Army and Navy Club of Manila vs.

CA

FACTS:

- Sometime in January, 1983, petitioner entered into a lease

contract with respondent (City of Manila) concerning a parcel of
land with an area of 12,705 square meters located at South
Boulevard corner Manila Bay
- In said lease contract, Army and Navy Club agreed to
o (1) pay an annual rent of P250,000 with a 105% increase
every two years
o (2) pay the realty tax due to the land
o (3) construct a modern hotel within 5 years, which shall
belong to the city upon expiration/termination of the
contract, without the right of reimbursement for the cost of
construction
- On November 29, 1989, the City of Manila filed an action against
the petitioner for ejectment.
- Petitioner failed to pay the rents for 7 consecutive years of the
lease
o Rental dues accumulated to P7.2M
o Realty tax ballooned to P6.5M
o No multi-storey hotel was constructed
- City of Manila filed the action for illegal detainer and demanded
petitioners eviction
o New Civil Code (Art 1673 (3)): The lessor may judicially
eject the lessee for any of the following causes: Violation
of any of the conditions agreed upon in the contract
- Army Navy club claims that they were declared a
historical landmark by the National Historical Commission
in 1992, which was not given consideration by the lower
courts, hence, all parties are enjoined by law to preserve
its existence
o To support its claim, they presented a Certificate of
Transfer and Acceptance of the Historical Marker granted to
them.

ISSUE:
- WON the MTC, RTC and CA erred in upholding the ouster of
herein petitioner given that petitioner was declared a historical
landmark

HELD:
- (maam might ask) The prescribed manner of classifying
historical and cultural properties was mentioned in Manila Prince
Hotel vs GSIS (the SC elucidated on the views of Fr. Bernas who
was invited amicus curae in this case)
o Director of National museum must keep a record of
location, ownership, and condition of important cultural
properties
Collectors and owners must register collection with
the National Museum
o Director must convene experts to deliberate on the
properties (transmit decision to newspapers of general
circulation within 10 days)
Owner of property may be invited during the
deliberations
o In the case at bar, there is no showing that the
above procedure has been complied with
o Signatures to the certification only comprised of Army &
Navy members making it self-serving
o Nowhere in the law does it state that such
recognition grants possessory rights over the
property to the petitioner. Nor is the National
Historical Commission given the authority to vest
such right of ownership or possession of a private
property to the petitioner. The law merely states
that it shall be the policy of state to preserve and
protect the important cultural properties and
National Cultural Treasures of the nation and to
safeguard their intrinsic value
o Even assuming that such recognition made by the National
Historical Commission is valid, the historical significance of
the Club, if any, shall not be affected if petitioner's eviction
from the premises is warranted
o The argument that it was declared a historical
landmark, is not a substantial issue of fact which
does not, in any way, alter or affect the merit of the
ejectment suit
o CA decision: AFFIRMED