Title
Spouses Bandoy vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 77133
Decision Date
Jul 19, 1989
Lessees sublet property to respondent, who failed to pay rent. Ejectment case dismissed due to lack of prior demand to vacate, a jurisdictional requirement. SC affirmed CA ruling.
complaint for ejectment
lack of jurisdiction
prior demand to vacate
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 148157)

Factual Background

Petitioners, as lessees, sublet portions of a residential house and lot owned by the University of the Philippines to private respondent Empaynado in April 1984, with an agreed monthly rental of P550.00. Private respondent did not pay the rent for July 1985. Although petitioners demanded payment, private respondent still failed and refused to pay.

Petitioners sought barangay-level assistance for settlement, but the attempt was unsuccessful. As a result, the office of the barangay captain issued on August 20, 1985 a certification to file action against “Domingo Empaynado for ejectment and non-payment of house rentals including light and water.” After obtaining this certification, petitioners proceeded to file an ejectment case.

Filing of the Ejectment Complaint and Trial Court Ruling

On November 26, 1985, petitioners filed a complaint for ejectment against Empaynado and attached the barangay certification. The case was filed with the Metropolitan Trial Court of Metro Manila, Quezon City and docketed as Civil Case No. XXXV-48898.

In his answer, Empaynado admitted that he had not paid rentals since July 1985, but he denied that there was a demand to vacate and pay made by petitioners. After trial, the Metropolitan Trial Court ruled for petitioners. Its decision dated March 6, 1986 held, among others, that “a demand to vacate before the barangay court is a substantial equivalent of the required extrajudicial demand to pay and vacate required by the Rules of Court prior to the filing of an ejectment case court.” It then ordered Empaynado and all persons claiming rights under him to vacate and peacefully surrender the premises and required payment of unpaid rentals from July 1985 at P550.00 per month, plus P700.00 attorney’s fees and the costs of suit.

Regional Trial Court Proceedings

Empaynado appealed to the Regional Trial Court, which rendered a decision dated June 2, 1986 dismissing the case for lack of jurisdiction. The Regional Trial Court set aside the Metropolitan Trial Court’s decision and dismissed the action on the ground that the Metropolitan Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction.

Court of Appeals Proceedings

Petitioners sought review with the Court of Appeals. In a decision promulgated on January 14, 1987, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition as well, likewise for lack of jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals reasoned that because the Metropolitan Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction, it had no recourse but to dismiss the case. It denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal.

Petitioners’ Arguments in the Supreme Court

Before the Supreme Court, petitioners assigned as the sole error the claim that the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s ruling that the Metropolitan Trial Court did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.

Petitioners contended that after the barangay certification to file action was issued, there was no need for an additional demand to vacate because the case had already been certified for court action. They argued that any further demand would have been repetitive and unnecessary.

Core Issue: Jurisdictional Requirement of Prior Demand to Vacate

The Supreme Court focused on whether the complaint conferred jurisdiction on the Metropolitan Trial Court. It noted that the complaint contained no allegation that petitioners made a prior demand to vacate upon the private respondent. The Court treated this omission as jurisdictional because ejectment proceedings require compliance with the rules on prior extrajudicial demand, particularly a demand to vacate. It reiterated the settled rule that when the complaint alleges only a demand for payment of rentals and not a demand to vacate, the pleading is insufficient to confer jurisdiction upon the tribunal tasked to try the case.

The Court cited Casilan vs. Tomassi, et al., 10 SCRA 261, 264, and Santos vs. Vivas, 96 Phil. 538, 540, as authorities for the proposition that a complaint that does not allege a demand to vacate fails to confer jurisdiction upon the justice of the peace court (jurisdictional defect).

Effect of the Barangay Certification to File Action

The Supreme Court held that the barangay certification was not conclusive as to jurisdiction. The certification did not establish that all requisites for filing an unlawful detainer case had been satisfied. What the certification certified was merely that the parties had not reached a settlement at the barangay level. Therefore, the Court rejected petitioners’ view that certification relieved them from the need to plead and prove a prior demand to vacate.

Petitioners’ Reliance on Co Tiamco and Distinguishing Circumstances

Petitioners invoked Co Tiamco vs. Diaz, L-7, January 22, 1946 (75 Phil. 672), where the Court had discussed a situation involving deficiency in the complaint regarding notice to quit, with reference to evidence subsequently offered and admitted.

The Supreme Court distinguished the cited case. It noted that in Co Tiamco, there was proof that a notice to quit or demand to vacate had actually been served, and the notice was offered as evidence, objected to, and eventually admitted through mandamus. The Court observed that even if the complaint was initially deficient for not alleging the notice to quit, the deficiency was cured by the evidence because the notice to quit existed and was presented in trial.

By contrast, in the present case, the Supreme Court ruled that the defect persisted because the complaint was defective for failing to allege a prior demand to vacate, and no evidence of such prior demand to vacate was shown during trial.

Treatment of Evidence Offered to Show Demand

The Supreme Court also assessed the relevance of an affidavit relied upon by the trial court. The affidavit stated, in substance, that the private respondent believed the plaintiffs referred to him due to alleged bad behavior and that the spouses “wanted him out” of the extension.

The Court held that this did not prove an actual or definite demand to vacate. The affidavit showed only an intention to expel, not a definite demand to

...continue reading

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.

About Privacy Terms