Sps Penas Vs CA
Sps Penas Vs CA
Sps Penas Vs CA
SYLLABUS
DECISION
PADILLA , J : p
The only issue to be resolved in this ejectment case is whether or not the Metropolitan
Trial Court had jurisdiction over the complaint filed by herein petitioner-spouses
represented by their attorney-in-fact Elpidio R. Viernes. cdphil
The undisputed facts of the case as summed up by the trial curt and adopted by
respondent Court of Appeals are as follows:
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
"Subject of this controversy [are the] premises identified as 24-B Scout Santiago
Street, Barangay Laging Handa, Quezon City, also identified as 26-B [South] D
Street, Quezon City. It was the object of a written lease contract executed by the
late Nazario Penas in favor of [private respondent] Lupo Calaycay on June 26,
1964, at an agreed monthly rental of One Hundred Ten (P110.00) Pesos,
Philippine Currency. The written lease contract was on a month to month basis.
Nazario Penas, Sr. died on February 5, 1976 and, thereafter, on June 15, 1976, an
extrajudicial settlement of his estate was executed by his surviving heirs, one of
whom is his son, Nazario Penas, Jr. Likewise after the death of plaintiff's mother
Concepcion P. Penas on March 2, 1985, her children including [petitioner] Nazario
Penas, Jr., executed an extra judicial settlement of her estate. As time [went] on,
the monthly rental on the subject premises had been gradually increased by the
[petitioners], the latest of which was Six Hundred Ninety One and 20/100
(P691.20) Pesos, Philippines Currency.
On August 10, 1992, plaintiffs through counsel sent another letter to the
defendant to vacate the subject premises and to pay back rental arrearages in the
sum of Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos, Philippine Currency, per month from
March 1990 in the total sum of Sixty Thousand (P60,000.00) Pesos, Philippine
Currency, which defendant failed to satisfy.
The parties were required to submit their respective position papers after which the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 33 of Quezon City rendered a decision dated 16 March
1993 dismissing herein petitioners' complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court based
its decision on the finding that the complaint was filed more than one (1) year after private
respondent began unlawfully occupying the premises. LLjur
On appeal to the Regional Trial Court, the trial court decision was upheld, the RTC ruling
that herein petitioners' remedy was converted from an actio de mero hecho to an accion
publiciana since more than one (1) year had elapsed from the demand upon defendants to
vacate. The Regional Trial Court concluded that herein petitioners could initiate a proper
complaint with the Regional Trial Court.
Respondent Court of Appeals in a decision * in CA G.R. SP No. 31480 dated 19 November
1993 upheld the RTC. The Court of Appeals ruled that since herein petitioners were not
collecting the rentals being deposited by private respondent, there no longer was any lease
contract between the parties for two (2) years since the first letter of petitioners to private
respondent. The Court of Appeals thus agreed that the proper remedy of petitioners is to
file an action for recovery of possession in the Regional Trial Court.
We do not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeals, and hence set it aside. LLjur
Petitioners correctly cite our ruling in Sy Oh v. Garcia 2 upholding the established rule that
the one (1) year period provided for in section 1, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court within which
a complaint for unlawful detainer can be filed should be counted from the LAST letter of
demand to vacate, the reason being that the lessor has the right to waive his right of action
based on previous demands and let the lessee remain meanwhile in the premises. 3
In the present case, it is of note that the first demand letter addressed by petitioners to
private respondent gave the latter the option to either vacate the premises on or before 28
February 1990 or agree to execute a new lease contract for one (1) year at an increased
rental rate of P2,500 per month. In Vda. de Murga v. Chan 4 we held that:
"The notice giving the lessee the alternative either to pay the increased rental or
otherwise vacate the land is not the demand contemplated by the Rules of Court
in unlawful detainer cases. When after such notice, the lessee elects to stay, he
thereby merely assumes the new rental and cannot be ejected until he defaults in
said obligation and necessary demand is first made."
The facts of this case do not warrant a departure from said settled doctrine. It should be
noted that even if the private respondent was depositing rentals in trust for the petitioners,
what was being deposited were rentals at the old rate, which petitioners were not bound to
accept or withdraw. When private respondent elected to remain in the premises after
petitioners had sent him the letter of 18 January 1990 giving him the option to vacate by
28 February 1990 or to sign a new lease contract for one (1) year at an increased rental
rate of P2,500.00 (later reduced to P2,000.00) a month, he assumed the new rental rate
and could be ejected from the premises only upon default and by a proper demand from
the petitioners. The demand was made on 10 August 1992, followed by the action for
unlawful detainer on 25 September 1992. LibLex
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA G.R. SP
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
No. 31480 is hereby SET ASIDE and a new decision rendered:
1. Ordering private respondent Lupo Calaycay to immediately vacate the premises
located at 24-B Scout Santiago Street, Barangay Laging Handa, Quezon City.
2. Ordering private respondent Lupo Calaycay to pay back rentals in the amount of
Two Thousand (P2,000.00) Pesos per month from March 1990 until he finally vacates the
leased premises.
3. Ordering private respondent to pay Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos as attorney's
fees.
Costs against private respondent.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C .J ., Regalado and Puno, JJ ., concur.
Mendoza, J ., took no part.
Footnotes
3. Racaza v. Susana Realty, Inc., G.R. No. L-20330, 22 December 1966, 18 SCRA 1172.
4. G.R. No. L-24680, 7 October 1968, 25 SCRA 441.