G.R. No. L-49852 - Tengco vs. Court of Appeals

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-49852)

Procedural History

The private respondent filed an unlawful detainer complaint in the Municipal Court of Navotas (Civil Case No. 2092) on September 16, 1976. The municipal court rendered judgment for the plaintiff ordering eviction, payment of P376.00 as rentals in arrears, P12.00 per month from October 1976 until vacation, and attorney’s fees of P200.00. The petitioner appealed to the Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. C-6625), which on May 18, 1978 affirmed the municipal court judgment in toto. The petitioner then sought relief before the Court of Appeals by an “Appeal by Way of Certiorari” (CA-G.R. No. SP-08182); the Court of Appeals denied the petition on August 29, 1978 and denied reconsideration on January 16, 1979. The Supreme Court entertained the present petition for certiorari and review.

Key Dates

Alleged lease commencement (per petitioner): 1942. Tenant’s default allegedly beginning February 1974. Demand to vacate made August 23, 1976. Complaint filed September 16, 1976. Municipal court judgment dated September 20, 1977. CFI judgment affirmed May 18, 1978. Court of Appeals decision August 29, 1978; motion for reconsideration denied January 16, 1979. Supreme Court decision rendered October 19, 1989.

Issues Presented by Petitioner

(1) The private respondent is not the owner of the leased premises; (2) the lessor was guilty of mora accipiendi (refusal to accept tendered rent); (3) petitioner’s version of facts is more credible than the private respondent’s; (4) laches barred the lessor’s right to eject; and (5) the private respondent failed to establish a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

Applicable Law and Precedents

Applicable constitution (by operation of date): 1987 Philippine Constitution. Relevant statutory and doctrinal references in the record: Article 1256 of the Civil Code (judicial deposit as remedy for tender of payment), Section 1, Commonwealth Act No. 53 (rule on credibility of an unwritten share tenancy contract), and the cited precedent Saul v. Hawkins, 1 Phil. 275 (regarding effect of vendor’s sale on unrecorded lease executed by the vendor).

Trial Court Findings and Decree

The municipal court found the petitioner in default of rental obligations and rendered judgment for the plaintiff ordering: surrender of possession of the premises; P376.00 as rentals in arrears; P12.00 per month from October 1976 until vacation; and P200.00 as attorney’s fees and costs.

Court of First Instance Ruling

The Court of First Instance of Rizal affirmed in toto the municipal court’s judgment without pronouncement as to costs.

Court of Appeals Analysis and Ruling

The Court of Appeals denied the petitioner’s certiorari petition, concluding that the lower court’s decision was supported by substantial evidence and its conclusions were not clearly contrary to law or jurisprudence. The Court of Appeals addressed the petitioner’s contentions as follows: (a) ownership is a question of fact and the trial court’s finding that the private respondent was the owner is entitled to great respect absent material contrary evidence; (b) the tenant may not deny the landlord’s title at the commencement of the landlord-tenant relationship; (c) petitioner’s claimed tender refused by the collector did not excuse nonpayment because judicial deposit under Article 1256 was available and petitioner did not avail herself of it; (d) laches was not established because the demand was made on August 23, 1976 and complaint filed September 16, 1976; and (e) Commonwealth Act No. 53 was inapplicable because that statute governs disputes over terms of unwritten share tenancy contracts or contracts written in a language not known to the tenant, which facts were not present.

Supreme Court Evaluation of Petitioner’s Contentions

The Supreme Court found no merit in the petition and adopted the reasoning of the Court of Appeals. On ownership, the Court reiterated that the matter was one of fact for the trial court; the petitioner did not present sufficient proof that the leased premises differed from the lot shown in the private respondent’s title, and the maps appended by petitioner lacked proper identification and did not pinpoint No. 164 Int., Gov. Pascual Street. The Court observed inconsistency in petitioner’s claims, noting she admitted being a lessee and averred tendering payment to the private respondent. On petitioner’s invocation of Commonwealth Act No. 53, the Court held it inapplicable because there was no dispute over the terms of an

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. L-49852)

Procedural History

Petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court from the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. SP-08182, which dismissed petitioner Emilia Tengco’s "Appeal by Way of Certiorari" from the judgment of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in Civil Case No. C-6625.
Underlying action: Unlawful detainer filed by private respondent Benjamin Cifra, Jr. in the Municipal Court of Navotas, Metro Manila, docketed as Civil Case No. 2092.
Municipal Court rendered judgment ordering the defendant (petitioner) to vacate premises at No. 164 Int., Gov. Pascual St., Navotas, and to pay arrears and attorney’s fees; appeal taken to Court of First Instance of Rizal (Civil Case No. C-6625).
Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered judgment on 18 May 1978 affirming the municipal court decision “in toto” and without pronouncement as to costs.
Petitioner filed an "Appeal by Way of Certiorari" with the Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. No. SP-08182); the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision on 29 August 1978, denying the petition and dismissing it outright.
Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied on 16 January 1979.
Petitioner sought review by the Supreme Court; the present decision was rendered by the Supreme Court on 19 October 1989 (G.R. No. L-49852), denying the petition.

Facts as Appearing in the Record

On 16 September 1976, Benjamin Cifra, Jr. filed an action for unlawful detainer to evict Emilia Tengco from premises at No. 164 Int., Gov. Pascual St., Navotas, Metro Manila, alleging she failed and refused to pay stipulated rentals despite repeated demands.
Petitioner admits she was a lessee of the premises and that she had been in default in payment of rentals since February 1974, allegedly because the lessor’s collector refused to accept her tender of payment.
Petitioner’s narrative as recounted in the record:
- Entered into a verbal lease with Lutgarda Cifra sometime in 1942; rentals were collected by a collector who went to her house “with no fixed frequency.”
- In 1974 the collector stopped making rounds, so petitioner kept money until collector returned.
- In May 1976 petitioner received a letter (Exh. 1) from Aurora C. Recto, sister of private respondent, informing her that private respondent was the owner and was offering the property for sale.
- Later (August 1977 per the transcript citation), petitioner received another letter from private respondent demanding surrender of possession and claiming ownership.
- Upon receipt of this later demand, petitioner tendered payment to the collector (another sister of private respondent) at her residence; this tender was allegedly refused (t.s.n. July 26, 1977, p. 7).
Petitioner contended before the courts:
1. Benjamin Cifra, Jr. is not the owner of the leased premises.
2. The lessor was guilty of mora accipiendi (delay in accepting payment).
3. Petitioner’s version of the facts is more credible than private respondent’s.
4. Laches deprived the lessor of the right to eject her.
5. Private respondent failed to establish a cause of action.

Municipal Court Decision (Civil Case No. 2092) — Decretal Portion

The municipal court rendered judgment for plaintiff (Benjamin Cifra, Jr.) ordering:
- Defendant (Emilia Tengco) and any persons claiming under her to vacate premises at No. 164 Int., Gov. Pascual Street and surrender possession to plaintiff.
- Defendant to pay plaintiff THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX (P376.00) PESOS as rentals in arrears.
- Defendant to pay the sum of TWELVE PESOS (P12.00) per month from October 1976 until the premises is fully vacated.
- Defendant to pay plaintiff TWO HUNDRED (P200.00) PESOS as attorney’s fees and costs of suit.

Court of First Instance of Rizal Decision (Civil Case No. C-6625)

On 18 May 1978 the Court of First Instance of Rizal rendered judgment affirming in toto the judgment of the municipal court dated September 20, 1977, and made no pronouncement as to costs.
The CFI’s dispositive language: “WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered affirming in toto the judgment of the lower court dated September 20, 1977 without pronouncement as to costs.”

Court of Appeals Proceedings and Decision (CA-G.R. No. SP-08182)

The Court of Appeals, in a decision promulgated on 29 August 1978, disposed as follows: “WHEREFORE, finding that the Decision of the lower Court is supported by substantial evidence and that its conclusions are not clearly against the law and jurisprudence, the instant Petition is hereby denied due course and is dismissed outright.”
The Court of Appeals’ opinion addressed petitioner’s contentions in detail and found them without merit; it treated petitioner’s filing as a Petition for Review.
The CA noted petitioner’s admission of lessee status and default since February 1974, and discussed the claim that the lease was with private respondent’s mother rather than private respondent himself.
The CA held that the question of the real lessor is one of fact; trial court findings that private respondent