Banson v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Private respondents purchased Lot No. 517 from Rosa E. Blandura, with Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-27376 issued in their names. Prior to the purchase, Blandura informed the private respondents that the houses on the land belonged to petitioner Manuel Banson and his co-defendant Amado Berdugo. Blandura had previously offered to sell the land to them, but they failed to signify their intention to buy. Consequently, Blandura sent eviction letters to petitioner and Berdugo on August 16, 1990, October 20, 1990, and October 29, 1990. Private respondents also sent a demand letter to vacate on February 21, 1992, which was ignored. Procedural History: Private respondents filed an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. V-396) against petitioner and Berdugo before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2, Roxas City. The MTCC ruled that petitioner and Berdugo were not bona fide lessees, as their oral lease contract, which was on a month-to-month basis, was terminated by the original owner in 1983. Their subsequent occupancy was merely tolerated, creating an implied obligation to vacate upon demand. The MTCC found PD No. 1517 and BP Blg. 877 inapplicable because they were no longer lessees. The MTCC ordered them to vacate, remove their houses, and pay P1,000.00 as compensation for use and occupancy, plus attorney's fees of P10,000.00 each. Petitioner and Berdugo appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 14, Roxas City (Civil Case No. V-6193), which affirmed the MTCC decision, finding their occupation to be mere tolerance or usurpation, making them possessors in bad faith. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision, crucially finding the lease contract to be on a monthly basis, thus for a definite period. The Petition: Petitioner seeks to set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, raising issues regarding the applicability of PD No. 1517, BP Blg. 25, BP Blg. 877, and RA No. 7279, and the award of attorney's fees.
Issue(s)
Whether the provisions of P.D. No. 1517, B.P. Blg. 25, B.P. Blg. 877, and R.A. No. 7279 are applicable to the case. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the award of P10,000.00 as attorney's fees in favor of respondents.
Ruling
The petition is bereft of merit. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of P.D. No. 1517, B.P. Blg. 25, B.P. Blg. 877, and R.A. No. 7279: The Court held that these laws are not applicable to the petitioner's case. Batas Pambansa Blg. 25 was repealed by B.P. Blg. 877. While B.P. Blg. 877 suspended certain provisions of the Civil Code regarding lessor's right to eject lessees, this suspension did not apply to leases for a definite period. The Court of Appeals found, as a matter of fact, that the lease contract was "on a monthly basis," which constitutes a definite period. A lease contract on a month-to-month basis provides for a definite period and can be terminated at the end of each month. After the demands to vacate were served, petitioner and his co-defendant became usurpers and were no longer bona fide lessees. Consequently, they are not "legitimate tenants" as contemplated by P.D. No. 1517 and R.A. No. 7279. Furthermore, the contested lot does not fall under the coverage of Section 28 of R.A. No. 7279, which pertains to lands suitable for socialized housing. On the award of attorney's fees: The Court ruled that the issue of attorney's fees could not be raised for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court. Petitioner did not raise this issue in his appeal to the Regional Trial Court or the Court of Appeals. Therefore, the rule that an error not raised in the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal is operative in this case.
Main Doctrine
A lease contract on a month-to-month basis is considered a lease with a definite period, which may be terminated at the end of any month. After demand to vacate, occupants who remain in possession become usurpers and are no longer considered bona fide lessees, rendering laws like PD 1517 and RA 7279 inapplicable.