Mallari v. Alsol.docx

MANUEL MALLARI and MILLIE MALLARI v. REBECCA ALSOL G.R. No. 150866, March 6, 2006 (Carpio,  J.) FACTS: Stalls No. 7 and 8 of the Supermarket Section of the Cabanatuan City Public Market were awarded to and occupied by Abelardo Mallari, father of Manuel Mallari and Rebecca Alsol. Before  Abelardo’s death, death, he gave gave the respective respective stalls to Manuel and Rebecca. Sometime in 1988, respondent’s daughter became sick and the Alsol family had to stay in Manila for two months for the medical treatment. Upon their return, they found out that petitioners were already occupying Stall No. 8. The partition between Stalls No. 7 and 8 had been removed and respondent’s merchandise and things were already gone. The Mallaris refused  Alsol’s demand demand to to vacate the stall.  With the help of the City Market Market Committee, Committee, Stall No. 7 was granted Mallari Mallari and and Stall No. No. 8 to Alsol. Alsol and the city government executed a lease contract with the right to occupy Stall No. 8 for a monthly rental of P316 subject to increase or decrease in accordance with with the city rules and ordinances. However, the Mallaris still refused to vacate and instead, they filed an action for annulment annulment of such contract before the RTC. ISSUE: Whether ISSUE: Whether or not the lease contract contract executed is valid. valid. HELD:  YES. Petitioners insist that the Lease Contract is not valid because the City Treasurer should have signed the Lease Contract and not Mayor Perez, the City Mayor. The Court agrees  with petitioners that RA 7160 is not the applicable law. It should have applied Batas Pambansa Blg. 337 or the old Local Government Code. Still, even under BP 337, city mayors have the authority to sign contracts on behalf of city governments. governments. Petitioners also allege that the Lease Contract is not valid because Mayor Perez did not appear before the notary public who notarized the document. Such argument argument was not sustained  by the Court. Notarization converts a private document into a public document. However, the nonappearance of the parties before the notary public who notarized the document does not necessarily nullify nor render the parties’ transaction void ab initio.  Thus: x x x Article 1358 of the New Civil Code on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. Failure to follow the proper form does not invalidate a contract. Where a contract is not in the form prescribed by law, the parties can merely compel each other to observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This is consistent with the basic principle that contracts are obligatory in whatever form they may have been entered into, provided all essential requisites are present. Hence, the Lease Contract is valid despite des pite Mayor Perez’s failure to appear before the notary public.