Title
Tengco vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. L-49852
Decision Date
Oct 19, 1989
Tenant disputes ownership, fails to pay rent; courts uphold landlord's claim, ruling no *mora accipiendi*, laches, or credible defense.
A

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

Facts:

  • Procedural Background
    • On September 16, 1976, Benjamin Cifra, Jr. (private respondent) filed an unlawful detainer action (Civ. Case No. 2092) in the Municipal Court of Navotas against Emilia Tengco (petitioner) for failure to pay stipulated rentals on a leased premises at No. 164 Int., Gov. Pascual St., Navotas. The court ordered the defendant to vacate the premises, pay arrears of ₱376.00, ₱12.00 per month from October 1976 until eviction, plus ₱200.00 attorney’s fees and costs.
    • Petitioner appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civ. Case No. C-6625), which on May 18, 1978 affirmed the municipal court’s decision. She then filed an “Appeal by Way of Certiorari” with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP-08182), which dismissed her petition on August 29, 1978 and denied reconsideration on January 16, 1979. She moved for certiorari relief before the Supreme Court.
  • Substance of the Dispute
    • Ownership and Lease: Petitioner claimed she leased the premises in 1942 from Lutgarda Cifra (respondent’s mother) by verbal agreement; private respondent’s title covered a lot in Bo. Almacen while the leased premises lay in Bo. Sipak; she alleged the lease was not with Benjamin Cifra, Jr.
    • Payment and Demand: Petitioner admitted defaulting on rent since February 1974, alleging the lessor’s collector ceased calls. She withheld payment pending demand. In May 1976 she learned via letters from Aurora Recto (respondent’s sister) and later from private respondent of a change in ownership. In August 1976 she tendered January rent to the collector, which was refused. A formal demand to vacate was made August 23, 1976 and the complaint filed September 16, 1976.

Issues:

  • Whether private respondent established ownership of the leased premises.
  • Whether private respondent was guilty of mora accipiendi by refusing petitioner’s tender of rent.
  • Whether petitioner’s alleged laches barred the unlawful detainer action.
  • Whether private respondent proved a valid cause of action for unlawful detainer.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.