Henry Chua v. Emmanuel R. Andamo

Summary

This case involves a lease dispute where Henry Chua leased commercial property from Emmanuel Andamo but claimed he subleased it to Nelson Sin and was no longer liable for unpaid rentals from August 1997. The Metropolitan Trial Court and Court of Appeals ruled against Chua, while the Regional Trial Court favored him. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed that Chua remained liable as the original lessee under Article 1657 of the Civil Code, finding insufficient evidence that Andamo consented to transfer the lease obligations to Sin. The Court noted that Chua continued paying rent months after the alleged transfer and that his evidence was self-serving. The decision reinforces that lessees cannot unilaterally transfer their lease obligations without the lessor's clear consent, and that contractual obligations under lease agreements remain binding on the original parties absent competent proof of novation or substitution.