Case Digest (G.R. No. 172577)
Facts:
In Soledad Dalton v. FGR Realty and Development Corporation, the respondent Flora R. Dayrit originally owned a 1,811-square-meter parcel at the corner of Rama Avenue and Velez Street in Cebu City, which she leased in portions to Soledad Dalton and several others. In June 1985, Dayrit sold the property to FGR Realty and Development Corporation. In August 1985, Dayrit and FGR ceased accepting rentals and sought to terminate the leases. On September 11, 1985, Dalton and the other lessees filed a complaint in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and consigned unpaid rentals with the court without notifying Dayrit or FGR. Between 1987 and 1994, Dayrit and FGR withdrew the consigned amounts each time, expressly reserving the right to question the consignation’s validity. Dayrit and the co-lessees (except Dalton) entered into compromise agreements in March and June 1997, abandoning all claims against each other. On February 26, 2002, the RTC dismissed Dalton’s complaint for lack of valid con...Case Digest (G.R. No. 172577)
Facts:
- Parties and Property
- Flora R. Dayrit owned a 1,811-sqm parcel at the corner of Rama Avenue and Velez Street, Cebu City.
- Soledad Dalton and co-lessees (Clemente Sasam, Romulo Villalonga, et al.) leased portions of this property.
- In June 1985, Dayrit sold the property to FGR Realty and Development Corporation (FGR).
- Consignation, Trial and Appeals
- In August 1985, Dayrit and FGR refused further rent and demanded lessees vacate. On September 11, 1985, Dalton and Sasam et al. filed a complaint and deposited rents in court without prior notice to Dayrit and FGR.
- Dayrit and FGR, through motions in 1987–1994, withdrew these deposits, expressly reserving rights to contest consignation validity.
- Dayrit, FGR and Sasam et al. entered into compromise agreements on March 25 and June 20, 1997, abandoning mutual claims; Dalton did not join.
- The RTC, in a February 26, 2002 Decision, dismissed Dalton’s complaint, ruled the consignation invalid for lack of prior and subsequent notice, found Dalton using the premises for business, and ordered her to vacate.
- The Court of Appeals, in a November 9, 2005 Decision and April 10, 2006 Resolution, affirmed the RTC: Dalton’s consignation failed requisites 3 and 5 (notice), and factual findings supported the order to vacate.
- Dalton petitioned for certiorari under Rule 45, raising errors on consignation validity and rent payment.
Issues:
- Whether Dalton’s consignation of rental payments was valid despite lack of prior and subsequent notice.
- Whether Dalton failed to pay rent continuously, justifying the order to vacate.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)