A. In this case, the court affirmed the eviction of the petitioner, Army and Navy Club of Manila, Inc. from the property, therefore also dismissing their filed petition. The reasons being that the petitioner was non-compliant to the contractual obligations of the lease agreement they agreed to in January 1983 that states that they had to pay an annual rent of 250,000 pesos with a 10% increase every year, and to cover real estate taxes; Failing to meet these obligations, the club garnered 7.2 million pesos worth of rental arrears and around 6.5 million pesos worth of real estate tax liabilities on Octover 1989. In addition, the respondent, the City of Manila, filed for the eviction of the petitioner, which the latter argued to the Supreme Court that their location was declared as a historical landmark, therefore implying that they cannot be evicted from the property. Yet, their argument was also dismissed as this claim did not grant them ownership of the property.
B. I agree with the court's decision of evicting Army and Navy Club from the property. Their failure to oblige to the lease agreements already violates Rent Control Act of 2009, Section 2, Article 1657 that states the lessee must pay the price of the lease according to the terms stipulated. Even after that fact, their claim of their property being a historical landmark and preventing eviction because of it was questioned of its validity; They had no certification or any proof that may prove the validity of their claim. According to RA 10086, the National Historical Commission of the Philippines only had the power to declare historical landmarks as well as oversee their conservation but even with the declaration from NHCP that the property was a historical landmark, it does not grant the club possessory rights or ownership of ths property as they agreed to the lease agreement initially. In addition, NHCP only declared the site as a historical landmark three years after the filed eviction.