Cursino v. Bautista
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Maria James (private respondent) is the lawful owner and lessor of a premises leased to Florentino Cursino (petitioner) at a monthly rental of P100.00, payable within the first five days of each month. Cursino defaulted in paying rentals for October, November, and December 1977. On December 14, 1977, James demanded payment of back rentals and that Cursino vacate the premises within five days. Cursino sent two postal money orders on December 21, 1977, one for P200.00 (for October and November rentals) and another for P100.00 (for December rental). Cursino failed to vacate the premises. Procedural History: A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by James against Cursino before the Municipal Court of Paranaque. The Municipal Court rendered a decision in favor of James, ordering Cursino to vacate, pay rentals, attorney's fees, and costs. Cursino appealed to the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, which affirmed the municipal court's decision in toto. Cursino's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CFI. The Petition: Cursino filed a petition for review on certiorari with the Supreme Court, assailing the CFI's decision and order, arguing that the CFI committed grave errors in the interpretation and application of Section 2, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court, and in ruling that Presidential Decree No. 20 and paragraph 2, Article 1673 of the Civil Code were not applicable.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Maria James still has a cause of action against the petitioner after she received and accepted the rentals for October, November, and December 1977 at the time of filing of the instant case, considering the petitioner's claim of not defaulting because the lessor refused to accept payment. Whether the possession of the lessee is legitimized by the lessor's acceptance of the payment of back rentals, and the applicability of Presidential Decree No. 20 to the ejectment case.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision and order of the Court of First Instance of Rizal in toto. The petition for review on certiorari was denied.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the lessor still has a cause of action after accepting back rentals, and considering the petitioner's claim of not defaulting: The Court ruled in the negative regarding the cause of action. The private respondent exercised prerogatives of an owner-lessor. Belated payments of back rentals do not automatically restore the lease without the lessor's consent. The lessor can withdraw from the contract when the tenant fails to pay rents on time and refuses to vacate after demand, making the withholding of possession unlawful. The Court also found the petitioner's claim of the lessor refusing payment untenable, as the petitioner failed to comply with the requisite consignation under Article 1256 of the Civil Code. The payments were sent via postal money orders after the demand to vacate, indicating a failure to pay on time and a refusal to vacate. On the issue of whether the possession of the lessee is legitimized by the lessor's acceptance of the payment of back rentals, and the applicability of Presidential Decree No. 20: The Court clarified that PD 20 only suspends ejectment when the lease is for an indefinite period, specifically suspending paragraph (1) of Article 1673 of the Civil Code (expiration of leases of dwelling units or land for an indefinite period). It does not suspend ejectment on other grounds, such as lack of payment of stipulated rentals. Therefore, PD 20 did not preclude ejectment in this case, as the ground was non-payment of rent. The acceptance of back rentals does not legitimize possession when payments are late and the lessor has already demanded the premises be vacated.
Main Doctrine
The belated payment of back rentals, after a formal demand to vacate has been made due to default, does not automatically restore the lease agreement without the lessor's consent. The lessor's right to withdraw from the contract and demand ejectment is asserted when the tenant refuses to vacate after such demand.