Case Digest (G.R. No. 77647)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 77647)
Facts:
This is Cetus Development, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, Ederlina Navalta, et al., G.R. Nos. 77647–77652, promulgated August 07, 1989, First Division, Medialdea, J., writing for the Court. The petition sought review of the Court of Appeals decision of January 30, 1987 (CA-GR Nos. SP-07945-50) affirming the dismissal of six ejectment actions.The private respondents — Ederlina Navalta, Ong Teng, Jose Liwanag, Leandro Canlas, Victoria Sudario, and Flora Nagbuya — were month-to-month lessees of premises at No. 512 Quezon Boulevard, Quiapo, Manila, originally owned by Susana Realty. Individual verbal rents ranged roughly P40–P100 monthly and were customarily paid to a collector who visited the premises monthly. In March 1984 Susana Realty sold the property to petitioner Cetus Development, Inc. From April to June 1984 the tenants paid rents to a collector sent by petitioner; no collector appeared for July through September 1984 and the tenants did not pay those months' rents.
On October 9, 1984 petitioner sent each lessee a letter demanding payment of arrears for July–September 1984 and that they vacate within fifteen days. Upon receipt (October 10, 1984) the respondents immediately tendered and petitioner accepted the arrearages, expressly subject to the unilateral notation that acceptance was "without prejudice to the filing of an ejectment suit"; subsequent monthly payments were likewise accepted under the same reservation.
Petitioner filed six separate ejectment complaints in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (cases Nos. 105972–105977-CV). The respondents answered, alleging that their nonpayment was caused by petitioner's failure to send a collector and that they had inquired where to pay but were told a collector would be sent. The cases were consolidated in MTC Branch XII (Judge Eduardo S. Quintos, Jr.) and, on June 4, 1985, the MTC dismissed all complaints, finding that acceptance of backrent before filing negated the cause of action and citing equity and humanitarian considerations; counterclaims for litigation expenses were dismissed.
Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch IX (Judge Conrado T. Limcaoco), which on November 19, 1985, dismissed the appeal for lack of merit. Petitioner then sought review in the Court of Appeals; the CA dismissed the petition on January 30, 1987, holding there was no accrued cause of action because the tenants paid immediately after petitioner's demand and because the jurisdictional demand required by Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court had not produced a default prior to suit. Petitioner filed the present petition for review on certiorari (Rule 45) to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals commit grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction by holding that there was no cause of action for unlawful detainer when respondents tendered and petitioner accepted payment of the three months' arrears within fifteen days of demand?
- Was the dismissal of the ejectment complaints improper despite petitioner’s asserted grounds for judicial ejectment (including the reservation "without prejudice" upon acceptance)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in characterizing these cases as attempts to circumvent the Rent Control Law?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)