Case Digest (G.R. No. 83263)
Case Digest (G.R. No. 83263)
Facts:
Uy Hoo and Sons Realty Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals and Thomas Kuan, G.R. No. 83263, June 14, 1989, Supreme Court Second Division, Padilla, J., writing for the Court.Uy Hoo and Sons Realty Development Corporation (petitioner) owns Room 301, 938 Murillo St., Quiapo, Manila. Thomas Kuan (private respondent) originally leased the premises from petitioner’s predecessor-in-interest, Dy Siat, under a written one‑year lease from 1 July 1966 to 1 July 1967. The lease provided it would bind heirs, successors and assigns. After expiration the lessee continued in possession with lessor acquiescence; rent remained at P187.00 monthly. Dy Siat died in 1974; Kuan remained as occupant and, beginning 2 May 1979, had been depositing the rentals in court pursuant to a separate MTC order in Civil Case No. 031792‑CV.
On 11 July 1986 petitioner gave Kuan notice that his month‑to‑month occupancy would terminate effective 31 July 1986 and demanded back rentals from January 1982 to June 1986 (P10,098.00). Petitioner filed an unlawful detainer action in the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Manila on 22 October 1986. The MTC (Judgment of 28 January 1987, Br. XII) ordered the defendant to vacate, to pay P2,244.00 (back rentals January–December 1984), monthly rentals of P187.00 thereafter until vacation, attorney’s fees P1,000 and costs. On appeal the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch X (Judgment dated 3 November 1987, Civil Case No. 87‑40109) affirmed but modified: the defendant was not obliged to pay the P2,244.08 representing back rentals for 1984 (apparently because those amounts had been deposited in court).
Private respondent appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. Sp. No. 13654). The Court of Appeals, in a decision promulgated 9 May 1988, reversed and set aside the RTC decision for failure to apply the rent control law (B.P. Blg. 877 / now R.A. 6643) but nonetheless held the lessor entitled to back rentals. Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court claiming the CA misapplied Section 6 of B.P. Blg. 877 by treating the lease as governed by the general rule rather than the exception for leases for a definite period; petitioner argued the arrangement was a month‑to‑month lease (definite period under Art. 1687 of the Civil Code) terminable at the end of the month after prior notice.
Issues:
- Is the tenancy in question a lease for a definite period (month‑to‑month) such that Section 6 of B.P. Blg. 877 does not suspend the application of Article 1673(1) of the Civil Code with respect to ejectment for expiration of period?
- Can the lessor judicially eject the tenant for expiration of a month‑to‑month lease upon prior demand or notice to vacate under the rent control framework and relevant precedents?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)