Case Digest (G.R. No. 157971)
Facts:
Leonor Sobrepena and her kins owned a two-door apartment at 1326 and 1328 Tomas Mapua St., Sta. Cruz, Manila, where respondent Leticia Fajardo had long occupied 1328 under a verbal, month-to-month lease. On April 30, 1999, the owners sold the property to Leticia and Cecilia Lopez, who were issued TCT No. 245120; acting as their attorney-in-fact, petitioner Tristan Lopez filed a first ejectment complaint against respondent on March 31, 2000 for nonpayment of rentals, which the parties amicably settled on June 28, 2000, with respondent paying P35,000.00, after which petitioner allowed her to remain in possession.In July 2000, respondent again failed to pay rentals, leading petitioner to send a letter dated August 18, 2000 terminating the lease effective midnight of August 31, 2000, with a one-month grace period conditioned on payment of July and August rentals. After respondent remitted a check dated September 20, 2000 for P30,000.00 covering July to September and advance rental
Case Digest (G.R. No. 157971)
Facts:
- Parties and ownership of the leased premises
- Leonor Sobrepena and her kins (the Sobrepenas) owned a two-door apartment at 1326 and 1328 Tomas Mapua St., Sta. Cruz, Manila.
- The apartment at No. 1328 had long been occupied by respondent Leticia Fajardo under a verbal contract of lease.
- On April 30, 1999, the Sobrepenas sold the property to petitioners Leticia and Cecilia Lopez (the Lopez sisters).
- The Lopez sisters thereafter were issued Transfer Certificate of Title No. 245120 in their names.
- First ejectment complaint and amicable settlement
- On March 31, 2000, petitioners’ attorney-in-fact Tristan Lopez (petitioner) filed before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila (MeTC) a complaint for ejectment with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 166806-CV (first ejectment complaint), against respondent.
- The ground alleged was respondent’s failure to pay monthly rentals from May 1999 to February 2000.
- The parties amicably settled the case after respondent paid P35,000.00, representing rental in arrears and current rental for June 2000.
- The case was closed and terminated on June 28, 2000, and petitioner allowed respondent to remain in the leased premises.
- Subsequent litigation and notice to terminate the lease
- In July 2000, petitioner learned that respondent filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 00-97105, against petitioner, his aunts, and the Sobrepenas.
- The RTC action sought nullification of the deed of sale between the Lopez sisters and the Sobrepenas, and the grant to respondent of a right of first refusal over the leased premises.
- Respondent failed and refused to pay July and August 2000 rentals.
- On August 18, 2000, petitioner sent a letter to respondent stating:
- The Lopez sisters decided to terminate the monthly lease contract effective midnight of August 31, 2000, the expiration time of the oral lease contract.
- No renewal would be made on a month-to-month basis upon expiration.
- A one-month grace period was offered until September 30, 2000, conditioned on immediate payment of July and August 2000 rentals totaling P5,000.00.
- If the P5,000.00 unpaid rentals were not paid immediately, respondent would be considered an interloper by September 1, 2000 and must vacate because the lease expired and rentals for two months were unpaid.
- Partial payment by respondent and petitioner’s refusal to accept it as rentals covering the needed arrearage
- On September 21, 2000, respondent remitted to petitioner Security Bank Check No. 0121467, dated September 20, 2000, in the amount of P30,000.00.
- The check represented payment of rentals in arrears for July 2000, August 2000, and September 2000, and advance rentals from October 2000 up to July 2001, without prejudice to the outcome of Civil Case No. 00-97105.
- By letter dated September 21, 2000, petitioner, through counsel, advised respondent that petitioner could not accept the check, because the rental payments due to petitioner’s aunts were only for July, August, and September 2000, and respondent was expected to vacate by October 1, 2000.
- Although the dispute was brought to the barangay, no settlement or conciliation was reached.
- Second ejectment complaint and respondent’s defenses
- On October 25, 2000, petitioner filed before the MeTC Manila a second complaint for ejectment with damages, docketed as Civil Case No. 168809-CV.
- Petitioner prayed:
- Immediate vacating of the leased premises and surrender of possession.
- Payment of P7,500.00 as rental arrears from July 2000 to September 2000, plus monthly rental of P2,500.00 from October 2000 (or the corresponding yearly rental increase, if any) until actual vacation.
- P50,000.00 moral damages, P50,000.00 exemplary damages, P30,000.00 attorney’s fees, and costs of suit.
- In her Answer with Counterclaim for damages, respondent alleged no valid cause of action, arguing:
- Petitioner’s claim that the verbal monthly lease had expired was misplaced because she allegedly did not recognize the Lopez sisters as her true lessors.
- Even if an implied verbal lease existed, petitioner’s claim of termination was baseless in fact and law.
- Respondent asserted the latest payment she made to the Sobrepenas on April 16, 1999 covered four months from January 1999 to April 1999.
- Respondent asserted her prior payment on November 16, 1998 covered eleven months from January 1998 to November 16, 1998, showing rent was not on a monthly basis.
- Branch 11 of the MeTC issued a Pre-trial Order defining the issues as:
- Whether respondent could be lawfully evicted from the subject premises.
- Whether respondent was entitled to her counterclaim.
- MeTC ruling in favor of petitioner
- The parties submitted position papers and documentary evidence.
- Branch 11 of the MeTC rendered decision on April 9, 2001, finding petitioner had established a valid cause of action for ejectment.
- The MeTC found that the lease expired due to expiration of the lease contract, that the lease was terminable at the end of any month after due notice, and that respondent failed to pay the stipulated rental.
- The MeTC dispositive portion ordered respondent and those claiming under her:
- To immediately vacate the premises (No. 1328 Tomas Mapua St., Sta. Cruz, Manila) and surrender peaceful possession to petitioner.
- To pay P7,500.00 as back rentals covering July 2000 to September 2000.
- To pay P2,500.00 monthly as reasonable compensation for use and occupation beginning October 2000 and every month thereafter until actual vacation.
- To pay P5,000.00 attorney’s fees and costs of suit.
- RTC affirmance
- Respondent appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.
- On June 7, 2002, the RTC affirmed the MeTC decision in toto.
- The RTC held that:
- Petitioner allowed respondent to continue occupying the premises on a month-to-month rental terminable at the end of each month until petitioner sent the August...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether petitioner established a valid ground for the judicial ejectment of respondent.
- Whether respondent’s rental arrearages satisfied the three-month requirement under Section 5(b), Batas Pambansa Blg. 877.
- Whether petitioner also established ejectment based on expiration of the lease contract under Section 5(f), Batas Pambansa Blg. 877, considering the parties’ month-to-month arrangement and the August 18, 2000 demand to vacate.
- Whether the CA erred in dismissing the ejectment complaint on the ground of prematurity due to alleged arrearages of only two months....(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)