LEGAL OPINION RE CONFLICTING CLAIMS OF STALLHOLDERS IN THE KORONADAL CITY PUBLIC MARKET [STALL NO. 22]

Republic of the Philippines
Province of South Cotabato
City of Koronadal
OFFICE OF THE CITY LEGAL OFFICER
Tel No. (083) 228-1742

LEGAL OPINION NO. ________


DATE : 20 November 2013


TO : CYRUS JOSE J. URBANO, MPA
City Administrator
City Market Committee, Chair

SUBJECT : As Stated

__________________________________________________


Kanami Koronadal!

Subject of this Opinion is the query of herein parties, Mrs. Clarita M. Cuaresma and her son Mr. Leslie C. Lu seeking the resolution of their contest apropos the lawful leasehold right of Stall No. 22, Supermart Building Shed 2, Ground floor of the City of Koronadal Public Market lodged before the City Market Committee.

As culled from the records of the City Treasurer and Office of the Market Supervisor, and the minutes of the meetings previously called for by the Market Committee, hereunder are the uncontroverted factual antecedents:

Herein parties are Mrs. Clarita M. Cuaresma lessee of Stall No. 22 and Mr. Leslie C. Lu lessee of Stall No. 23, both in the Supermart Building 2, Ground Floor of the City of Koronadal. Both stalls are being occupied as a compact stall removing the division between them in which their family business, the Liberty Bakeshop, is situated. Both parties admit that at the onset of the business, Mrs. Cuaresma was the sole proprietor of the bakery.

Meanwhile, Mrs. Cuaresma left their business to her sister and pursued another course elsewhere. However, due to the prodding of her son, Mr. Lu, she had a change of heart and decided to instead leave the business to him, inversely promising that he will send his brother to school while his mother is away.

Pursuantly, Mr. Lu managed Liberty Bakeshop and paid the rentals and surcharges for Stall Nos. 22 and 23 in the name of Mrs. Cuaresma, in her absence.

As evidenced by Official Receipts issued by the Treasurer’s Office, rentals and surcharges were paid either by Mrs. Cuaresma or paid by Mr. Lu in her name. Also, the latest Lease Contract between the City Government and Mrs. Cuaresma duly signed by her issued on 30 August 2006 which took effect on January 2006 until December 2007. Sans the Contract of Lease from 2008 up to present, Stall No. 22 remained under the name of Mrs. Cuaresma.

Herein parties assert opposing claims of leasehold rights over Stall No. 22. In particular, Mrs. Cuaresma clung to her claim being the Lessee by virtue of the Lease Contract and as appearing in the Official Receipts of the Treasurer’s Office. On the contrary, Mr. Lu based his claim on his payment of rentals and surcharges for several times during the absence of his mother.

This office opines that Mr. Lu failed in his burden of clearly and unequivocally proving his claim of leasehold rights on the subject stall. The fact of his payment of the rentals and surcharges on the subject stall during the absence of Mrs. Cuaresma cannot mean that the latter relinquished her leasehold thereto. She may have been remiss in her obligation to personally maintain or conduct business in the said stall but this cannot belie the fact that the bakery was family-owned.

In addition, worthy of note is the records of the Office of the Treasurer which accepted payments and issued receipts for the stall in the name of Mrs. Cuaresma. Payment of Mr. Lu on several occasions is bereft of indicia of Mrs. Cuaresma’s intent to surrender or abandon said stall in favor of Mr. Lu. Had that been the case, proper procedures should have been observed.

Reason dictates that the acceptance of payments by the City Government from Mr. Lu in the name of his mother is recognition on our part that the legitimate lessee of the contested stall is Mrs. Cuaresma sans a contract of lease. Failure of Mr. Lu to show proof that he is the lessee of the stall defeats his challenge. He cannot by the mere fact of his payment of the rentals and surcharge validly claim leasehold on the stall.

Herein parties cannot undermine the proscriptions of the Local Tax Ordinance on dummy and subleasing of stalls and the lease of more than one stall in the public market.

Ergo, this office respectfully opines that Mrs. Clarita M. Cuaresma is the LEGITIMATE LESSEE OF STALL NO. 22. Further, it is recommended that the stalls of Liberty Bakeshop must be reverted to its original state. Consequently, necessary division must be constructed between Stall Nos. 22 and 23, being leased by separate individuals. This shall also serve as a stern warning to herein parties that said stalls must not be merged to form a single compact stall contrary to the provisions of Lease Contract and market ordinances. Otherwise, the City Government can, motu proprio revoke or cancel the lease and declare the stall of erring stall holders vacant.

Please be guided accordingly.

In public service,



ATTY. EUFEMIO A. SIMTIM, JR., REA, REB
City Legal Officer



MYRA JOY H. LAWI-AN, LLB
Legal Assistant II


c.c
BPLS
CMO
City Market Committee