Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1965 > July 1965 Decisions > G.R. No. L-19572 July 30, 1965 - DIONISIO B. GALLARDE v. CESAR S. MORAN, ET AL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19572. July 30, 1965.]

DIONISIO B. GALLARDE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CESAR S. MORAN and LIBORIA L. MORAN, Defendants-Appellees.

Gaspar V. Tagalo and Ambrosio Calo Gallarde, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Teofisto Guingona, Jr. for Defendants-Appellees.


SYLLABUS


1. EJECTMENT; COMPLAINT MUST ALLEGE DEFINITE DEMAND TO VACATE PRIOR TO BRINGING ACTION. — A complaint for ejectment which does not allege a definite demand to vacate the premises before bringing the action nor that such demand had been made in the form required, is held not to establish a cause of action, under Rule 72, Section 2, of the Rules of Court in force in 1961.


D E C I S I O N


BENGZON, C.J.:


The above-mentioned plaintiff prays for reversal of the order of the Honorable Montano A. Ortiz of Agusan dismissing his complaint for ejectment against Cesar S. Moran, Et. Al.

The record shows that on June 2, 1961, Dionisio B. Gallarde filed such complaint for "ejectment and damages", in the Court of First Instance of Agusan, alleging substantially that: (a) in 1954, he permitted defendants to occupy a parcel of urban land belonging to him, because the latter promised to pay monthly rentals of P15.00, later reduced to P12.00 and then to P10.00; (b) that the rentals were payable in advance every first week of the month; (c) that defendants were irregular in their rental payments; (d) that in view thereof, he notified them in January 1960 that beginning March of that year the rental would be 30 pesos a month and if defendants were not ‘agreeable’ to the new condition, he "made the demand against defendants to vacate plaintiff’s land" ; (e) that afterwards, defendants failed to pay rentals for several months; (f) that he thereby suffered moral and actual damages; and (g) that defendants, "who in spite of plaintiff’s demand against them to vacate the leased land refused to do so" should be required to pay exemplary damages. The complaint ended with the prayer: (1) that defendants be ejected from the parcel of land; and (2) that they be ordered to pay damages and costs.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on several grounds, one of which was based on the lack of cause of action, the complaint having made no allegation of a previous demand upon the defendants to vacate the premises in accordance with the provisions of sec. 2 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court.

On this ground, the trial judge dismissed the complaint, as stated. The plaintiff appealed.

We find this appeal to have no merit. Sec. 2 of Rule 72 of the Rules of Court, in force in 1961, directs specifically that:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Section 2. Landlord to proceed against tenant only after demand.— No landlord, or his legal representative or assign, shall bring such action against a tenant for failure to pay rent due or comply with the conditions of his lease, unless the tenant shall have failed to pay such rent or comply with such conditions for a period of fifteen days, or five days in the case of building, after demand therefor, made upon him personally, or by serving written notice of each demand upon the reason found on the premises, or by posting such notice on the premises if no persons be found thereon."cralaw virtua1aw library

We have carefully, and repeatedly, read the complaint. It fails absolutely to make allegations establishing a cause of action conformably to the above Rule.

The only allegations of demand to vacate were those hereinabove described. The first was not a definite demand to vacate: it was conditional. It merely said, that if defendants refused to agree to pay 30 pesos a month, then plaintiff would demand that they vacate. There is no allegation that defendants refused to agree.

The second allegation of demand, was quite indefinite. It inferentially says that plaintiff demanded that defendants vacate the land; but it does not say when. So the condition imposed by sec. 2 of Rule 72 that the demand be made at least fifteen days or five days before bringing the action has not been fulfilled. Again, the complaint does not allege that the demand to vacate was made for failure to pay rent or comply with conditions of the contract. 1 And again, the complaint does not allege facts to show that such "demand" had been made in the form required by Sec. 2, viz., personally, or by serving written notice, or by posting such notice.

WHEREFORE, the appealed order is affirmed, with costs against Appellant.

Bautista, Angelo, Concepcion, Reyes, J.B.L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala, Makalintal, Bengzon, J.P., and Zaldivar, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. Maybe plaintiff demanded the return of his land by reason of his "other future plan over said land for his own use" as alleged in par. 7 of the complaint.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1965 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-16631 July 20, 1965 - DEV. BANK OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL S. OZARRAGA

  • G.R. No. L-18172 July 20, 1965 - ROSA BUNGAY VDA. DE QUILLOSA, ET AL v. TARCILA SALAZAR

  • G.R. No. L-20125 July 20, 1965 - NIN BAY MINING CO. v. MUN. OF ROXAS, PROV. OF PALAWAN

  • G.R. No. L-16723 July 30, 1965 - CITY OF CEBU v. TEODORICO LEDESMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-16933 July 30, 1965 - TALISAY-SILAY MILLING CO. INC. v. VICENTE G. BUNUAN, ETC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-17566 July 30, 1965 - TEOTIMO BILLONES, ET AL v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-18001 July 30, 1965 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. AMPARO NABLE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18150 July 30, 1965 - SUPERIOR BALDOZ v. SERAPIA PAPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-18770 July 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO PASILAN

  • G.R. Nos. L-19067-68 July 30, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDILBERTO DE LOS SANTOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19572 July 30, 1965 - DIONISIO B. GALLARDE v. CESAR S. MORAN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19574 July 30, 1965 - DONATO M. ATEL v. EMILIO LUMONTAD, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-19783 July 30, 1965 - TECLA GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19918 July 30, 1965 - VY TIAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20080 July 30, 1965 - DIEGO BACORDO v. JACINTO ALCANTARA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20749 July 30, 1965 - ROBERTO S. OCA, ET AL. v. LAURO MAIQUEZ

  • G.R. No. L-20751 July 30, 1965 - DOMINGO REBULLO v. NARCISO PALO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20838 July 30, 1965 - NATIONAL SHIPYARDS & STEEL CORP. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20091 July 30, 1965 - PERPETUA ABUAN, ET AL v. EUSTAQUIO S. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-20230 July 30, 1965 - SHELL CO. OF THE PHIL., ET AL v. COMPANIA GENERAL DE TABACOS DE FILIPINAS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20236 July 30, 1965 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. JOAQUIN BONDOC

  • G.R. No. L-20287 July 30, 1965 - CELESTINO TAN v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-20567 July 30, 1965 - PNB v. MANILA SURETY & FIDELITY CO., INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20862 July 30, 1965 - FREE EMPLOYEES & WORKERS ASSO. v. COURT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-20876 July 30, 1965 - FRANCISCO JAMAGO, I.D. CHAN, ET AL v. ABUNDIO Z. ARRIETA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21451 July 30, 1965 - DOMINADOR T. ALMEDA, ET AL v. CONCEPCION A. RUBIO, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21016 July 30, 1965 - BCI EMPLOYEES & WORKERS UNION v. PIO MARCOS, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-21472 July 30, 1965 - DOLORES C. VDA. DE GIL v. AGUSTIN CANCIO

  • G.R. No. L-24224 July 30, 1965 - MALAYANG MANGGAGAWA SA ESSO, ET AL v. ESSO STANDARD EASTERN, INC., ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-24438 July 30, 1965 - ROSAURO PARAGAS v. FERNANDO A. CRUZ, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-17315 July 31, 1965 - OLYMPIA BALTAZAR v. SERGIO SERFINO

  • G.R. No. L-18301 July 31, 1965 - ADRIANO ANTONIO v. BENJAMIN JALANDONI, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19399 July 31, 1965 - RUFINO COLOMA, ET AL v. ATANACIO COLOMA, ET AL

  • G.R. No. L-19865 July 31, 1965 - MARIA CARLA PIROVANO, ETC., ET AL. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-19885 July 31, 1965 - PEDRO CRISOLOGO, ET AL v. ALFREDO L. DURAL

  • G.R. No. L-20796 July 31, 1965 - IMPERIAL INSURANCE, INC. v. PELAGIO B. SIMON

  • G.R. No. L-20808 July 31, 1965 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BRAULIO DE VENECIA

  • G.R. No. L-23628 July 31, 1965 - FELICISIMA B. SALOMON v. JOSE M. MENDOZA, ET AL