Barasi v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Lucas Barasi purchased a residential house on November 1, 1976, aware that private respondent Roberto Asistido was renting it on a month-to-month basis for P110.00. Petitioner informed Asistido of the sale and requested him to vacate. Asistido promised to vacate by February 1977, which petitioner agreed to, condoning rentals from December 1976 to February 1977. Asistido then requested a one-month grace period for his children's studies, which petitioner granted, also condoning the March 1977 rental. Subsequently, Asistido refused to vacate. Procedural History: Petitioner filed an ejectment case on September 13, 1977, before the Municipal Court of Makati, Branch I, on grounds of personal use and failure to pay rent. The Municipal Court ruled in favor of petitioner on June 25, 1979, based on Batas Pambansa Blg. 25. This decision was affirmed by the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XV, at Makati, on January 26, 1980. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' decisions, holding that the new owner (petitioner) was not within the ambit of 'owner/lessor' under Batas Blg. 25, citing LOI No. 768 and a previous CA ruling. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari, contending that the Court of Appeals erred in law by declaring him outside the scope of 'owner/lessor' under Batas Blg. 25 and committed grave abuse of discretion in holding that private respondent had validly deposited unpaid rentals.
Issue(s)
Whether a new owner of leased premises, who purchased the property from the original owner/lessor, can avail of the right to recover possession on the ground of personal use under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25. Whether the term 'owner/lessor' as used in Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 is confined only to the original owner/lessor.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XV, at Makati. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether a new owner can avail of ejectment for personal use under BP Blg. 25: The Court held that a bona fide buyer of leased property, like the petitioner, who proves the need for personal use for themselves or their immediate family, may avail of the right of ejectment. The Court relied on the ruling in Tan Tok Lee vs. CFI of Kalookan City, which involved almost identical facts. In that case, the new owner bought the premises for her family's use as they were also being ejected from their dwelling. The Court sustained the new owner's right to recover possession, emphasizing that PD No. 20, while designed to protect low-income families, was not intended to totally deprive an owner of their right to possess and dispose of their property in cases of extreme necessity. The enactment of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 further relaxed the rigid suspension of the Civil Code on judicial ejectment by allowing the need of the owner/lessor for personal use as a ground. On whether the term 'owner/lessor' is confined to the original owner/lessor: The Court ruled that the term 'owner/lessor' in Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 is not confined only to the original owner/lessor but embraces a new owner who is a bona fide buyer. The Court reasoned that the law could not have intended to prevent bona fide sales of properties to third persons who are in need of their own residence. To interpret the term restrictively would be an unreasonable construction contrary to the fundamental philosophy underlying the right to property and would impair the new owner's liberty of abode. The Court found that the petitioner had established his need for the premises for his family's use, as they were being ejected from their leased dwelling, and that the private respondent had reneged on his promise to vacate, thereby depriving the petitioner of the use of his own home.
Main Doctrine
A bona fide buyer of leased property, who proves the need for personal use of the premises for themselves or their immediate family, can avail of the right of ejectment under Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, as the term 'owner/lessor' includes a new owner who is not the original lessor.