Scribd
Upload
79 views2 pages

Optima Realty Corporation Vs Hertz Phil

- Optima leased an office unit and parking space to Hertz for 3 years, later amended to 2 years and 8 months. Hertz failed to pay rent from August to December 2007 and January to February 2008. Optima filed a case against Hertz. - The RTC ruled in favor of Optima, ordering Hertz to vacate. The CA reversed the RTC's decision, ruling the RTC did not have jurisdiction over Hertz due to improper summons service. - The main issue is whether the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over Hertz despite defective summons service. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did have jurisdiction since Hertz voluntarily appeared in court by filing an answer and counterclaim without raising improper summons service as a defense.

Uploaded by

Grace Managuelod Gabuyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views2 pages

Optima Realty Corporation Vs Hertz Phil

- Optima leased an office unit and parking space to Hertz for 3 years, later amended to 2 years and 8 months. Hertz failed to pay rent from August to December 2007 and January to February 2008. Optima filed a case against Hertz. - The RTC ruled in favor of Optima, ordering Hertz to vacate. The CA reversed the RTC's decision, ruling the RTC did not have jurisdiction over Hertz due to improper summons service. - The main issue is whether the RTC properly acquired jurisdiction over Hertz despite defective summons service. The Supreme Court ruled that the RTC did have jurisdiction since Hertz voluntarily appeared in court by filing an answer and counterclaim without raising improper summons service as a defense.

Uploaded by

Grace Managuelod Gabuyo
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

 

OPTIMA REALTY CORPORATION vs HERTZ PHIL.


EXCLUSIVE CARS, INC.

GR NO. 183035; JANUARY , !013

"ACTS#

Optima is engaged in the business of leasing and renting out


comm
commererci
cial
al spac
spaces
es and
and bu
buil
ildi
ding
ngs
s to its
its te
tena
nant
nts.
s. Opti
Optima
ma and
and
Respondent Hertz entered into a Contract of Lease over an office
unit and parking slot in the Optima Bulding for a period of 3
years. Hoever! the lease agreement as amended by shortening
the lease period ot " years and # months. Hoever! Hertz failed
to pay its rentals from $ugust to %ecember "&&# and 'anuary to
(ebruary "&&) notithstanding the fact that Optima granted the

former*s re+uest. ,t also failed to pay its utility bills. Optima sent
a letter to Hertz! reminding the latter if it ill rene its contract
by a ne negotiation beteen them and upon ritten notice by
the lessee to the lessor at least -& days before the termination of 
the
the leas
leasee peri
period
od.. inc
ince
e Hert
Hertz
z fa
fail
iled
ed to sesend
nd rit
ritte
ten
n no
nottic
ice
e
reneing its contract and it*s desire to negotiate! Optima did not
rene the lease.

/e0C 1 filed a Complaint for pecific 2erformance!


,nu
,nunc
ncti
tion
on!! %ama
%amage
ges
s an
andd um
um of mo mone
neyy and
and prpray
ayed
ed fo
forr th
the
e
issu
issuan
ance
ce of a 0R0RO
O an
and
d rit
rit of prel
prelim
imin
inar
ary
y ,n,nu
unc
ncti
tion
on agagai
ains
nstt
Optima. ,t sought the issuance of a 0RO to enoin Optima from
committing acts hich ould tend to disrupt it*s peaceful use and
posse
ssess
ssioion
n of the leased
ased prerem
mise
ises and it of prel relimina
minaryry
inunction to order Optima to reconnect its utilities.

Optima demanded Hertz to surrender and vacate the leased


premises and pay 24"&!-)5."6 covering rental arrearages! unpaid
utility bills and other charges. %ue to Hertz*s refusal to vacate the

le
leas
ased
ed pr
prem
emis
ises
es!! Op
Opti
tima
ma fi
file
led
d an ac
acti
tion
on be
befo
fore
re th
the
e /e
/e0
0C fo
forr
 

7nlaful %etainer and %amages ith 2rayer for the ,ssuance of a


0RO and8or 2reliminary /andatory ,nunction against Hertz. /e0C
rendered a udgment in favor of Optima and ordered Hertz to
vacate the premises.

R0C 9 affirmed the decision of the /e0C: C$ 9 reversed and


set aside the decision of the R0C: ruled that due to the improper
service of summons! the /e0C failed to ac+uire urisdiction over
the
the pers
person
on of resp
respon
onde
dent
nt.. Henc
Hence!
e! this
this pe
peti
titi
tion
on fo
forr re
revi
vie
e on
Certiorari under Rule 4#.

ISSUES# 

;. <het
<hether
her or not the /e
/e0
0C properly
properly ac+ui
ac+uired
red urisdiction
urisdiction over
the person of respondent on the unlaful detainer case is

barred by L,0, 2=>%=>0,$


RULING#

;. ?=. 'uri
'urisdic
sdiction
tion ov
over
er the person
person of the defendant
defendant may be
ac+uired either by service of summons or by the defendant*s
voluntary appearance in court and submission to its authority.
,n this case! the /e0C ac+uired urisdiction over the person of 
res
respondent Hertz by rea reason of the latter* r*s
s voluntary
appe
ap pear
ara
anc
nce
e in cocour
urt.
t. ,n spit
spite
e of th
the
e defe
defect
ctiv
ive
e se
serv
rvic
ice
e of 

summons! the defendant opted to file an $nser ith


Counterclaim ith Leave of Court. (urthermore! it never raised
the defense of improper service of summons in its anser ith
counterclaim.

You might also like