Case Digest (G.R. No. 224849)
Facts:
In Virginia Ocampo Juarez v. Court of Appeals and Cetus Development, Inc. (G.R. No. 93474, October 7, 1992), the subject is a lot with a house at 502 Quezon Boulevard, Manila, originally leased in the early 1900s to Servillano Ocampo. Upon his death in 1956, his sister Angela Ocampo inherited the lease and maintained occupancy with her daughter, petitioner Virginia Ocampo Juarez. In 1976, Angela moved to Pasay City and subleased the premises to Roberto Capuchino, reserving one room for her belongings. Unknown to them, Servillano’s lessors, the Aranetas, had sold the lot to Susanna Realty, Inc., which in 1985 conveyed it to Cetus Development, Inc. Cetus filed an ejectment complaint before the Municipal Court of Manila, alleging an unauthorized sublease in violation of BP Blg. 877. The court dismissed the complaint, ruling that BP 877 did not apply retroactively; this was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, which added that BP 877 covers only dwellings constructed by the lessorCase Digest (G.R. No. 224849)
Facts:
- Background of the lease and occupancy
- In the early 1900’s, Servillano Ocampo leased Lot No. 502, Quezon Boulevard, Manila, built a house thereon, and lived with his parents and sister Angela.
- Upon Servillano’s death in 1956, Angela Ocampo succeeded to the leasehold; in 1976, due to age, she moved to her daughter Virginia’s home in Pasay City and subleased the Quezon Boulevard house to Roberto Capuchino, retaining one room for her belongings.
- Change of ownership and judicial proceedings
- The Aranetas sold the lot to Susanna Realty, Inc., which in 1985 conveyed it to Cetus Development, Inc.
- Cetus sued Virginia Ocampo Juarez for ejectment in the Manila Municipal Court, alleging violation of B.P. No. 877’s prohibition on subleasing without written consent. The Municipal Court and the RTC dismissed and affirmed dismissal, respectively, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding BP 877 applicable to month-to-month renewals after June 12, 1985, and that Virginia was the proper party defendant.
Issues:
- Whether BP 877 applies to the renewed sublease executed in July 1985 and whether its application is retroactive.
- Whether retroactive application of BP 877 contravenes the constitutional impairment clause or constitutes an ex post facto law.
- Whether Virginia Ocampo Juarez is the proper party defendant in the ejectment case.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)