G.R. No. 77133 - Spouses Bandoy vs. Court of Appeals

Spouses Marciano Bandoy and Segundina Bandoy were lessees of a residential house and lot owned by the University of the Philippines, located at No. 88-D, phase 4, Pook Amorsolo, U.P. Campus, Quezon City.
In April 1984, the petitioners sublet certain spaces of the property to Domingo Empaynado for a monthly rental of P550.00.

Empaynado failed to pay the rental for July 1985.
Upon demand by petitioners, Empaynado still failed and refused to pay.
Petitioners brought the matter to the office of the barangay captain for settlement, but settlement was not reached.

On August 20, 1985, the office of the barangay captain issued a certification to file action against Domingo Empaynado for ejectment and non-payment of house rentals including light and water.
On November 26, 1985, petitioners filed a complaint for ejectment against Empaynado and attached thereto the barangay certification.
The case was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro Manila, Quezon City and docketed as Civil Case No. XXXV-48898.

In his answer, Empaynado admitted that he did not pay the rentals since July 1985.
Empaynado denied that there was a demand to vacate and pay made upon him by spouses Marciano and Segundina Bandoy.
After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court rendered judgment in favor of the spouses.
The Metropolitan Trial Court ruled, among others, that a demand to vacate before the barangay court was a substantial equivalent of the required extrajudicial demand to pay and vacate under the Rules of Court prior to filing an ejectment case in court.
The Metropolitan Trial Court ordered:

Empaynado and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate the residential house or extension thereof located at No. 88-D, Phase 4, Pook Amorsolo, U.P. Campus and to surrender the premises peacefully to petitioners.
Empaynado to pay all unpaid rentals at P550.00 per month from July 1985 up to the time of vacating.
Empaynado to pay P700.00 as reasonable attorney’s fee and the costs of suit.

Empaynado appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which rendered a decision dated June 2, 1986 dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that jurisdiction was not properly acquired.
Petitioners filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals.
In a decision promulgated January 14, 1987, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition also for lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court.
The Court of Appeals held that where the Metropolitan Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction, jurisprudence required dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Petitioners assigned a lone error: the Court of Appeals erred in denying review and affirming the Regional Trial Court ruling that the Metropolitan Trial Court did not ac...(Subscriber-Only)

Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court acquired jurisdiction over the ejectment case when the complaint did not allege a prior demand to vacate.
Whether petitioners’ barangay certification to file action and the absence of an allegation in the complaint regarding demand to vacate affected the trial court’s jurisdiction.
Whether the alleged “no further demand to vacate” after the certification was justified because the case was already certified for court action, rendering further demand repetitive and unnecessary.

Whether the complaint’s allegation regarding demand was sufficient when it allegedly covered only payment of rentals and not deman...(Subscriber-Only)