MELENCIO V.
DY TIAO LAY o Lease was for 20 years extendible for another
GR NO. L-32047| November 1, 1930
Ostrand, J.
eamtrinidad | Group 5
PETITONERS/PROSECUTORS: Manuel, Mariano, Pura, and
Caridad Melencio
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS: Dy Tiao Lay
TOPIC:
Co-ownership
To protest against acts of majority which are
prejudicial to minority
CASE SUMMARY: Plaintiffs are children/heirs of Ramon,
who co-owned land with his siblings and his nephew Jose P.
The land was leased to Yap Kui Chin by their Ramons
siblings, without signature of Ramon or Jose P. The rights of
Yap were assigned to defendant. Plaintiffs prayed that the
contract of lease be declared void because it involved alteration
of property but had no signature of all co-owners. SC held the
contract to be void, not because it lacked the signature of all
the co-owners but because it went beyond the 6-year limit set
by the Civil Code, since the contract was for 20 years
extendible by 40 more years (60 years total). The part owners
representing the greater portion of the property held in
common have no power to lease said property for a longer
period than six years without the consent of all the c-
oowners, whose propriety rights, expressly recognized by the
law, would by contracts of long duration be restricted or
annulled
FACTS:
Plaintiffs brought this present action against
defendant for the recovery of a parcel of land in
Nueva Ecija and demanded a monthly rental of P300
for the use of occupation of the land
o Also prayed that if found that defendant
occupied land by virtue of a contract of lease,
such contract be declared null and void for
lack of consent, concurrence, and ratification
by the owners thereof
Land was originally owned by Julian Melencio. He
died, left wife Ruperta Garcia, and 5 kids Juliana,
Ramon, Ruperta (yeah same name), Pedro R. and
Emilio.
Emilio had a son, Jose P. Then Emilio died.
Jose P. then succeeded his fathers interest in the land.
Ruperta Garcia, Pedro R., Juliana, and Ruperta
executed lease contract in favor of a Yap Kui Chin. No
mention of Ramon or Jose P. in the lease.
20 at lessees option.
o After termination of original period, lessors
had option to buy all the improvements on
the land but if they didnt exercise that
privilege, lease would continue for another
20 years
o The document was duly acknowledged but
was never recorded with register of deeds.
It appeared that Yap Kui Chin always dealt with
Pedro R. in lease matters. But then Pedro died.
Yap Kui Chin died also, so the lease was transferred
to Uy Eng Jui, then to defendant Dy Tiao Lay.
When Ramon died, his widow Liberata was
appointed administratrix of his estate, which included
the land registered under the torrens system. The
lease wasnt mentioned in the certificate of title but it
was stated that one house and three warehouses were
property of Yap Kui Chin.
Extrajudicial partition of land by heirs of Julian
Melencio, then heirs of Ramon Melencio (plaintiffs)
Liberata, as administratrix of estate of deceased
Ramon, collected rent for the lease at P20, and later
she demanded that the rent be raised to P300.
Defendant then told her that there was a written lease
and that he was entitled to an extension.
Plaintiffs insisted that there was no contract of lease
and anyway if there was, it was void because of the
following:
o Lease contract called for an alteration of the
property and thus needed to be signed by all
co-owners
o Contract duration was for a term over six
years, making it null and void because of
Civil Code Art 1548
o Contract duration was unreasonably long,
and against public policy
Trial court ruled in favor of defendant.
Hence this appeal
ISSUES:
WONthe contract of lease is void because it
contained alterations to the property and it wasnt
signed by all co-owners NO
WONthe contract of lease is void ANYWAY
because of other reasons YES.
RULING:
1st issue: NO.
o Plaintiffs contention is based on article 397
of the Civil Code which provides that "none
 of the owners shall, without the consent of intervenor Liberata Macapagal in her capacity as
the others, make any alterations in the administratrix of the estate of the deceased Ramon Melencio. It
common property even though such is further ordered that the defendant pay to said administratrix
alterations might be advantageous to all." a monthly rent of P50 for the occupation of the land from May
o We do not think that the alterations are of 1st, 1926, until the land is delivered to the administratrix. The
sufficient importance to nullify the lease, sum of P272 demanded by the defendant in his counterclaim
especially so since none of the co-owners may be deducted from the total amount of the rent due and
objected to such alterations until over unpaid. The building erected on the land by the defendant and
twenty years after the execution of the his predecessors in interest may be removed by him, or
contract of lease. The decision of this court otherwise disposed of, within six months from the
in the case of Enriquez vs. A. S. Watson and promulgation of this decision. Without costs. So ordered.
Co. (22 Phil., 623), contains a full discussion
of the effect of alterations of leased
community property, and no further
discussion upon the point need here be
considered.
2 nd issue: YES. The said contract of lease being for a
term of over six years, the same is null and void
pursuant to the provision of article 1548 of the Civil
Code. Also, the duration of the same is unreasonably
long, thus being against public policy.
o In the present case only a small majority of
the coowners executed the lease here in
question, and according to the terms of the
contract the lease might be given a duration
of sixty years;
o The part owners representing the greater
portion of the property held in common
have no power to lease said property for a
longer period than six years without the
consent of all the c-oowners, whose
propriety rights, expressly recognized by
the law, would by contracts of long
duration be restricted or annulled;
o As under article 1548 of the Civil Code such
contracts cannot be entered into by the
husband with respect to his wife's property,
by the parent or guardian with respect to
that of the child or ward, and by the
manager in default of special power, since
the contract of lease only produces personal
obligations, and cannot without the consent
of all persons interested or express authority
from the owner, be extended to include
stipulations which may alter its character,
changing it into a contract of partial
alienation of the property leased.

DISPOSITIVE: The appealed judgment as to the validity of

the lease is therefore reversed, and it is ordered that the
possession of the land in controversy be delivered to the