JOCELYN MODOMO AND DR. ROMY MODOMO, PETITIONERS, V.

On the contrary[, Spouses Modomo] argued that[: the] parties originally

SPOUSES MOISES P. LAYUG, JR. AND FELISARIN[*] E. LAYUG; MOISES agreed that [Spouses Modomo w]ould pay the amount of Php170,000.00
P. LAYUG, JR., SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: HIS WIFE, subject to an escalation of 10% for the second and third year, 15% on the
FELISARIN E. LAYUG, AND CHILDREN, MA. CELESTE LAYUG CO, fourth and fifth year and 20% on the sixth and seventh year. However,
EUGENE ESPINOSA LAYUG, FRANCIS ESPINOSA LAYUG AND SHERYL considering that [Jocelyn] Modomo [had] introduce [d] improvements
ESPINOSA LAYUG, RESPONDENTS. thereon[,] she [asked] [Spouses Layug] to change certain provisions in the
G.R. No. 197722 | 2019-08-14 Contract of Lease. Based on their conversation[,] [Spouses Layug] agreed to
DECISION reduce the monthly rentals to Php150,000.00 and the non-imposition of the
  escalation clause and the real estate tax provision. [Spouses Modomo]
CAGUIOA, J.:[**] religiously paid the rentals strictly in accordance with their subsequent
  agreements. [Spouses Layug], on the second year of the [C]ontract [of
The Case Lease], imposed the 10% escalation x x x. [Spouses Modomo] however,
  reminded [Spouses Layug] of their previous agreement regarding the non-
This is a petition for review on certiorari[1] (Petition) filed under Rule 45 of the imposition of the escalation clause and the real estate tax
Rules of Court against the Decision[2] dated March 22, 2011 (assailed provision. Thereafter, [Spouses Modomo] alleged that [Spouses Layug
Decision) and Resolution[3] dated July 20, 2011 (assailed Resolution) in CA- agreed not to] impose the escalation clause [in] the [C]ontract of [L]ease in
G.R. SP No. 113807 rendered by the Court of Appeals (CA). view of the introduction of the improvements in the premises amounting to
  approximately Two Million pesos [Php2,000,000.00]. Again [i]n 2008[,
The assailed Decision and Resolution affirm the lower courts' uniform rulings Spouses Layug] [purportedly] reneged on their agreements by imposing the
which ordered petitioners Dr. Romy Modomo and Jocelyn Modomo escalation clause. Therefore, [Spouses Modomo] pray[ed] that the case be
(collectively, Spouses Modomo) to immediately surrender possession of a dismissed because the [C]ontract of [L]ease dated February 11, 2005 ha[d]
certain parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. been amended by the subsequent oral agreements between the parties.
208683 registered in the name of respondents Moises P. Layug, Jr. and [Spouses Modomo further claimed that Spouses Layug] are in estoppel in
Felisarin E. Layug (collectively, Spouses Layug).[4] pais, [due to] their unconditional acceptance of the reduced x x x monthly
  [rental] x x x of Php150,000.00 instead of Php170,000.00. [Spouses
The Facts Modomo] also alleged that the [C]ontract of [L]ease has been novated in
  view of the subsequent oral agreements of the parties. Hence, [Spouses
The facts, as narrated by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Makati City, Modomo] pray[ed] for the dismissal of the case and [that] they be [declared]
Branch 64, and subsequently adopted by the CA, are as follows: entitled to their counterclaim.[6] (Emphasis supplied)
   
[Spouses Layug filed] a complaint for [e]jectment x x x before the [MeTC], MeTC Ruling
Branch 65 of Makati on July 23, 2008 which was raffled off to [Branch 64]  
after a failed Mediation and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) x x x. On July 20, 2009, the MeTC issued a Decision [7] in favor of Spouses Layug,
  the dispositive portion of which reads:
xxxx  
  WHEREFORE, the [MeTC] renders judgment ordering [Spouses Modomo] to
[Spouses Layug] alleged among others that[:] they are the registered immediately surrender the peaceful possession of the leased property with
owner[s] and legal possessors of a parcel of land located at No. 1038 A.P. improvements thereon located at No. 1038 A.P. Reyes Street corner
Reyes Street corner Cristobal Street, Barangay Tejeros, Makati City covered Cristobal Street, Barangay Tejeros, Makati City.
by [Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT)] No. 208683. Aforesaid property was  
leased to [Spouses Modomo] for a period of seven (7) years. Pursuant to the [Spouses Modomo] are likewise ordered to pay [Spouses Layug] the amount
[Contract of Lease[5] dated February 11, 2005 (Contract of Lease), Spouses of Php3,119,200.00 as rental arrearages. The amount of Php208,725.00 per
Modomo agreed to] pay the amount of Php170,000.00 as monthly rentals month as payment for the reasonable use and occupation of the property [is
subject to an escalation of 10% for the second and third year, 15% on the also imposed], computed from July 23, 2008 until [Spouses Modomo]
fourth and fifth year and 20% on the sixth and seventh year. It was also actually [vacate] the premises.
agreed by the parties that real estate taxes on the property shall be paid by  
[Spouses Modomo]. In view of [these] stipulation[s], an Addendum to the [Spouses Modomo] are also ordered to pay [Spouses Layug] Php10,000.00
Contract was executed by the parties [also] on February 11, 2005 regarding as attorney's fees. Costs against [Spouses Modomo].
the terms and conditions of payment of rentals. Subsequently, [Spouses  
Modomo] defaulted in the payment of the escalation of [rental fees] The [MeTC] DISMISSES the counterclaim filed by [Spouses Modomo].
commencing from the year 2006 up to [the filing of the complaint for  
ejectment on Jury 23, 2008]. [Spouses Modomo] also failed to pay their So Ordered.[8] (Emphasis supplied)
rentals for the year 2008 which would have been paid in advance. [Spouses  
Layug] also alleged, that [Spouses Modomo] failed to pay the real estate RTC Proceedings
taxes due on the property x x x which [Spouses Layug] paid in [Spouses  
Modomo's] behalf. [Spouses Layug sent a] letter x x x to [Spouses Modomo] Spouses Modomo filed an appeal before the RTC[9] via  Rule 40 of the Rules
[demanding that they] settle their unpaid monthly rentals x x x but to no of Court.
avail. Ultimately, [a] letter dated March 24, 2008 was sent to [Spouses  
Modomo] terminating the [C]ontract [of Lease] and containing therein a Therein, Spouses Modomo insisted that Spouses Layug failed to refute the
demand for [Spouses Modomo] to vacate the premises. To thresh out the existence of their subsequent oral agreement which caused the novation of
matter, the case was referred to the Barangay of Tejeros for conciliation but the Contract of Lease, particularly the provisions: (i) fixing the rental fee at
to no avail. Hence, a certification to file action was issued. To protect [their] Php 170,000.00; (ii) imposing annual escalation on rental fees; and (iii)
interest, [Spouses Layug] instituted the present suit claiming that [Spouses requiring Spouses Layug to pay real estate tax during the lease term.
[10]
Modomo] should vacate the premises, x x x pay [Spouses Layug] rental  Spouses Modomo further argued that Spouses Layug are estopped from
arrearages, attorney's fees and costs of suit. denying the existence of such oral agreement, considering that they
 
accepted their monthly rental payments at the reduced amount of Php additional period of thirty (30) days, or until September 9, 2011, to file their
150,000.00 without protest.[11] Petition.
   
In its Decision[12] dated January 28, 2010, the RTC affirmed the findings of Finally, this Petition was filed on September 9, 2011, the last day of the
the MeTC in toto, disposing the case in these words: additional period prayed for.
   
After a careful consideration of the pleadings and the evidence on record, On October 3, 2011, the Court issued a Resolution [26] granting Spouses
this Court finds that the court-a-quo did not commit an error in rendering Modomo's Motion for Extension, and directing Spouses Layug to file their
judgment in favor of [Spouses Layug]. comment to the Petition.
   
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the appealed decision is hereby It appears, however, that the RTC issued a Writ of Execution against
AFFIRMED with costs against [Spouses Modomo]. Spouses Modomo for the satisfaction of the monetary award granted in
  Spouses Layug's favor. Hence, Spouses Modomo's real property covered by
SO ORDERED.[13] TCT No. T-130972 was made subject of a Notice of Sheriffs Sale on
  Execution of Real Property[27] scheduled on March 5 and 9 of the following
Like the MeTC, the RTC also harped on the Parole Evidence Rule set forth in year.[28] This prompted Spouses Modomo to file an Urgent Motion for the
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court [14] and held that if the parties' real intention Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Status Quo Order [29] (Urgent
was to "cancel" the original Contract of Lease, they should have executed a Motion) on February 21, 2012.
new Contract of Lease expressing "their intention to eliminate the  
stipulation[s] regarding the escalation clause and the provision on real estate The Urgent Motion was opposed by Spouses Layug through their Comment
tax."[15] (To Petitioners' Urgent Motion) [30] filed on June 25, 2012. Appended to this
  Comment is a copy of the RTC's Order [31] dated March 2, 2012 granting the
The RTC also noted that while Spouses Layug accepted Spouses Modomo's Urgent Motion to Defer Sale on Execution filed therein by Spouses Modomo.
monthly rental payments in the reduced amount of Php150,000.00 without The Order states, in part:
escalation, they did not do so unconditionally. As basis, the RTC cited  
Spouses Layug's letters dated December 7, 2006, February 6, 2007 and In this case, considering that there is a pending Urgent Motion for the
January 9, 2008 objecting to Spouses Modomo's deficient payments.[16] Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order/Status Quo and Petition for
  Review on Certiorari  under Rule 45 before the Honorable Supreme Court x x
Spouses Modomo filed a motion for reconsideration, which the RTC denied x [the RTC], which is a mere lower [c]ourt, deems it wise and appropriate to
on April 6, 2010.[17] defer the scheduled auction sale on March 5 and 9, 2012, so as not to render
  the issues pending before the High Court moot and moribund. Moreover, the
CA Proceedings Court believes that the deferment of the auction sale will not prejudice nor
  cause irreparable damage against [Spouses Layug] considering that should
Aggrieved, Spouses Modomo filed a petition for review before the CA, the High Court rule on the pending issues therein, [the RTC] can promptly
reiterating the arguments they raised before the RTC. act accordingly.
   
The CA denied said petition through the assailed Decision, [18] the dispositive WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, [Spouses Modomo's] Urgent Motion
portion of which reads: to Defer Sale on Execution is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the auction
  sale scheduled on March 5 and 9, 2012 is hereby deferred until further
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review is ordered.[32] (Italics supplied)
hereby DENIED DUE COURSE and accordingly, DISMISSED for lack of  
merit. The assailed Decision dated January 28, 2010 and Order dated April According to Spouses Layug, the foregoing Order rendered Spouses
6, 2010, issued by the RTC, Branch 59, Makati, in Civil Case No. 09-981 are Modomo's Urgent Motion before this Court moot and academic.[33]
hereby AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION that petitioners are  
further ORDERED to pay [Spouses Layug] legal interest of twelve percent Spouses Layug's Comment on the Urgent Motion was noted by the Court
(12%) per annum on the back rentals [amounting to Php3,119,200.00] from through its Resolution[34] dated September 3, 2012.
the date of judicial demand on July 23, 2008 until fully paid.  
  Meanwhile, Spouses Layug filed their Comment [35] to the Petition on January
SO ORDERED.[19] 4, 2012, to which Spouses Modomo filed their Reply.[36]
   
The CA held that Spouses Modomo failed to establish the concurrence of the In this Petition, Spouses Modomo fault the CA for ruling that no novation of
requisites necessary to extinguish or modify the Contract of Lease by way of the Contract of Lease had taken place. [37] In this connection, Spouses
novation.[20] As well, the CA affirmed the lower courts' findings regarding the Modomo also claim that the CA erred when it failed to apply the principle of
inapplicability of the principle of estoppel.[21] estoppel in pais in the present case.[38]
   
Finally, considering that Spouses Modomo vacated the leased premises on Finally, Spouses Modomo argue that the CA erred in failing to rule upon their
November 2009, the CA clarified that the monetary award of Php208,725.00 claim for reimbursement for useful improvements under Article 1678 of the
per month as payment for reasonable use and occupation of the leased Civil Code.[39]
premises shall run from the filing of the complaint for ejectment in July 2008,  
but only until the surrender of the leased premises in November 2009.[22] The Issues
   
Spouses Modomo's subsequent motion for reconsideration was also denied The issues submitted for the Court's resolution are:
through the CA's assailed Resolution, [23] which the former received on July  
26, 2011.[24] 1. Whether the provisions of the Contract of Lease governing rental fees,
On August 5, 2011, Spouses Modomo filed a Motion for Extension of Time to escalation and real estate tax payment have been partially novated by the
File Petition for Review on Certiorari[25] (Motion for Extension), praying for an parties' alleged subsequent verbal agreement;
   
2. Whether the principle of estoppel  in pais applies so as to preclude Foremost, the Spouses Layug served upon Spouses Modomo several
Spouses Layug from denying the partial novation of the Contract of Lease; Statements of Account[42] reflecting the latter's unpaid balance. These
and statements show that Spouses Layug consistently computed Spouses
  Modomo's unpaid balance on the basis of the lowered monthly rental fee of
3. Whether Spouses Modomo are entitled to reimbursement for useful Php150,000.00, instead of Php170,000.00.
improvements made upon the leased property. In addition, Spouses Layug's Letter[43] dated March 24, 2008 (Final Demand)
  also reflects a computation of Spouses Modomo's unpaid balance on the
The Court's Decision basis of the lowered monthly rental fee.
   
The Petition is granted in part. Finally, any doubt as to the modification of the monthly rental fee is dispelled
  by the statements in Spouses Layug's Comment to the Petition which
Partial Novation unequivocally confirm such modification:
   
Spouses Modomo adamantly insist that the terms of the Contract of Lease x x x The alleged novation on the monthly rental rate of [Php]150,000.00
governing rental fees, escalation and real estate tax payments have been from [Php]170,000.00 would not in anyway novate an existing and valid
modified through a subsequent verbal agreement. contract whereby all its valid and enforceable stipulations would be put to
  naught.
Spouses Modomo alludes to the existence of a partial novation, governed by  
Article 1291 of the Civil Code which states: xxxx
   
ART. 1291. Obligations may be modified by: In fine, it may be true that the rental rate of [Php]170,000.00 was modified by
  the parties and a novation of the principal condition of the [C]ontract of
(1) Changing their object or principal conditions; [L]ease was thereby effected, nevertheless, such a modification did not
(2) Substituting the person of the debtor; render the [C]ontract of [L]ease as totally extinguished but rather[,] merely
(3) Subrogating a third person in the rights of the creditor. (Emphasis modified. In fine, all other conditions of the contract[,] including the escalation
supplied) clause on the monthly rental rate and the proportional payment of real
  property taxes and assessments by [Spouses Modomo] remain valid and
Noted civilist Justice Eduardo P. Caguioa elucidated on the concept of subsisting.[44] (Emphasis supplied)
modificatory novation as follows:  
  These statements, coupled with the computation in the Statements of
x x x Novation has been defined as the substitution or alteration of an Account and Final Demand, confirm the parties' subsequent verbal
obligation by a subsequent one that cancels or modifies the preceding one. agreement to lower the monthly rental fee from Php170,000.00 to
Unlike other modes of extinction of obligations, novation is a juridical act of Php150,000.00. Notably, even the MeTC, RTC and CA appear to have
dual function, in that at the time it extinguishes an obligation, it creates a new computed Spouses Layug's award for rental arrearages based on the
one in lieu of the old. x x x This is not to say however, that in every case of lowered rental fee,[45] despite the absence of an explicit recognition of the
novation the old obligation is necessarily extinguished. Our Civil Code now rental fee's modification in their respective judgments.
admits of the so-called imperfect or modificatory novation where the original  
obligation is not extinguished but modified or changed in some of the Spouses Modomo failed to establish that the provisions governing escalation
principal conditions of the obligation. Thus, article 1291 provides that and proportional payment of real estate tax payment have been similarly
obligations may be modified.[40] (Emphasis supplied) modified.
   
While the Civil Code permits the subsequent modification of existing While the records bear sufficient evidence to show the subsequent
obligations, these obligations cannot be deemed modified in the absence of modification of the monthly rental fee, no similar evidence exists on record to
clear evidence to this effect. Novation is never presumed, and the animus warrant the non-imposition of the provisions on annual escalation and
novandi, whether total or partial, must appear by express agreement of the proportional payment of real estate tax.
parties, or by their acts that are too clear and unequivocal to be mistaken. [41]  
  To note, the parties took pains to execute two written Addenda for the
Accordingly, the burden to show the existence of novation lies on the party purpose of modifying the terms and conditions of the parties' Contract of
alleging the same. Lease.
   
Applying the foregoing principles, the Court finds that while there has been a The first Addendum[46] dated February 11, 2005 sets forth a detailed
modificatory novation of the Contract of Lease through the parties' schedule of payment of rentals for the entire seven (7)-year term of the
subsequent verbal agreement, such novation relates solely to the lowering of lease.
the monthly rental fee from Php170,000.00 to Php150,000.00.  
  The second Addendum[47] dated February 15, 2005 reflects the following
The provisions governing escalation and real estate tax payment, as set forth modifications in relation to taxes and assessments, among others:
under the Contract of Lease and modified by the subsequent written  
Addenda, stand. WHEREAS, the LESSORS and LESSEE thereat mutually further agree to
  incorporate the following corrections to and additional stipulations to form
The modification of the monthly rental fee through the parties' subsequentpart of the Contract of Lease, to wit:
verbal agreement is confirmed by the evidence on record, and Spouses 
Layug's own submissions. xxxx
   
The records are replete with evidence confirming the modification of the TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS
monthly rental fee through the subsequent verbal agreement of the parties.  
For the entire duration of this contract, including any extension and renewal  
thereof, the parties agreed that the LESSEE shall pay all taxes and Finally, Spouses Modomo maintain that they are entitled to reimbursement
assessments due the government for the portion of the above-mentioned under Article 1678 of the Civil Code, which reads:
parcels of land occupied by the building constructed thereon by  
the LESSEE which is the subject of this lease. The parties agree to share ART. 1678. If the lessee makes, in good faith, useful improvements which
whatever assessment of taxes for every year during the term of this Contract are suitable to the use for which the lease is intended, without altering the
on the following sharing basis, to wit: form or substance of the property leased, the lessor upon the termination of
  the lease shall pay the lessee one-half of the value of the improvements at
that time. Should the lessor refuse to reimburse said amount, the lessee may
Lessors Lessee
remove the improvements, even though the principal thing may suffer
damage thereby. He shall not, however, cause any more impairment upon
Lot 40% 60% the property leased than is necessary.
[48]
 
Building 25% 75% Suffice it to state that Spouses Modomo have, by their own acts, deprived
  the Spouses Layug of the option to appropriate the improvements made
To be sure, neither the first nor second Addendum has the effect of: (i) upon the leased premises by causing their demolition. Notably, Spouses
waiving the imposition of escalation; or (ii) completely absolving Spouses Modomo did not dispute that they had "vacated the leased premises [and]
Modomo from real estate tax liability. On the contrary, these Addenda left no single piece of wood or materials on the premises [and] demolished
[55]
reinforce the parties' intention to: (i) impose annual escalation at the rates set everything."  Hence, they are precluded from seeking reimbursement for
forth under the Contract of Lease; and (ii) impose proportional payment of improvements that are now inexistent.
real estate tax during the subsistence of the lease.  
  The computation of rental arrearages and compensation for reasonable use of
If the parties truly intended to further modify the Contract of Lease by the leased premises, together with applicable interest, must be corrected.
deleting the provisions on escalation and proportional payment of real estate  
tax, they would have done so through  another written document, as they The assailed Decision awards the following amounts in Spouses Layug's
have consistently done with all modifications relating to such matters. It must favor:
be stressed that unlike the modification of the monthly rental fee which is  
supported by several pieces of documentary evidence and confirmed by 1. Rental arrearages amounting to Php3,119,200.00, with 12% interest
Spouses Layug's own submissions, the modification of the provisions on computed from the date of judicial demand (i.e., filing of the complaint for
annual escalation and proportional payment of real estate tax is supported ejectment on July 23, 2008);
solely by Spouses Modomo's own self-serving statements.  
  2. Payment for reasonable use and occupation of the leased premises
Estoppel does not apply. amounting to Php208,725.00 per month from the filing of the complaint for
  ejectment in July 2008 to November 2009, when Spouses Modomo finally
Spouses Modomo also insist that Spouses Layug should be precluded from vacated the leased premises; and
denying the partial novation of the Contract of Lease since they accepted  
Spouses Modomo's monthly rental payments without escalation and 3. Attorney's fees amounting to Php10,000.00.
proportional share in the real estate tax for three (3) years, starting on the  
second year of the lease term. As basis, Spouses Modomo harp on the The Court notes that the value of rental arrearages was arrived at by
principle of estoppel in pais. applying the escalation rates stipulated under the Contract of Lease, thus:
  REFER TO THE GRAPH BELOW
Estoppel in pais arises when one, by his acts, representations or  
admissions, or by his own silence when he ought to speak out, intentionally  
or through culpable negligence, induces another to believe certain facts to Considering that the provision on the proportional sharing of real estate tax
exist and such other rightfully relies and acts on such belief, so that he will be liability remains effective, the Court deems it proper to award, in addition to
prejudiced if the former is permitted to deny the existence of such facts.[49] rental arrearages, Spouses Modomo's unpaid share in real estate taxes
  amounting to Php27,539.80.[60]
For the principle of estoppel in pais  to apply, there must be: (i) conduct  
amounting to false representation or concealment of material facts or at least As well, the Court finds that the additional award for monthly payment for
calculated to convey the impression that the facts are otherwise than, and reasonable use and occupation of the leased premises should start to
inconsistent with, those which the party subsequently attempts to assert; (ii) run not from the filing of the complaint for ejectment on July 23, 2008, but
intent, or at least expectation that this conduct shall be acted upon, or at rather in January 2009, considering that the award for rental arrearages
least influenced by the other party; and (iii) knowledge, actual or already includes unpaid rental fees for the entire year of 2008, that is, until
constructive, of the actual facts.[50] December 2008.
   
Based on the records, Spouses Layug served upon Spouses Modomo Finally, inasmuch as the rental arrearages and unpaid real estate taxes do
[61]
several letters dated December 7, 2006, [51] February 6, 2007[52] and January not constitute a loan or forbearance of money,  the proper interest
[53]
9, 2008  expressing their objection to the latter's deficient payments. applicable thereon is not 12%, but 6% per annum.
[54]
 These letters belie Spouses Modomo's imputation of silence and  
acquiescence on the part of Spouses Layug. It can hardly be said that WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition is GRANTED IN PART.
Spouses Layug falsely conveyed their acquiescence to Spouses Modomo's The Decision dated March 22, 2011 rendered by the Court of Appeals in CA-
deficient payments through silence, there being no "silence" to speak of. G.R. SP No. 113807 is AFFIRMED WITH MODIFICATION.
   
Spouses Modomo are not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of
improvements made on the leased property.
 Petitioners Dr. Romy Modomo and Jocelyn Modomo are ORDERED TO when respondents surrendered possession of the leased premises in
PAY respondents Spouses Moises P. Layug, Jr. and Felisarin E. Layug the November 2009, amounting to a total of Php2,295,975.00, with 6% interest
following amounts: per annum from December 1, 2009 until finality of this Decision;
   
1. Rental arrearages and unpaid real estate taxes amounting 3. Attorney's fees amounting to Php10,000.00; and
to Php3,146,739.80, with 6% interest per annum computed from the date of  
judicial demand (i.e., filing of the complaint for ejectment on July 23, 2008) 4. The sum of the amounts in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 herein, with 6% interest
until finality of this Decision; per annum from finality of this Decision until full satisfaction.
   
2. Payment for reasonable use and occupation of the leased premises at the SO ORDERED.
rate of Php208,725.00 per month from January 2009 until November 2009,

Unpaid rental on the second floor during construction Php 56,500.00

Unpaid rental on the 10% increase for the year 2006 (Php165,000.00[56] - Php150,000.00 - Php15,000.00 x 12 months) 180,000.00

Unpaid rental on the 10% increase for the year 2007 (Php181,500.00[57] - Php 150,000.00 = Php31,500 x 12 months) 378,000.00

Unpaid rental for the entire year of 2008 payable at the beginning of the year per first Addendum, plus 15% escalation (Php208,725.00 [58] x 12 months) 2,504,700.00

Php3,119,200.00[59]