Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

ANTONIO TUASON, JR., ETC.

, plaintiff- wished, to either buy said lots or enter


appellee, into new contracts of lease at an
vs. increased rent; All the defendants failed or
AUGUSTO DE ASIS, defendant-appellant.
refused to vacate the lots occupied by
them; neither did they accede to the
ANTONIO TUASON JR., ETC., plaintiff-
proposal to buy or lease the same, they
appellant,
vs. claiming that although they were willing to
DOLORES VDA. DE make the purchase or enter into a new
EARNSHAW, defendant-appellant. contract of lease, the amounts fixed for
the sale or lease were unreasonable and
ANTONIO TUASON, JR., ETC., plaintiff- excessive. Later on, appellants filed
appellant, identical motions to suspend further
vs. proceedings, invoking the provisions of
DELY CACHO, ETC., defendant-appellant.
Republic Act No. 1162, as amended by
Republic Act No. 1599.
ANTONIO TUASON, JR., plaintiff-
appellant,
Republic Act No. 1162, particularly Section
vs.
EMETERIO BARCELON, defendant- 5, which provides that "From the approval
appellant. of this Act, and until the expropriation
herein provided, no ejectment
NIEVES TUASON DE BARRETO, plaintiff- proceedings shall be instituted or
appellant, prosecuted against any tenant or
vs. occupant of any landed estates or
MELITON LIMLINGAN, defendant- haciendas herein authorized to be
appellee. expropriated if he pays his current
rentals."
Facts: These five cases involve lots
comprised in two large parcels of land, ISSUE: WON they can invoke the said law
one belonging to plaintiff Antonio Tuason, despite the fact that there was only a
Jr., and the other to plaintiff Nieves Tuason mere notice of the government to
de Barreto, subdivided into a number of expropriate but no actual proceedings
lots and leased to the defendants and was commenced.
their predecessors-in-interest for a period
ranging from 25 to 33 years, the lease Held: No, in all there five cases now before
contracts all expiring on December 31, us on appeal, there is no showing that
1953. For these reasons, in passing upon expropriation proceedings by the
these five cases now before us on appeal, Government have actually been
we are consolidating them in one single commenced. Consequently, the two laws
decision, Especially since many and the invoked are not applicable and there is or
most important facts and questions of law was no reason to suspend court
involved in these five case are similar, if proceedings. We hold that mere notice of
not identical. the intention of the Government to
expropriate lands in the future does not
Shortly before the expiration of the and cannot bind the landowner and
contracts of lease, the two owners-lessors prevent him from dealing with property.
notified their lessees as follows: That they To bind the land to be expropriated and
(lessees) were to vacate the premises the owner thereof, the expropriation must
respectively occupied by them on or be commenced in court and even then we
before December 31, 1953, or if they are not certain that the owner may not
deal with his property, thereafter,
mortgage or even sell it if he find persons
who would step into his shoes and deal
with the Government, either resist the
expropriation and remain with what is left
of the property if the entire property is not
needed by the Government for to hold
otherwise would be to deprive a landlord
of his right to protect his interest by
merely claiming that the Government may
someday act on the matter thereby
placing him at the mercy of an
unscrupuluos tenant.

There are other issues of the case but not


pertinent to this subject.

Marianjanealumbro@yahoo.com