Tengco v. Cifra Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Benjamin Cifra, Jr. (private respondent) filed an unlawful detainer case against Emilia Tengco (petitioner) for alleged failure to pay rentals for the premises at No. 164 Int Gov. Pascual St., Navotas, Metro Manila, which he claimed to own and had leased to the petitioner. Procedural History: The Municipal Court of Navotas ruled in favor of the private respondent, ordering the petitioner to vacate and pay rentals in arrears and attorney's fees. The Court of First Instance of Rizal affirmed this decision. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitioner's appeal by way of certiorari, finding the lower court's decision supported by substantial evidence. A motion for reconsideration was denied. The Petition: The petitioner sought review, arguing that the private respondent was not the owner, the lessor was guilty of mora accipiendi, her version of facts was more credible, laches barred the action, and the private respondent failed to establish a cause of action.
Issue(s)
Whether the private respondent Benjamin Cifra, Jr. is the owner of the leased premises. Whether the lessor was guilty of mora accipiendi. Whether the petitioner's version of the facts is more credible than the private respondent's. Whether laches had deprived the lessor of the right to eject the petitioner. Whether the private respondent failed to establish a cause of action against the petitioner.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed, upholding the eviction of the petitioner from the premises and the payment of rentals in arrears and attorney's fees.
Ratio Decidendi
On the ownership of the leased premises: The Court held that the tenant is not permitted to deny the title of the landlord at the time of the commencement of the landlord-tenant relationship. The question of ownership is a question of fact, and the findings of the lower courts are entitled to the highest respect. The petitioner failed to present sufficient proof that the leased premises were not the same lot registered in the name of the private respondent. Maps presented by the petitioner were deemed insufficient to offset the findings of the trial court due to lack of proper identification and indication of the property's location. On mora accipiendi (creditor's delay): The Court found the petitioner's excuse for non-payment of rentals to be without merit. If the lessor's collector refused to accept payment, the petitioner should have resorted to judicial deposit to be released from her responsibility. The alleged refusal to accept payment was not without justification because the ownership of the property had transferred to the private respondent, and the person to whom payment was offered (a sister of the private respondent) had no authority to accept it. The petitioner was aware of the transfer of ownership and should have tendered payment to the private respondent or made a judicial deposit. On the credibility of witnesses and factual version: The Court reiterated that the question of who the real lessor is, is a question of fact. The findings of the lower court that it was the private respondent are entitled to respect. The petitioner's claim that the lease was with the private respondent's mother was not sufficiently proven to overturn the lower court's findings. The cited Commonwealth Act No. 53, concerning the testimony of lessees on unwritten contracts, was deemed inapplicable as there was no dispute as to the terms of the lease, only as to ownership and payment. On laches: The Court found the claim of laches untenable. While arrearages dated back to February 1974, a tenant's mere failure to pay rent does not ipso facto make their possession unlawful. It is the failure to pay rents after a demand therefor is made that entitles the lessor to bring an action for unlawful detainer. The lessor has the privilege to waive the right to eject and allow the tenant to continue possession. In this case, demand was made on August 23, 1976, and the complaint was filed on September 16, 1976, well within the prescriptive period and after the requisite demand. On failure to establish a cause of action: The Court concluded that the petitioner's non-payment of rentals, notwithstanding demand, and her failure to avail of the remedy of judicial deposit entitled the private respondent to eject her. The private respondent had established his right to demand possession through proper legal channels after the petitioner's default and failure to rectify it upon demand.
Main Doctrine
A tenant cannot deny the title of the landlord at the commencement of the landlord-tenant relationship. Failure to pay rentals after demand, coupled with failure to resort to judicial deposit when payment is refused, entitles the lessor to eject the tenant. The lessor may waive the right to eject and grant the tenant credit, but the tenant's possession only becomes illegal after demand and failure to pay.