SECOND DIVISION
[G.R. No. 239669. October 10, 2018.]
Y-L HOLDINGS CORPORATION, petitioner, vs.LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, respondent.
[G.R. No. 239720. October 10, 2018.]
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, petitioner, vs.Y-L HOLDINGS CORPORATION, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 October 2018which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 239669 — Y-L Holdings Corporation versus Land Bank of the Philippines
"G.R. No. 239720 — Land Bank of the Philippines versus Y-L Holdings Corporation
After reviewing the consolidated Petitions and their respective annexes, inclusive of the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision 1 dated January 31, 2018 and Resolution 2 dated May 28, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 108414, the Court resolves to DENY the consolidated Petitions and AFFIRM the Decision and Resolution of the CA.
A contract is the law between the parties. Hence, obligations arising from contracts have the force of law between the contracting parties and shall be complied with in good faith. 3
Under Clause 13 of the Contract of Lease (COL) executed by the parties, "[Land Bank of the Philippines (Landbank)] agree[d] to return and surrender to [Y-L Holdings, Inc. (YL)] the [l]eased [p]remises at the end of the term of [the lease] in as good condition as reasonable wear and tear will permit and without any delay whatsoever, devoid of all occupants, furniture, articles and effects of any kind x x x." 4 In addition, Clause 15 of the COL stipulates that any extension of the lease shall be understood to run on a month-to-month basis. 5
As correctly observed by the CA, the return of Landbank's cash deposit is subject to the condition that the leased premises are surrendered in the condition set forth under Clause 13. Thus, YL's obligation to return Landbank's cash deposit attached only upon complete turn over of the warehouses after their restoration had been completed. In turn, Landbank was bound, under Clause 15 of the COL, to pay rental fees during the interim period.
Finally, in the absence of showing of bad faith on the part of either party, the denial of the parties' claims for exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit is proper. DETACa
SO ORDERED." J. RE YES, JR., J., on wellness leave.
Very truly yours,
MARIA LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of CourtBy:(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (G.R. No. 239669), pp. 57-80; rollo (G.R. No. 239720), pp. 30-53. Penned by Associate Justice Magdangal M. De Leon, with Associate Justices Amy C. Lazaro-Javier and Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla concurring.
2.Id. at 82-83; id. at 54-55.
3.Barrameda v. Atienza, 421 Phil. 197, 210 (2001).
4.Rollo (G.R. No. 239669), pp. 73, 129; rollo (G.R. No. 239720), pp. 46, 70.
5.Id. at 74, 129; id. at 47, 70.