Alfonso v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs-spouses Danilo and Luzviminda C. Basco purchased an apartment building. The fourth door of this building was leased to petitioner Roland Alfonso at a monthly rental of P185.00. The new owners, intending to use the property for their residence and to undertake general repairs and renovations, sent a letter to Alfonso on March 19, 1984, formally advising him of their purchase and their need for the premises. They offered Alfonso ninety (90) days from receipt of the letter to vacate the premises without paying any rental. Alfonso refused to vacate and instead tendered his rental payment for April 1984 via registered mail on May 30, 1984, which was rejected by the Bascos. The Bascos then proposed to give Alfonso a period of one (1) year from April 1, 1984, up to March 31, 1985, to stay in the premises free from rental in exchange for voluntary surrender. Alfonso insisted he could not be ejected. Procedural History: As no settlement was reached, the Bascos filed a complaint for ejectment with the Barangay Office. After failed attempts at settlement and Alfonso's failure to appear, a certification to file a case in court was issued. On July 30, 1984, the Bascos filed a complaint with the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) for ejectment, citing the plaintiffs' need for personal use of the premises and delay in payment of rentals. Alfonso filed a motion to deposit rentals from April to November 1984. The MTC rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering Alfonso to vacate and pay rental arrearages. Alfonso appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which reversed the MTC decision, ruling that Alfonso could not be ejected for non-payment as he had not failed to pay. The Bascos filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA), which reinstated the MTC decision. Alfonso's Motion for Reconsideration was denied by the CA. The Petition: Alfonso filed the instant petition with the Supreme Court, alleging that he was not delayed in the payment of rentals and that the MTC lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment suit due to the absence of a demand to vacate.
Issue(s)
Whether the Metropolitan Trial Court lacked jurisdiction over the ejectment suit due to the absence of a demand to vacate. Whether petitioner Roland Alfonso was delayed in the payment of rentals, constituting a ground for ejectment.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court of Appeals did not err in reinstating the decision of the Metropolitan Trial Court.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of jurisdiction and demand to vacate: The Court held that the contention that the Metropolitan Trial Court lacked jurisdiction because of the absence of a demand to vacate is without merit. The tenor of the letters dated March 19, 1984, and May 1984, clearly shows that a demand to vacate was made upon the defendant. The letter dated March 19, 1984, formally advised Alfonso of the Bascos' purchase and their need for the premises, offering him ninety (90) days to vacate without rental. This constitutes a demand to vacate. The subsequent offer of a year's free rent was a proposal made after Alfonso rejected the initial demand and insisted on staying, and it was also rejected by Alfonso. Therefore, the requirement of a demand to vacate was satisfied. On the issue of delayed payment of rentals: The Court found that Alfonso was indeed delayed in the payment of rentals, which served as a ground for ejectment under Section 5(b) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25. The Bascos' offer of a year's free rent was a proposal that Alfonso rejected by insisting on his right to stay and by tendering payment for April 1984. By rejecting this proposal, Alfonso was duty-bound to pay rentals as they fell due. When the lessor refuses to accept payment, the lessee's remedy is consignation in court or deposit in a bank in the lessor's name with due notice. Alfonso failed to avail himself of this remedy. When the ejectment proceedings were filed on July 30, 1984, rentals for April to July 1984 had not been paid. Tender of payment alone is insufficient; consignation must follow to extinguish the debt. Alfonso's motion to consign rentals, filed in November 1984, was made when he was already eight months in arrears, and there was no evidence that the motion was ever submitted to or acted upon by the court. Therefore, his failure to pay rentals from April to July 1984, without proper consignation, constituted a ground for ejectment.
Main Doctrine
Tender of payment of rentals is insufficient to extinguish the debt and prevent ejectment proceedings; consignation in court or deposit in a bank in the lessor's name with due notice to the lessor is required when the lessor refuses to accept payment. Failure to comply with these requirements constitutes a ground for ejectment under Section 5(b) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25.