Ventura v. Miller
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: On September 1, 1899, Doña Eumelia Eleizegui leased a house to Doña Josefina Reynoso, wife of Paul A. Miller, for two years at a monthly rent of 26 pesos. The lease was not inscribed in the registry of property. On December 6, 1900, Doña Eumelia sold the property to Antonio Ventura, stating in the deed that the property was free from all incumbrances. On December 14, 1900, Ventura notified the tenant to vacate at the end of the month or pay an increased rent of 80 pesos per month. The tenant refused and deposited the rent for December and January at the original rate with a notary. Ventura accepted the December rent under protest but refused the January rent. Procedural History: On March 11, 1901, Ventura commenced an action for unlawful detainer against Miller and his wife. Doña Eumelia defended the action, claiming a verbal agreement with Ventura to respect the lease and that Ventura's acceptance of the December rent validated the lease. The Petition: The plaintiff sought the eviction of the defendants from the leased premises.
Issue(s)
Whether the plaintiff, as the new owner of the leased property, is bound by the existing lease agreement. Whether the plaintiff's acceptance of the December rent, under protest, constituted a recognition of the lease's validity, thereby obligating her to respect it.
Ruling
The judgment of the court is reversed, and judgment is ordered for the plaintiff directing the eviction asked by the plaintiff, with costs of the first instance against the defendants and without especial order as to the costs of this instance.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the plaintiff is bound by the lease: The Court held that under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, the purchaser of a leased property has the right to terminate the lease. The lease in question was not inscribed in the registry of property, nor was it mentioned in the deed of sale. The grantor explicitly stated that the property was free from all incumbrances. Therefore, the plaintiff was not legally bound to respect the lease agreement entered into by the previous owner. On the issue of whether acceptance of rent constituted recognition of the lease: The Court found that the acceptance of the December rent did not bind the plaintiff to respect the lease. The sale occurred on December 6, and the rent for December was part of a verbal agreement between the seller and the purchaser, wherein the seller agreed that the purchaser might collect it. The plaintiff had already given notice to vacate on December 14, and her acceptance of the rent in January, under protest, did not alter her right to terminate the lease. The circumstances indicated that the plaintiff did not intend to recognize the validity of the lease by accepting the rent.
Main Doctrine
Under Article 1571 of the Civil Code, a purchaser of a leased property has the right to terminate the lease, and acceptance of rent after notice to vacate does not necessarily bind the purchaser to respect the lease, especially if the lease was not inscribed in the registry of property and no mention of it was made in the deed of sale.