G.R. No. 95469 - Manuel vs. Court of Appeals

Agapito Manuel, Petitioner, was the lessee of an apartment unit owned by private respondents.
Spouses Jesus de Jesus and Carmen de Jesus, Respondents and plaintiffs below, were the lessors and owners of the apartment unit.
Respondent Court of Appeals and Hon. Ramon Makasiar appear in the caption as respondents in the petition for certiorari.

The apartment was rented on a month-to-month basis for a monthly rental of P466.00 payable in advance.
Petitioner allegedly failed to pay rentals for May 1987 onward and remained in arrears when the complaint was filed on August 31, 1987.
Private respondents' counsel sent a demand letter dated July 9, 1987 (Exhibit "R") requiring payment of arrears and vacation within five days; petitioner received it on July 14, 1987.

Petitioner sent a letter dated July 15, 1987 to private respondent Carmen de Jesus, copying counsel, stating that the rental amounts had been deposited at United Coconut Planters Bank, Taft Avenue Branch, Account No. 8893, in the name of petitioner's son, Mario Manuel, and could be withdrawn upon notice of payment.
Private respondents' counsel wrote petitioner on August 14, 1987 requesting payment to counsel's office; petitioner received that letter on August 18, 1987.
Petitioner wrote counsel on August 24, 1987 requesting that arrears be paid to private respondents at petitioner's house; private respondents did not accept the offer.

Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Civil Case No. 122136-CV, rendered judgment on April 6, 1989 in favor of private respondents ordering petitioner to vacate and surrender possession of door No. 2444.
The trial court ordered petitioner to pay P466.00 per month from May 1987 until actual vacation, awarded plaintiffs attorney's fees of P500.00, and cost of suit.

Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 35, affirmed the trial court judgment in Civil Case No. 89-48914 in a decision dated September 20, 1989 (per Judge Ramon P. Makasiar).
Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 18961; the Court of Appeals denied due course to the petition for review and dismissed it for lack of merit in a decision dated January 29, 1990 (pone...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the alleged NHA award of the lot to petitioner while the ejectment action was pending negated private respondents' cause of action for ejectment.
Whether private respondents' alleged refusal to accept payment (*mora accipiendi*) absolved petitioner from liability where petitioner claims to have deposited or made rentals available.

Whether a lessee in an ejectment action may contest the lessor's title or assert ownership rights inconsistent with the lease while retaining possession.
Whether petitio...(Subscriber-Only)