Pagpapawalang-bisa ng kasunduan sa upa

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | December 14, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Kami ay nangungupahan lamang. Sa nakalulungkot na pangyayari, hindi na  matirahan ang nasabing bahay dahil sa baha na hindi na humupa o nawala kahit pa man sa paghinto ng ulan. Ano ba ang sinasabi ng batas patungkol sa upa o lease sa ganitong pagkakataon? Maaari na bang ihinto o itigil ang upa sa nasabing kadahilanan? — Jamel

---

Dear Jamel, 

​Ang sagot sa iyong katanungan ay matatagpuan sa ating mga batas, at kaugnay na kaso. Ayon sa mga Artikulo 1654, 1655, 1660, at 1662 ng Republic Act No. 386, o mas kilala sa tawag na New Civil Code of the Philippines, nabanggit ang mga sumusunod:

“Article 1654. The lessor is obliged:

(1) To deliver the thing which is the object of the contract in such a condition as to render it fit for the use intended;

(2) 

(3) To maintain the lessee in the peaceful and adequate enjoyment of the lease for the entire duration of the contract. (1554a)

Article 1655. If the thing leased is totally destroyed by a fortuitous event, the lease is extinguished. If the destruction is partial, the lessee may choose between a proportional reduction of the rent and a rescission of the lease.

Article 1660. If a dwelling place or any other building intended for human habitation is in such a condition that its use brings imminent and serious danger to life or health, the lessee may terminate the lease at once by notifying the lessor, even if at the time the contract was perfected the former knew of the dangerous condition or waived the right to rescind the lease on account of this condition.

Article 1662. If during the lease it should become necessary to make some urgent repairs upon the thing leased, bWhen the work is of such a nature that the portion which the lessee and his family need for their dwelling becomes uninhabitable, he may rescind the contract if the main purpose of the lease is to provide a dwelling place for the lessee.” 

Hinggil sa mga nabanggit, sinasabi na maaaring tapusin sa pamamagitan ng tinatawag na rescission ang kasunduan sa upa kung ang inuupahan bilang tahanan ay hindi na maituring na habitable o matitirhan. 

Sa kasong Martin v. BS Bank Philippines, Inc. (G.R. No. 174632, 16 June 2010, sa panulat ni Kgg. na Kasamang Mahistrado Roberto Abad), sinabi rin ng Korte Suprema na:

“Here, it is undisputed that the floods of May 25 and August 13, 1997 submerged the DBS offices and its repossessed vehicles. The floods rendered the place unsuitable for its intended uses. And, while the Martins did some repairs, they did not restore the place to meet DBS’ needs. BS and the Martins the right to rescind the agreement in the event the property becomes untenantable due to natural causes, including floods, unless proper repairs and rehabilitation are carried out." 

Samakatuwid, gamit ang mga nabanggit na batas at desisyon ng Korte Suprema, kung ang iyong inuupahang bahay ay hindi na matitirhan o naging mapanganib na sa buhay o kalusugan dahil sa mga pangyayari gaya ng matinding pagbaha, maaari mo nang tapusin ang kontrata o humiling ng bawas sa upa, depende sa lawak ng pinsala.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay. 

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Batas tungkol sa “valet parking”

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | December 13, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

May batas o ba na sumasaklaw sa valet parking sa mga malls o iba pang gusali? Maraming salamat sa paglilinaw. – Sevie

---

Dear Sevie,

Para sa iyong kaalaman, nakasaad sa Artikulo 1962 ng Republic Act No. 386, o mas kilala sa tawag na New Civil Code of the Philippines, ang sumusunod:

“Article 1962. A deposit is constituted from the moment a person receives a thing belonging to another, with the obligation of safely keeping it and of returning the same. If the safekeeping of the thing delivered is not the principal purpose of the contract, there is no deposit but some other contract.” 

Hinggil sa nabanggit, ibinahagi ng Korte Suprema sa kasong Triple-V v. Filipino Merchants (G.R. No. 160544, 21 Pebrero 2005, Ikatlong Dibisyon) ang uri ng kasunduan na bumubuo sa valet parking service:

“When De Asis entrusted the car in question to petitioner’s valet attendant while eating at petitioner's Kamayan Restaurant, the former expected the car's safe return at the end of her meal. Thus, petitioner was constituted as a depositary of the same car. xxx In a contract of deposit, a person receives an object belonging to another with the obligation of safely keeping it and returning the same. A deposit may be constituted even without any consideration. It is not necessary that the depositary receives a fee before it becomes obligated to keep the item entrusted for safekeeping and to return it later to the depositor. xxx in a very real sense, a safe parking space is an added attraction to petitioner's restaurant business because customers are thereby somehow assured that their vehicle[s] are safely kept, rather than parking them elsewhere at their own risk. Having entrusted the subject car to petitioner's valet attendant, customer De Asis, like all of petitioner's customers, fully expects the security of her car while at petitioner's premises/designated parking areas and its safe return at the end of her visit at petitioner's restaurant.” 

Sa kasong Durban Apartments Corporation v. Pioneer Insurance and Surety Corporation (G.R. No. 179419, 12 Enero 2011, isinulat ni Kagalang-galang na Kasamahang Mahistrado Antonio Nachura), sinabi rin ng Korte Suprema ang sumusunod:

“Plainly, from the facts found by the lower courts, the insured See deposited his vehicle for safekeeping with petitioner, through the latter’s employee, Justimbaste. In turn, Justimbaste issued a claim stub to See. Thus, the contract of deposit was perfected from See’s delivery, when he handed over to Justimbaste the keys to his vehicle, which Justimbaste received with the obligation of safely keeping and returning it. Ultimately, petitioner is liable for the loss of See’s vehicle.” 

Samakatuwid, malinaw na kapag iniabot ng isang motorista ang susi at sasakyan sa valet parking ng isang mall o establisimyento, nagkakaroon ng contract of deposit sa ilalim ng ating New Civil Code, kung saan tungkulin ng mall o establisimyento na ingatan ang sasakyang inihabilin at ibalik ito nang ligtas sa may-ari. Pinagtibay ito ng Korte Suprema sa mga kasong nabanggit sa itaas, na kapwa nagpasya na ang establisimyento ay nagiging depositary at mananagot kung mawala o masira ang sasakyan habang nasa kanilang pangangalaga, may bayad man o wala ang nasabing valet service.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.

Maaaring maging batayan sa pagpapawalang-bisa ng kasal ang pagtago ng sekswalidad

ni Atty. Persida Rueda-Acosta @Magtanong Kay Attorney | December 12, 2025

Dear Chief Acosta,

Isang taon matapos naming makasal ay may nadiskubre ako sa sekswalidad ng asawa ko. Nang kumprontahin ko siya, inamin naman niya ito. Noon ko napagtanto na ito pala ang dahilan kung bakit  ayaw niyang makipagtalik at lagi siyang may dahilan upang makaiwas dito. Kaugnay nito, maaari bang mapawalang-bisa ang aming kasal?

– Paris

---

Dear Paris,

         Ang kasal ay isang espesyal na kontrata ng permanenteng pagsasama sa pagitan ng isang lalaki at isang babae, alinsunod sa batas para sa pagtatatag ng buhay pampamilya. Upang maging wasto, dapat malayang ibigay ang consent o pahintulot ng magkabilang panig. Kaya, maaaring mapawalang-bisa ang kasal kapag ang pahintulot o pagpayag ng isang partido ay nakuha sa pamamagitan ng panloloko o panlilinlang ng kabilang partido, tulad ng pagtatago ng kanyang homosexuality o ang romantikong atraksyon o pagkagusto sa kaparehas na kasarian. Ang mga sumusunod ang nauugnay na bahagi ng ating Family Code:

“Art. 45. A marriage may be annulled for any of the following causes, existing at the time of the marriage: 

(3) That the consent of either party was obtained by fraud, unless such party afterwards, with full knowledge of the facts constituting the fraud, freely cohabited with the other as husband and wife; 

Art. 46. Any of the following circumstances shall constitute fraud referred to in Number 3 of the preceding Article: 

(4) Concealment of homosexuality or lesbianism existing at the time of the marriage.”

         Kaugnay nito, tinalakay ng ating Kagalang-galang na Korte Suprema sa kasong Jaaziel M. Salva-Roldan vs. Lory O. Roldan and Republic of the Philippines, G.R. No. 268109, 03 Marso 2025, sa panulat ni Honorable Associate Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr., na ang mapanlinlang na pagtatago ng homosexuality ay maaaring maging batayan para mapawalang-bisa ang kasal:

“To be sure, in Almelor v. RTC Las Piñas, the Court stressed that it is the concealment of homosexuality constitutive of fraud that serves as a valid ground to annul a marriage. The allegation of vitiated consent, particularly the concealment of homosexuality in this case, must be proven by preponderance of evidence.

Jaaziel was able to prove by the evidentiary threshold of preponderance of evidence the fact that Lory fraudulently concealed his homosexuality from her, thereby vitiating her consent to enter into a marriage with him.

First, Lory admitted to Jaaziel that he is homosexual. Jaaziel found magazines depicting half-naked or naked men in Lory’s belongings. Lory’s admission only shows that Lory waited for their marriage before confessing his homosexuality. In fact, had it not been due to the discovery of the magazines, Lory would have continuously defrauded Jaaziel until this day.

Second, Francisco’s observation as to the lack of intimacy and affection between Jaaziel and Lory bolster’s Lory’s homosexuality. 

Third, Jaaziel was led to believe that Lory is someone who he is not at the onset of their relationship. Lory refused to talk about his behavior during their first date. Lory, pursued Jaaziel until they became sweethearts. During their first date, Jaaziel noticed Lory’s behavior which was unusual for a guy who meets his girlfriend for the first time. As described by Jaaziel, she felt Lory’s distance and lack of intimacy towards her. This led Jaaziel to confront Lory, but Lory only confessed his timidity and lack of confidence. Evidently, Lory deliberately concealed his homosexuality to convince Jaaziel to stay in the relationship, and later to marry Lory.

Fourth, Lory refused or looked for an excuse to evade intimacy with Jaaziel. Jaaziel and Lory had an unusual honeymoon as Lory would prefer to spend his time alone or to talk about anything, but their married life and sexual intimacy. Worse, just two months after their wedding Lory went back to Saudi Arabia and stopped communicating with Jaaziel. It thus appears that Lory’s actions towards Jaaziel were done with the intent of keeping the latter in the dark about Lory’s sexuality.

With the lies and deception, coupled by their failure to cohabit as husband and wife, it is evident that Lory merely tricked Jaaziel to marry him by making her believe that he is a heterosexual. The admission of Lory and the unexplained prolonged silence to negate the allegation as to his homosexuality cannot be taken lightly by the Court. No woman would put herself in a shameful position if the fact that she married a homosexual was not true. More so, no man would keep silent when his sexuality is being questioned thus creating disgrace in his name. x x x the totality of Jaaziel’s evidence should be properly given weight, and thus, should be considered sufficient as against Lory’s eerie silence on this matter. Hence, their marriage must be annulled on the ground of fraudulent concealment of homosexuality pursuant to Article 45(3) in relation to Article 46(4) of the Family Code.”

         Alinsunod dito, kung maipapakita na mapanlinlang na itinago sa iyo ng iyong asawa ang kanyang homosekswalidad upang ikaw ay pumayag kang magpakasal sa kanya, maaari itong maging batayan upang maipawalang-bisa ang inyong kasal.

Sana ay nabigyan namin ng linaw ang iyong katanungan. Ang payong aming ibinigay ay base lamang sa mga impormasyon na iyong inilahad at maaaring magbago kung mababawasan o madaragdagan ang mga detalye ng iyong salaysay.

Maraming salamat sa iyong patuloy na pagtitiwala.