Title
Supreme Court
Spouses Lantin vs. Court of Appeals
Case
G.R. No. 127141
Decision Date
Apr 30, 2003
Former lessees retained keys, incurred utility bills; respondents paid, demanded reimbursement. Court ordered partial reimbursement for water bills with interest.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 127141)

Factual Background

The Lantins were former lessees of a house owned by Esperanza C. Reyes. They terminated their lease on March 19, 1994, and returned the house keys to Ms. Reyes on March 30, 1994. On the same date, Ms. Reyes issued two checks to the Lantins totaling P12,514.50 as a refund of their deposit, deducting certain amounts for unpaid utility bills. After vacating, the new tenants, the Beltrans, assumed occupancy of the house on April 23, 1994, and discovered unpaid utility bills which led them to pay these outstanding charges to avoid utility disconnection.

Procedural History

The Beltrans sought reimbursement from the Lantins for the payments they made amounting to P4,733.04 through barangay conciliation, which proved unsuccessful. Subsequently, the Beltrans filed a complaint at the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Parañaque City. The MeTC ruled in favor of the Lantins, concluding that they had already settled the necessary bills with the owner, Ms. Reyes. This decision was reaffirmed by the Regional Trial Court (RTC). However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the lower courts' decisions, determining that the Lantins owed the Beltrans reimbursement for the water and homeowners' association dues.

Review by the Supreme Court

The Lantins contested the CA’s ruling, particularly the conclusion that they remained liable for past tenants' unpaid bills. The Court analyzed whether the CA correctly ordered reimbursement for the water consumption and homeowners' association dues in light of the claims made by both parties.

Legal Analysis

The Supreme Court observed that the appellate court found evidence insufficient to conclude that the Lantins had indeed settled all utility obligations through Ms. Reyes's cash voucher. The Court noted that while the Beltrans did not have a direct contractual relationship with the Lantins, they were, under Article 1236 of the New Civil Code, entitled to recover what they paid for another, especially when such payment was beneficial to the debtor.

Findings and Conclusion

Regarding the legitimacy of the claims made by the Beltrans, the Supreme Court agreed that while the Lantins

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.