art 1187

8/10/2019 art 1187

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/art-1187 1/10

Laws

Jurisprudence

Supreme Court Issuances

Presidential Issuances

Administrative Issuances

Implementing Rules and Regulations

Annotations

thiRD DIVISION

!"R" No" #$%&'(" )a* +, &--./

DAVID !" D0LA, petitioner, vs" DR" R1S2I202O )ARAVILLA and 21R1SI2A)ARAVILLA, respondents"

D 1 C I S I O N

!ARCIA, J"3

0nder consideration is this petition 4or review on certiorari under Rule %. o4

the Rules o4 Court to nulli4* and set aside the 4ollowing issuances o4 the Court

o4 Appeals in CA5!"R" SP No" %'($', to wit3

#6 Decision#/ dated )a* #%, #++7, a8rming, with modi9cation, an earlier

decision o4 the Regional 2rial Court at )a:ati Cit* in an appealed e;ectmentcase commenced <* the herein respondents against the petitioner <e4ore the

)etropolitan 2rial Court =)e2C6 o4 )a:ati Cit*> and

&6 Resolution&/ dated June &+, #++7, den*ing petitioner?s motion 4or

reconsideration"

2he 4actual milieu"

Sometime in Novem<er, #++$, herein respondents @ the spouses Restituto

)aravilla and 2eresita )aravilla @ purchased a .5door apartment <uilding at

No" #7%+ 1ure:a Street, )a:ati Cit*, 0nit A o4 which is occupied <* hereinpetitioner, David !" Dula, since #+'7 at a monthl* rental o4 P&,##&"-- under

an oral month5to5month contract o4 lease with the 4ormer owner"

On Januar* #-, #++%, respondents addressed a notice to petitioner 4ormall*

in4orming the latter o4 the termination o4 his lease and giving him three =$6

months 4rom Januar* $#, #++% within which to vacate the unit occupied <*

him and to surrender the possession thereo4" Petitioner re4used" ence, on

8/10/2019 art 1187


Septem<er &+, #++% in the )etropolitan 2rial Court =)e2C6 o4 )a:ati Cit*, a

complaint 4or e;ectment was 9led against him <* the respondents"

Resolving the case under the Rules on Summar* Procedure, the )e2C, in a

decision dated )a* &%, #++.,$/ rendered ;udgment 4or the respondents,

thus3

2here having <een a su<stantial compliance with the reBuirements provided

<* law, ;udgment is here<* rendered in 4avor o4 the plainti and against the

de4endant as 4ollows3

=a6 Ordering the de4endant DAVID D0LA and all persons claiming right or

interest under him to vacate the leased premises in Buestion and to turn over

the peace4ul possession thereo4 to plainti or to its dul* authoried

representative>

=<6 Ordering the de4endant to pa* plainti the sum o4 P&,##&"-- a month

4rom Septem<er #++% and ever* month therea4ter until possession thereo4

should have <een peace4ull* surrendered to plainti>

=c6 Ordering de4endant to pa* plainti the sum o4 2E1N2F 2O0SAND

P1SOS =P&-,---"--6 as and 4or attorne*?s 4ees> and,

=d6 to pa* the costs o4 suit"

SO ORD1R1D"

In time, petitioner went on appeal to the Regional 2rial Court =R2C6 at )a:ati

Cit*, contending, in the main, that the complaint 9led against him 4ailed to

state a cause o4 action, and, there4ore, should have <een dismissed outright

<* the )e2C"

A4ter the parties have su<mitted their respective memoranda, the R2C came

out with its decision o4 August &(, #++(,%/ a8rming in toto the appealed

decision o4 the )e2C"

Eith his motion 4or reconsideration having <een denied <* the same court in

its order o4 Januar* &', #++7,./CA5!"R" SP No" %'($', therein raising the

4ollowing arguments3 =#6 the e;ectment complaint is 4atall* Gawed as it 4ailed

to state a cause o4 action <ecause while it is <ased on the need o4 the leased

premises 4or the personal use o4 the respondents, the same complaint 4ailed

to allege that respondents do not own an* other residential unit in the same

municipalit*, as reBuired <* Section . =c6 o4 Hatas Pam<ansa =H"P"6 Hlg" 7((>

=&6 <oth the )e2C and the R2C erred in ordering petitioner?s e;ectment on

ground o4 epiration o4 the lease despite the 4act that such a ground is not

pleaded in the complaint> and =$6 even i4 alleged, the epiration o4

petitioner?s month5to5month contract o4 lease cannot <e a <asis 4or e;ectment

8/10/2019 art 1187


<ecause Section ' o4 H"P" Hlg" 7(( suspended the application o4 Article #'7(

o4 the Civil Code" petitioner elevated the case to the Court o4 Appeals

whereat his recourse was doc:eted as

In the herein assailed decision dated )a* #%, #++7, the Court o4 Appeals

a8rmed the appealed )a* &%, #++. decision o4 the R2C minus the award o4 attorne*?s 4ees, thus3

E1R1OR1, with the eception o4 the deletion o4 the award 4or attorne*?s

4ees, the decision herein appealed 4rom is here<* AIR)1D, without

pronouncement as to costs"

SO ORD1R1D"

0ndaunted, petitioner is now with us via the instant recourse raising the

same issues alread* passed upon <* the three =$6 courts <elow"

Ee D1NF"

In the complaint'/ the* 9led against petitioner <e4ore the )e2C o4 )a:ati

Cit*, respondents, as plaintis therein, alleged, inter alia, thus3

'" 2hat on Januar* #-, #++% plaintis through counsel made a written

notice and demand that the 4ormer is terminating the lease over the premises

eective Januar* $#, #++% 4or the reason o4 personal use and to pa* rentals

with three =$6 months to vacate and surrender premises>

As ma* <e gleaned 4rom the 4oregoing allegations, two =&6 grounds are relied

upon <* the respondents in see:ing petitioner?s e;ectment 4rom the premises

in Buestion, namel*3

=a6 respondents? need o4 the leased premises 4or their own personal use>

and

=<6 epiration o4 the lease contract with the termination o4 the month5to5

month lease eective Januar* $#, #++%"

In <oth instances, respondents gave petitioner a grace period o4 three =$6

months within which to vacate the place"

2he a4orementioned grounds 4or ;udicial e;ectment are epressl* provided 4orin H"P" Hlg" 7((, entitled KAn Act Providing 4or the Sta<iliation and Regulation

o4 Rentals o4 Certain Residential 0nits and 4or other Purposes, which, <*

virtue o4 R"A" ('%%, was in 4orce until #++(" Section . thereo4 pertinentl*

reads3

Section ." !rounds 4or Judicial 1;ectment" @ 1;ectment shall <e allowed on the

4ollowing grounds3

8/10/2019 art 1187


=c6 Legitimate need o4 ownerMlessor to repossess his propert* 4or his

own use or 4or the use o4 an* immediate mem<er o4 his 4amil* as a

residential unit, such owner or immediate mem<er not <eing the owner o4

an* other availa<le residential unit within the same cit* or municipalit*3Provided, however, 2hat the lease 4or a de9nite period has epired3 Provided,

4urther, 2hat the lessor has given the lessee 4ormal notice three =$6 months in

advance o4 lessor?s intention to repossess the propert*3 and Provided, 9nall*,

2hat the ownerMlessor is prohi<ited 4rom leasing the residential unit or

allowing its use <* a third part* 4or at least one *ear"

=46 1piration o4 the period o4 the lease contract"

Anent the 9rst ground under Section .=c6 a<ove, which is the respondents?

need o4 the propert* 4or their own use, petitioner contends that the complaint

should <e dismissed 4or lac: o4 cause o4 action <ecause it 4ailed to allege that

the respondents had no other availa<le residential unit within the same cit*

or municipalit*"

Ee agree with the Court o4 Appeals that there was here a su<stantial

compliance with the reBuirement o4 Section . =c6 o4 H"P" Hlg" 7(( when

respondents speci9call* averred in their Supplemental to Position Paper that

Kplaintis has =sic6 no other propert* in )a:ati ecept that propert* located

at 1ure:a St", )a:ati, )etro )anila(/" In much the same wa* that acomplaint, which 4ails to state a cause o4 action, ma* <e cured <* evidence

presented during the trial in regular procedure, a de4ective complaint in

summar* procedure ma* li:ewise <e cured <* the allegations in the position

paper" 2hus, the )e2C cannot <e 4aulted 4or not dismissing the case 4or lac:

o4 cause o4 action"

2he ground 4or ;udicial e;ectment stated in Section . =c6 o4 H"P" Hlg" 7(( ma*

<e reduced to the 4ollowing essential reBuisites3

=#6 the owner?sMlessor?s legitimate need to repossess the leased propert*

4or his own personal use or 4or the use o4 an* o4 his immediate 4amil*>

=&6 the ownerMlessor does not own an* other availa<le residential unit

within the same cit* or municipalit*>

=$6 the lease 4or a de9nite period has epired>

=%6 there was 4ormal notice at least three =$6 months prior to the intended

8/10/2019 art 1187


date to repossess the propert*> and

=.6 the owner must not lease or allow the use o4 the propert* to a third

part* 4or at least one *ear"

2hus 4ar, we have noted and discussed the 9rst and second reBuisites" 2he

4act that there was 4ormal notice and that it was given at least three =$6

months 4rom intended date to repossess the propert*, which is the 4ourth

reBuisite, is not disputed"

Our discussion now <rings us to the third element, which is the alleged

epiration o4 the period o4 lease"

It is ac:nowledged that there was neither an* written nor ver<al agreement

as to a 9ed period o4 lease <etween the respondents and the petitioner"

2here was, however, a ver<al agreement 4or the pa*ment o4 rental at

P&,##&"-- on a monthl* <asis" H* epress provision o4 Article #'7(7/ o4 the

Civil Code, the term o4 the lease in the case at <ar is 4rom month5to5month"

Admittedl*, there was a written notice served <* the respondents on Januar*

#-, #++% upon petitioner 4or the termination o4 the lease eective Januar* $#,

#++%" Citing this Court?s ruling in De Vera vs" Court o4 Appeals,+/ the Court

o4 Appeals held that the period o4 lease there<* epired <* the end o4 the

month o4 Januar*, #++%"

Petitioner, however, contends otherwise" e argues that the operation o4

Article #'7( was suspended with the suspension o4 Article #'($ <* Section '

o4 H"P" Hlg" 7((, which states3

Section '" Application o4 the Civil Code and Rules o4 Court o4 the Philippines"@ 1cept when the lease is 4or a de9nite period, the provisions o4 paragraph

=#6 o4 Article #'($#-/ o4 the Civil Code o4 the Philippines, inso4ar as the*

re4er to residential units covered <* this Act, shall <e suspended during the

eectivit* o4 this Act, <ut other provisions o4 the Civil Code and the Rules o4

Court on lease contracts, inso4ar as the* are not in conGict with the provisions

o4 this Act shall appl*"

2he Court disagrees"

2he Court?s pronouncement in De Vera vs" Court o4 Appeals,##/ is

enlightening3

2he issue in this case is whether the oral contract o4 lease was on a

month5to5month <asis which is terminated at the end o4 ever* month" Ee

hold that it is" Ee have alread* ruled in a num<er o4 cases that a lease on a

month5to5month <asis is, under Art" #'7(, a lease with a de9nite period, upon

the epiration o4 which upon demand made <* the lessor on the lessee to

vacate, the e;ectment o4 the lessee ma* <e ordered"

8/10/2019 art 1187


Art" #'7( o4 the Civil Code provides3

Art" #'7(" I4 the period 4or the lease has not <een 9ed, it is understood to <e

4rom *ear to *ear, i4 the rent agreed upon is annual> 4rom month to month, i4

it is monthl*> 4rom wee: to wee:, i4 the rent is wee:l*> and 4rom da* to da*, i4

the rent is to <e paid dail*" owever, even though a monthl* rent is paid, andno period 4or the lease has <een set, the Courts ma* 9 a longer term 4or the

lease a4ter the lessee has occupied the premises 4or over one *ear" I4 the rent

is wee:l*, the Courts ma* li:ewise determine a longer period a4ter the lessee

has <een in possession 4or over si months" In case o4 dail* rent, the courts

ma* also 9 a longer period a4ter the lessee has sta*ed in the place 4or over

one month"

2his provision has not <een aected <* the suspension in ' o4 H"P" Hlg" 7((

which provides3

'" Application o4 the Civil Code and Rules o4 Court o4 the Philippines" 5 1cept

when the lease is 4or a de9nite period, the provisions o4 paragraph =#6 o4

Article #'($ o4 the Civil Code o4 the Philippines, in so 4ar as the* re4er to

residential units covered <* this Act, shall <e suspended during the eectivit*

o4 this Act, <ut other provisions o4 the Civil Code and the Rules o4 Court on

lease contracts, in so 4ar as the* are not in conGict with the provisions o4 this

Act shall appl*"

2hus, what has <een suspended <* the Rent Control Law =' o4 H"P" Hlg" 7((,

4ormerl* ' o4 H"P" Hlg" &.6 is Art" #'($ and not Art" #'7( o4 the Civil Code"

2he eect o4 the suspension o4 Art" #'($/ on Art" #'7( is onl* that the lessor

cannot e;ect the tenant <* reason alone o4 the epiration o4 the period o4 lease as provided in said Art" #'7(" Otherwise, Art" #'7( itsel4 has not <een

suspended" ence, it can <e used to determine the period o4 a lease

agreement"

As petitioner was noti9ed o4 the epiration o4 the lease eective Decem<er

$-, #++-, her right to sta* in the premises came to an end" =1mphasis

supplied"6

As earl* as #+7', in Rivera vs" lorendo,#&/ the Court settled this issue on

Section ' o4 H"P" 7(( =4ormerl* Section ', o4 H"P" &.6 when it eplained3

Ehat is suspended under the a4oreBuoted provision o4 law is Article #'($ o4

the Civil Code o4 the Philippines and not Article #'7( o4 the same Code" 2he

eect o4 said suspension is that independentl* o4 the grounds 4or e;ectment

enumerated in Hatas Pam<ansa Hlg" &., the ownerMlessor cannot e;ect the

tenant <* reason o4 the epiration o4 the period o4 lease as 9ed or

determined under Article #'7(" It does not mean that the provisions o4

Article #'7( itsel4 had <een suspended" 2hus, the determination o4 the

8/10/2019 art 1187


period o4 a lease agreement can still <e made in accordance with said Article

#'7("

Similar to the case at <ar, in Rivera, there was admittedl* no de9nite period

o4 lease agreed upon <* the parties" owever, it was esta<lished that the

rent was paid on a monthl* <asis" 2he Court?s conclusion in Rivera that theperiod o4 lease is considered to <e 4rom month to month in accordance with

Article #'7( is, there4ore, applica<le to the present case as well"

Ehen the respondent spouses gave petitioner notice on Januar* #-, #++% o4

their personal need to use the propert*, demanding that petitioner vacate the

same, the contract o4 lease is deemed to have epired as o4 the end o4 that

month or on Januar* $#, #++% as indicated in the said notice to vacate"

In Haens vs" Court o4 Appeals,#$/ we held3

even i4 the month to month arrangement is on a ver<al <asis, i4 it is

shown that the lessor needs the propert* 4or his own use or 4or the use o4 an

immediate mem<er o4 the 4amil* or an* other statutor* grounds to e;ect

under Section . o4 Hatas Pam<ansa Hlg" &. =later also Section . o4 H"P" Hlg"

7((6, which happens to <e applica<le, then the lease is considered

terminated as o4 the end o4 the month, a4ter proper notice or demand to

vacate has <een given" =See Crisostomo v" Court o4 Appeals, ##' SCRA #++6"

=1mphasis supplied"6

2he third element reBuired in Section .=c6 o4 H"P" Hlg" 7(( which is the

epiration o4 the lease contract is de9nitel* present in the instant case"

2he 94th element, <eing in the nature o4 a condition, simpl* entails anunderta:ing <* the ownerMlessor not to lease or allow a third part* to use the

propert* 4or at least one *ear"

All the elements reBuired <* Section .=c6 o4 H"P" Hlg" 7(( are etant in the

present case" 2here is, then, no other logical conclusion <ut to uphold the

uni4orm ruling o4 the three =$6 lower courts mandating petitioner?s e;ectment

4rom the su<;ect premises"

Anent the second ground 4or ;udicial e;ectment under Section .=46 o4 H"P" Hlg"

7(( which is the epiration o4 the lease contract, this Court 4or the 9rst time,

through Justice 2eodoro Padilla in 0* oo and Sons Realt* Development Corp"vs" Court o4 Appeals,#%/ applied Article #'7( o4 the Civil Code resulting in

the epiration o4 the lease contract therein involved, so much so that even i4

the lessor does not need the leased propert* 4or personal use under Section

.=c6 o4 H"P" Hlg" 7((, such epiration o4 the lease term ma* <e eBuall* <e

used <* the lessor to e;ect the tenant <ased on Section .=46 o4 H"P" 7((,

ratiocinating thus3

8/10/2019 art 1187


8/10/2019 art 1187


All told, petitioner 4ailed to show wh* the actions o4 the three courts which

have passed upon the same issue should <e reversed" Li:ewise, he 4ailed to

show that said courts? 4actual 9ndings are not <ased on su<stantial evidence

or that their decisions are contrar* to applica<le law and ;urisprudence"

inall*, with this case having <een unnecessaril* prolonged 4rom the time itwas 9led in #++%, petitioner?s lease has in eect <een etended long enough

4or him to 9nd another place to sta* in" As in Rivera, supra, per then Justice

=later Chie4 Justice6 )arcelo ernan, where the Court said3

2he instant case, which is summar* in nature, had dragged on 4or over 9ve

=.6 *ears" 2o o<viate 4urther dela*, the decision rendered herein is 9nal and

eecutor* =1mphasis supplied"6,

this case which has dragged on not onl* 4or 9ve =.6 *ears <ut more than ten

=#-6 *ears, will more than ;usti4* this Court in suspending the Rules in the

greater interest o4 su<stantial ;ustice"

E1R1OR1, petition is D1NI1D" 2his ;udgment is immediatel* eecutor*"

SO ORD1R1D"

Pangani<an, =Chairman6, Sandoval5!utierre, Corona, and Carpio5)orales, JJ",

concur"

#/ Penned <* Associate Justice ector L" o9lea and concurred in <*

Associate Justices Jesus )" 1l<inias and )ariano 0mali, all retired> Rollo, pp"

#%5&#"

&/ Rollo, pp" &&5&$"

$/ Rollo, pp" %&5%$"

%/ Rollo, pp" .%5.("

./ Rollo, p" .7"

'/ Rollo, p" &."

(/ Rollo, p" #'"

7/ Art" #'7(" I4 the period 4or the lease has not <een 9ed, it is understood

to <e 4rom *ear to *ear, i4 the rent agreed upon is annual> 4rom month to

month, i4 it is monthl*> 4rom wee: to wee:, i4 the rent is wee:l*> and 4rom da*

to da*, i4 the rent is to <e paid dail*" owever, even though a monthl* rent is

paid, and no period 4or the lease has <een set, the courts ma* 9 a longer

period 4or the lease a4ter the lessee has occupied the premises 4or over one

*ear" I4 the rent is wee:l*, the courts ma* li:ewise determine a longer period

8/10/2019 art 1187


a4ter the lessee has <een in possession 4or over si months" In case o4 dail*

rent, the courts ma* also 9 a longer term a4ter the lessee has sta*ed in the

place 4or over one month"

+/ &'- SCRA $+', or $&+ Phil" #(. #++'/"

#-/ Art" #'($" 2he lessor ma* ;udiciall* e;ect the lessee 4or an* o4 the

4ollowing causes3

=#6 Ehen the period agreed upon, or that which is 9ed 4or the duration o4

leases under articles #'7& and #'7(, has epired"

"

##/ $&+ Phil" #(. #++'/"

#&/ &&( Phil &.7 #+7'/"

#$/ &#- Phil" .$. #+7$/"

#%/ #(% SCRA #-- #+7+/"

#./ Per ponencia o4 Justice ugo !utierre, Jr"> #7- SCRA ##+ #+7+/

#'/ Per ponencia o4 Senior Associate Justice Re*nato Puno> $&& Phil" $''

#++'/"

#(/ Per ponencia o4 Justice Vicente )endoa> see 4ootnote ##, supra"

#7/ Rivera v" lorendo, supra"

#+/ 0nited Realt* Corporation vs" Court o4 Appeals, #7$ SCRA (&. #++-/"

Cop*right Q &--+ Jaroma* Pamaos Law O8ce" All Rights

Reserved"Careers2erms o4 0se

art 1187

Documents