Pascua v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Eduardo and Loreta Cañares owned a two-door apartment building leased to Aurora Pascua since 1969 and Spouses Noli and Erlinda Astrologio since 1972, both at P300.00 monthly rental. The Cañareses themselves were renting an apartment for P1,200.00 monthly and were asked to vacate by their landlord. On October 15, 1984, the Cañareses notified their lessees of their need to transfer to their own house and demanded they vacate within six months. Subsequent letters were sent on April 18, 1985, and August 8, 1985, reiterating the demand. The lessees refused to vacate, prompting the Cañareses to file ejectment complaints on September 12, 1985, after a failed barangay conciliation. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) ruled in favor of the Cañareses in both cases, ordering the lessees to vacate and pay rentals and attorney's fees (with a slight variation for Pascua regarding rentals). The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed these decisions. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) had conflicting rulings: the Fourth Division dismissed Pascua's petition, while the Special Eleventh Division favored the Astrologios, holding that the Cañareses failed to allege and prove they did not own any other available residential unit. The Petition: Both the Cañareses and Pascua filed petitions with the Supreme Court to question the CA's judgments against them.
Issue(s)
Was the Cañareses' failure to allege in their complaint that they were not the owners of any other available residential unit in the City of Manila fatal to their cause of action? Could the lessees be ejected under Article 1673 of the Civil Code notwithstanding Section 6 of B.P. Blg. 25, as amended by B.P. Blg. 877?
Ruling
1. In G.R. No. 76851, the petition is DISMISSED and the decision of the respondent court dated December 12, 1986, is AFFIRMED, with costs against the petitioner. 2. In G.R. No. 78431, the petition is GRANTED. The decision of the respondent court dated March 18, 1987, is REVERSED, and that of the Regional Trial Court of Manila dated May 20, 1986, is REINSTATED, with costs against the private respondents.
Ratio Decidendi
On the first issue (Failure to allege ownership of other residential units): The Court held that the failure to explicitly state in the complaint that the lessors did not own any other available residential unit was not fatal. This deficiency was substantially complied with by the inclusion of a demand letter as an annex to the complaint, which clearly stated the lessors' need to occupy the premises due to their own landlord asking them to vacate and their current high rental payments. Furthermore, the objection regarding the deficiency was not raised by the respondents until they filed their petition for review with the Court of Appeals, making it a belated objection. The Court reiterated the doctrine that defective pleadings can be cured by evidence introduced without objection, and procedural rules should not be strictly enforced at the cost of substantial justice. The Court emphasized that the issue was raised for the first time before the Supreme Court, which is another reason for its dismissal. On the second issue (Ejectment under Article 1673 despite BP Blg. 25): The Court reiterated its existing doctrine that Section 6 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 (BP Blg. 25) suspends Article 1673 of the Civil Code only in relation to the expiration of the lease period, not Article 1687 itself. Article 1687 provides that if the rent is paid monthly, the lease is considered from month to month, and the courts may fix a longer term if the lessee has occupied the premises for over a year. The Court clarified that the suspension of Article 1673 does not mean that the provisions of Article 1687 are also suspended; thus, the period of lease can still be determined under Article 1687. In this case, the monthly rent implies a month-to-month lease, which expired upon proper notice to vacate. The Court also emphasized that Section 5(c) of BP Blg. 25 allows ejectment on the ground of legitimate need of the owner/lessor for his own use or for the use of an immediate family member, provided the owner/lessor is not the owner of any other available residential unit. The Court found that the Cañareses had a legitimate need to repossess their property because they were asked to vacate their rented residence and were paying high rentals. Crucially, the Court determined that their other property, purchased on February 14, 1985, was not "available" for residential purposes at the time the ejectment complaints were filed on September 12, 1985. This was because the property was dilapidated, unfit for habitation, and was occupied by another tenant whose lease would expire only in April 1989. Therefore, the requirements of BP Blg. 25, Section 5(c) were satisfied, entitling the lessors to eject the lessees.
Main Doctrine
A lessor's failure to explicitly allege in the complaint that they do not own any other available residential unit may be cured by the annexes to the complaint or by evidence presented during trial. Furthermore, the suspension of Article 1673 of the Civil Code by BP Blg. 25 does not suspend Article 1687, which allows for the determination of lease periods, and ejectment is permissible under Section 5(c) of BP Blg. 25 if the lessor has a legitimate need for the property and owns no other available residential unit.