Case Digest (G.R. No. 205539)
Facts:
Velia J. Cruz v. Spouses Maximo and Susan Christensen, G.R. No. 205539, October 04, 2017, Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Velia J. Cruz (Cruz) sued respondents Maximo and Susan Christensen (the Spouses Christensen) for unlawful detainer after alleging respondents occupied property she inherited and refused to vacate and pay unpaid rentals; the case reached the Court by a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45.Cruz claimed ownership of a parcel in San Juan City inherited from her mother and alleged that Susan Christensen (Susan) had occupied the property under a verbal month-to-month lease dating from 1969. Cruz tolerated the occupancy until, she said, respondents repeatedly failed to pay the agreed monthly rent of P1,000, prompting her to demand payment and possession. The parties underwent barangay conciliation in 2005, which produced a Certificate to File Action; no compromise was reached.
On August 5, 2008, Cruz — through counsel — sent a final demand letter to Susan to pay unpaid rentals and vacate within 15 days. When the Spouses Christensen allegedly failed to comply, Cruz filed an unlawful detainer complaint on April 27, 2009. Respondents admitted long-term month-to-month occupancy and contended they had paid rents until 2002 and that Cruz thereafter refused payments; Susan denied receiving the 2008 demand letter and disavowed the registry return card signature.
At the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Branch 58, San Juan City, the complaint was dismissed (Decision of June 3, 2010) on the ground that registry receipts and return cards were insufficient proof of service absent authentication by an affidavit of the server and proof of who actually received the letter. Cruz appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 160, Pasig City, which on December 29, 2010 reversed the MTC and ordered respondents to vacate, surrender possession, pay accrued rentals (P1,000/month from April 2000 as found), attorney’s fees, and costs.
The Spouses Christensen appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA) arguing, inter alia, that Cruz’s memorandum of appeal to the RTC was filed late and that Cruz failed to prove receipt of the demand letter. On October 11, 2012 the CA (Special Ninth Division) reversed the RTC and reinstated the MTC decision, holding the late memorandum warranted dismissal u...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Should the Regional Trial Court have dismissed Cruz’s appeal for filing her memorandum of appeal beyond the 15-day period under Rule 40, Section 7 of the Rules of Court?
- Was a prior demand to pay or to vacate required before filing an action for unlawful detainer where the parties had a month-to-month lease?
- Did Cruz prove that the Spouses Christensen actually received the de...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)