Professional Documents
Culture Documents
MUNICIPALTRIALCOURT
CagayandeOroCity
Branch1
JUANDELACRUZ
Plaintiff,
versus CIVILCASENO.98211
FOR:UnlawfulDetainer
JAKEZYRUS
Defendant.
xx
DECISION
Before this court is a complaint for unlawful detainer filed by Juan de la Cruz, thus
demandingforthecollectionofunpaidrentalsbytherespondent,andfurtherfortheeviction
ofthelatterfromthehouseoftheplaintiffbeingleasedbytherespondent.
Thefactsofthecaseareasfollows.
HereinplaintiffJuandelaCruz,Filipinocitizen,istheownerofthehouseleasedbythe
respondent.ThelatterstartedtooccupythepropertyonMay2015.RespondentZyrushas
been paying said rentals until December 2015 when he started defaulting on payments.
Petitionersentdemandlettersandevenvisitedrespondentonthesaidhouse,butthelatter
refusedtopay.
Inhisdefense,respondentallegesthatthesaidcontractheenteredintowasbelievedtobeof
saleandnotoflease,andtherefore,petitionerhasnorighttoousthimfromthesaidproperty.
Further, the reason he couldnt pay was due to financial difficulties caused by serious
ailments.
In the hearing, both parties have presented their respective witnesses and documents
pertainingtotheleaseandsale.Thiscourthasbeenchallengedtolookintotheauthenticity
ofthetwodocumentspresentedbytheparties,oneforlease,andtheotherforsale.But
corroboratingtestimonieswiththeunfoldingoftheeventsandothercircumstances,thecourt
willnowdecideonthecontendingparties.
Theissuescalledforbythiscasewerethatwhetherornotthedefendantcanbeejectedfor
unlawfuldetainer, andsecond,whether ornotthecontract wasofleaseorofsale,thus
whetherornotthiscourthasjurisdiction.
TheCourtsRuling
Wefindforthepetitioner.
Page 1
OntheIssueofUnlawfulDetainer
Thekeyissueinthiscaseiswhetheranactionforunlawfuldetaineristheproperremedy.
InValdez,Jr.v.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.132424,thecourtruledthatunlawfuldetaineris
asummaryactionfortherecoveryofpossessionofrealproperty.Thisactionmaybefiledby
alessor,vendor,vendee,orotherpersonagainstwhomthepossessionofanylandorbuilding
isunlawfullywithheldaftertheexpirationorterminationoftherighttoholdpossessionby
virtueofanycontract,expressorimplied|||
Thecourtfurtherruledthatinunlawfuldetainercases,thepossessionofthedefendantwas
originallylegal,ashispossessionwaspermittedbytheplaintiffonaccountofanexpressor
impliedcontractbetweenthem.However,defendant'spossessionbecameillegalwhenthe
plaintiff demanded that defendant vacate the subject property due to the expiration or
terminationoftherighttopossessundertheircontract,anddefendantrefusedtoheedsuch
demand. A case for unlawful detainer must be instituted one year from the unlawful
withholdingofpossession.
Theallegationsinthecomplaintdetermineboththenatureoftheactionandthejurisdiction
ofthecourt.Thecomplaintmustspecificallyallegethefactsconstitutingunlawfuldetainer.
Intheabsenceoftheseallegationsoffacts,anactionforunlawfuldetainerisnottheproper
remedyandthemunicipaltrialcourtortheMeTCdoesnothavejurisdictionoverthecase.
Inhisamendedcomplaint,thepetitionerpresentsthefollowingallegationsinsupportofhis
unlawfuldetainercomplaint:
OnAprilMay2016,respondentleasedfromlessorthehouseownedandregisteredinthe
lessorsname,coveringtheareaoccupiedbythedefendants.
xxxx
Lessor had acquired the subject property as early as 1991 through sale, thereafter the
aforesaidTransferCertificateofTitlewassubsequentlyregisteredunderhisname.
Thepetitionerleasedthelottothedefendantforaperiodoftwoyearsatamonthlyrentalat
P10,000
Thecontractofleaseabovereferredtostipulatesthat
TERM:ThistermofleaseisforONE(2)YEARS.fromDecember2,2015toDecember
2,2017inclusive.Uponitsexpiration,thisleasemayberenewedundersuchtermsand
conditionsasmybemutuallyagreeduponbybothparties,writtennoticeofintentionto
renewtheleaseshallbeservedtotheLESSORnotlaterthanseven(7)dayspriortothe
expirydateoftheperiodhereinagreedupon.
DEFAULTPAYMENT:IncaseofdefaultbytheLESSEEinthepaymentoftherent,such
aswhenthechecksaredishonored,theLESSORatitsoptionmayterminatethiscontractand
ejecttheLESSEE.TheLESSORhastherighttopadlockthepremiseswhentheLESSEEis
indefaultofpaymentforOne(1)monthandmayforfeitwhateverrentaldepositoradvances
havebeengivenbytheLESSEE
Duringthetermofthecontract,thedefendantfailedtopaytheagreedamount.The
outstandingbalancereckonsfromJune2,2016,uptopresent.
Page 2
Thedefendant,havingbeenfullyawareoftheirunlawfuloccupancyofthesubjectlot,has
defiantlyrefusedtopaymonthlyrentalsfromDecember2015andthereafter.
Byreasonofdefendantscontinuedunlawfuloccupancyofthesubjectpremises,plaintiff
referredthemattertohislawyerandhadhispersonalassistantimmediatelysendaformal
demanduponhedefendantstovacatethepremises.Copiesofthedemandletterarehereto
attachedasannexes.Despitenotice,however,thedefendantsfailed,refusedandcontinueto
failandrefusetovacatethepremiseswithoutvalidorlegaljustification,whichwouldmake
thedefendantspossessionthereofasillegal.
Clearly,thecaseatbarhasalltherequisitesofanunlawfuldetainer.Ithasbeensufficiently
establishedthatawrittencontractexistedbetweenthepartiesandthatrentwasbeingpaidby
respondenttopetitioneronamonthtomonthbasis.Therespondenthimselfallegedthatshe
hasbeenoccupyingtheleasedpremisesandpayingthemonthlyrentalswithoutfailsince
December2010.Hence,petitioner'sargumentthatthecontractofleasebetweenherand
respondentthatshemaynotbeejectedonthegroundofnonpayment.InMacasaetv.
MacasaetGRNo.,G.R.Nos.15439192,inactionsforunlawfuldetainer,possessionthat
wasoriginallylawfulbecomesunlawfulupontheexpirationorterminationofthedefendant's
righttopossess,arisingfromanexpressorimpliedcontract.Inotherwords,theplaintiff's
causeofactioncomesfromtheexpirationorterminationofthedefendant'srighttocontinue
possession.Thecaseresultingtherefrommustbefiledwithinoneyearfromthedateofthe
lastdemand.|||
Moreover,respondenthasfailedtosufficientlysupporthisclaimthatthereisfraudinthe
allegedcontractofleasebecauseitwasactuallyoneforasale.
Thepetitioners,therefore,haveestablishedarighttoevictprivaterespondentfromthe
subjectpremisesfornonpaymentofrentals.Whenprivaterespondentfailedtopaythe
increasedrental,thepetitionershadacauseofactiontoinstituteanejectmentsuitagainstthe
formerwiththethenCityCourt.
OntheIssueofJurisdiction
Aspreviouslydiscussed,thesettledruleisjurisdictionisbasedontheallegations inthe
initiatorypleadingandthedefensesintheansweraredeemedirrelevantandimmaterialinits
determination.However,werelaxtheruleandconsiderthecomplaintatbarasanexception
in view of the special and unique circumstances present.First, as inIgnacio v. CFI of
Bulacan,thedefenseoflackofjurisdictionwasraisedintheanswerwhereintherewasan
admissionthatpetitionerDelaCruzwasalesseeoftheformerownersofthelot,theReyeses,
prior to the sale to respondent Tan Te.The fact that petitioner was a tenant of the
predecessorsininterest of respondent Tan Te is material to the determination of
jurisdiction.Since this is a judicial admission against the interest of petitioner, such
admissioncanbeconsideredindeterminingjurisdiction.Second,theejectmentsuitwasfiled
withtheManilaMeTConSeptember8,1997ormorethannine(9)yearsago.Todismissthe
complaintwouldbeaseriousblowtotheeffectivedispensationofjusticeasthepartieswill
startanewandincuradditionallegalexpensesafterhavinglitigatedforalongtime.Equitable
justicedictatesthatallegationsintheanswershouldbeconsideredtoaidinarrivingatthe
realnatureoftheaction.Lastly,Section6,Rule1oftheRulesofCourtclearlyempowersthe
CourttoconstrueRule70andotherpertinentproceduralissuancesinaliberalmannerto
promotejust,speedy,andinexpensivedispositionofeveryactionandproceeding.
Page 3
Basedonthecomplaintandtheanswer,itisapparentthattheTanTeejectmentcomplaintis
afterallacomplaintforunlawfuldetainer.ItwasadmittedthatpetitionerDelaCruzwasa
lesseeoftheReyesesforaroundfour(4)decades.Thus,initiallypetitioneraslesseeisthe
legalpossessorofthesubjectlotbyvirtueofacontractoflease.Whenfiredestroyedher
house,theReyesesconsideredtheleaseterminated;butpetitionerDelaCruzpersistedin
returning to the lot and occupied it by strategy and stealth without the consent of the
owners.The Reyeses howevertoleratedthe continued occupancy of the lot by
petitioner.Thus,whenthelotwassoldtorespondentTanTe,therightsoftheReyeses,with
respecttothelot,weretransferredtotheirsubrogee,respondentTanTe,whoforatime
alsotoleratedthestayofpetitioneruntilshedecidedtoejectthelatterbysendingseveral
demands,thelastbeingtheJanuary14,1997letterofdemand.Sincetheactionwasfiled
withtheMeTConSeptember8,1997,theactionwasinstitutedwellwithintheone(1)year
period reckoned fromJanuary 14, 1997.Hence, the nature of the complaint is one of
unlawfuldetainerandtheManilaMeTChadjurisdictionoverthecomplaint.
Thus,anejectmentcomplaintbasedonpossessionbytoleranceoftheowner,liketheTanTe
complaint,isaspecieofunlawfuldetainercases.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered for the plaintiff and
againstdefendant,orderingthelatterandallpersonsclaimingrightsunderher:
1.TovacatethepremiseslocatedatB1L52,SantaBarbara,Kauswagan,CagayandeOro
City,anddeliverthepeacefulpossessionthereoftotheplaintiff[;]
2.TopayplaintiffthesumofP10,000ascompensationfortheuseandoccupancyofthe
premisesfrom B1L52,SantaBarbara,Kauswagan,CagayandeOroCity,anddeliverthe
peacefulpossessionthereoftotheplaintiff[;]plusP10,000amonthstartingJune2016until
defendantandallperson[s]claimingrightsunderhertofinallyvacatethepremises[;]
3.TopayplaintiffthesumofP5,000.00forandasattorneysfees;and
4.Topaythecostofsuit.
SOORDERED.
CagayandeOroCity,September29,2017
NURELIASYUSOPH
PresidingJudge
Copyfurnished:
1. Atty.HanimaiMacumbal
Page 4
2. Atty.AinaSirad
3. Atty.AlyzaBurdeos
4. Atty.KrystelHypaMagallanes
5. OfficeoftheSolicitorGeneral
Page 5