly rental period, thus this petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the award of damages to the respondent by way of rentals and attorney’s fees constitute unjust enrichment.
Ruling:
Records show that the advance payment for rentals made by Car Cool to the spouses Lopez were never encashed. In fact the latter offered to return the check payments but Car Cool refused. Thus the sale transaction between Lopezes and USHIO was valid and so the latter is the rightful owner from August 1995.
The award made to USHIO is legal for rentals. There is unjust enrichment when a person unjustly retains a benefit to the loss of another, or when a person retains money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. The principle of unjust enrichment under Article 22 of the Civil Code requires two conditions: (1) that a person is benefited without a valid basis or justification, and, (2) that such benefit is derived at another’s expense or damage. The requisites for unjust enrichment are not present on the part of the respondent. There is no unjust enrichment when the person who will benefit has valid claim to such benefit.
As regards the attorney’s fees, the Appellate Court failed to state explicitly in its decision the basis for the award, hence it cannot be recovered as part of damages. This is based on the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. The basis for its award must be based from factual, legal and equitable justification.
