Case Digest (G.R. No. L-56135)
Facts:
- The case involves Spouses Ricardo and Lourdes Cortez as petitioners against Judge Serafin E. Camilon and Recaredo Coronel as respondents.
- The Cortez spouses resided in an apartment at 4541-D Quintos Street, Makati, Metro Manila.
- The landlord, Recaredo Coronel, sought to eject the Cortez spouses, claiming the apartment was needed for his daughter, Grace Coronel-Valdez.
- The Cortez spouses had a month-to-month lease agreement, which they argued had not expired.
- The initial ruling by the Makati Municipal Court favored the landlord.
- The Cortez spouses appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which upheld the lower court's decision.
- The case was escalated to the Supreme Court under Republic Act No. 5440, focusing on the landlord's need for the property and the lease agreement's nature.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision.
- The Court ruled that the landlord's need for the apartment for his daughter's use was a legitimate ground for ejectment, even for a month-to-month lease.
- The landl...(Unlock)
Ratio:
- The Court's reasoning was based on the interpretation of the Civil Code, Presidential Decree No. 20, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.
- The Civil Code permits judicial ejectment under specific circumstances, including the lessor's need for the property.
- The Court clarified that a landlord's need for the apartment for an immediate family member is a valid ground for ejectment, reg...continue reading
Case Digest (G.R. No. L-56135)
Facts:
The case involves the Spouses Ricardo and Lourdes Cortez as petitioners against Judge Serafin E. Camilon, the Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Pasig Branch VIII, and Recaredo Coronel as respondents. The events leading to this case began when the Cortez spouses were living in an apartment located at 4541-D Quintos Street, Makati, Metro Manila. The dispute arose when Recaredo Coronel, the landlord, sought to eject the Cortez spouses from the premises, claiming that he needed the apartment for his daughter, Grace Coronel-Valdez, who was residing with her in-laws on the same street. The Cortez spouses had a month-to-month lease agreement, which they argued had not expired, and thus, they contended that the ground for ejectment cited by the landlord was not applicable. The case was initially heard in the Makati Municipal Court, which ruled in favor of the landlord. The Cortez spouses appealed the decision to the Court of First Instance of Rizal, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. The case was brought to the Supreme Court under Republic Act No. 5440, focusing on the legal implications of the landlord's need for the property and...