ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ G.R. No. 136585. June 21, 1999]

TOTOY MANAHAN vs. LEA PRODUCTIONS, INC.

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUN 21, 1999.

G.R. No. 136585 (Totoy Manahan vs. Lea Productions, Inc.)

Herein case involves an action for unlawful detainer filed by respondent Lea Productions, Inc. against petitioner Totoy Manahan.

The antecedents reveal that sometime in May, 1995, respondent entered into a verbal lease contract with Mrs. Asuncion Manahan, mother of petitioner, over a residential apartment unit in Silang, Cavite. In 1994, Mrs. Manahan left for abroad and from then onwards, only the petitioner occupied the leased premises. On October 25, 1995, respondent notified petitioner that it was terminating the lease effective December 31, 1995. On December 2, 1995, respondent sent another letter reminding petitioner of the lease termination and informing him that he had arrears in the amount of P345.60. Despite repeated demands, petitioner failed to vacate premises. Thus, respondents filed the instant case.

The Municipal Trial Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) rendered judgment ordering the ejectment of the petitioner.

On appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), the said judgment was reversed dismissing the complaint on the ground that the lessee Mrs. Asuncion Manahan, being the real party-in-interest, was not named as party to the ejectment case.

When the case was elevated to the Court of Appeals (CA) via petition for review, the appellate court reversed the RTC decision and reinstated that of the MCTC's.

Hence, the present raising the same that the lessee was not made a party to the complaint.

The petition is not meritorious.

Section 1 of Rule 70 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides thusly:

SECTION 1. Who may institute proceedings, and when. - - Subject to the provisions of the next succeeding section, a person deprived of the possession of any land or building by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth, or a lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person against whom the possession of any land or building is unlawfully withheld after the expiration of termination of right to hold possession, by virtue of any contract, express or implied, or the legal representatives or assigns of any such lessor, vendor, vendee, or other person, may, at any time within one (1) year after such unlawful deprivation or withholding of possession, bring an action in the proper Municipal Trial Court (MTC) against the person or persons unlawfully withholding or depriving of possession, or any person or persons claiming under them, for the restitution of such possession, together with damages and costs.

Unlawful detainer cases are maintained to recover the possession of real property from any person unlawfully holding the same. Verily, a complaint for unlawful detainer may be brought successfully against any person or persons unlawfully withholding possession of a real property or any person or persons claiming under them. Petitioner, being the one in actual possession of the leased premises vice his mother, is therefore a real party-in-interest in this case and there is no need for his mother to be named a party herein.1 [Ariem v. De los Angeles, 49 SCRA 343 (1973).]

Consequently, we find that no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in rendering the questioned decision.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition for review is hereby DENIED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE