Case Digest (G.R. No. 178527)
Facts:
Joven Yuki, Jr. v. Wellington Co., G.R. No. 178527, November 27, 2009, the Supreme Court Second Division, Del Castillo, J., writing for the Court. The petition arises from an unlawful detainer action concerning a commercial unit located at 2051 España St. corner Instruccion St., Sampaloc, Manila. The registered owner, Joseph Chua, leased a portion of the building to petitioner Joven Yuki, Jr. beginning in 1981 under successive verbal and written agreements; the last written lease covered January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003 at a monthly rent of P7,000. In November 2003 Chua sold the property to respondent Wellington Co., and the new owner informed petitioner to pay rent to him and later notified petitioner that the lease would not be renewed and directed him to vacate by January 1, 2004.After the lease term expired, petitioner refused to vacate. Respondent filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer (MeTC, Civil Case No. 177321) alleging the lease had expired, that the property had been sold to respondent, and that a notice to vacate and a formal demand were served (including attempted registered mail that was unclaimed and an affidavit of personal service). The MeTC (Branch 15, Manila) rendered judgment for respondent on September 21, 2004 ordering petitioner to vacate, to pay reasonable compensation (P8,000/month from January 1, 2004), and attorney’s fees (P30,000).
Petitioner appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC, Branch 14, Manila), which on March 7, 2005 reversed the MeTC and dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint. The RTC found insufficient proof that petitioner actually received the notice to vacate and held that the critical question — whether an implied new lease (tacita reconduccion) existed — was beyond the MeTC’s pecuniary jurisdiction. Respondent then filed a Petition for Review under Rule 42 with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. SP No. 89228). The CA granted the pet...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in giving due course to respondent’s Rule 42 petition despite alleged noncompliance with Section 2 of Rule 42 (failure to attach annexes to position papers)?
- Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the RTC and reinstating the MeTC decision — specifically, (a) whether the MeTC had jurisdiction despite allegations of an implied new lease (tacita reconduccion), (b) whether valid notice to vacate was given/served, and (c) whether petitioner was deprived of any preemptive righ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)