Case Summary (G.R. No. 183645)
Procedural Posture
This is a Rule 45 petition for review on certiorari from the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision of August 29, 2007 and its Resolution of July 7, 2008, which reinstated the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Decision ordering ejectment and back rentals. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) had earlier reversed the MeTC on due‑process and substantive grounds. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA.
Relevant Dates and Documents
Key dates: alleged verbal notice of need in March 2000; formal notice received by petitioners on June 15, 2000; MeTC Decision dated January 19, 2004; RTC Decision dated May 29, 2006; CA Decision dated August 29, 2007 (notice received September 4, 2007); petitioners executed a lease with Roberto on September 10, 2007; petitioners filed a “Manifestation and Motion to Stay Execution” on September 19, 2007; CA denied that motion (Resolution dated February 20, 2008) and denied reconsideration (Resolution dated July 7, 2008). Supreme Court decision was rendered July 20, 2016.
Applicable Law and Legal Principles
Constitutional basis: 1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable given decision date). Statutory and doctrinal authorities relied on: Batas Pambansa Blg. 877 (BP 877) — specifically Section 5(c) as grounds for judicial ejectment; Civil Code provisions on lease (Article 1687) deeming leases with monthly payments to be month‑to‑month; Rules of Court on motions for reconsideration and the reglementary periods for appeals (Rule 45; Rule 52 on second motions); and jurisprudence cited throughout relating to the meaning of “available” residential units, the nature of month‑to‑month leases, and the effect of compromises.
Facts as Found by the Trial Courts
Petitioners’ father purchased the house in 1986; petitioners claim an assurance they could stay so long as they paid monthly rent. Respondents asserted a lease existed that expired December 31, 1999, that they had given at least three months’ notice of intent to repossess, and that the property was needed for their daughter’s conjugal home. Petitioner‑occupants allegedly became delinquent in rent for January–June 2000. Barangay conciliation occurred without agreement, and respondents filed ejectment in MeTC on September 14, 2000 under BP 877 Section 5(c).
MeTC Decision and Reasoning
The MeTC (January 19, 2004) ruled for plaintiffs (respondent‑spouses), ordering eviction, monthly back rentals of PHP 2,131.00 from month of default until vacation, and attorney’s fees. The MeTC held the lease had no fixed term but, under Article 1687, was deemed month‑to‑month because rent was paid monthly; therefore the lease expired at the end of each month and the lessor could repossess. The MeTC rejected petitioners’ claim of a lifetime lease and held that ownership of other properties by the lessors was immaterial where the lease expired monthly.
RTC Decision and Reasoning
On appeal, the RTC (May 29, 2006) vacated the MeTC judgment for denial of due process, reasoning that the MeTC decided an issue (expiration of lease) not raised in the preliminary conference and thus petitioners lacked opportunity to meet that issue. On the merits, the RTC found the lease lacked a definite period (contrary to MeTC), respondents owned other available residential units in Pasig City, and the three‑month notice requirement under BP 877 was not complied with (letter dated June 9, 2000 gave only 28 days).
Court of Appeals Decision and Reasoning
The CA (August 29, 2007) reversed the RTC and reinstated the MeTC, holding the verbal lease was deemed definite on a month‑to‑month basis because rentals were paid monthly (citing precedent). Therefore the lease expired at the end of the month upon proper notice, giving rise to a ground for ejectment under BP 877 paragraph (f) as well as under (c). The CA also found petitioners failed to present concrete evidence that other respondent properties were “available,” and that notice was substantially given as early as March 2000, with barangay participation evidencing notice.
Supreme Court — Procedural Finality and Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court denied the petition principally on procedural grounds: the CA Decision became final and executory before the petition was timely filed. The Court treated petitioners’ “Manifestation and Motion to Stay Execution” as a first motion for reconsideration; its denial (February 20, 2008, received February 22, 2008) triggered the 15‑day period under Rule 45 to file a petition for review. Petitioners instead filed a second motion for reconsideration (March 7, 2008), which is a prohibited pleading and does not toll the appeal period. Because the petition for review to the Supreme Court was filed beyond the 15‑day period (filed August 28, 2008) the Court concluded it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition on timeliness grounds.
Supreme Court — Supervening Event and Validity of Subsequent Lease
Substantively, the Court addressed petitioners’ contention that the September 10, 2007 lease between petitioners and Roberto was a supervening event that mooted the CA decision and stayed its execution. The Court held this constituted either a prospective compromise or novation entered before finality but that the purported compromise/lease was invalid as to Mena because she did not consent; a compromise cannot bind a non‑consenting party. The Court further found the property to be paraphernal to Mena from the record, so Roberto lacked autho
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 183645)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Supreme Court, Third Division, G.R. No. 183645; Decision dated July 20, 2016; reported at 790 Phil. 557.
- Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 seeking annulment of:
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated August 29, 2007 (CA G.R. SP No. 96111), and
- CA Resolution dated July 7, 2008.
- The CA Decision reinstated Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) Decision dated January 19, 2004 and reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 68, Pasig City, Decision dated May 29, 2006.
- Reliefs ordered by MeTC (reinstated by CA): petitioners ordered to vacate the leased lot and to pay monthly back rentals from the month of default until premises vacated; attorney’s fees awarded.
Parties
- Petitioners: Heirs of Gamaliel Albano, represented by Alexander Albano, and all other persons living with them in the subject premises (occupants of the house on the disputed lot).
- Respondents: Spouses Mena C. Ravanes and Roberto Ravanes (hereafter “respondent-spouses”).
- Registered owner as alleged in the record: Mena Ravanes — owner of the land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 57414 located in Caniogan, Pasig City.
Subject Property and Tenancy Facts
- Parcel of land in Caniogan, Pasig City, covered by TCT No. 57414, owned by respondent-spouse Mena Ravanes.
- About thirty-five (35) square meters of the property has a two-storey residential house occupied by petitioners.
- Petitioners’ father, Gamaliel Albano, purchased the house (improvement) in 1986 from Mary Ong Dee.
- Petitioners leased the property from Mena with an agreement that they may stay so long as they pay agreed monthly rentals, but that they must vacate when respondent-spouses and family would need to use it.
- Petitioners allegedly paid monthly rentals; arrear/ default issues were asserted by respondent-spouses.
Events Leading to Litigation
- March 2000: Respondent-spouses informed petitioners that their daughter Rowena was getting married and would need the property to build her house; petitioners refused to vacate.
- Barangay action initiated (title of complaint: “Pagpapaalis sa paupahang lupa, dahil gagamitin ng anak.”); Barangay issued a certificate of the action on June 22, 2000.
- September 14, 2000: Respondent-spouses filed a Complaint for Ejectment in the MeTC, invoking Section 5(c) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 877 (BP 877) — legitimate need of owner/lessor to repossess for own or immediate family’s residential use, subject to requisites set forth in statute.
BP 877 Section 5(c) — Statutory Requisites (as applied in the case)
- The requisites recited in the Decision (and at issue) are:
- Legitimate need of owner/lessor to repossess property for own use or immediate family member’s use as a residential unit.
- The owner/immediate family member is not the owner of any other available residential unit within the same city or municipality.
- The lease is for a definite period.
- The period of lease has expired.
- The lessor has given the lessee a formal notice three (3) months in advance of repossessing.
- The owner/lessor is prohibited from leasing the unit or allowing its use by a third party for at least one year (proviso).
Pleadings, Positions and Counterclaims
- Complaint (respondent-spouses): Alleged daughter needs property, lease lapsed Dec 31, 1999, three-month notice given, prayed for ejectment, removal of improvements, July 2000 rent, and attorney’s fees.
- Petitioners’ Answer (Oct 4, 2000): Claimed assurance to stay so long as rentals paid; alleged respondent-spouses and predecessors assured them of continued occupation; asserted harmonious relationship changed when respondent-spouses refused rent for Jan–June 2000; asserted respondent-spouses own other suitable residential houses/apartments in Pasig City (photocopies of land titles attached); asserted notice to vacate was handed only on June 15, 2000 demanding vacation by July 13, 2000 (28 days) — insufficient for 3-month notice; counterclaimed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees; requested reimbursement for house improvements if ejectment granted.
- Respondent-spouses’ Position Paper: Admitted owning several properties in Pasig City but contended they were not available (occupied/leased); asserted petitioners were delinquent; argued compliance with 3-month notice by waiting 91 days from June 15 to file ejectment on September 14, 2000.
MeTC Ruling (January 19, 2004)
- Dispositive: Ordered petitioners to vacate the leased premises at No. 19-A, A. Flores St., Caniogan, Pasig City; to pay monthly back rentals of PHP 2,131.00 from month of default until premises vacated; attorney’s fees PHP 10,000.00 awarded.
- Rationale:
- Found lease lacked fixed period but under Article 1687 of the New Civil Code, where rentals were paid monthly, lease is deemed month-to-month and expires at end of each month, thus giving a ground for judicial ejectment.
- Declared petitioners’ interpretation that they had a lifetime lease void and against public policy.
- Ownership of other properties deemed immaterial because owner has right to repossess after monthly expiration.
- Denied petitioners’ counterclaim for reimbursement of improvements held built at petitioners’ risk; allowed removal if lessor refused to reimburse one-half of total value.
RTC Ruling (Branch 68, Pasig City) (May 29, 2006)
- Judge Santiago G. Estrella vacated MeTC Decision and dismissed the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
- RTC held petitioners denied due process because MeTC allegedly decided an issue (expiration of lease) not pleaded or defined as an issue by the parties at the preliminary conference.
- RTC analyzed Section 5(c) requisites and found respondent-spouses did not meet them:
- Determined lease had no definite period (i.e., no definite term), hence provision requiring definite period not satisfied.
- Found respondent-spouses own other available residential units in Pasig City.
- Found three-month notice requirement not complied with; letter of demand dated June 9, 2000 required vacatur by July 13, 2000 (about one month and three days only).
Court of Appeals (CA) Ruling (August 29, 2007) and Subsequent Resolution (Feb 20, 2008; July 7, 2008)
- CA set aside RTC Decision and reinstated MeTC Decision.
- Rationale:
- Held the lease, despite being verbal and without a stated fixed term, is deemed a month-to-month lease because rentals were paid monthly; hence it has a “definite period” that expires every month (citing Dula v. Maravilla and Rivera v. Florendo).
- Thus, an ejectment ground exists under Section 5(f) (expiration of lease) (CA referenced expiration as a valid ground).
- Found petitioners failed to present concrete evidence that respondent-spouses had other available properties in Pasig City; stressed “available” is the operative word.
- Found respondent-spouses substantially met the three-month notice requirement: respondents had been informed as early as March 2000 and barangay conciliation occurred; participation in barangay hearing indicated notice.
- Petitioners filed a Manifestation and Motion to Stay Execution (Sept 19, 2007), asserting a new lease between Roberto and Alexander Albano on Sept 10, 2007 (a 10-year lease) meant petitioners now lawfully occupied the property — argued the lease was a supervening event/mooted CA judgment and that it operated as a novation.
- Mena filed a Comment contesting validity of Sept 10, 2007 lease: claimed Roberto lacked authority to bind the property (paraphernal property of Mena) and questioned the unreasonableness of unchanged monthly rent (P2,131.00) since 1986.
- CA Resolution dated Feb 20, 2008 denied petitioners’ Manifestation and Motion to Stay Execution, holding the CA Decision attained finality on Sept 19, 2007 and