ARMY AND NAVY CLUB v.
CA something to be classified as historical and cultural
April 8, 1997 | Kapunan, J. | Classification of Property
into Historical Treasures or Landmarks
ISSUE/s:
1. W/N the Court of Appeals erred in
affirming the decision of the MTC – NO.
RULING: The decision of the CA is affirmed.
RATIO:
• The instant case is a simple ejectment suit. The
petitioner failed to pay rent for 7 consecutive years.


• Article 1673 of the New Civil Code states that the lessor
may judicially eject the lessee for causes, including
the violation of any of the conditions agreed upon
in the contract. 
 is hall be the policy of the state to preserve and
• When the classification of property into historical
treasures or landmarks will involve the imposition
of limits on ownership, the Bill of Rights demands
that it be done with due process both substantive
and procedural. 
 proprety. By virtue of the lease contract, petitioner
• A certain procedure must be complied with for
propery, which was provided for in PD 374 (SEE
CASE FOR PROCEDURE) 

• In the case at hand, there is no showing that the
procedure has been complied with, and it seems
like the declaration (which was conferred only in
1992, three years after the action for ejectment was
instituted) was merely an afterthought, an attempt
to thwart any legal action taken against the
petitioner. 

• Nonetheless, such certification does not give any
authority to the petitioner to lay claim of
ownership, or any right over the subject property.
Nowhere in the law does it state that such
recognition grants possessory rights over the
peoprty to the petitioner. The law merely states that
protect the important cultural properties and
National Cultural Treasures of the nation and to
safeguard their intrinsic value. 

• Unfortunately, petitioner is merely a lessee of the
had obligations to fulfill. Petitioner cannot just hide
behind some recognition bestowed upon it in order
 to escape from its obligation or remain in historical landmark by the National Historical
possession. 
 Commission. The Court held that if in case the procedure
for declaration had been followed, petitioner cannot run
• The Court finds no reversible error in the summary from his obligations as he is only a lessee. The law merely
judgment rendered by the trial court. Moreover, merely states that is hall be the policy of the state to
there is clearly no substantial triable issue. 
 preserve and protect the important cultural properties and
National Cultural Treasures of the nation and to safeguard
• The argument that it was declared a historical landmark, their intrinsic value. Hence, the Court affirmed the
is not a substantial issue of fact which does not, in deicions of the CA.
any way, alter or affect the merit of the ejectment
suit. 
 DOCTRINE: When the classification of property into
historical treasures or landmarks will involve the
• Having admitted in the original answer that the City of imposition of limits on ownership, the Bill of Rights
Manila is the registered owner of the property and demands that it be done with due process both substantive
that it leased the property from it, petitioner cannot and procedural.
now deny such claim of ownership. 


PETITIONER: Army and Navy Club of Manila, Inc. FACTS:

RESPONDENTS: Court of Appeals, etc.
SUMMARY: The City of Manila filed an ejectment suit
against Army and Navy Club of Manila, Inc. for violating
the contract of lease. Petitioner did not construct a multi-
story hotel, did not pay rent and taxes as agreed upon.
Petitioner believes the Court of Appeals erred in affirming
the decisions of the lower courts. Petitioner invokes the
argument that said property has been declared a national
• On November 29, 1989, the City of Manila filed an
action against petitioner with the MTC for
ejectment for violation of the contract of lease. 

• Said Contract stated that the lessee shall construct, at its
own expense, a modern multi-storied hotel at a cost
of not less thant P50M, which shall automatically
belong to lessor upon expiration and/or termination
of lease agreement. It also stated that the lessee
 shall pay a rent of P250,000 per year, and that the
lessee shall pay the realty tax, fees and charges. 


• The unpaid rent amounted to P1,604,166.70 as of May

1989, and the tax liability amounted to
P3,818,913.81 as of December 1989. 


• The City of Manila filed a Motion for Summary

Judgment on the ground that there exists no
genuine tri-able issue in the case The MTC ordered
the petitioner to vacate the premises, and to pay
(with legal interest) the amount due. 


• The Regional Trial Court also affirmed the decision of

the MTC, and the Court of Appealse denied the
motion for reconsideration of petitioner. 


• Petitioner invoked and capitalized on the fact that the

Army and Navy Club has been declared a national
historical landmark by the National Historical
Commission on June 29, 1992. He contends that all
parties are enjoined by law to preserve its existence
and site.