Benolirao v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The petitioner, Antonio Benolirao, is the owner of an apartment in Pasay City leased since 1968 to the private respondent, Emmanuel Timbungco. On April 29, 1985, Benolirao initiated an ejectment suit against Timbungco, alleging two grounds: that the lessee had subleased the property and that the lessee owned another residential unit in Las Piñas, Rizal, which he could occupy. Procedural History: The Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City ruled in favor of the petitioner, Benolirao. This decision was affirmed by the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts' rulings, leading to the present petition before the Supreme Court. The Petition: This petition seeks to set aside the September 18, 1986 decision of the Court of Appeals. The petitioner argues that the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the lower courts' decisions, contending that under Section 5(d) of Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 (BP 25), the lessee's ownership of another residential unit is a valid ground for ejectment. The petitioner asserts that BP 25, being the law in effect at the time the ejectment case arose, should govern, notwithstanding its subsequent repeal and modification by BP 877.
Issue(s)
Whether Batas Pambansa Blg. 877, which repealed Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, should apply to the case despite the cause of action arising before BP 877 took effect. Whether the private respondent could be validly ejected on the ground of owning another residential unit under Section 5(d) of BP 25.
Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled that Batas Pambansa Blg. 25, not Batas Pambansa Blg. 877, is the applicable law. The Court held that the private respondent could be validly ejected on the ground of owning another residential unit that he could use as his residence, as provided under Section 5(d) of BP 25. The challenged decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside, and the dispositive portion of the Metropolitan Trial Court's decision, as affirmed by the Regional Trial Court, was reinstated.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of BP 877: The Court held that BP 877 is not controlling because it became effective on June 12, 1985, after the cause of action in the case arose on April 29, 1985. It is a well-settled rule that the law in force at the time of the occurrence of the cause of action is the applicable law, notwithstanding its subsequent amendment or repeal. Therefore, BP 25, which was in force at the time the complaint was filed, governs the case. The Court noted that BP 25 had been extended by PD 1912 and further by BP 877, but its effectivity period relevant to the cause of action was still governed by BP 25. On the ground of owning another residential unit: The Court found that the private respondent virtually conceded ownership of the house and lot in Las Piñas in his memorandum, stating he never resided there. The Court also noted his failure to dispute the contention that he and his wife only went to the leased premises during noon breaks from work, implying they resided elsewhere. Evidence such as tax declarations in his name for the Las Piñas property, which he did not controvert, were considered as indicia of his intent to possess the land under claim of title. The Court emphasized that the law only required the lessee's ownership of "another residential unit which he may use as his residence," and not actual residence therein. The fact that the property was not leased to a third person further supported the petitioner's claim. The Court rejected the argument that mere ownership is insufficient and that inconvenience due to distance does not constitute an exception to the law.
Main Doctrine
Under Section 5(d) of BP 25, a lessee can be validly ejected for owning another residential unit that they can use as their residence, even if the law has since been modified or repealed, provided BP 25 was the law in force at the time the cause of action arose.