Case Digest (G.R. No. 183645)
Facts:
In Heirs of Gamaliel Albano, represented by Alexander Albano, et al. v. Spouses Mena C. Ravanes and Roberto Ravanes (G.R. No. 183645, decided July 20, 2016), petitioners, heirs and occupants of a two-storey house on a 35-sqm portion of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 57414 in Caniogan, Pasig City, challenged respondents’ ejectment suit. Respondent-spouses, registered owners of the lot, had leased the portion housing petitioners’ residence under an oral month-to-month arrangement, with petitioners’ father having purchased the improvements in 1986. In March 2000 respondents informed petitioners that their daughter Rowena needed the premises to build her conjugal home. Petitioners refused, leading to barangay conciliation but no settlement. On September 14, 2000 respondents filed a Complaint for Ejectment in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) under Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 877, alleging legitimate family need, lease expiry on December 31, 1999, three-month prior noticCase Digest (G.R. No. 183645)
Facts:
- Parties and Property
- Respondents Mena C. Ravanes and Roberto Ravanes are the registered owners of a parcel of land in Caniogan, Pasig City (TCT No. 57414).
- Petitioners, heirs of Gamaliel Albano, occupy a two–storey house on about 35 sqm of that property, purchased by their father in 1986 from Mary Ong Dee.
- Lease Agreement and Dispute
- Petitioners leased the premises from Mena on a month-to-month basis, with an understanding they would vacate whenever the lessor or her family needed it.
- In March 2000, respondents notified petitioners that their daughter needed to build her home on the lot; petitioners refused to vacate.
- After failed barangay conciliation, respondents filed an ejectment complaint under Section 5(c) of BP 877 in September 2000, alleging (a) legitimate family need; (b) lease expired December 31, 1999; (c) three-month prior notice.
- Petitioners countered that (a) they were assured of continued occupancy so long as they paid rent; (b) respondents own other available units; (c) notice was only 28 days; and lodged counterclaims for damages and reimbursement for house improvements.
Issues:
- Procedural
- Whether the CA Decision became final and executory due to petitioners’ failure to file their Rule 45 petition within the reglementary period.
- Whether the lease contract executed on September 10, 2007 constitutes a supervening event that stays enforcement of the CA Decision.
- Substantive (BP 877 § 5(c) Ejectment)
- Whether respondents proved they have no other available residential unit in Pasig City.
- Whether the lease was for a definite period that expired.
- Whether respondents gave petitioners a formal three-month prior notice to vacate.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)