Tengco vs. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. L-49852
Tenant disputes ownership, fails to pay rent; courts uphold landlord's claim, ruling no mora accipiendi, laches, or credible defense.

Case Digest (G.R. No. L-49852)

Facts:

Emilia Tengco v. Court of Appeals and Benjamin Cifra, Jr., G.R. No. L-49852, October 19, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court. In 1976 Benjamin Cifra, Jr. (private respondent) filed an action for unlawful detainer in the Municipal Court of Navotas (Civil Case No. 2092) to evict Emilia Tengco (petitioner) from premises at No. 164 Int., Gov. Pascual St., Navotas, Metro Manila, alleging she had failed to pay rentals due under a lease. Trial resulted in judgment ordering Tengco to vacate, to pay P376 as arrears, P12 per month from October 1976 until vacatur, and P200 as attorney’s fees.

Tengco appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. C-6625), which on 18 May 1978 affirmed the municipal court judgment in toto. Tengco then filed an "Appeal by Way of Certiorari" with the Court of Appeals (docketed CA-G.R. No. SP-08182), which on 29 August 1978 denied the petition and dismissed it outright; her motion for reconsideration was denied on 16 January 1979.

Tengco sought review before the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari. She argued that (1) Cifra was not the owner of the leased premises; (2) the lessor was guilty of mora accipiendi for refusing her tender of payment; (3) her version of facts was more credible; (4) laches barred Cifra’s ejectment; and (5) Cifra failed to establish a cause of action. The trial court found Cifra to be owner, that the demand to vacate was made on 23 August 1976 with the complaint filed 16 September 1976, and th...(Pro-only)

Issues:

  • Did the petitioner show that the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the trial courts’ factual finding that Benjamin Cifra, Jr. was the owner of the leased premises?
  • Was the lessor guilty of mora accipiendi for allegedly refusing the petitioner’s tender of rentals?
  • Did laches bar the lessor’s action for unlawful detainer?
  • Did the private respondent fail to establish a caus...(Pro-only)

Ruling:

  • (Pro-only)

Ratio:

  • (Pro-only)

Doctrine:

  • (Pro-only)

Philippine legal research, made clearer
AI-generated research aids. Verify with Full Text.